Congressman John Yarmuth understands that it's important to keep on good terms with the "nutroots" -- those far left blogs like Page One, where Andrew Horne announced his candidacy today.
So when Page One castigated Congressman Geoff Davis for co-sponsoring a Congressional Resolution "recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith," Yarmuth took note.
Congressional Resolution 847 provides in pertinent part:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.
That doesn't sound particularly controversial. Yet Yarmuth refused to vote for it. Nor did he have the courage to oppose it. Instead, he voted "present." Thankfully, the rest of the Kentucky delegation got it right and voted "aye."
Yarmuth's refusal to support the Christmas resolution is particularly troubling in light of some of his other votes.
In early October, Yarmuth voted "aye" for a resolution in favor of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting. A few weeks later, Yarmuth voted in favor of recognizing the "religious and historical significance of Diwali." (Diwali, for the uninitiated, is a Indian and Nepalese holiday associated with the religions of Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism.)
Page One complained that the resolution "recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith" is akin to a "resolution supporting our favorite puppies and rainbows."
Here's news for Yarmuth and Page One. Christians are being persecuted in China, India the Mid-East and Africa, among other places. Some Christians are subject to "forced conversions." Others are just murdered.
For Page One to compare their martyrdom to "puppies and rainbows" trivializes the violation of human rights -- a cause the left likes well enough when it's applied to terrorist detainees.
Page One rationalized its opposition to the Christmas resolution: "can you even imagine what would happen if someone tried to pass a resolution recognizing the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world?"
The thing is, we don't have to imagine. Nor need we imagine Yarumuth's voting record in response: Ramadan, "aye." Diwali, "aye." Christmas, "present."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The problem isn't that Yarmuth approved those other holidays. It's that he could have at least accorded Christianity the same respect as he did the other religions.
And to equate the persecution of Christians in India (which has a secular government) with a theocratic Muslim country or China is a little misleading. By and large, the "persecution" you speak of is among and between extremist groups, and certainly not state-sponsored or condoned. That's not to say it's not a horrible problem when it does happen -- it's just the nature of it is different. Here, one could argue, the persecution of Christians is state-sponsored
Otherwise, agree completely.
Post a Comment