by bfealk

Tim Walberg was featured on August 31 on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g2nEu8MlCg

Labels: Countdown, Education, Faith and Politics, Head Start, Issues, Keith Olbermann, Tim Walberg

Do you remember back in October, when Congressman Walberg voted "Present" on a House resolution recognizing Ramadan? Here's part of what the resolution said:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses friendship and support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion;

(4) rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(5) commends Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror.

A vast majority of the House voted for the bill, but Tim Walberg couldn't bring himself to vote to reject hatred and bigotry, and couldn't bring himself to offer respect to a major religion. As he later explained:

Among those who voted present on the resolution was Republican Tim Walberg of Michigan. "To offer respect for a major religion is one thing, but to offer respect for a major religion that has been behind the Islamic jihad, the radical jihad, that has sworn war upon the United States, its free allies and freedom in Iraq, is another thing," he stated.

At the time, I translated that as Walberg saying "All Muslims are terrorists." It doesn't matter that there are 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, the vast, vast majority of whom are peaceful. It doesn't matter that estimates of the Muslim population in the United States range from 1 to 6 million. Walberg refuses to offer respect to them, because, as he sees them, they're some sinister force.

But this is all old news. Why do I bring this up now?

It turns out that Walberg isn't just denigrating another major religion. He's choosing to promote his own religious beliefs at the expense of others, and at the expense of... well, facts.

First came HR 847, which came about a month ago, on December 11, 2007. That bill, "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith," reads in 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.

Even as the far-left liberal that I am, I really have no problem with this resolution. There's nothing wrong with rejecting bigotry and acknowledging the fact that many in the United States throughout history are and were Christians, just as I feel there's nothing wrong with recognizing Muslims in America.

Tim Walberg voted Yes on HR 847, recognizing Christmas and the Christian faith. There's nothing inherently wrong with that vote, from my stance (my libertarian friends may disagree). What's wrong with his vote is that it shows his own hypocrisy.

Look at the text from the Ramadan bill:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses friendship and support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion;

(4) rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(5) commends Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror.

And now, look at the Christmas bill:

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.

I ask you, the kind, tolerant people of Michigan: Is there anything all that objectionable in the Ramadan resolution that isn't in the Christmas resolution? Is there a reason why our representative in Washington would refuse to vote for one and not the other?

Walberg voted against a bill recognizing Ramadan and Islam because some Muslims are terrorists. As I pointed out before, some Christians are terrorists, too. Why is Walberg willing to recognize Christmas?

That kind of hypocrisy bothers me, but there's something else that bothers me more, which elviscostello mentioned in a previous post.

Congressman Tim Walberg is a cosponsor of H. Res. 888, which is

Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as "American Religious History Week" for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

Now, this is the point where I start getting a little nervous about state recognition and sponsorship of religion. Still, even I can't deny that religion has played a role in American history, so maybe that should be recognized. The problem comes with the text of the bill.

A resolution of this type follows a set pattern. The first part, with a bunch of sentence fragments beginning with "Whereas," state items assumed in advance. This is a priori knowledge used to justify the actions taken in the second part, in which it is "resolved" that some action or another will be taken.

The "Whereas" part of the bill lists 75 items, which I will not repost here. It's just too much. The list is meant to document the instances of religious recognition by the United States government. It's lots of things like, "Whereas, George Washington said X," or "Whereas, in 1789, Congress passed X," and taken at face value, it makes a compelling case to suggest that our founding fathers intended this to be a Christian nation.

Unfortunately for Walberg and his fellow co-sponsors, many of the items simply are not true. Some are, but many are deliberate distortions of the facts and outright lies. Chris Rodda at the blog Talk to Action has a good debunking of many of the "whereas"'s. Here are a couple of them, so that you can get the general idea:

"Whereas the Liberty Bell was named for the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around it: `Proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof';"

In order to associate the Liberty Bell, and particularly its biblical inscription, with the American Revolution, revisionists must disregard its real history. The only connection between the Liberty Bell and the Revolution is that it happened to be the bell that hung in the building where the Continental Congress met. The inscription, which is preceded in the Bible by a reference to "the fiftieth year," was chosen a generation before the Revolution by a now obscure Quaker, Isaac Norris, to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Governor William Penn's Charter of Privileges, the 1701 document that secured the religious freedom and other rights of the colonists and formally gave the Pennsylvania Assembly the expanded legislative powers that it had already begun to exercise.

At the time of the Revolution, and for many years after, the bell was simply called the State House bell. The majority of the signers of the Declaration probably had no idea what was inscribed on it. It wasn't dubbed the "Liberty Bell" until 1838, when it was adopted as a symbol of liberty by a Boston abolitionist group, and a poem entitled The Liberty Bell was reprinted from one of the group's pamphlets by William Lloyd Garrison in his anti-slavery publication The Liberator. In the decades preceding this, the bell had become so insignificant that, in 1828, the City of Philadelphia had actually tried to sell it as salvage.

and

"Whereas Thomas Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, provided Federal funding for missionary work among Indian tribes, and declared that religious schools would receive 'the patronage of the government';"

There are three distinct lies in this sentence. And, although each is created by misrepresenting a single incident, all are pluralized, creating even bigger lies.

The first item, that Jefferson "urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes," is copied verbatim from David Barton's article "The Founders on Public Religious Expression." The only source cited by Barton for this vague claim is an exchange of letters between Jefferson and John Carroll, the Bishop of Baltimore, in 1801. Carroll wanted to purchase a lot in Washington D.C. to build a church on, and apparently thought that sending his application to Jefferson rather than the Board of Commissioners might get him some preferential treatment and a better price, not because he wanted to build a church, but because Jefferson would remember his patriotism and services to the country during the Revolutionary War, when he volunteered to accompany Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and his cousin, Charles Carroll, on their 1776 diplomatic mission to Canada.

Reading only the reply from Jefferson to Bishop Carroll, it would appear that Jefferson did try to influence the commissioners. But, Jefferson was exaggerating quite a bit when he told Carroll that he had recommended to the commissioners "all the favor which the object of the purchase would wage" and "the advantages of every kind which it would promise."(15) In reality, he barely gave an opinion on the subject, leaving it entirely up to the commissioners to decide if there was any advantage to accepting the application, and putting absolutely no pressure on them to do so. This was Jefferson's letter to the Board of Commissioners.

"I take the liberty of referring to you the inclosed application from Bishop Carrol & others for respecting the purchase of a site for a church. it is not for me to interpose in the price of the lots for sale. at the same time none can better than yourselves estimate the considerations of propriety & even of advantage which would urge a just attention to the application, nor better judge of the degree of favor to it which your duties would admit. with yourselves therefore I leave the subject, with assurances of my high consideration & respect."(16)

No new Catholic church was built in Washington until two decades later, and that was built on privately donated land, so it appears that the commissioners must have turned down Bishop Carroll's application.

The second item, that Jefferson "provided Federal funding for missionary work among Indian tribes," is based on a single treaty with the Kaskaskia, signed by Jefferson in 1803, which included a provision for a $100 annual salary for a priest for seven years, and $300 towards the building of a church. Of the over forty treaties with various Indian nations signed by Jefferson during his presidency, this is the only one that contained anything whatsoever having to do with religion. This had nothing to do with converting the Indians, as the words "missionary work" imply. The Kaskaskia were already Catholic, and had been for generations. These things were what the Kaskaskia wanted, and this being a treaty with a sovereign nation, there was no constitutional reason not to provide them.

The third item, that Jefferson "declared that religious schools would receive `the patronage of the government'," is based on a letter written by Jefferson to the Ursuline nuns in New Orleans on July 13 or 14, 1804. The nuns, like many of the territory's inhabitants, were concerned about the status of their property when the United States purchased Louisiana from France in 1803. A wide variety of rumors were being spread by anti-American natives of New Orleans, and among these were two about the convent -- one that the United States government planned to confiscate the convent's property and immediately expel the nuns from the country, and another that no new novices would be allowed to enter the convent, but that the government would let the nuns who were already there stay, and then take the property after they all died off. The territorial Governor, William C.C. Claiborne, temporarily managed to convince the nuns that their property was safe and that the United States government would never interfere with a religious institution, but then an incident occurred in which local authorities working for the federal government did shut down a church to prevent a riot between the followers of two rival priests. This renewed the nuns' fears, and they wrote to Jefferson requesting to have their property officially confirmed to them by Congress. Jefferson knew that there was no point in laying the convent's request before Congress because they were not yet making determinations about land claims in the territory, so he replied by assuring the nuns that their property was secure even without an official confirmation, and that they shouldn't have any problem with the local authorities, but if they did they would have the protection of his office. Because he used the word "patronage," however, the history revisionists imply that he meant financial aid.

And, of course, as Rodda points out:

And, finally, while the first resolve of H. Res. 888 asserts that the U.S. House of Representatives "affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history" of our country, in every one of Mr. Forbes's "Whereas's" that mentions a particular religion, that religion is, of course, Christianity.

Now, if there were as many errors as this in a high school history paper, what kind of a grade do you think it would get? But never mind the facts... people like Walberg want this to be a Christian nation!

Basically, this is what it comes down to for me:

• If Tim Walberg strictly voted against any bill that even hinted at state recognition or sponsorship of religion, I would respect him for sticking to a strict constitutional interpretation.
• If Walberg were to have voted for all three of the bills above, it'd be easy to argue that he supports expressions of faith for all beliefs.
  

But Walberg did neither of those. Instead, he chose to support two bills (one of which has a loose relationship with the facts) that recognize and promote Christianity, and opposed one bill that recognized Islam, followed by a statement accusing all Muslims of being terrorists.

Where does Congressman Walberg draw the line? Islam doesn't deserve recognition... does Judaism? Or Buddhism? If it's Christians only in Walberg's America, does he count the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (more commonly called Mormons)? Are Catholics allowed in a Protestant America? Are Eastern Orthodox Christians allowed? Are Unitarians, or Methodists, or Lutherans? Or is only Walberg's particular brand of Christianity allowed?

Am I over-reacting? No. Our representative in the House of Representatives has come out and said that some religions don't deserve our respect and don't belong in America. How long until Walberg decides your religion doesn't belong, either? I don't believe this nation will ever sink into a theocracy, but it is men like Tim Walberg that would allow that to happen.

Our country deserves better than this. Michigan's 7th District deserves better than this.

Labels: 110th Congress, Faith and Politics, Issues, Tim Walberg

Here's the quote:

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich) agreed, adding: "I think the freedom-minded, common sense-minded citizens of Maine should rise up against it."

(Emphasis added.)

That's all I saw of the article when I did a Google News search on Congressman Walberg, and, needless to say, I was confused. Why does our representative want to start a revolt in Maine?

Sadly, it's not as exciting as it sounds, but it's still worth mentioning.

Remember the sudden controversy about the middle school in Portland, Maine that decided to add the birth control pill to the items which could be dispensed at the school health center? It sparked a debate over when it's appropriate to give birth control to minors, whether parents should be notified, and whether students engaging in consensual, under-age sex should be prosecuted.

The controversy seems to have died down a bit, though it's interesting to see that 67 percent of Americans polled support the concept of schools providing birth control, with differences among that 67 percent over parental notification. Still, this isn't a national issue, it was one school board in Maine, and, for the most part, it seems to have faded from the headlines.

That hasn't stopped the conservative CNSNews.com from trying to keep the issue alive, however, with their latest article about the controversy being published today. That's where I saw the Walberg quote, though the quote actually came from a previous article, published on October 19.

So, why, exactly, did Congressman Walberg say that Maine ought to "rise up against" birth control?

CNSNews.com asked several federal lawmakers (seven members of the Senate and one member of the House, Walberg) what they thought of the issue. Those that answered said, basically, "I don't know, why are you asking me? It's a local issue!" and some didn't bother to respond. Here are the other responses that they got:

Sen. Tom Coburn: (R-Okla.): "I think all of that should be decided in the states." (Listen to audio)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.): "I'll need to take a look at that one. I'm not aware of that circumstance. I think I'll worry about Maryland right now." (Listen to audio)

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.): "I haven't studied this very much ... generally probably no." (Listen to audio)

Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.): "We certainly shouldn't support that kind of program at the federal level." (Listen to audio)

Needless to say, Congressman Walberg had more to say. Here's the full quote that the "rise up against it" bit came from:

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich): "I hate to comment on other states, but the issue, I think it's inappropriate. I think that it steps in the way of parental responsibility and I think it also gives up - gives up in the sense that we've lost the battle for kids, following a plan that won't affect their lives in a negative way. And when you say you're going to be this way, so we're going to give you birth control and condoms and we're not going to talk about abstinence, it just doesn't work, we've given up. I think the freedom-minded, common sense-minded citizens of Maine, should rise up against it." (Listen to audio)

So, he hates to comment on local issues which are really out of his control, but... he'll do it anyway.

I had a little trouble at first figuring out exactly what he was trying to say, but I think I've got it now. To Congressman Walberg, giving sexually-active teenagers birth control and condoms is "giving up" on them. We should be telling them that abstinence is the only way, rather than giving them the things that could make the lifestyle they've already chosen safer.

Really, from what I can get out of Walberg's comments, it's a moral issue, not a public health issue. It's a battle between morally superior men like Walberg and heathens like myself, who recognize that abstinence-only education doesn't work (here, here, and here, to give you a few of the many articles available).

When forming public health policy, who should we be listening to-- Tim Walberg, or doctors and people who actually know what they're talking about?

Of course, on another level, all of this is beside the point. Should Tim Walberg really be telling the people of Maine anything, let alone to "rise up against" smarter health policies? He's always reminding us about how terrible things are in Michigan, thanks to that "Democrat Governor" and the state legislature. You'd think he'd be spending less time worrying about Maine, and more time working for us.

But that's just me.

(UPDATE: Oops. I made a misquoted Walberg in the title at first, but have now fixed it.)

Labels: Education, Faith and Politics, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

Walberg won't listen to the facts and he won't listen to labor. He won't listen to the American people or his own constituents. He certainly won't listen to the Democrats or to Mark Schauer. So far, he's only listened to the Club for Growth.

But before he was Congressman Walberg and before he was state Representative Walberg, he was Reverend Walberg. The national group Catholics United has been appealing to his pro-life morals to try to encourage him to vote to override President Bush's veto.

Now, local religious leaders are doing the same.

Several members of the Joint-religious Organizing Network for Action and Hope (JONAH) plan to meet with U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, today at 11 a.m. to persuade him to vote to override President George W. Bush’s veto of a federal and state funded children’s health insurance program.

Following the meeting, they plan to hold an open prayer for the Congressman’s vote at about 11:30 or 11:45 a.m. at Commerce Pointe near Battle Creek City Hall.

The public are welcome to join in the prayer.

This isn't an issue about money. It doesn't add to the debt, and no one would ever call this pork spending. And this isn't about "socialized medicine," because SCHIP is nothing like what Canada or Western Europe use. And this isn't about illegal immigrants or $83,000 or any of that stuff, none of which is an actual part of the bill.

This is a simple question of morals. When you see people in need-- especially children-- do you help them?

The meeting is over by now, but I hope it went well. I hope they convinced Congressman Walberg to listen to his conscience and changes his mind.

If Congressman Walberg votes to support the president's veto, it'll certainly make him an easier candidate to defeat. But you know what? I don't care about that. Once, just once, I want to see my congressman do something that will help someone besides the Club for Growth.

Labels: Faith and Politics, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

Something new from a different source...

Via DailyKos.com:

Ad Campaign Criticizes Pro-Life Members of Congress for Voting against Children's Health Insurance

Washington, DC- Catholics United will launch a radio advertising campaign targeting ten members of Congress whose opposition to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) have compromised their pro-life voting records.

The ads, which feature a mother urging her Congressional Representative to support SCHIP, will primarily air on Christian and talk radio stations from Monday Oct. 15 to Wednesday, Oct. 17 as Congress approaches a critical Oct. 18 vote to override President Bush's veto of bipartisan SCHIP legislation.

"Building a true culture of life requires public policies that promote the welfare of the most vulnerable," said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United. "At the heart of the Christian faith is a deep and abiding concern for the need of others. Pro-life Christians who serve in Congress should honor this commitment by supporting health care for poor children."

The following members of Congress have voted against SCHIP, which provides high-quality health coverage to more than six million children whose families would otherwise be unable to afford insurance. Radio ads will air on local radio stations in their congressional districts.

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida

Rep. Joseph Knollenberg, Michigan

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Michigan,

Rep. Tim Walberg, Michigan

Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio

Rep. Gene Taylor, Mississippi

Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Minnesota

Rep. Sam Graves, Missouri

Rep. Thelma Drake, Virginia

Rep. John Peterson, Peterson

The script for the radio commercial reads: "I'm the mother of three children, and I'm pro-life. I believe that protecting the lives our children must be our nation's number one moral priority. That's why I'm concerned that Congressman X says he's pro-life but votes against health care for poor children. That's not pro-life. That's not pro-family. Tell Congressman X to vote for health care for children. Call him today at XXXX, that's XXXXX."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA, and the Catholic Health Association have all urged Congress and President Bush to support SCHIP.

(Emphasis added.)

Catholics United doesn't have anything on their website about this, but I'm guessing that they'll update it sometime soon.

I don't know anything about Catholics United, but I think this is a very powerful line of reasoning against Congressman Walberg's votes against reauthorizing and expanding SCHIP. How can you be for life if you aren't willing to support an entire lifespan?

UPDATE:
Here's the audio of the radio ad.

Labels: 110th Congress, Faith and Politics, Health Care, Issues, Tim Walberg

The other day, I mentioned a resolution that passed the House which recognized the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and commended Muslims who practice their religion peacefully. Congressman Tim Walberg and 41 others couldn't bring themselves to vote yes on that symbolic piece of legislation, and instead voted "Present" in protest.

So why wouldn't Congressman Walberg vote for it? Was it for separation of church and state concerns, like some of you expressed in the comments? Of course not.

From a conservative source, we get this:

Among those who voted present on the resolution was Republican Tim Walberg of Michigan. "To offer respect for a major religion is one thing, but to offer respect for a major religion that has been behind the Islamic jihad, the radical jihad, that has sworn war upon the United States, its free allies and freedom in Iraq, is another thing," he stated.

(Emphasis added.)

Translation: All Muslims are terrorists.

That's exactly what he's saying. He can't support anything offering respect to Islam because he thinks all Muslims are terrorists-- or, at the very least, that they're encouraged by their religion to be terrorists.

Congressman Walberg, some time later this year, someone-- maybe even one of your fellow Republicans-- might want to pass a symbolic resolution recognizing Christianity as a "great religion" of the world, maybe some time around Christmas. Would you support that resolution?

Because aren't all Christians terrorists?

Aren't we all just like the KKK? They're certainly inspired by their faith, among other things, to carry out their violent and hateful acts.

Aren't we all like Eric Rudolph? It was his Christian faith that led him to bomb an abortion clinic, a gay and lesbian nightclub, and, of course, the Centennial Olympic Park.

For that matter, don't all Christians bomb abortion clinics? It seems like that's the thing they do.

Obviously, Christianity is a hateful, violent religion. To offer respect for a major religion is one thing, but to offer respect for a major religion that has been behind so much violence is another thing.

Congressman Walberg, I really, really try hard not to personally insult or attack you. But with this vote and your statement, I can only reach one conclusion: You're a bigot and an idiot. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. Are you really going to refuse to show them respect because a tiny minority use violence?

Michigan's 7th District deserves better than this.

Labels: Faith and Politics, Issues, Tim Walberg

I've gotten behind on keeping track of Walberg's voting record, and hopefully I can get caught up this weekend. This one, however, deserves some attention now, because it says something about the character of Congressman Walberg. (Thanks to the anonymous commenter who pointed this out.)

H. Res. 635 is one of these fairly meaningless yet nonetheless symbolic resolutions that Congress passes to officially recognize something and feel good about themselves. Here's the text of H. Res. 635:

Whereas it is estimated that there are approximately 1,500,000,000 Muslims worldwide;

Whereas since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, some threats and incidents of violence have been directed at law-abiding, patriotic Americans of African, Arab, and South Asian descent, particularly members of the Islamic faith;

Whereas, on September 14, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution condemning bigotry and violence against Arab-Americans, American Muslims, and Americans from South Asia in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States;

Whereas some extremists have attempted to use selective interpretations of Islam to justify and encourage hatred, persecution, oppression, violence and terrorism against the United States, the West, Israel, other Muslims, and non-Muslims;

Whereas some Muslims in the United States and abroad have courageously spoken out in rejection of interpretations of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror, and in support of interpretations of and movements within Islam that justify and encourage democracy, tolerance and full civil and political rights for Muslims and those of all faiths;

Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar year; and

Whereas the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan commenced at dusk on September 13, 2007, and continues for one lunar month: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses friendship and support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion;

(4) rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(5) commends Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror.

I, personally, find nothing objectionable in that. It's not anti-Muslim, and it's not trying to impose beliefs on anyone or convert anyone to anything. It merely recognizes the month of Ramadan, recognizes that a lot of people are observing it, encourages tolerance, and rejects the false interpretations of Islam that lead to terrorism and violence.

If anything, the resolution is a little late, since Ramadan started September 13. Besides that, is there anything wrong with it? Is there anything wrong with recognizing our own diversity and commending the people who practice their faith peacefully?

Well, apparently there is, because Congressman Tim Walberg couldn't bring himself to vote yes. He voted Present, one of 42 representatives-- one Democrat and 41 Republicans-- who weren't able to love their neighbors and vote yes. The resolution passed the House 376 to 0 to 42, with 14 not voting. Walberg was the only Michigan representative to vote Present.

Walberg is a Christian minister. As such, he ought to admire the courage it takes to be a Muslim in America, with popular culture and the media constantly making that more difficult. He should appreciate the emotional investment it takes to follow one's faith, as he himself should know, and he should be tolerant of those who choose to follow a different faith, just as others are tolerant of whatever brand of Christianity he follows.

There was absolutely no reason not to support this resolution. Walberg didn't vote No, but he went out of his way to avoid voting Yes. That's ridiculous.

Labels: 110th Congress, Faith and Politics, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Michael Motta, a diarist at Michigan Liberal, shared this with us last week, and then sent me a little bit more information. I'd like to thank him in advance for all the hard work and research he did, and for giving me permission to talk about it here. It's important enough that I wanted to bring it up.

He received a letter from Congressman Tim Walberg:
The letter, in case that's too small for you to read, thanks Mr. Motta for contacting Walberg about HR 1070, the Constitution Restoration Act. It then proceeds to explain why Walberg thinks the bill would be a good idea, and reminds us that he's a co-sponsor of HR 69, the Pledge Protection Act of 2007.

The Constitution Restoration Act would "limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism," according to its own description. How does it do that? By limiting the ability of federal judges and the Supreme Court to review cases "concerning ... acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

That's right-- it makes it so that they can't hear separation of church and state cases. It clearly states that such issues are no longer in the jurisdiction of the courts, and states that judges that review such issues should be impeached.

And Tim Walberg thinks the bill is a great idea. That, and the Pledge Protection Act, 'cause there's everyone knows that if "under God" is removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, people might start pledging allegiance to the flag of Canada or something.

I'm really tempted to go off on a rant about separation of church and state and why Walberg is wrong, but I won't. See, there are a number of things that are wrong with Walberg's letter.

For starters, Michael Motta didn't write to Walberg in support of HR 1070, the Constitution Restoration Act. He wrote to Walberg to support HR 1415, the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007. That bill, supported by the ACLU, deals with restoring civil liberties curtailed by the Bush Administration.

Yep, Walberg thanked him for supporting a bill that Michael Motta doesn't support. Walberg (or, at least, his office) ignored what Michael Motta actually said and thanked him for what they wanted him to say.

But it gets worse.

See, the Constitution Restoration Act isn't HR 1070. The Stamp Out Gang Violence Act is HR 1070. In 2005, during the 109th Congress, the Constitution Restoration Act was numbered 1070, but that was two years ago and long before Walberg even entered the House. Oops.

Does Walberg even know which bills are up for consideration and which aren't?

____
UPDATE: I didn't think to check this before, but I went back and checked another piece of the letter. Walberg reminds us that he's a co-sponsor of HR 69, the Pledge Protection Act of 2007. Except, HR 69 isn't the Pledge Protection Act, it's the Disability Benefit Fairness Act of 2007. The Pledge Protection Act of 2007 is HR 699. A typo, perhaps, but on top of everything else...

But wait! In the bill text, Tim Walberg is not listed as a co-sponsor! He even got that wrong!

UPDATE II: Ignore that last line, I spoke too soon. Walberg is a co-sponsor of HR 699, but it wasn't listed on the Thomas text.
____

Ah, but it gets even worse!

Michael added an update to his diary at Michigan Liberal to share the latest:

I got another in the mail today from Walberg. I'm convinced that Walberg is going by the theory that negative publicity is better than no publicity.

"Dear Mr. Motta:
Thank you for contacting me expressing your concerns and thoughts about the 2007 Farm Bill. I appreciate hearing from you." Et cetera, et cetera.

And I sure do appreciate that I must be expressing a lot more concern about our nation than I actually am! Now I'm not just a civil liberties guy and an anti-war guy but a big Farm Bill guy to boot! Only problem is I have no recollection whatsoever of becoming a big Farm Bill guy. Maybe the bill is good, maybe it could be better - honestly I don't know. One good thing about this Walberg letter is at least he didn't thank me for my opposition or support of the Bill.

Of course it would be nice if Walberg not only appreciated hearing from me, but also listened (or read with any degree of literacy). Since this letter was dated July 12, I am pretty convinced that it was a response to my e-mail explaining that I'm in favor of the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 (per the initial diary entry). Must be that 2007 part that was a killer for staff to sort out.

So now I'm chalked up as being in favor of a reactionary bill that was killed during the last Congress, and also as a concerned Farm Biller. What next?

(Emphasis added.)

So, let's recap. When Michael contacted Congressman Walberg to express his support for a civil liberties bill, he was thanked for supporting two entirely different bills, one of which was debated and tossed aside long before Walberg was elected. [UPDATE:] And, he claims credit for co-sponsoring a bill that he isn't a co-sponsor for, getting another bill's number wrong too!

Whenever I complain about a politician like Tim Walberg, I inevitably get the response that, as long as they're doing a good job, I can't complain too much just because I disagree with them. In other words, competency trumps ideology. I personally don't believe that, but some people do.

This episode calls the competency issue into question. It's not just about them mixing up the names of two bills, anyone could be guilty of that. But Walberg and his office got everything completely wrong on this one.

If this is how they handled one constituent's thoughts and concerns, how badly have they screwed up everything else?

Labels: 110th Congress, Civil Liberties, Constituent Services, Faith and Politics, Issues, Separation of Church and State, Tim Walberg

This is my last post for the day... It's been a long couple of weeks, and today, I'm about Walberg-ed out. There's other interesting stuff out there, but this is definitely the one worth writing about.

The Battle Creek Enquirer has an... interesting... article about Congressman Walberg's latest venture in Washington.

WASHINGTON - Rep. Tim Walberg joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers who launched an effort today to encourage every American to spend five minutes a week praying for the nation.

"Prayer is good for the soul,'' said Walberg, R-Tipton, a former non-denominational minister. "It forces us to lean on the one who is greater than us.''

The article says "former non-denominational minister," but to me, it sounds like "former" is definitely the wrong word. This is, after all, the same guy who said that "Politics is just another format that can be used as a place of intentional ministry".

The "Prayer Caucus" has a website here, for those interested.

You know, it may very well be that prayer is a good thing. That's fine. But for members of the United States House of Representatives to launch a group intended to encourage that? I don't know, I just feel like maybe there are more tangible things they could be doing. Chances are, there are plenty of Republicans and Democrats praying for their country already (and possibly for different reasons). They're not going to change that.

This group probably won't do anything to increase the number of people praying, and even if it does, is that really the role of our political leaders? I liked this quote from the Enquirer article:

Americans United for Separation of Church and State responded that the lawmakers should "stop meddling in religion and get back to work."

Really, if I've got a theological question, I'm more likely to visit my local priest than call up my representative in Washington, and that's how it should be. Religion has its place, and that's in the privacy of one's own home and community, not in the media spotlight. Walberg should be focused on serving his constituents interests, not reminding us every couple of weeks how religious he is.

All they're doing is getting noticed for being "people of faith," which plays well politically with the conservative base. They're using their faith for political purposes. I find that disgusting.

UPDATE: Some people might not read through to the comments on these posts, which is too bad, considering some of the intelligent, insightful things people say.

This comment, though, absolutely deserved to be promoted to the top:

Fitzy,

He is either using faith for political purposes, as you say, or he is using politics for religious purposes, which he admits.

The former offends me and the latter scares the living hell out of me. Is he a charlatan or a theocrat?

Labels: 110th Congress, Faith and Politics, Issues, Tim Walberg

We all know that Tim Walberg is a minister-turned-politician, and I personally have no problem with people of deep religious faith being political figures. A minister offers a different perspective on an issue, and that's good. Joe Schwarz-- a doctor-- offered a different perspective, too, as does Vern Ehlers, a physicist, and Bart Stupak, who was a police officer.

That said, something doesn't sit right with me after reading this article from the World magazine. The World, for those not familiar with it, is a far-right evangelical weekly news magazine.

In an interview with the magazine, one reads this:

At a time when some conservative religious leaders are questioning the marriage between evangelicals and the Republican Party, Rep. Walberg has found unity between his religion and political interests. "Politics is just another format that can be used as a place of intentional ministry," Walberg told WORLD. "Christians can be involved in influencing their culture here [in Washington]."

(Emphasis added.)

See, that's what doesn't sit right with me. We elect our representatives to serve the interests of their constituents, not to spread their religious beliefs. I have no issue with religion helping to shape your views on issues. My problem is with someone acting like a minister when he should be a legislator.

At the very least, Walberg's statements in the interview show that he's not at all interested in reaching out to "secular liberals" in his district like me, who are uncomfortable with such rhetoric. But we're all too busy supporting Hollywood and undermining Christian values, right? (To be fair, I've never heard Walberg himself say that. Others, though...)

Religion should to be a private experience, to be shared with loved ones. It shouldn't be something you highlight in public to certify your credentials as a good, moral person. And it definitely shouldn't be your motivation to seek public office. But, of course, that's just my opinion.

Go and read the whole article. It's pretty short, but it's worth reading.

Now, at the risk of being called a hypocrite myself, I'll leave you with this:

(Matthew 6:5-6)

"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

Labels: Faith and Politics, Tim Walberg