Jesus Day: a real Texas holiday.

June 2, 2001, for those who are wondering. Last year it was June 10, but the founder seems to like to move it around so that it falls on a Sunday.

Click here to see the Jesus Day site. I checked it out, and while it’s not really my cup of tea, I have to say that it’s a respectable concept and seems to be a decent charity that, unlike many religious charities, captures the spirit of what Christianity is all about.

That said, I still find it offensive that Governor George W. Bush of Texas proclaimed Jesus Day to be a state holiday last year. Sure, Bush did endorse other religious holidays while governor. A Bush spokesman defended the then-governor, holding that “Bush also has signed proclamations supporting Bahai centenary day, Holocaust Remembrance Day, and a Hanukkah celebration.” (Source: ) Two points: 1)The First Amendment does prohibit any laws supporting the establishment of any religion and 2)Holocaust Rememberance Day has no religious connotation, since the World War II holocaust that that holiday refers to killed 20,000,000 people of various faiths (or of no faith) and is a black mark on history, which is a legitimate observation.

These Jesus Day people, one could argue, are just a charity, but if that were the case, they shouldn’t have an affiliation with a particular established religion—and Christianity certainly falls into that category.

What’s the point here? Well, it’s clear that Bush is beholden to the Christian right; that’s never really ever been in question. His Jesus Day proclamation is just further proof of that. Bush’s attitude toward religious groups is odious, and Jesus Day in Texas offers further proof that that man, even if he were legitimately elected, has no business in the Oval Office, much less in the Texas governor’s mansion.

I urge everyone to use Jesus Day as a barometer for George D Dubya I Bush’s performance. We all know who his friends are. I’m glad to say that I’m not one of them.

Living in the capital city of Texas, about a mile and a half (about 3 km for the metric system inclined) from the Capitol and from GWB’s former official residence, I had no idea that this “Jesus Day” even existed before I heard about it during the presidential campaign. It has about as much legal meaning as any other throwaway proclamation that politicians pander to different groups with.

It’s not a “real” state holiday. No one gets the day off.

As far as this being an example of GWB being “beholden to the Christian Right,” is Baha’i Centenary Day an example of him being beholden to those evil Baha’i :)? What about that Hanukkah Celebration? Further proof that those Jews are behind everything :).

Well, it does show that his interpretation of Seperation Of Church and State leaves him a lot of wiggle room.

From GWB’s official web site at:

Not that Gore seemed to understand the concept much better (or “Holy Joe” Leiberman, for that matter.)

I don’t see any problem with this. From a quick review of their statements on their website, they sound like a fantastic, dedicated orginazation that is out there trying to do something to promote change and spread positive energies into communities that desperately need it. I, as a Pagan, do not care that they are using the Jesus angle to bring people in. If it works, more power to them.

I think it is quite humorous of you to attempt to portray this as proof of Bush’s servitude to the Christian Right. Bush never did anything while in office in Texas to further any of the goals of the CR. It looks more like he declared “Jesus Day” a state holiday as an attempt to get some recognition to a group trying to help others.

Nope, “Jesus Day” (first time I’d heard of it) was never a real “holiday” in Texas. Governors and other elected officials are constantly proclaiming ceremonial days and weeks in honor of various causes.

You never get the time off, though…even for “110F In The Shade Day” or “Lizards Run Rampant Day”.

I thought this was obvious, but I guess it isn’t, so I’ll clear this up: “holiday” in American English does not necessarily mean a day off. If Bush had declared Jesus Day a day off, that would have likely been enough to sink his presidential bid. The fact that he’s bestowing special consideration on Jesus Day—a religion-based charity—is unfair preference toward one group. State-sanctioned Hanukkah consideration is wrong, too, but Bush has never been alleged to owe much of his success to Jewish groups, and besides, it’s not like recognition of Hanukkah focuses on a small group of Jews. Do all Christians celebrate Jesus Day? Not that state recognition of Hanukkah or even of the White House Nativity scene is right, either.

Bush has given us nothing to show that he’s not a puppet of the Christian right. One quarter of all those who voted for Bush identify with the Christian Right, according to a January 14 report on National Public Radio. This man needs to act as the centrist he claims to be. Fat chance of that.

Been here, done this.

Note that the original document isn’t online at the State of Texas website (they only archive the past 60 days, and this was last May when he signed the proclamation originally)

Snopes Link

Previous Argu… Debate

Jesus Day

To sum up: It was a one time thing. He signed it. No indications he’ll do it again, nor will his successor in Texas continue the tradition.

Saint Zero said:

Nah. He’s got bigger fish to fry now, like getting prayer in school, creationism in science class, etc.

Saint Zero said: It was a one time thing. He signed it. No indications he’ll do it again, nor will his successor in Texas continue the tradition.

Yes, he did it once. But he did do it, and that’s bad enough. We should not forget this.

Sorry I wasn’t around when this issue was originally discussed here in July. I didn’t realize that it had been resolved. I read the entire thread you linked, though, and I don’t see how that defeats the validity of my post. Did you read it?

What? I read the whole original thread (which resolved nothing, imo), the snope article, and the original proclamation by then Gov Bush.

I doubt he’d do it nationally, simply because National and State politics are different animals. Nationally, the are much better armed “rights” groups ready to attack at a moments notice if you tread on one of their domains. They don’t like State level issues as much. (ACLU being the big exception, they’ll butt in anywhere, anytime)

So he signed a letter stating that this day was in suppport of this guy’s effort to have a “Jesus Day”. It’s been done by a lot of Mayors and the like. Bush is being singled out because he’s now President, and a minority is looking for any reason to distrust him.

I personally doubt he will. I think the “Jesus Day” thing is silly. I wouldn’t give it a second though.

Um… I never said I thought Bush would try to impliment Jesus Day nationally. I honestly don’t think he will; to do so would be political suicide. My point is that his past pandering to the Christian right indicates more pandering to it in the future. Granted, from Washington, he can’t be as overt about it, but he’ll do so.

Getting back to the point of this post, my original suggestion stands: we should turn Jesus Day into Bush Barometer Day, to monitor the progress of the Bush administration each year that it’s in office. Jesus Day is a good day to use, since it reminds us just whose pocket Bush is in. (Well, one of whose pockets Bush is in.) With the nomination of Mr. Ashcroft and the resounding support of the Christian right, we need to keep tabs on his interest in supporting the establishment of religion in the government.

Yeah, so? They are one of many constiuancies in this country. They have the privilage of being pandered to just like just about every group out there. Both wings of the Republicrat Party pander to the CR to some degree ALL OF THE TIME.

[faux neo-nazi rant]What about that Hanukkah celebration thing? It’s just one more example of Bush being yet another pawn of the ZOG[/faux neo-nazi rant] :smiley:

(ZOG= Zionist Occupation Government, for those not familiar with neo-nazi tripe)

TXLonghorn said: “They have the privilage of being pandered to just like just about every group out there.”

You missed the point entirely. Who’s talking about who’s got what privileges? I’m not saying that they don’t, nor that they shouldn’t. My point is that Bush is clearly beholden to them.

And before you start chiming in with neo-Nazi rhetoric, please note that I already said that I don’t feel that a responsible politician should pander to any religious groups, if possible—be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist—whatever. Bush has shown us that he’s pandered to Christians, and it’s no secret that he’s the darling of the Christian right. The nomination of John Ashcroft reënforces that. I’ve offered plenty of evidence that he’s in bed with the Christian right, and none that he’s in bed with Jewish organizations. Do you have any evidence that he’s beholden to Jewish organizations? Please provide it, if you’ve got it. I doubt you’ll come up with anything substantial.

If my “neo-Nazi rhetoric” was not OBVIOUSLY SATIRIC enough for you, please forgive me.

If you have evidence that Bush is the tool of Christian Right organizations, as opposed to listening to and parroting some of the perfectly legitimate views of constituents on the Christian Right, please post away.

Although I don’t agree with many of John Ashcrofts views, I don’t think his opposition to abortion, etc. will stop him from enforcing the law anymore than Janet Reno’s personal opposition to capital punishment was going to keep her from executing that guy Clinton gave a stay of execution for back in December.

Saint Zero said:

Where “butt in” = “protect the rights of people,” of course.

Sorry, but the ACLU is an absolute crock. They will butt in only when they are absolutely assured of getting major media coverage. I know of two times where some serious harassment was being carried out by a city’s police department (to the point of the FBI launching a civil rights violation investigation) and when two of the people involved contacted the ACLU for support, they were basically told they could not be of assistance unless the police killed them.

The ACLU is a joke.

1st- i will agree that Bush has done & will do more pandering to the Religous right. However, “Jesus day” MIGHT not have been for this purpose. After-all, Jesus was a great Historical man, besides being the claimed Messiah of some large % of the worlds population. One could proclaim a “Ghandi day” to celebrate the mans greatness- without making it a day of accepting his rather radical phiosophy. When JohnPaul II dies there will no doubt be quite a bit of rememberance days & such like- without accepting the opinion held by the Catholics that he was also the leader of all true Christians & infallible. Even tho I do not feel that the Pope is actually the “one true” leader of my faith- I still think he is a great man, and I will be saddened by his death.

So, too- you can feel that JC is NOT “the Messiah”, but still accept a day on which his teachings are remembered.

Captain Smashy said:

And, since there was an FBI investigation of this, you can back up your fairly ridiculous-sounding claims, right?

I doubt seriously if there will be any substantiating evidence available as this incident occured in 1987/88. We were the first targets of the “Gang Intelligence Task Force” in the city. There is another doper here under the handle of “bdgr” that was in the middle of all of this with us.

Think what you want, I know what happened.

Saint Zero:

You don’t think Fundamentalist Christian President Bush will issue a proclamation supporting the National Day of Prayer? I don’t see why he wouldn’t; after all, Bill Clinton did.

You do know that the ACLU can only bring suit on behalf of plaintiffs who come to them for assistance, and not on their own behalf. Right? I mean, you do know that, don’t you?


Apparently your capacity for disingenuity knows no bounds. The Jesus Day site specifically says that Jesus Day is meant to be a day of community service in the name of Christ, not a day to celebrate his historical importance. Not that community service is a bad thing, but if you’re going to tell lies, Daniel, tell them within the parameters of the argument, or at least don’t insult our intelligence by failing to do a web search.

Catholics do not believe that the Pope, as a general proposition, is infallible. I can already predict your backpedal, however, so I will save you the trouble (minus the requisite misspellings): “Catholic doctrine states that the Pope, when speaking ex cathexedra and defining a specific matter of morals or of Christ’s teachings, is blessed with the gift of infallibility. It is rarely invoked and deals only with matters of faith. But since it happens, I am not inaccurate in saying that the opinion of Catholics is that the Pope is infallible.”