|
On Wednesday this week, State Representative Sid Miller led a charge in the House to pass HB 459, which would have required certain governmental bodies to obtain permission from the legislature, the Texas Historical Commission, or the State Preservation Board to remove, relocate, or alter monuments and memorials on state property. The bill was, in part, intended as a jab at state universities that might consider treating displays of Confederate figures in ways that many legislators found distasteful. Ultimately, the bill was postponed to limbo, where it will die.
As it has already been covered by the press, the debate on the bill became heated when Reps. Thompson and Veasey proposed amendments to the bill that would have excluded from this protection, respectively, a memorial honoring a "person engaged in an armed insurrection against the United States" or a person who "owned a slave" or was a member of the KKK.
Veasey's proposal, at least, was reasonable. After all, who wants to see a statue of a grand wizard on the way to lynching class?
This ticked off some, espcially Rep. Isett. In spite of his honorable service to the U.S., the indignation he shared with other members was rather inscrutable. And then a couple more became offended at the fact that some found Veasey's amendment offensive. It was all very childish.
What the press ignored was Thompson's second attempt at greatness--the amendment that would have excluded from the bill's protection "a monument or memorial for a person who does not believe in 'One Nation Under God.'"
What kind of tripe is this? And why was this ignored when the motion to table failed by 85-34? Why was Donna Howard the ONLY Democrat to vote against the amendment? Why did all the others, except Rep. Burnam who couldn't take a stand, support this?
Democrats must recognize this for what it truly is: Bigotry. Bigotry piled on top of additional "In God We Trust" language plastered in the chambers this session.
Some might claim that this was simply politics. Thompson was being ironic--proposing an amendment that the House couldn't possibly reject although they rejected all the others. But it was followed by another ridiculous amendment by Rep. Martinez-Fischer that would have protected memorials honoring "a historical religious figure who has had a significant effect on Texas"--an amendment which the bill's sponsor found acceptable.
This represents an intellectual disconnect in the minds of Texas Democrats. They would reject discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. But if you're an atheist, and if you're shunned because of it, you've brought it upon yourself. You can't possibly represent this country in public office because you have no moral ground.
After all, it's in the Bill of Rights in the Texas Constitution:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Texas Dems, Americans who love their country and who happen to disbelieve in a deity deserve better. We sure as hell cannot expect it from folks like Dan Patrick.
|
