> here's the letter i received from him when i expressed my displeasure with
> his vote on the original RFA
>
> To: "'Josh Aaron Bradley'" <jab13@cornell.edu>
> Subject: RE: a concerned constituent
> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 16:00:34 -0400
>
> Thank you for contacting me concerning House Joint Resolution 78, the
> Religious Freedom Amendment. I appreciate knowing your views on this
> issue.
>
"And I will happily ignore them and then suck up the week before election day"
> HJRes 78 is a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would protect
> individuals' rights to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs on
> public property -- including schools -- but would prohibit the federal
> government or any state from establishing an official religion.
Oh yes, so they can just require nondemonitional prayers.... And I thought the motto on coins was
bad...
> It also
> specifies that the federal government or any state could not require an
> individual to join in prayer or other religious activity, discriminate
> against religion, nor deny access to benefits on account of religion.
What about counties, cities and towns?
> The only previous vote in the House on a constitutional amendment
> concerning the relationship between the government and religion occurred
> in 1971 on a school prayer amendment -- when the House failed (by 28
> votes) to garner the necessary two-thirds majority required for
> adoption.
>
> A series of court rulings has tragically eroded the free speech rights
> of people of faith. For example, a minister was prevented from giving
> an invocation at a graduation ceremony -- even when the students
> themselves requested it.
All of them? Unaminiously? In the school disterect?
> Another court upheld a teacher giving a young
> student a failing grade on a research paper, simply because the girl
> decided to write her paper about Jesus.
Either that, or she was a horrible writer who wanted an excuse to sue the teacher...
> This problem has resulted in a
> compounding, pervasive and chilling effect on religious activities.
> School and government officials are banning bibles on desks, religious
> t-shirts, the use of the word "God" by valedictorians, and even a
> Valentine written to Jesus.
I would think that a 2028 year old man having a valentine writeen to him by a student could cause a
legal inquiry - JC got off easy :)
> Only the threat of legal action, and
> sometimes legal action itself, is allowing these forms of religious free
> speech to occur.
>
> The House failed to pass the RFA by the required two-thirds majority on
> June 4, 1998, by a vote of 224-203. I voted in favor of passage,
> because I support allowing prayer back into our schools. In 1998 alone,
> numerous violent shootings, rapes, and assaults have taken place at
> public schools, and the experts are questioning why. They just do not
> get it. A school without God is a school without education. A school
> without God is a school without discipline. A school without God is a
> school without values. Maybe experts will finally get the message that
> a school without God is a playground for the demon. The Congress should
> allow school prayer.
Sure, let's teach about God in pubic schools, along with Lamarckan inheritance of aquired charistics,
Newton's physics, the flatness of the world and the geocentric solar system! We'll be back to the
good old days in no time! Who needs technological society? See my sig below to see what politicians
are *already* doing.
> Thank you once again for contacting me. Should you have any further
> comments or questions, please do not hesitate to let me know.
>
And I will not hesitate to ignore them.
> Respectfully,
>
> James A. Traficant, Jr.
> Member of Congress
> JAT/drb
>
> >----------
> >From: Josh Aaron Bradley[SMTP:jab13@cornell.edu]
> >Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:04 PM
> >To: TellJim
> >Subject: a concerned constituent
> >
> > Hi, as a Democrat and a constituent of the Honorable James Traficant I
> >would like to express my displeasure with the congressman's comments on the
> >floor of the House during the debate over the RFA. Frankly I am embarrassed
> >that the congressman, who has so emphatically defended the common man in
> >the past, has had a change of heart and believes that the will of the
> >majority must be forced down the throats of the minority. The RFA is the
> >"Religious Coercion Amendment" as Congressman Nadler named it and would be
> >detrimental to the liberties of all citizens, or at least those who don't
> >hold the extremist views of the Religious Right. Please realize how
> >detrimental this amendment would be. Not everyone believes in god, and even
> >more don't believe in a Christian god, please don't use the Constitution to
> >discriminate against them. Thanks.
> >
> > -Josh Bradley
> >
-- Nathan Russell frussell@frontiernet.net
"It is now time for the human race to enter the Solar System" -Dan Quayle on the possibility of a manned mission to Mars
(Well, Danny Boy, the rest of us are already here, but we'll wait for you)