Reply #13: It is true....here is what a prominet rabbi in St Louis

[ikojo]

sent out to members on the synagogue e mail list. I of course sent it to everyone I know and posted it to lists.

Dear Friends,

There are many challenging resolutions facing Missouri legislators this session. Decisions are being made that will affect us from (Tax payer Bill of Rights) TABOR that will make the Hancock Amendment look generous to legislation affecting choice and stem cell research and the availability of health care to our most vulnerable citizens. All of these demand our attention and at this months board meeting we will ask for approval to create an advocacy awareness arm of the congregation that addresses those issues that conflict with the call of our prophets to seek justice and love mercy and walk HUMBLY in the world while respecting the boundaries of religion and state.

HCR NO 13 (see below), introduced by Representative David Sater, undermines the religious pluralism upon which this country was founded. Karen Aroesty of the ADL reminds us that the logical outcome of this legislation asserts that elected officials can chose to only represent their Christian constituency. Affirming the rights of the majority without any attempt to protect the rights of others is dangerous, divisive and frightening.

Please let your representatives and other officials know of your concerns about HCR 13.
This bill blatantly crosses the line and reminds us that our perspective is needed not just for ourselves but for all who are most vulnerable.

Thank you for being there. What one of us could never dream of alone, I believe we can accomplish together.

Love,
Susan

House Concurrent Resolution No. 13

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
House Concurrent Resolution No. 13
93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY
4572L.02I

Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

A Message from the NCCJSTL

Supporters of NCCJSTL, (The National Conference fro Community and Justice of Metropolitan St. Louis),

Please read the letter below from Jeanette Mott Oxford, State Representative of the 59th District, and a response by Karen Aroesty of the Anti-Defamation League. Over the years, NCCJSTL has joined with community partners to oppose such legislation. We believe that the bill noted here (HCR 13) is harmful, excluding, and undermines the religious pluralism on which the country was founded. The bill incorrectly interprets constitutional ideals. The bill seeks to establish Christianity as the state religion. It is much more than voluntary prayer or religious displays. It sends a strong message to those who are not Christian that they are "objectors" and this is simply unacceptable.

As Karen Aroesty of the Antidefamation League has asserted, "There is no attack on Christianity in this country. It would seem that the Christian faith is stronger than ever. Are those who would vote for this resolution actually asserting that as elected officials they only represent their Christian constituency? The resulting divisiveness is too scary to contemplate."

Please contact your state representative and other officials to assert your opposition to this legislation. .

Martin Rafanan

From Karen Aroesty of the Anti-Defamation League
I was in Jeff City Tuesday. This bill was never supposed to see the light ofday. I learned that it was on the calendar and started an email campaign to stop it. I also contacted the Post and Tim Townsend is doing an article. I almost got Ch 4 to do a piece last night but they bumped it for something else. I'm watching with some legislator friends to see if they sneak it onto the floor for a vote in the next few days. The sponsor, David Sater from Cassville, refuses to comment publicly. This thing is not only unconstitutional, it is seriously harmful to democratic ideals. It had passed out of the Rules Committee on a party vote and this is simply amazing. Even Republicans ought to know better.

I talked with the Federation's lobbyist Tuesday. I have alerted Americans United and the Interfaith Partnership too. This will be a broad effort and if successful, the leadership will quietly take the bill off the calendar.

Spread the word as much as you can.

Karen J. Aroesty, ADL
.
A Message from Rep. Mott Oxford

Martin and Susan,

I hope you'll have a look at Rep. David Sater's resolution HCR 13. It's has been on the House calendar for several days, and Democratic leadership felt certain it would be brought forward for floor debate when our caucus met on Feb. 27. Here's a link to the text: http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm

Several Democrats have prepared amendments (Barbara Fraser, Leonard "Jonas" Hughes, Judy Baker, & Yaphett El-Amin come to mind). Some Democrats see it as a blatant attempt to record a roll call vote and frame Democrats as "anti-christian" in the fall elections if they vote No.

Resolutions such as this do not have the force of law, so in the great scheme of things, may not be a big deal, BUT I think having the Legislature affirm the religious rights of "the majority" is of concern. I welcome your thoughts on this and any advocacy you can do.

JMO
Jeanette Mott Oxford
State Representative, 59th MO House District