This is from Foley's website. It would seem this is a very personal issue for the congressman.

NEWS RELEASE

Media Contact: Jason Kello (202) 226-4970

FOLEY CHILD SAFETY LEGISLATION PASSES SENATE

FOLEY LEGISLATION OVERHAULING AND STRENGTHENING SEX OFFENDER PENALTIES INCLUDED IN ADAM WALSH CHILD SAFETY ACT OF 2005

July 21, 2006

WASHINGTON - Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), Co-chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus, applauded Senate passage of legislation he authored and introduced overhauling our nation’s sex offender registration and notification laws.

“For too long our nation has tracked library books better than it has sex offenders. That day is coming to an end,” said Foley. “Senator Hatch and Leader Frist have been resolute in keeping this legislation on track. We are closing loopholes that sex offenders and pedophiles have used to prey on children.”

Included in the legislation are provisions Foley authored and introduced last year including:

Highlights of the Foley Provisions in H.R. 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006

A. Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (Title I)

An interesting article, if perhaps somewhat overstated. Should the military allow a Christian evangelical group such access that it translates as official support? Well, no, obviously enough. nor any other religious group for that matter. the interesting thing in reading through the letters in response as well, is how much the evangelicals and the secular humanists both feel victimized by each other. As noted by others, there isn't anything particularly new in all of this, it just seems more of a threat because of the current administration's intimate connections to the Christian right. It needs to be taken seriously. Certainly, there's nothing profoundly American in the Dominist theories, and a great deal that is antithetical to traditional American values. We had mini-religious states set up with the original colonies, since there was considerable belief at the time that the only way Puritans and Catholics, among others, could practice their faith freely would be to establish territories where their particular beliefs would dominate. Didn't work out terribly well, if I recall. Nor did it turn out to be particularly true that members of various faiths couldn't practice their disparate beliefs and still live together in relative harmony, Mormons excepted of course until the 20th century.

When I went through basic training in South Carolina in the late 70's, we had a program one night in the reception station presented by Bob Jones University. It started off with a movie about an atheist Confederate Southern general who had come to dispair of all the death and destruction around him. Then one day, his faithful Indian servant was fatally wounded but went to his death in the calm but certain knowledge of the Paradise that awaited him because of his Christian faith. The general was so profoundly affected that he also became a Christian, and afterwards, he was able to slaughter Yankees once again with renewed enthusiasm, because of his Christian beliefs, not despite them. There was also a Christian martial arts team demonstration. And afterwards, a call to the audience to accept Jesus, which many did that night, basic being so traumatic for so many. But the point of the show from the Army point of view, was that one could be Christian and a soldier, that Christian faith was not pacifist by definition, quite the contrary. a very useful point of view to be sure, if you expect to lead men into battle, which is at least part of the dynamic behind the Pentagon support for this. The question of reconciling Christian faith and military practice was nicely dealt with in "Sgt. York" when that was made during WWII. Your readers are free to accept or reject the somewhat simplistic premise of the film as they see fit, but it's a dilemma that Christians have managed to deal with for most of the past 2,000 years, without everyone becoming a "Friend", your various letters aside. More's the pity, no doubt.

to tell the truth, I haven't had a sales clerk wish me happy anything

so far this season. doesn't seem to stop them from running my credit card though.

Well, if anyone needed an answer to the question, "why can't we all just get along?" all they would need to do is read the letters to the editor on this very mild-mannered essay. Certainly, race remains as critical a question in 21st century America as it was in the 19th and 20th. It's just a whole lot more complicated these days as America becomes more and more diverse, while Americans continue to pursue their unalienable right to happiness by marrying whomever they wish. Although some of these letters assert to the contrary, this remains a very new phenomena in such numbers. The letters mostly spend a great deal of time commenting on what it means to be Black or White in America, as if either question were ever all that simple, but miss the larger question of what it means to be an American these days. Yes, certainly both Black America and White America will continue to identify these children as Black rather than White, but clearly they are something more than either and unfortunately America remains profoundly uncomfortable with any sense of "other." But that is a reality that we will all have to deal with more and more, whether we want to or not.

Perhaps not the wisest choice for someone who would probably prefer to keep all options open, but it does sound like it would make yet another interesting episode on Boston Legal. No doubt we could get an Ashcroft-like figure following her around with a sheet to cover her up. Somehow though, I imagine she'll survive it. Thanks for the break from the Gonzales coverage.