Please excuse my awful pun of a title. It’s a pera-dy (see that was a worse pun! I bet you didn’t think it could get worse than the title!) of the first line of Harvey Danger’s Flag Pole Sitta. Their version was a bit more sing-able than mine.
WASHINGTON (ABP) -- After impassioned debate on the separation of church and state Sept. 26, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would make it harder to sue the government for violations of church-state separation.
House members voted 244-173 in favor of H.R. 2679, called by supporters the "Public Expression of Religion Act." In cases involving the First Amendment's establishment clause, the proposal would prevent federal courts from requiring government entities to reimburse the legal costs of the individual or group that sued the government agency -- even though the agency was found in violation of the constitution.
The establishment clause bars the government from endorsing or inhibiting religious groups or doctrines. Currently, federal judges routinely require the government entity to pay the legal expenses of a plaintiff who successfully asserts an establishment-clause violation.
Supporters contended that the bill would keep special-interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union from "abusing the system" when filing challenges to government actions that may endorse religion.
The ACLU is not abusing the system. The government, when it violates the establishment clause, is abusing the system. The House, when passing this bill, just abused the system. The ACLU helps police the system. See the difference?
"Too often today, overzealous courts have infringed an individual's right to worship," Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), a supporter of the measure, said on the House floor. "These attacks on our religious heritage are frivolous."
No. The courts have maintained our right to not have our noses shoved in your religious whatever. They aren’t frivolous lawsuits. They’re lawsuits to defend the rights of religious and nonreligious minorities.
But opponents said it would have a chilling effect on the ability of religious minorities to defend their freedoms.
"Mr. Speaker, let's be clear -- there's nothing benign about this bill. This bill makes it more difficult to enforce the First Amendment to the Constitution and the very words thereof designed to protect the religious freedom of every American," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas).
Without such reimbursements, many church-state separationist groups and other civil-rights groups could not afford to file such lawsuits in the first place.
Yes.
The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.), said some such groups file lawsuits and use the threat of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to pressure municipalities and states into settling before the case reaches court.
"Without that ability for the ACLU and others to go into these closed-door sessions and say to the mayor…we're going to sue, we're going to win, and you're going to have to pay our attorneys' fees, these cases will go to court," Hostettler said, referring to the American Civil Liberties Union.
(rolls eyes) Yes, yes, let’s drag the ACLU into it. Everyone likes to bash the ACLU! A note: you only have to reimburse the legal fees if they show you’ve violated the establishment clause. Don’t violate it, and you’ll be fine.
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked the bill's supporters if they would feel the same way about limiting attorneys' fees in such cases if government agencies were being sued for advancing other religions.
"Let's assume in some town Sunni Muslims became a majority. And let's assume that everyone in that town…was forced to recite 'There is but one God, and Allah is his name,'" he said, quoting Islam's most common affirmation of faith.
"They think that only the majority religion is ever going to be in the position to dominate the local government or any government. Maybe so, but the whole reason we have the First Amendment is because you can't be sure."
(nods) Yes. However, I don’t think that’s the main issue. The main issue (for me at least) is that it’s not fair to squish the rights of minorities even if you have the power to do so.
Although a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate, that body is virtually certain not to address it before Congress ends its current term.
- House passes measure to chill establishment-clause lawsuits
I hope not, as I still have hope that Dem’s might gain a Senate majority for the next term. Either way, write to your Senators!
***
On the same topic, but from slightly less sane sources:
… all of our veterans cemeteries and memorials on public property are at risk – unless PERA passes.
Oh! Oh! Veterans cemeteries! Veterans cemeteries! Emotional, non-touchable patriotism-related issue!!!!! ACLU! BAD! ANTI-AMERICAN! ANTI-AMERICAN! DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY!!!!!!!! ALCU! BAD!!!
AHHHHHHH!!!!!
What a great choice of issue to exploit to scare people into supporting this bill. ACLU ATTACKING FALLEN VETERNS! It’s ridiculous propaganda.
As a clarification, I’m certainly not bashing veterans. I support our former troops… especially in bed. As a clarification of my clarification, I suppose I only actually support one of them in this manner. However, this seems like a contribution at least on par with buying a few plastic flags or patriotic bumper stickers or the like, yes? ;)
(shrugs) Anyway, let’s continue. So, why do these lovely people believe veterans cemeteries are under attack?
The ACLU has claimed nationally that gravestones have been “deemed” constitutional because families, not the government, choose the religious symbols. However, the truth is no court of precedent has ever “deemed” that it is constitutional for the government to allow and pay for gravestones bearing religious symbols at veteran cemeteries, on the basis that families, rather than the government, chose the symbol. The ACLU has cited no such decision; and none has been found to exist.
So, seeing as the ACLU feels these displays are constitutional, it has just declared that it doesn’t feel the need for litigation, correct?
Second, the ACLU has never taken that position in litigation; rather, it insists that religious symbols are unconstitutional if on public property.
The ACLU defined why it felt this was a different issue: family choice of personal expression of personal religion on a personal gravestone.
Third, the ACLU has not stated it will not sue the freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols or expressions that exist at veterans cemeteries.
I can see a clear difference between freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols and gravestones bearing religious symbols. While it isn’t an issue of utmost concern to me, I think the random, non-person-or-people-specific religious memorials should probably be removed from public grounds if they are causing upset. The cemeteries would still be there.
Fourth, there are thousands of grave markers, including 9,000 at the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach, which the government decided upon, not families.
Erm, the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach in France? Somehow, I can’t picture the ACLU suing over this.
Fifth, the ACLU is hardly the only entity representing a threat of such lawsuits. Nothing in the law currently prevents others, including Islamist fanatics, from filing Establishment Clause lawsuits against veterans cemeteries, and then demanding court-awarded, taxpayer-paid attorney fees.
- ACLU’s Disinformation On Public Expression Of Religion Act Exposed
Yes, because clearly this is how Islamist fanatics spread their message. Many congratulations for managing to raise your propaganda level at least a few points with the inclusion of the phrase, “Islamist fanatics.” Your target audience is now at least 32.452% more likely to write a letter to his or her congressman.
To see the ACLU’s response to the House passing PERA, read their press release. And write to your Senators!
