Freedom of Religion Under Assault
I wanted to talk today about H.R. 2679, a bill introduced into the United States House of Representatives entitled, "Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005." Here is the link for the bill itself: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109eCLmgE::
I feel its important to bring this bill up because this is an example of the kind of assault that radical Republicans, in conjunction with the conservative Christian coalitions, are waging on the rights of people in America to be free to practice any religion of their choice, to be free from religion if they choose, and, most importantly, to avoid having the government eliminate any choice. Basically, the gist of the bill is that, in lawsuits regarding the Establishment Clause, the winner of the lawsuit will no longer be able to win attorney's fees, thereby making the only possible court ruling injunctive in nature. The Republican authors of the bill claim that this is designed to help prevent "intimidation" of county, city, town, state and the federal government that supposedly occurs when somebody sues to stop an overtly religious (read: Christian) by eliminating the possibility that, if the plaintiff wins, the government would then be forced to compensate them for their legal fees. According to the Republican authors of the bill, the big bad ACLU threatens the poor, innocent country, city, etc. governments by reminding them that if they go to court and lose they will have to foot the ACLU's bills, and therefore the tendency in Establishment Clause cases is for these municipalities to settle rather than going to court. The purpose of the bill, supposedly, is to have more of these kinds of cases make it to court by eliminating this "intimidation."
Of course, this is pure nonsense. The true intent of this bill is to limit the ability of individuals to challenge public displays of religion. If John Q. Atheist doesn't like the thought of his kids walking by a Nativity scene in a park (analogous to Christian fundamentalists not wanting their kids being taught evolution in schools, if you want), he would be unable, or at least much less able, to risk fighting this public display favoring a particular religion in court because, if he were an average person, he probably wouldn't be able to afford to foot the bill. Even if he were to win, with today's spiraling legal costs he would run the risk of bankrupting himself fighting for his rights, making it less likely that he would want to try in the first place. And yet, this bill is allegedly designed to get more of these cases into the courts. Yeah right. And honestly, who the hell has ever heard of an individual intimidating a government agency?
Listening to the debate on this bill in the House, I felt a mixture of amusement, and disgust at some of the rationales used by the chief author of the bill, Representative John Hostetler of Indiana, to justify why it was wrong for religious public displays to be challenged or ruled illegal and taken down. Here are a couple examples of his arguments: first, he claimed that because in the Constitution the year 1787 is referred to as, "In the year of Our Lord, Seventeen Hundred and Eighty Seven," this somehow represents a legitimation of Jesus Christ and an endorsement of religion - that is, Abrahamic religion - within Constitutional bounds. What? Never mind that this was a standard, formulaic way of writing dates in 1787, and that most of the Founders were Deist. Clearly the presence of two insignificant words takes precedence over and in fact invalidates the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights was just a show for those sissy girly-men up in Massachussetts Bay. Read between the lines to get the REAL Constitution! He then tried to claim that because Thomas Jefferson was in Paris during the ratification of the Bill of Rights, this means he didn't endorse what was in it. Never mind the fact that Thomas Jefferson spent ten years working on the idea of separation of church and state, or that, as Representative Barney Frank of Massachussetts pointed out in rebuttal, that Jefferson himself first coined term of the "wall of separation of church and state."
The fact is, there is no panic. As several Representatives pointed out during the debate, there is no chance that this bill is going to pass. Why, you ask, do I feel like bothering you with this? Because I want to point out the assaults on rights and freedoms by radical Christians and their allies. The simple thought that somebody even WANTS to discourage and make it all but impossible for citizens to challenge the public imposition of religion should be repulsive in and of itself. Conservatives say that liberal claims of Republican abuse of power during the past decade are preposterous, partisan, and nothing but a poorly run P.R. campaign. Well, this example isn't preposterous, because its occuring as we speak. And what, exactly, is partisan about fighting for people's religious liberties? Watching the debate on C-SPAN, it struck me that there were a grand total of 15 people in the House at the time of the discussion, with 3 Representatives arguing against the bill and two for it. The majority of the House was nowhere in sight. This bill hasn't become a major news item. In short, it's safe to say that the majority of Americans are not informed about this attack on one of their most basic liberties. And, personally, I think that this is a crime in and of itself.
I feel its important to bring this bill up because this is an example of the kind of assault that radical Republicans, in conjunction with the conservative Christian coalitions, are waging on the rights of people in America to be free to practice any religion of their choice, to be free from religion if they choose, and, most importantly, to avoid having the government eliminate any choice. Basically, the gist of the bill is that, in lawsuits regarding the Establishment Clause, the winner of the lawsuit will no longer be able to win attorney's fees, thereby making the only possible court ruling injunctive in nature. The Republican authors of the bill claim that this is designed to help prevent "intimidation" of county, city, town, state and the federal government that supposedly occurs when somebody sues to stop an overtly religious (read: Christian) by eliminating the possibility that, if the plaintiff wins, the government would then be forced to compensate them for their legal fees. According to the Republican authors of the bill, the big bad ACLU threatens the poor, innocent country, city, etc. governments by reminding them that if they go to court and lose they will have to foot the ACLU's bills, and therefore the tendency in Establishment Clause cases is for these municipalities to settle rather than going to court. The purpose of the bill, supposedly, is to have more of these kinds of cases make it to court by eliminating this "intimidation."
Of course, this is pure nonsense. The true intent of this bill is to limit the ability of individuals to challenge public displays of religion. If John Q. Atheist doesn't like the thought of his kids walking by a Nativity scene in a park (analogous to Christian fundamentalists not wanting their kids being taught evolution in schools, if you want), he would be unable, or at least much less able, to risk fighting this public display favoring a particular religion in court because, if he were an average person, he probably wouldn't be able to afford to foot the bill. Even if he were to win, with today's spiraling legal costs he would run the risk of bankrupting himself fighting for his rights, making it less likely that he would want to try in the first place. And yet, this bill is allegedly designed to get more of these cases into the courts. Yeah right. And honestly, who the hell has ever heard of an individual intimidating a government agency?
Listening to the debate on this bill in the House, I felt a mixture of amusement, and disgust at some of the rationales used by the chief author of the bill, Representative John Hostetler of Indiana, to justify why it was wrong for religious public displays to be challenged or ruled illegal and taken down. Here are a couple examples of his arguments: first, he claimed that because in the Constitution the year 1787 is referred to as, "In the year of Our Lord, Seventeen Hundred and Eighty Seven," this somehow represents a legitimation of Jesus Christ and an endorsement of religion - that is, Abrahamic religion - within Constitutional bounds. What? Never mind that this was a standard, formulaic way of writing dates in 1787, and that most of the Founders were Deist. Clearly the presence of two insignificant words takes precedence over and in fact invalidates the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights was just a show for those sissy girly-men up in Massachussetts Bay. Read between the lines to get the REAL Constitution! He then tried to claim that because Thomas Jefferson was in Paris during the ratification of the Bill of Rights, this means he didn't endorse what was in it. Never mind the fact that Thomas Jefferson spent ten years working on the idea of separation of church and state, or that, as Representative Barney Frank of Massachussetts pointed out in rebuttal, that Jefferson himself first coined term of the "wall of separation of church and state."
The fact is, there is no panic. As several Representatives pointed out during the debate, there is no chance that this bill is going to pass. Why, you ask, do I feel like bothering you with this? Because I want to point out the assaults on rights and freedoms by radical Christians and their allies. The simple thought that somebody even WANTS to discourage and make it all but impossible for citizens to challenge the public imposition of religion should be repulsive in and of itself. Conservatives say that liberal claims of Republican abuse of power during the past decade are preposterous, partisan, and nothing but a poorly run P.R. campaign. Well, this example isn't preposterous, because its occuring as we speak. And what, exactly, is partisan about fighting for people's religious liberties? Watching the debate on C-SPAN, it struck me that there were a grand total of 15 people in the House at the time of the discussion, with 3 Representatives arguing against the bill and two for it. The majority of the House was nowhere in sight. This bill hasn't become a major news item. In short, it's safe to say that the majority of Americans are not informed about this attack on one of their most basic liberties. And, personally, I think that this is a crime in and of itself.
posted by Svengali Jack at 11:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home