More Lack of Separation... Just Sad
 

‘Mean-Spirited’ Measure Seeks To Discourage Americans From Asserting Their Fundamental Religious Liberty Rights In Court, Says AU’s Lynn

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject a bill that would make it more difficult for Americans to bring church-state violations into court.

The so-called “Public Expression of Religion Act” targets those who challenge church-state infringements by government officials. The measure, H.R. 2679, denies legal fees and out-of-pocket expenses to plaintiffs who win lawsuits under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. It is scheduled for a vote in committee on Wednesday.

“This is a mean-spirited bill intended to keep people from standing up for their religious liberty rights,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and state. “Our constitutional freedoms don’t count for much if individuals don’t have the financial means to bring their legitimate claims before the bar of justice.

“Once again, we see the House leadership kowtowing to the Religious Right at the expense of individual freedom,” said Lynn.

Americans who believe that government has violated their rights by unconstitutionally getting involved in matters of religion are free to file lawsuits. If the lawsuits are successful, current federal law allows for the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket expenses. If H.R. 2679 passes, however, that will no longer be the case.

The measure is being touted by Religious Right groups as a way to discourage lawsuits challenging religious displays on public property. But, in fact, it is much more sweeping than that and would deny reimbursement in conflicts ranging from government-sponsored religion in public schools to taxpayer funding for religious schools and other ministries.

Lynn noted that if the bill passes, it will set a precedent for Congress to deny attorneys’ fees in other types of litigation. Currently, attorneys’ fees are recoverable in a wide range of successful cases against the government involving constitutional and civil rights violations.

“Americans should have the right to seek redress in courts if they believe their rights have been violated by the government,” Lynn said. “This bill is an effort to slam the courthouse door in their faces because some members of Congress don’t like the outcome of some of these cases. It’s fundamentally un-American.”

Several national organizations that support civil rights and civil liberties have joined forces to oppose the measure.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Well, if they make it unfeasible for the little guy to keep these politicians, from forcing religion on him, he's a prime candidate for recruitment by groups from the Middle East. It's a shame they want to eliminate the prime method of keeping freedom maintained in the courts, instead of the streets. Car bombs seem to be effective against individuals and small groups. :(

I would guess that the objective is to stop the ACLU from bankrupting towns, schools, and businesses to finance itself.

You don't think that the $15 you send in actually funds anything larger than their staple budget do you? It doesn't even cover the costs of mailing out the newsletter.

Reading through the list of ACLU suits, on Wolf's link, I find myself split about 50/50 on feeling good about the outcome. I guess that would indicate they are following law rather than their bias. :confused:

If the majority of a town want to have a cross or a statue of the ten commandments on public display then they should have the right to do so. It's all up to majority vote. If a few people and the ACLU can have images removed that the majority want displayed, then it's boiling down to the loss of the right to publicly express your religion.

Public display isn't the issue. Public property is.

But that was exactly what the Constitution was trying to prevent. The majority forcing the minority (even one person) to accept their religion or even views.

I have a hard time, however, with someone moving to, or even growing up in, a town, and forcing the removal of a 50, 60 or 100 year old memorial/statue because it has a cross on it. I understand the legal precedent but it rankles my practical side.
If it was there before you were born, it's history and tells much about the time and place it was erected. Don't remove it, accept it in it's historical context. :smack:

I think it's a little dangerous to start adding rules to what can and can't be decided on democraticly in our country. Even though I don't support religious symbols off of church property or on the public I get this little *pang* in the back of my mind that goes off whenever someone says "We can't put this to a vote because the majority will vote for an unaccepable outcome" (in this case crosses on public property). That's something that needs to be thought about long and hard before you go there. I don't think a manger in front of the Town Hall is important enough to start usurping majority rule for.

(I occationally do think that nervous instincts are good for something)

You've just described the bill of rights.

Which, I think, is why the founders codified the big ones, and made it damn hard to add new ones.

As long as it is on private property and no public funds go toward it.

What is it about these basic concepts that the fundies just can't grasp?

I don't know, but it makes them looks incredibly stupid.

I wonder how the 7th and 8th engineers feel?

What "fundies" are you talking about? :confused:

I think the presumption is that a Christian who wants to use the goverenment as a lever to promote his religion must be a fundamentalist.

That's the term that's often applied to Muslims who want to do the same thing.

About what??

What the hell do Marines have to do with this?
Those would be Muslim fundies as well, moderate Muslims don't want their governments run by their churches any more than sane Christians do.

No, but "sane Christians" can differentiate between calling for laws against queer marriage or teaching creationism in biology class, and knocking down a 50 or 100 year old historical marker because it had a religious symbol incorporated in the design.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, slippery slope and all that. Well, slippery doesn't matter if you wear sensible shoes and pay attention, like mom told you.:D

Calling someone a fundie, here, is tantamount to calling them a fanatic. It also implies that anyone that doesn't agree with you wants "to use the goverenment as a lever to promote his religion," to use Maggie's definition. It also implies anyone agreeing with you is not a fanatic. All three are bullshit.

Fundie is used, here, as a deliberate ploy to discredit any opposition.
It's a cheap shot, grouping anyone with any religious beliefs, or even just an opposing view, with the most rabid and fanatical of the religious extremists.
That's like saying if you enjoy fireworks you're a disciple of Ted Kaczynski.

As far as I'm concerned, someone who feels justified using government as a tool for imposing his religion on others is fanatical.

What ever happened to the will of the people. If you are offended by the symbols of what ever then bring it up to a vote of the people, that has always been the proscribed method for bringing about change in this country. why do we have to tie up our courts with frivolous lawsuits?

I am more offended by the lack of religious tolerance that has sprung up in the last 20 years.

The will of the people is expressed in the Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

As for being offended, you can be offended by whatever you like, and I'll do the same. Express your religion any (legal) way you like, but don't try to pay for it with my taxes, and I'll do the same.

There's a huge difference between tolerating a relgion and supporting or promoting it.

By the way, you mean "prescribed", not "proscribed". "Proscribed" means forbidden.

Thank you Maggie, I may be un educated, but the will of the people is still the law of the land. Let us vote on it.

The Constitution was voted on long ago. If you want to change it to remove the Establishment clause, it will require an amendment. We don't just submit any random proposition to a direct national plebiscite.

You seem to have a rather naive notion of what "the law of the land" actually is...and why it is that way.

I'll buy that but my point was, not everyone that disagrees with him is automatically a fundie/fanatic, and calling them that is a cheap shot. :cool:

Yes, that would be to competely overlook all the broadminded, tolerant Jews, Muslims and Pagans who insist that "this country was founded on Judeo-Muslim-Wiccan fundamen...I mean...principles.". :-)

The will of the people is to not have religious values in government. Lessons of history prove that mixing religion with government creates - well you have seen pictures from the Middle East. You want that? It is the will of the people and of those who created this country and of this country's government constitution to not have Christian values imposed upon government. So much so that to do otherwise would require Constitutional Amendments or Civil War.

Going one step farther. Imposing Fundamental Christian values upon America would only subvert that which made America great. Already god's chosen president is driving science and technology advances from this country. You want that - or do you want what 'good' (non-fundamentalists) want? Advancement of mankind. They are mutually exclusive. Either we promote extremist fundy values or we advance mankind. Which do you want?

So that there is no confusion, let's get one point straight. Fundy religious extremist values promote intolerance. No way around that. Given the definition, are you a fundy Christian extremist - or do you represent a different viewpoint? Fundamentalist Christians who would promote their religious values on America are the definition of intolerance. Where is your standing based upon that definition?

*whistles* I can practically hear your teeth grinding as I read that last paragraph;)

I'll say this. I don't agree with a government that listens to only one religion, all religions should have equal representation:rolleyes: I confess to finding it refreshing to hear someone these days say "I believe this is wrong and I stand by my decision". I may not always agree with them but I sometimes prefer fundies to people who refuse to take a stand and stick with it.

In government, no religion should have any representation. It's citizens that have representation.

When a religion-and-politics thread heats up, I need to jump in, fears of being labeled a nitpicker be damned. And if ever there was a sure sign I've had too much rum... But I digress.

I think "values" may be the wrong word to use here, as I have several values which I believe should be promoted by governmental policy that I also grew up as being taught were desirable from a religious standpoint. For example, the value that the ill - all of them - be healed, and to hell with their socio-financial status in life.

I think that when the framers espoused that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..., that principle was put forth after witnessing the effects of the fusion of religious dogma and the state that were the hallmark of European political society from the feudal period to (through?) the Age of Enlightenment/Reason. It shouldn't be a problem for a government to accept a value of a particular religion and incorporate it into policy. A religious value is an idea, and should not be seen as less - or more - valid in the marketplace of ideas than an idea with a purely secular point of origin simply because the former value came from a liturgical text. If the idea has merit among the populace (thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, all men are equal before God regardless of color, the Mets are great), then it ought stand up against conflicting ideas with less broad-based merit (God hates gays, contraception is murder, the Yankees are great).

When a state begins to attach physical punishment to the violation of religious dogma - when your corporeal person and/or property can be injured, seized, or destroyed by failing to conform to rules and regulations inherently designed to govern the spiritual realm - then that state is theocratic. THAT flies in the face of "the will of the people".

This is just wrong... NO RELIGION sponsored by ANY GOVERNMENT function. It ain't hard!

Families Challenging Religious Influence in Delaware Schools

GEORGETOWN, Del. — After her family moved to this small town 30 years ago, Mona Dobrich grew up as the only Jew in school. Mrs. Dobrich, 39, married a local man, bought the house behind her parents’ home and brought up her two children as Jews.

For years, she and her daughter, Samantha, listened to Christian prayers at public school potlucks, award dinners and parent-teacher group meetings, she said. But at Samantha’s high school graduation in June 2004, a minister’s prayer proclaiming Jesus as the only way to the truth nudged Mrs. Dobrich to act.

“It was as if no matter how much hard work, no matter how good a person you are, the only way you’ll ever be anything is through Jesus Christ,” Mrs. Dobrich said. “He said those words, and I saw Sam’s head snap and her start looking around, like, ‘Where’s my mom? Where’s my mom?’ And all I wanted to do was run up and take her in my arms.”

After the graduation, Mrs. Dobrich asked the Indian River district school board to consider prayers that were more generic and, she said, less exclusionary. As news of her request spread, many local Christians saw it as an effort to limit their free exercise of religion, residents said. Anger spilled on to talk radio, in letters to the editor and at school board meetings attended by hundreds of people carrying signs praising Jesus.

“What people here are saying is, ‘Stop interfering with our traditions, stop interfering with our faith and leave our country the way we knew it to be,’ ” said Dan Gaffney, a host at WGMD, a talk radio station in Rehoboth, and a supporter of prayer in the school district.

After receiving several threats, Mrs. Dobrich took her son, Alex, to Wilmington in the fall of 2004, planning to stay until the controversy blew over. It never has.

The Dobriches eventually sued the Indian River School District, challenging what they asserted was the pervasiveness of religion in the schools and seeking financial damages. They have been joined by “the Does,” a family still in the school district who have remained anonymous because of the response against the Dobriches.

Meanwhile, a Muslim family in another school district here in Sussex County has filed suit, alleging proselytizing in the schools and the harassment of their daughters.

The move to Wilmington, the Dobriches said, wrecked them financially, leading them to sell their house and their daughter to drop out of Columbia University.

The dispute here underscores the rising tensions over religion in public schools.

“We don’t have data on the number of lawsuits, but anecdotally, people think it has never been so active — the degree to which these conflicts erupt in schools and the degree to which they are litigated,” said Tom Hutton, a staff lawyer at the National School Boards Association.

More religion probably exists in schools now than in decades because of the role religious conservatives play in politics and the passage of certain education laws over the last 25 years, including the Equal Access Act in 1984, said Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, a research and education group.

“There are communities largely of one faith, and despite all the court rulings and Supreme Court decisions, they continue to promote one faith,” Mr. Haynes said. “They don’t much care what the minority complains about. They’re just convinced that what they are doing is good for kids and what America is all about.”

Dr. Donald G. Hattier, a member of the Indian River school board, said the district had changed many policies in response to Mrs. Dobrich’s initial complaints. But the board unanimously rejected a proposed settlement of the Dobriches’ lawsuit.

“There were a couple of provisions that were unacceptable to the board,” said Jason Gosselin, a lawyer for the board. “The parties are working in good faith to move closer to settlement.”

Until recently, it was safe to assume that everyone in the Indian River district was Christian, said the Rev. Mark Harris, an Episcopal priest at St. Peter’s Church in Lewes.

But much has changed in Sussex County over the last 30 years. The county, in southern Delaware, has resort enclaves like Rehoboth Beach, to which outsiders bring their cash and, often, liberal values. Inland, in the area of Georgetown, the county seat, the land is still a lush patchwork of corn and soybean fields, with a few poultry plants. But developers are turning more fields into tracts of rambling homes. The Hispanic population is booming. There are enough Reform Jews, Muslims and Quakers to set up their own centers and groups, Mr. Harris said.

In interviews with a dozen people here and comments on the radio by a half-dozen others, the overwhelming majority insisted, usually politely, that prayer should stay in the schools.
“We have a way of doing things here, and it’s not going to change to accommodate a very small minority,’’ said Kenneth R. Stevens, 41, a businessman sitting in the Georgetown Diner. “If they feel singled out, they should find another school or excuse themselves from those functions. It’s our way of life.”

The Dobrich and Doe legal complaint portrays a district in which children were given special privileges for being in Bible club, Bibles were distributed in 2003 at an elementary school, Christian prayer was routine at school functions and teachers evangelized.

“Because Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, I will speak out for him,” said the Rev. Jerry Fike of Mount Olivet Brethren Church, who gave the prayer at Samantha’s graduation. “The Bible encourages that.” Mr. Fike continued: “Ultimately, he is the one I have to please. If doing that places me at odds with the law of the land, I still have to follow him.”

Mrs. Dobrich, who is Orthodox, said that when she was a girl, Christians here had treated her faith with respectful interest. Now, she said, her son was ridiculed in school for wearing his yarmulke. She described a classmate of his drawing a picture of a pathway to heaven for everyone except “Alex the Jew.”

Mrs. Dobrich’s decision to leave her hometown and seek legal help came after a school board meeting in August 2004 on the issue of prayer. Dr. Hattier had called WGMD to discuss the issue, and Mr. Gaffney and others encouraged people to go the meeting. Hundreds showed up.

A homemaker active in her children’s schools, Mrs. Dobrich said she had asked the board to develop policies that would leave no one feeling excluded because of faith. People booed and rattled signs that read “Jesus Saves,” she recalled. Her son had written a short statement, but he felt so intimidated that his sister read it for him. In his statement, Alex, who was 11 then, said: “I feel bad when kids in my class call me ‘Jew boy.’ I do not want to move away from the house I have lived in forever.”

Later, another speaker turned to Mrs. Dobrich and said, according to several witnesses, “If you want people to stop calling him ‘Jew boy,’ you tell him to give his heart to Jesus.”

Immediately afterward, the Dobriches got threatening phone calls. Samantha had enrolled in Columbia, and Mrs. Dobrich decided to go to Wilmington temporarily.

But the controversy simmered, keeping Mrs. Dobrich and Alex away. The cost of renting an apartment in Wilmington led the Dobriches to sell their home here. Mrs. Dobrich’s husband, Marco, a school bus driver and transportation coordinator, makes about $30,000 a year and has stayed in town to care for Mrs. Dobrich’s ailing parents. Mr. Dobrich declined to comment. Samantha left Columbia because of the financial strain.

The only thing to flourish, Mrs. Dobrich said, was her faith. Her children, she said, “have so much pride in their religion now.”

“Alex wears his yarmulke all the time. He never takes it off.”

And some people claim that fundamentalists aren't a threat to the security of our nation...

Has anyone here read Under The Banner Of Heaven? It's a very good read about Mormon fundamentalism, and for part of the book focuses on the story of the Lafferty brothers, who killed a 2-month old baby and her mother because 'God told them to'. Their justification? Almost exactly the words Rev. Fike used.

Nice folks, those.

I am "counting to ten" in advance of a more considered response to this thread.

I might have to make a few repetitions...

Seriously, Big V? ;)

Delaware? Hmmm..nothing ever changes but the date. :smack:

Yes, sir. I am. I find this whole subject of the conflation of religion and government very serious and the direction of our own country's events frightening. Plus you know me well enough to be unsurprised that I strive to think before speaking.

Updates.

Religious Right Leader Dobson's Campaign To Build Church-Based Political MachineDrive To Politicize Evangelical Pulpits During Fall Elections Jeopardizes Church Tax Exemptions, Warns AU’S Lynn

Religious Right leader James Dobson’s drive to build a church-based political machine will jeopardize the tax exemption of participating congregations, warns Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

In a recent e-mail alert to supporters, Dobson’s Focus on the Family (FOF) said it will work with eight state affiliates to mobilize evangelical Christian voters before the November elections. States targeted include Pennsylvania, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Minnesota, Montana and Tennessee.

The Dobson campaign has all the trappings of a traditional political machine. FOF’s state affiliates plan to name coordinators for each county who will supervise church coordinators in each evangelical congregation. FOF’s church coordinators will prod pastors to speak about political issues, conduct voter-registration drives and disseminate “voter guides and get-out-the-vote efforts.”

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, says houses of worship should reject Dobson’s scheme.

“This is a blatant effort by Dobson to build a partisan political machine based in churches,” said Lynn. “He has made it abundantly clear that electing Republicans is an integral part of his agenda, and he doesn’t mind risking the tax exemption of churches in the process. Dobson wants to be a major political boss, and this is his way to get there.

“Congregations should not fall prey to Dobson’s shameless partisan schemes,” Lynn continued. “The Internal Revenue Service has promised swift and sure enforcement of federal tax law this year, and pastors should be aware of the danger to their churches’ tax exemption.”

Lynn noted that the IRS has ramped up its efforts to ensure that nonprofits, including houses of worship, abide by federal tax law, which prohibits all nonprofits from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.

IRS Tax Commissioner Mark W. Everson has delivered two major speeches this year putting nonprofits on notice that the agency has heightened its scrutiny of their actions surrounding the 2006 elections. Everson’s speeches followed a report by the agency showing that many of the nonprofits being investigated for violations during the last election cycle are churches.


Americans United Condemns House Committee Passage Of Bill Cutting Off Attorneys' Fees In Church-State Cases

Click Here To Take Action Now

This morning the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would deter Americans from defending their religious rights in court. The so-called “Public Expression of Religion Act” (H.R. 2679) is now headed to the House floor for a full vote. Similar legislation (S. 3696) is also pending in the Senate. These bills would deny attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket costs in cases won by advocates of church-state separation. The measure would make it much more difficult for citizens to challenge government-backed religious activities.

These bills are extreme and unwise proposals that will keep Americans from turning to the federal courts to protect their fundamental constitutional rights to worship freely. Members of Congress should stand up for the Bill of Rights, instead of undermining it with this harmful legislation — please send a message now.



PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE

Americans United Condemns House Committee Passage Of Bill Cutting Off Attorneys' Fees In Church-State Cases

Measure Is More Pandering To The Religious Right, Says AU’s Lynn

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today blasted the House Judiciary Committee’s approval of a bill that would make it more difficult for Americans to challenge church-state violations in court.

The so-called “Public Expression of Religion Act” targets those who stand up to church-state infringements by government officials. The measure, H.R. 2679, denies legal fees and out-of-pocket expenses to plaintiffs who win lawsuits under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which bans the government from promoting religion.

The committee passed the bill on a voice vote today, and it is now headed to the House floor.

“It’s remarkable to me that at a time when our country faces so many serious issues, the Judiciary Committee has nothing better to do than pander to the Religious Right with this mean-spirited bill,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It’s another sad example of how this ‘do-nothing Congress’ earned its name.”

Lynn charged that the bill erodes individual rights. Under current law, Americans whose church-state rights have been violated by the government are free to file lawsuits. If the lawsuits are successful, the law allows for the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket expenses from the government. If H.R. 2679 were to become law, however, that will no longer be the case.

The measure is being touted by Religious Right groups as a way to discourage lawsuits challenging religious displays on public property. But, in fact, it is much broader than that and would deny reimbursement in conflicts ranging from government-sponsored religion in public schools to taxpayer funding for religious schools and other ministries.

Lynn said if the bill passes, it will set a precedent for Congress to deny attorneys’ fees in other types of litigation. Currently, attorneys’ fees are recoverable in a wide range of successful cases against the government involving constitutional and civil rights violations.

“This bill is nothing more than an attempt to scare people away from having their day in court,” Lynn said. “The House Judiciary Committee should be ashamed of itself for passing such a blatantly un-American scheme.”

Several national organizations that support civil rights and civil liberties have joined forces to oppose the measure.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Why are churches tax exempt, anyway? Anybody know? Anybody?

Presumably to prevent government interference in religious practice, IE discriminatory taxes.

It's not just churches that are tax exempt. Charitable organizations, scientific organizations, religious organizations, federal credit unions, private foundations, child care organizations can all apply for tax exempt status. In order to qualify, there are strict requirements which have to be met. A 501(c)(3) organization can risk it's tax exempt status if a substantial portion of its function is lobbying for legislative change. They are absolutely prohibited from any involvement with any political campaigns. Even the leaders of a 501(c)(3) organization cannot make partisan statements at any official function and are encouraged not to do so privately as well. Political organizations such as campaigns can also apply for tax exempt status, but under a different umbrella with different requirements.


http://www.irs.gov/charities/charita...=96099,00.html



Stormie

A flat tax would get rid of that problem.

Not really. Religious tax exemption predates income tax, and was originally on property tax, which is already flat (at least in my area).