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.