SCA ACTION ALERT: Bill threatens non-establishment (PERA)

[Mathew Goldstein]

[This is United States Congress.] It is easy to quickly identify your Representative and send an email using the link provided towards the bottom of this Secular Coalition of America page Will Congress price us out of defending our Constitutional rights? (http://www.secular.org/activism/pera060905.html)

ACTION ALERT
Will Congress price us out of defending our Constitutional rights?
Sep. 7 update: Today the Judiciary Committee passed the bill on a voice vote. (There is no record of how each individual Representative on the committee voted.) PERA now goes to the full Congress. The Secular Coalition for America's letter opposing the bill was entered into the Congressional Record along with those of allied organizations. (Webmaster's note: Also see our Jun. 21 alert about the Public Expression of Religion Act.)

Sep. 5, 2006 - This Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will move a bill designed to make it too expensive to defend against government establishment of religion (e.g., public school prayer, federal support of theist-only organizations, required recitation of religious oaths, etc.). The so-called Public Expression of Religion Act would single out Establishment Clause cases as an exception to the rule which currently allows awards of fees and costs to winners in actions to enforce the U.S. Constitution

[Underseer]

Sent.

Thanks for the heads up!

[Withered]

I just received a message from a friend that says this has passed the first part of the process. Does anyone know where i might find more information? What would the impact of this be? What are the alternatives?

[Mathew Goldstein]

I just received a message from a friend that says this has passed the first part of the process. Does anyone know where i might find more information? What would the impact of this be? What are the alternatives?

Sep. 26 update: Today the House of Representatives passed this legislation 244-173. The roll call vote can be found on the House website. (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll480.xml)

[Dick Springer]

Sep. 26 update: Today the House of Representatives passed this legislation 244-173. The roll call vote can be found on the House website. (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll480.xml)

Everyone should quickly peruse this voting record. Any atheist who still votes Republican is a total fool.

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
--Sinclair Lewis, 1935

[Dorje]

Here's a good article about this bill's stealthy passage:

Legislating Violations of the Constitution

By Erwin Chemerinsky
Special to washingtonpost.com
Saturday, September 30, 2006; 12:00 AM

With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. Since they cannot change the law of the Establishment Clause by statute, they have turned their attention to trying to prevent its enforcement by eliminating the possibility for recovery of attorneys' fees.

Those who successfully prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees. Few people can afford to do so. Without the possibility of attorneys' fees, individuals who suffer unconstitutional religious persecution often will be unable to sue. The bill applies even to cases involving illegal religious coercion of public school children or blatant discrimination against particular religions.

The passage of this bill by the House is a disturbing achievement by those who seek to undermine our nation's commitment to fundamental freedoms laid out in the Constitution. Should it come up for a vote, it is imperative that the Senate reject this nefarious proposal. The religious right is looking for a way to get away with violating the Establishment Clause and is now one step closer to this goal. The Establishment Clause is no less important than any other part of the Bill of Rights and suits to enforce it should be treated no differently than any other litigation to enforce civil liberties and civil rights
Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901055.html)

[SLD]

I have heard on another listserv that the Bill has no chance whatsoever in the Senate. But that is all I heard. Does anyone know what's going on with this crap in the Senate?

SLD

[Dick Springer]

I notice that Mark Foley (formerly R, Fl) voted aye. Does he think that the punishment specified in Deuteronomy for gay men (death by stoning) should be taught to kids as the inerrant word of god? If he should disagree and sue when it is taught, he'd have to pay his own lawyer.

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
--Sinclair Lewis, 1935

[LambdaCalculator]

I notice that Mark Foley (formerly R, Fl) voted aye. Does he think that the punishment specified in Deuteronomy for gay men (death by stoning) should be taught to kids as the inerrant word of god? If he should disagree and sue when it is taught, he'd have to pay his own lawyer.

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
--Sinclair Lewis, 1935

I don't know why I'm reading this board, I'm already depressed enough.

It seems like the world is ending. I should die.

[Worldtraveller]

Not that it comes as any surprise, but here is Pat Roberts' (Dumbfuck - KS) response to my letter urging him to vote agains the "Religious Protection Act".
Dear <Lane>:

Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 3696, the Veterans' Memorial, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act. I appreciate your comments and concerns on this important issue.

I am a cosponsor of S. 3696. This legislation denies attorney's fees as a remedy in cases involving violations of the Constitution's prohibition of the establishment of religion. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where hearings have been held.

I appreciate the points you make. However, our nation and government have a long history of acknowledging public, patriotic expressions of religious faith. In my view, the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the national motto in no way establish a religion in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Although we may disagree on this issue, I appreciate knowing of your views. Again, thank you for taking the time to write. If you would like more information on issues before the Senate, please visit my website at http://roberts.senate.gov. You may also sign up on my home page for a monthly electronic newsletter that will provide additional updates on my work for Kansas.

With every best wish,

Sincerely,

Pat Roberts
Fucker. I hate this state..... :angry:

[Majestyk]

"patriotic expressions of religious faith" Yes. Disturbing. How can one reconcile a respect for the 1st amendment and claim religious expression is patriotic? If, it is, then the implication is failure to express a religious belief is unpatriotic.

Maybe you should ask him if, atheists are citizens?

[blkgayatheist]

so if this bill passes and is successfully challenged, will the victor be awarded court costs?

[lpetrich]

"Patriotic expressions of religious faith" seems like claiming that God is an American. And it seems to me that certain sorts of people would love to have a Church of God the American.

I find it curious that too many Xian clergypeople and theologians are willing to support jingoistic nationalism, since Xianity is supposed to be a transnational religion, one not limited to any particular nationality or ethnicity.

[Alydar]

I've been aware of this since it evolved in the House, but is the Senate actually going to vote on this before the midterm elections? This is so blatantly against our constitution that I would have to believe it's a pander to the RR to get out the vote next month.

[crazyfingers]

This is so blatantly against our constitution that I would have to believe it's a pander to the RR to get out the vote next month.

In other words, they are willfully trying to sacrificing our civil rights to gain power. Those who voted for this are detestable individuals. If there was a just hell, that’s where they would belong.

[scombrid]

Not that it comes as any surprise, but here is Pat Roberts' (Dumbfuck - KS) response to my letter urging him to vote agains the "Religious Protection Act".

Fucker. I hate this state..... :angry:

Pat Roberts:
In my view, the Ten Commandments, ... in no way establish a religion in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I hate the whole damn country at this point since this is the attitude of a large fraction of our leadership and the rest are willing to pander to this view to please a nutty but fairly unified voting block.

[ninewands]

I've been aware of this since it evolved in the House, but is the Senate actually going to vote on this before the midterm elections? This is so blatantly against our constitution that I would have to believe it's a pander to the RR to get out the vote next month.
Of COURSE it is ... what else COULD it be after the drubbing the Repugnicans have been taking in the polls lately ... unfortunately, at this point I think the best we can hope for is a swift repeal after the election ... :(

[crazyfingers]

Of COURSE it is ... what else COULD it be after the drubbing the Repugnicans have been taking in the polls lately ... unfortunately, at this point I think the best we can hope for is a swift repeal after the election ... :(

Do you know what the status is in the Senate?

[Dick Springer]

In other words, they are willfully trying to sacrificing our civil rights to gain power.

TOO LATE! They did it just this Tuesday (October 17). On the front page of Wednesday's New York Times is picture of Bush signing the bill that takes away the constitutional protections of anyone he, and he alone, decides (and he's the "decider") is an illegal enemy combatant. I am particularly disturbed by the cynicism of Sen. Arlen Spector, who said, in effect, that he voted for it because it would be held unconstitutional by the "activist judges" that Republicans denounce all the time.

[crazyfingers]

TOO LATE! They did it just this Tuesday (October 17). On the front page of Wednesday's New York Times is picture of Bush signing the bill that takes away the constitutional protections of anyone he, and he alone, decides (and he's the "decider") is an illegal enemy combatant. I am particularly disturbed by the cynicism of Sen. Arlen Spector, who said, in effect, that he voted for it because it would be held unconstitutional by the "activist judges" that Republicans denounce all the time.

Are you confusing two different bills? There is the Unlawful Combatant bill which is now law. And there is the one on this topic regarding lawsuits on the Establishment clause.

I agree the the Unlawful Combatant law is terrible.

[SLD]

TOO LATE! They did it just this Tuesday (October 17). On the front page of Wednesday's New York Times is picture of Bush signing the bill that takes away the constitutional protections of anyone he, and he alone, decides (and he's the "decider") is an illegal enemy combatant. I am particularly disturbed by the cynicism of Sen. Arlen Spector, who said, in effect, that he voted for it because it would be held unconstitutional by the "activist judges" that Republicans denounce all the time.

Crazyfingers is right, this is a different bill. The PERA appears dead for now. The Senate doesn't seem enthusiastic about it and hopefully (very hopefully) the Repugnants will be out of power come January.

But don't be too hard on Spector - the bill is a compromise of sorts and he wanted to get some procedure in place to protect the rights of the enemy combatants awaiting trial in Gitmo. That really did have to be done. But it is clear that the objectionable provisions are unconstitutional. I don't see them being upheld by a court. But I don't like such tactics either. The Repugnants are just trying to create an issue that they can use to rally the troops for election day.

SLD

[Dick Springer]

Originally Posted by crazyfingers
"In other words, they are willfully trying to sacrificing our civil rights to gain power."

I knew that I was not talking about PERA. I was saying that they have already sacrificed our civil rights to gain power by enacting the enemy combatants bill.

[crazyfingers]

Originally Posted by crazyfingers
"In other words, they are willfully trying to sacrificing our civil rights to gain power."

I knew that I was not talking about PERA. I was saying that they have already sacrificed our civil rights to gain power by enacting the enemy combatants bill.

I agree with that.

[blastula]

*bump*


Another Crack In The Wall (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_todd_huf_061118_another_crack_in_the.htm) (editorial on the Senate bill)

AU action alert (http://capwiz.com/au/issues/alert/?alertid=9007716)