laughingcoyote's Journal: Yet another fundamentalist tactic

Our favorite fundamentalists are at it again! This time, they're trying to push through a bill called the Public Expression of Religion Act. This bill, if passed, would prohibit plaintiffs in cases of even blatant violations of church and state separation from being reimbursed their attorney's fees.

I've included a sample letter, which I already sent to my Congressman on the issue. It also outlines exactly why I object to the bill. Please feel free to use, modify, or do whatever you like with it.

Dear Rep. ________,

I am writing to you to urge you to vote against the Public Expression of Religion Act.

While the Act purports to end a "chilling effect" on public officials' expression of religion, this is untrue. No public official has ever been successfully sued for attending church or promoting religion on their own time.

On the other hand, public officials are barred from either promoting or prohibiting religion in the course of their public duties. This prohibition does not come from a "chilling effect" of litigation, but from their duty to uphold the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

In many cases, it is difficult for the victims of religious discrimination to show actual damages. In this case, the recovery of attorneys' fees allows them to still be able to bring a suit in these cases.

Even when this happens, attorneys' fees are only awarded to the plaintiff when they are correct-when the rules, laws, and Constitution really were being violated! This is entirely right and proper.

The "threat" of a successful lawsuit against any government entity over an unlawful religious display can be avoided with one very simple tactic: Follow the rules in the first place.

The trouble with this is

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That I read the Constitution differently than you do. But I'd still be against this law. Here's why. Let's start with the requirement in the Constitution itself:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The way I read this, the requirment is that Congress shal

Re:

[laughingcoyote]

To some degree, I -might- agree with you...however, then we've got other issues apart from that. The obvious intent of the Establishment Clause is that no religion would be either favored or disfavored by the government. Posting the Ten Commandments (and by extension NOT posting the Muslim laws, the Wiccan rede, and so on...) is favoritism of Christianity over others no matter how you slice it.

As to your hypothetical mayor in Podunk? I agree that he can hold a breakfast for Catholics, or Baptists, or Zoro

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

To some degree, I -might- agree with you...however, then we've got other issues apart from that. The obvious intent of the Establishment Clause is that no religion would be either favored or disfavored by the government. Posting the Ten Commandments (and by extension NOT posting the Muslim laws, the Wiccan rede, and so on...) is favoritism of Christianity over others no matter how you slice it.

It is- but the point is WHO. Is it Congress doing the favoritism? No. Is it the government? Not really. Is i

Re:

[laughingcoyote]

Well, perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on that particular point then. Though it seems you misunderstood me on a couple of things.

No one has an inherent right to put up whatever they want in "their workspace." A public official could not, for example, put up printouts from a hardcore porno or a swastika in his "workspace". He can, if he wants, at home. Same with religious paraphrenalia-I've got no trouble if some public official wants to paint the Ten Commandments on every wall of his house, but it'

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What I'm trying to point out is that separating out anybody- schoolchildren, public officials, neo-nazis, anybody- and saying that their freedom of speech is curtailed to preserve somebody's idea of what spending public money is, and calling it preventing the government from establishing a religion, is silly at best.

Here's a good example: Back last spring, in my office (I work for ODOT) we had a very religious Hindu intern. She posted a tapestry containing several names and titles for the Creator- includ

Re:

[laughingcoyote]

I can see where some parts of that would be unclear, so some clarifications...

As to the street corner, what I meant was that use by a public official in his or her public capacity of public property in a way that would not normally be doable by the general public. An example is that the library here has a conference room that anyone can request use of for free, and have their meeting added to a schedule posted in the library. Frequently, Bible study groups or the like are on that list. I have absolutely n

Sex first

[Marxist Hacker 42]

As to your stuff on sex, couple things there.

Romance and love are very real and very powerful psychological phenomena.

Actually, what is real is an addiction to testosterone and oxycontin, both of which are released into the bloodstream during sex and both of which are very powerfull endorphins.

Sex, as well, and its lack, has a profound effect on the psyche.

No more than any other form of drug abuse.

Also, birth control may not be 100% effective, but it doesn't do too bad either, and we do have optio

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

On the separation between "private publically owned space" and "publically accessible public space", I have to think about that one.

I will say this though, I'd much rather know about biases up front of any government official I was dealing with- than have it hidden away and private.