October 01, 2006
Submitted Without Comment
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.
October 1, 2006 | Permalink
I can't read chinese, but I strongly suspect the above comment is spam. :)
Either that or someone in China *really* cares about US separation of church and state. How good if them.
Posted by: shadowfax | Oct 1, 2006 12:00:10 PM
That is vile.
Posted by: Sandals | Oct 1, 2006 12:45:21 PM
God help us all
Posted by: DRR | Oct 1, 2006 4:12:47 PM
Yeah, stuff like this makes me wish I believed in hell, which is not a feeling an atheist enjoys.
Posted by: wcw | Oct 1, 2006 4:28:29 PM
Should it come up for a vote, it is imperative that the Senate reject this nefarious proposal.
The chances of this coming up for a vote in the Senate are pretty low, and the chances of it passing are about zero. This is just a political stunt to please the religious right, which has a paranoia about liberal lawyers trying to destroy the place of religion in our culture. Just election year politics, not a serious bill.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 1, 2006 5:35:49 PM
There goes that projection stuff again - when the theocrats charge those who advocate equality for gays as wanting "special rights"
Posted by: Andy | Oct 1, 2006 10:23:57 PM
With the push by the cults and sects to get thier ministers to push the theocratic agenda through the rethuglican party would this law limit the ability of the FEC and other Government agencies to fine the cultists for violation of FEC regs or other similiar violations of laws or reg's.
Posted by: Ken | Oct 2, 2006 12:32:15 AM
Not a lawyer, but the understanding I have is that it simply fits the burden of cost to press suit against the government for violations of the establishment clause onto the shoulders of the individual or lawers pressing said suit, regardless of the outcome of the suit in court. The problem with this is that it makes pressing such suits prohibitive. The fear of bearing the cost of such suits is a signifigant detraction to local school districts or even state school boards from pushing their brand of religion onto students. It also allows local building compliance offices the chance to possibly deny a person a building permit or rental license based on religious preferences with little fear of reprisal.
Posted by: DuWayne | Oct 2, 2006 12:49:46 AM
And for any morons lurking in the shadows who might think this is a big win for the religious right, this also applies to cases where a street preacher, for example, who sues for the right to try to bring people to Christ in the public square, after being arrested and told he, or she, is not allowed to do that. Or religious groups who might like equal access to public library, public rooms or religious clubs who want to have equal access to public school facilities for after school clubs.
Posted by: DuWayne | Oct 2, 2006 1:11:32 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.