- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,731
WITH ELECTION RECESS LOOMING, FINAL PUSH IS ON FOR PASSAGE OF
FIRST AMENDMENT MUZZLING ACT
Debate, House Vote Slated For Tuesday
The endgame is on.
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to debate and possibly
vote Tuesday on a bill that would penalize court litigation involving
the First Amendment's establishment clause. The legislation, H.R.
2679 -- the "Public Expression of Religion Act" -- would amend a
portion of the current U.S. Code and eliminate attorney fees in legal
cases where government violated the constitutional separation of
church and state.
The measure was on the congressional backburner until last March when
Hill Republicans made it part of the "American Values Agenda,"
an assortment of bills dealing with everything from parental
notification for teens seeking abortions to prohibition on internet
gambling. Pundits charged that the move was a pre-election ruse to
appeal to Christian evangelicals and distract public attention from
more substantive issues like the war in Iraq. Unlike other items on
the AVA check-list, though, PERA has become a rallying point for
religious and political conservatives, and groups like the American
Legion which has launched a nationwide campaign on behalf of the
legislation.
The initiative for PERA has also galvanized support for another bogey
man of the religious right, namely, "judicial activism."
Denunciations of "activist" judges are common when courts hand down
unpopular or complex rulings on hot-button issues like school prayer,
abortion rights or teaching Christian creationism in the classroom.
The issue has also arisen during recent hearings for U.S. Supreme
Court candidates and other appointees to the federal bench.
Church-state separationist groups including the American Civil
Liberties Union have been accused of using litigation as a fund-raiser
and profitable reward for trial attorneys. The American Legion has
charged, "There simply is no reasonable basis to support the
profiteering in attorney fee awards ordered by judges in these
(establishment clause) cases. The very threat of such fees has made
elected bodies, large and small, surrender to ... demands to
secularly cleanse the public square." Indeed, AANEWS found 27 blogs
dedicated to "stopping the ACLU" and 57 web sites.
American Atheists President Ellen Johnson, though, sees the PERA as a
real threat to civil liberties and access to the courts.
"The supporters of this bill know that they cannot legally stop
citizens from challenges government abuses when it comes to the
separation of church and state," said Johnson. "So they're trying to
achieve that objective by indirect means, like making it prohibitively
expensive for private groups and individuals to bear the expense of
taking officials to court when they violate the constitution."
"They're attempting to do by quasi-legal means what they know they
can't accomplish otherwise."
With debated and a possible vote slated for Tuesday, advocacy groups
on both sides of the issue have been mobilizing supporters and calling
for a flood of E-mails and faxes to Capitol Hill.
For further information:
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-09-sep-2006.html
(American Atheist Action Alert on PERA)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/cong15.htm
("Catering to James Dobson? Background on PERA, "American Values
Agenda," 7/10/06)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/pera1.htm
("Legion announces support for measure to penalize First Amendment
litigation," 3/10/06)
**
American Atheists Action Alert:
September 25, 2006
HOUSE TO DEBATE BILL PUNISHING FIRST AMENDMENT LITIGATION
TUESDAY, 9/26 -- VOTE COULD COME AT ANY TIME
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-09-sep-2006.html
The U.S. House of Representatives will debate legislation TOMORROW,
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 26 that would penalize groups and individuals going
to court in order to uphold the First Amendment by disallowing
attorney fees and other costs. This would make it prohibitively
expensive to end government practices which violate the separation of
church and state! It means that even when courts find government at
fault, attorneys in these cases cannot be reimbursed for their fees
and costs.
The bill, H.R. 2679 is disingenuously labeled the "Public Expression
of Religion Act." Legitimate religious expression is already
protected under the First Amendment (so is our right to criticize
religious belief). This measure is meant to discourage and even
punish citizens who seek to hold government accountable, however, when
it promotes, finances or advances a specific religion, or religion in
general. Supporters of this unfair measure are disenchanted that
courts frequently strike down or otherwise limit unconstitutional
actions by the State in respect to the First Amendment.
Congress needs to hear from us now! We urge you to send e-mail,
telegrams, or call your elected representative. Visit our ACTION
ALERT page at:
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-09-sep-2006.html. You'll find
contact information, background on H.R. 2679, and tips on
communicating with your elected officials.
Spread this Action Alert!
Share your E-mails with us: Visit
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-09-sep-2006.html
(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights
for Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and
addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.)
**
STATEMENT BY EDWIN KAGIN, NATIONAL LEGAL DIRECTOR FOR AMERICAN
ATHEISTS ON THE "PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF RELIGION" ACT
American Atheists Statement on PERA
For some years, federal law has provided that attorney fees are paid
by the losers to a Plaintiff's attorney in a civil rights lawsuit.
This only happens when the lawyer successfully proves that persons
"acting under color of state law" have violated federal civil rights
laws, and unconstitutionally and unlawfully deprived the attorney's
clients of "due process of law" or "equal protection of the laws."
This is to give the little person, who otherwise would have no means
of access to the courts and the legal system, some measure of
insulation from persons who, cloaked with the power and money of the
state, engage in discrimination against citizens of our country and
injure them because of such things as their race, religion, sex, age,
disability, or national origin.
The Constitution of the United States prohibits state officials from
attempting to "establish a religion." If state officials try to do
that, a lawyer who sues them on behalf of clients is able to recover
attorney fees from the state at the conclusion of the case. This has
been a powerful tool to prevent religious tyranny by a majority
religion. Many lawyers have worked for years without compensation to
protect the freedoms of our citizens. Now, some in Congress want to
change that. Thus, a law known as "PERA" has been voted out of
committee. It represents a virulent form of treason by those who
apparently want state officials to be able to establish a religion.
"PERA," or the "Public Expression of Religion Act," now before the
Congress, is better understood as "Protecting Evangelical Repression
Again."
Of all the outrages assaulting American freedoms, "Protecting
Evangelical Repression Again," is perhaps the worst. Shakespeare was
correct. If you would establish a tyranny, you must first kill all
the lawyers. Then people will be denied skilled advocates to aid in
their attempts at survival.
Why would any law abiding American object to paying attorneys who
successfully attack unlawful behavior by public officials. The
lawyers are not paid if the case is dismissed or otherwise lost.
How can the pending bill protect the public when it rewards scofflaws
in public places and punishes those lawyers who dare to prove the
violations to American juries?
There is no hint in this legislation that lawyers not be paid if they
are successful in legal actions that expose public officials who
endorse or practice racial discrimination, sexual harassment, or
unequal treatment of citizens because of age or disabilities. Why
then deny attorney fees to those lawyers who succeed in exposing
officials who want to make their religious views everyone's religious
views? Do those supporting PERA think the First Amendment is wrong?
Could it be that those who support this religionist bill do not like
our American way of life that mandates religious fundangelicals cannot
use the laws of our nation to make us all play in their sandbox?
Separation of religion and government is the American way.
Why do they hate our freedoms?
Edwin Kagin
National Legal Director
American Atheists, Inc.
ekagin@...
FIRST AMENDMENT MUZZLING ACT
Debate, House Vote Slated For Tuesday
The endgame is on.
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to debate and possibly
vote Tuesday on a bill that would penalize court litigation involving
the First Amendment's establishment clause. The legislation, H.R.
2679 -- the "Public Expression of Religion Act" -- would amend a
portion of the current U.S. Code and eliminate attorney fees in legal
cases where government violated the constitutional separation of
church and state.
The measure was on the congressional backburner until last March when
Hill Republicans made it part of the "American Values Agenda,"
an assortment of bills dealing with everything from parental
notification for teens seeking abortions to prohibition on internet
gambling. Pundits charged that the move was a pre-election ruse to
appeal to Christian evangelicals and distract public attention from
more substantive issues like the war in Iraq. Unlike other items on
the AVA check-list, though, PERA has become a rallying point for
religious and political conservatives, and groups like the American
Legion which has launched a nationwide campaign on behalf of the
legislation.
The initiative for PERA has also galvanized support for another bogey
man of the religious right, namely, "judicial activism."
Denunciations of "activist" judges are common when courts hand down
unpopular or complex rulings on hot-button issues like school prayer,
abortion rights or teaching Christian creationism in the classroom.
The issue has also arisen during recent hearings for U.S. Supreme
Court candidates and other appointees to the federal bench.
Church-state separationist groups including the American Civil
Liberties Union have been accused of using litigation as a fund-raiser
and profitable reward for trial attorneys. The American Legion has
charged, "There simply is no reasonable basis to support the
profiteering in attorney fee awards ordered by judges in these
(establishment clause) cases. The very threat of such fees has made
elected bodies, large and small, surrender to ... demands to
secularly cleanse the public square." Indeed, AANEWS found 27 blogs
dedicated to "stopping the ACLU" and 57 web sites.
American Atheists President Ellen Johnson, though, sees the PERA as a
real threat to civil liberties and access to the courts.
"The supporters of this bill know that they cannot legally stop
citizens from challenges government abuses when it comes to the
separation of church and state," said Johnson. "So they're trying to
achieve that objective by indirect means, like making it prohibitively
expensive for private groups and individuals to bear the expense of
taking officials to court when they violate the constitution."
"They're attempting to do by quasi-legal means what they know they
can't accomplish otherwise."
With debated and a possible vote slated for Tuesday, advocacy groups
on both sides of the issue have been mobilizing supporters and calling
for a flood of E-mails and faxes to Capitol Hill.
For further information:
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-09-sep-2006.html
(American Atheist Action Alert on PERA)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/cong15.htm
("Catering to James Dobson? Background on PERA, "American Values
Agenda," 7/10/06)
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/pera1.htm
("Legion announces support for measure to penalize First Amendment
litigation," 3/10/06)
**
American Atheists Action Alert:
September 25, 2006
HOUSE TO DEBATE BILL PUNISHING FIRST AMENDMENT LITIGATION
TUESDAY, 9/26 -- VOTE COULD COME AT ANY TIME
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-09-sep-2006.html
The U.S. House of Representatives will debate legislation TOMORROW,
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 26 that would penalize groups and individuals going
to court in order to uphold the First Amendment by disallowing
attorney fees and other costs. This would make it prohibitively
expensive to end government practices which violate the separation of
church and state! It means that even when courts find government at
fault, attorneys in these cases cannot be reimbursed for their fees
and costs.
The bill, H.R. 2679 is disingenuously labeled the "Public Expression
of Religion Act." Legitimate religious expression is already
protected under the First Amendment (so is our right to criticize
religious belief). This measure is meant to discourage and even
punish citizens who seek to hold government accountable, however, when
it promotes, finances or advances a specific religion, or religion in
general. Supporters of this unfair measure are disenchanted that
courts frequently strike down or otherwise limit unconstitutional
actions by the State in respect to the First Amendment.
Congress needs to hear from us now! We urge you to send e-mail,
telegrams, or call your elected representative. Visit our ACTION
ALERT page at:
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-09-sep-2006.html. You'll find
contact information, background on H.R. 2679, and tips on
communicating with your elected officials.
Spread this Action Alert!
Share your E-mails with us: Visit
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-09-sep-2006.html
(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights
for Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and
addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.)
**
STATEMENT BY EDWIN KAGIN, NATIONAL LEGAL DIRECTOR FOR AMERICAN
ATHEISTS ON THE "PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF RELIGION" ACT
American Atheists Statement on PERA
For some years, federal law has provided that attorney fees are paid
by the losers to a Plaintiff's attorney in a civil rights lawsuit.
This only happens when the lawyer successfully proves that persons
"acting under color of state law" have violated federal civil rights
laws, and unconstitutionally and unlawfully deprived the attorney's
clients of "due process of law" or "equal protection of the laws."
This is to give the little person, who otherwise would have no means
of access to the courts and the legal system, some measure of
insulation from persons who, cloaked with the power and money of the
state, engage in discrimination against citizens of our country and
injure them because of such things as their race, religion, sex, age,
disability, or national origin.
The Constitution of the United States prohibits state officials from
attempting to "establish a religion." If state officials try to do
that, a lawyer who sues them on behalf of clients is able to recover
attorney fees from the state at the conclusion of the case. This has
been a powerful tool to prevent religious tyranny by a majority
religion. Many lawyers have worked for years without compensation to
protect the freedoms of our citizens. Now, some in Congress want to
change that. Thus, a law known as "PERA" has been voted out of
committee. It represents a virulent form of treason by those who
apparently want state officials to be able to establish a religion.
"PERA," or the "Public Expression of Religion Act," now before the
Congress, is better understood as "Protecting Evangelical Repression
Again."
Of all the outrages assaulting American freedoms, "Protecting
Evangelical Repression Again," is perhaps the worst. Shakespeare was
correct. If you would establish a tyranny, you must first kill all
the lawyers. Then people will be denied skilled advocates to aid in
their attempts at survival.
Why would any law abiding American object to paying attorneys who
successfully attack unlawful behavior by public officials. The
lawyers are not paid if the case is dismissed or otherwise lost.
How can the pending bill protect the public when it rewards scofflaws
in public places and punishes those lawyers who dare to prove the
violations to American juries?
There is no hint in this legislation that lawyers not be paid if they
are successful in legal actions that expose public officials who
endorse or practice racial discrimination, sexual harassment, or
unequal treatment of citizens because of age or disabilities. Why
then deny attorney fees to those lawyers who succeed in exposing
officials who want to make their religious views everyone's religious
views? Do those supporting PERA think the First Amendment is wrong?
Could it be that those who support this religionist bill do not like
our American way of life that mandates religious fundangelicals cannot
use the laws of our nation to make us all play in their sandbox?
Separation of religion and government is the American way.
Why do they hate our freedoms?
Edwin Kagin
National Legal Director
American Atheists, Inc.
ekagin@...
