WP: House Passes Measure on Religion Lawsuits

[DeepModem Mom]

House Passes Measure on Religion Suits
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A04

The House passed a bill yesterday that would bar judges from awarding legal fees to the American Civil Liberties Union and similar groups that sue municipalities for violating the Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion.

Though the bill would prevent plaintiffs from recovering legal costs in any lawsuit based on the Establishment Clause, House Republicans said during a floor debate that it was particularly aimed at organizations that force the removal of Nativity scenes and Ten Commandments monuments from public property.

"Liberal groups . . . scour the country looking to sue cities and states with any kind of religious display, regardless of how popular these displays are," said Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.). Because judges often require municipalities that lose such lawsuits to reimburse their opponents' legal fees, "citizens' precious monuments are being eroded with their own tax dollars," she added.

The bill, called the Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act, passed 244 to 173 on a mostly party-line vote.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office, said the measure is "election-year red meat for the Christian right, because they've been complaining they haven't gotten enough from this Congress."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601486.html

[aquart]

1. Discriminatory, just a bit, would you say?

Segregating religious lawsuits from others? What else will they edge into that special category?

This is Congress making law about religion.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. You're right; this is a direct violation of Article One

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...etc.

This is a law that favors religion over other organizations, and that establishes it as special. If individuals in a city or state want to display religious symbols, they should do it on private property with private funds. To do so on public land with taxpayers' money is an endorsement of the particular faith, and that's a direct violation of Article One.

It's not "ceremonial deism" or any other hogwash like that, it's an attempt to theocratize the country and marginalize those who don't go along with the belief. All of these little encroachments get used as excuses for more intrusion in the future. How many times have we heard that the existence of "In God We Trust" on currency is proof that we're a nation of believers?

Article One isn't about any particular religion, it's about the concept itself.

Nobody I've heard of advocates anti-religious displays, they just want "religion neutral" ones.

[Lefty-Taylor]

2. Holy shit! Let's hope the Senate trashes this un-American and surely

unconstitutional legislation.

[PSPS]

3. It will.

This is just something to "brag" about to their fundie base before the midterms.

[VegasWolf]

4. Sick republicans putting religion up on some kind of pedestal. nt

[HereSince1628]

5. If you can't make it legal, take away the penalty...

Ever wonder when the ORCs (Offensive Republican Corps) will start wearing brown shirts and armbands onto the House floor?

[Joe Bacon]

6. They already wear crosses.

And they'll put on the Bedsheets after Diebold rigs another election.