– Updated: July 26, 2006

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO VOTE ON HR 2679 THURSDAY!

The House Committee on the Judiciary is expected to vote on HR 2679, the “Public Expression of Religion” Act tomorrow, Thursday, July 27, 2006. Members of the Committee and the House at large need to hear from us NOW to stop this dangerous legislation! Please read and circulate this Action Alert – and contact your Congressional Representative.

– Updated: July 11, 2006

DEFEAT CONGRESSIONAL MOVE TO END LEGAL FEES FOR FIRST AMENDMENT LITIGATION!

“Public Expression of Religion Act” threatens separation, encourages government prayer bullying!

In Washington, House Republicans have launched a campaign to fast-track several bills affecting our constitutional separation of church and state. The “American Values Agenda” includes a measure to protect “unborn children,” ban cloning and penalize legal challenges to violations of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

A bill introduced by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) would amend a section of the United States Code and eliminate attorney fees in legal cases where government violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

H.R. 2679, disingenuously titled the “Public Expression of Religion Act” claims that attorneys working for organizations that defend the First Amendment and challenge unconstitutional governmental practices in respect to religion are enriching themselves and even violating the rights of believers. The American Legion has launched a national campaign to support PERA, and is calling for “a ground swell of public demand on lawmakers” to pass the bill immediately. A “guide” to PERA issued by this group states: “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.”

The House Judiciary Committee recently held a little-publicized, one-day hearing on the “Public Expression of Religion Act.” Only one of the four experts invited to give testimony spoke out against the legislation. American Atheists expects the committee to vote shortly on PERA. The measure could then move to the full House for a floor vote within the next two to three weeks. Congressional representatives need to hear from us now regarding this dangerous, unconstitutional measure!

Pera is About Government Promotion of Religion, Not “EXPRESSION OF RELIGION”

American Atheists President Ellen Johnson says that the Hostettler measure “is not for the benefit of the taxpayer, but for government and religious leaders who insist on eroding the wall of separation between church and state.”

“They know, as do we, that most attorneys are simply unable to work on long-term, complex litigation if they don’t receive some compensatory fee,” Johnson noted. “We’re not talking about donating a few free hours ‘to the cause.’ These cases require an enormous amount of time and effort.”

Governments are often quite willing to squander taxpayer funds in order to defend their unconstitutional practices. The Hostettler bill conveniently ignores this fact.

“Whether it is school prayer or defending a religious monument in the public square, state and local governments are frequently very short-sighted and belligerent when caught doing something that violates the First Amendment,” said Johnson. “If the Legion and Rep. Hostettler really wish to save all of us some money, they should work to stop unconstitutional practices that promote religion.”

Congress Needs to Hear From Us Now to Stop the PERA

Once Again, Atheists, freethinkers, Humanists and other non-believers must speak out and tell our elected representatives in Washington, DC that we oppose legislation aimed at eroding the separation of church and state – bills like the “Public Expression of Religion Act”!

• PERA lowers the penalty bar when government is caught in flagrant violation of the Establishment Clause.
• The bill penalizes attorneys and organizations that defend the separation of church and state, but does nothing to prevent political leaders from draining the public treasury to defend unconstitutional practices in court.
• This legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate religious expression. It is all about government sponsorship and promotion of religion.
• Contact your congressional representative now!
• Check out our “Tips on Contacting Congress” Page
• Be sure to ask for a written response to your concerns. Make your letters, faxes and e-mail concise and to-the-point. Be polite. Be sure to sign your communique.
• Share you letter and any responses you receive and we will post them on this web site
• Spread this Action Alert! If you are in an Atheist/freethought group, consider posting this message to your newsletter, web site and e-mail lists. Urge others to circulate this Alert, too!

Letters

Re: “Public Expression of Religion Act”

First of all, are we to expect that a minority class (the typical plaintiff) is going to have the economic might to fight the behemoth of government during litigation when they are being oppressed? Regardless of opinion, the facts of this issue boil down to either of two things. According to the provisions of H.R. 2679:

• Government may violate people's civil rights in religious intrusion cases as long as the oppressed citizens don't have the money to litigate against such discrimination, or;
• A court's decision must be incorrect anytime they find the government has overstepped their bounds and infringed on citizens' religious liberties, and therefore the plaintiffs' counsel doesn't deserve to be compensated.

The problem with case number one is obvious -- that we would be creating a scenario where only the "rich" are afforded the protections of the Constitution's Bill of Rights in religious establishment clause violations.

The problem with case number two is that the universal assumption that the courts are rendering incorrect decisions is not one for the other branches of government to decide. The courts are there to, among other things, make sure that the other branches of government behave consistent with the law, and to take action if they do not.

In the case of religious establishment clause violations, the courts are declaring that the government has acted in violation of the constitution and infringed on the rights of certain citizens, in the same way that they declare other civil rights violations. Why should these violations be treated any differently?

The obvious truth to this is that a certain class of the majority religion in this country is unhappy that they cannot legislate their religion with impunity on the rest of the populace, and they want to remove all legal roadblocks to their doing so. This should not be permitted.

I strongly encourage you to vote against the inaptly-named “Public Expression of Religion Act” if and when it comes to the floor.

Benjamin C. Pokorny
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
peraletter@pokornys.net

[text only]