[ alert: the
co-sponsor of HR 2679, John Hostettler ( Indiana 8th District ) is in a tight race vs.
Brad Ellsworth, and I'm sure Ellsworth's campaign could use a hand or a $...
Who is John Hostettler ? - well, see my writeup,
Theocrat On Display ? : US Rep. John Hostettler, Indiana 8th District. Mr. Hostettler's views are - let me say -
not fully mainstream. If you are concerned about HR 2679 after reading this diary,
intercaust has provided an easy method or contacting your political rep.,via this convenient
form from Americans United For The Separation Of Church and State.
[ note: I'm getting ready to make a transition, on dKos. I already blog under my own name - Bruce Wilson - elsewhere but I'm currently branded here as "Troutfishing". That's kind of silly at this point given that I've been public about my identity for close to a year and a half on other forums. ]
OK. Back on September 14th I posted a recommended diary about the coming House vote on HR 2679, a bill that is titled the "Public Expression of Religion Act" and which I re-dubbed ( correctly, I believe ) the "Christian Supremacy Act". HR 2679 - which is coming to the House floor for a vote today - is the main point of this post, so please scroll down to the headline "HR 2679" to avoid my preface of the next few paragraphs. IN short, HR 2679 is a vicious piece of legislation to enable the sort of religious supremacy and Christian nationalism that has hounded Americans from their homes and cadets from the US air force.
Now, first let me mention that I was at a major, star studded Washington D.C. Christian nationalist conference over the weekend, at the Omni hotel, dubbed the 2006 Values Voters Summit and I had planned to write something for dKos on that.
A bit on the conference I'm not writing about:
For an expert asessment of the conference by a Christian-right watcher with 3 decades of experience, see Chip Berlet's New Front in the Culture War: Gay Rights to be Sacrificed on the Altar of the Mid-Term Elections. There were several US Senators in attendance - Sam Brownback of Kansas, James Inhofe of Oklahoma ( Inhofe gave a speech calling Global Warming a UN-fostered hoax. Sen. George Allen of Virginia, and Sen. Rick Santorum ( in spirit - Santorum had a family emergency and couldn't make it but he sent a video speech ). Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were there, Bill Bennett too ( Bennett called for the levelling of Iraqi cities ), and Tony Snow gave a hummdinger of a speech as did Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Ron Luce, on and on and on... It was an historic 'whip up the troops and GOTV' conference for the Christian right, and I was planning today on writing up some of the important aspects of the conference ( as I see them ) in a dKos post.
BUT.....
I've postponed that plan ( though many truly appalling things were said at the conference, I can assure you )
WHY ?...HR 2679 is a bigger deal
HR 2679
Don Byrd, writing for The Baptist Joint Committee For Religious Liberty blog, has sent out an alert that HR 2679 will come up for a House Vote tomorrow. For more on the bill - see my dKos post H.R. 2679, The "Christian Supremacy Act", To Hit House Floor. Some dKos members who responded to that recommended dKos dairy of mine were under the impression that HR 2679 concerned nothing more than crosses and creches in literal public squares. That is incorrect. HR 2679 applies to ALL establishent clause cases and represents a full frontal assault on the already seriously compromised line between separation of church and state in America.
Here is an excerpt from a press release sent out by Don Byrd's group:
The measure would severely weaken the Establishment Clause's religious liberty protections--keeping government from interfering with religion, guarding against the government's use of religion for political purposes, and ensuring that government does not act in a way that prefers one religion over another.
...The legislation, which singles out Establishment Clause claims for special ill-treatment, limits the types of relief that may be granted and would prevent courts from awarding attorneys' fees to those who bring successful challenges under the Establishment Clause. It would thus undermine fundamental constitutional protections that have allowed generous religious expression in the public square by individuals and religious communities, while keeping the government from taking sides in matters of religion.
...Religious expression is not threatened by the enforcement of the Establishment Clause, but it is protected by it.
The protections of the First Amendment, however, are not self-enforcing. If someone is forced to sue the government to enjoy their constitutional rights, justice and fundamental fairness dictate they be able to recover their legal fees expended to do so.
Governmental entities should be encouraged to uphold constitutional values, not invited to ignore them. Yet, passage of the legislation would encourage elected officials to violate the Establishment Clause whenever they find it politically advantageous to do so.
Writing in an earlier, June 30th post at Talk To Action, Don Byrd summed up the critical aspect of HR 2679 better than I possibly could have:
As I posted earlier at the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty's blog, House Republicans have announced their legislative plan for the rest of the summer, leading up to the mid-term elections in November. Hidden in the "American Values Agenda," amid the traditional fare is HR 2679, the "Public Expression of Religion Act." The bill, which got a hearing in the House Constitution Subcommittee last week, would keep state and local governments from having to pay damages or attorney's fees as a result of violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Think about that. Imagine your local government decides to teach a version of creationism in science class, or promote atheism in social studies, lead evangelistic prayers during official government meetings, or offer government grants for Christian conversion efforts. This bill would effectively remove your ability to hold the government accountable. And, to add insult to that injury to your religious liberty (...and it is your religious liberty. When the religious freedom of any of us is threatened, we are all threatened.), you as the plaintiff would be required to pay the massive legal fees it takes to bring such a lawsuit proving unconstitutional actions.
Maybe most troubling is the case of one-time incidents, in which it is too late for injunctive relief to offer any help; damages and the recovery of attorney's fees are the only deterring tool available. Without them, and if this bill is passed, governments which have been proved to have violated religious liberty rights suffer no judicial consequences beyond a declaration that they were wrong. Absent the risk of lawsuits and damages, there would be precious little practical protection for religious freedom under the Establishment Clause.
As hearing panelist Marc Stern (Counsel for the American Jewish Congress) said of PERA [my transcription], in response to a question from Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), "It is an open invitation for people to defy the Constitution in the interest of political convenience at their will."