There are a couple of quick actions at the bottom of this post. Also, in general the best way to effect this issue is to spread news of this bill in conjunction with the story of what happened in the "Indian River Incident" For some spice, you could also throw in a "why should we trust the GOP on S 3696 anyway ? - Look at that Mark Foley thing ! Plus, why should we trust a political party that profited from forced abortions and sex slavery ? The Republicans use gratuitious non sequitors all the time, and we can too ! ]

Introducing S 3696, big brother to H.R. 2679

Today I was shocked to discover that H.R. 2679, "The Public Expression Of Religion Act" has a COMPANION bill in the Senate, S 3696, that could come up for a vote after the November senate recess.

I submit that when "Democrats" sell out to the religious right, this is no longer a red vs. blue issue, but an issue that deals with our core values as Americans. If these so-called "Democrats" have a problem with our Constitution, then let them come out and say so. But instead, they pay lip service to the First Amendment while repeatedly selling out to the Religious Right.

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.  [...]

Despite the effectiveness of this statute, conservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision. For instance, a lawyer who successfully challenged unconstitutional prayers in schools or unconstitutional symbols on religious property or impermissible aid to religious groups would -- under the bill -- not be entitled to recover attorneys' fees. The bill, if enacted, would treat suits to enforce the Establishment Clause different from litigation to enforce all of the other provisions of the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes.

Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. Since they cannot change the law of the Establishment Clause by statute, they have turned their attention to trying to prevent its enforcement by eliminating the possibility for recovery of attorneys' fees.

Those who successfully prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees. Few people can afford to do so. Without the possibility of attorneys' fees, individuals who suffer unconstitutional religious persecution often will be unable to sue. The bill applies even to cases involving illegal religious coercion of public school children or blatant discrimination against particular religions.

As Chemerinksy points out, this bill is a "disturbing achievement" for the theocrats.  Theirs is a movement that is not just anti-lawyer, but decidedly anti-law.  Well, anti-Constitutional law.  Biblical law--or rather, their interpretation of Biblical law--is just fine.  

What we see in H.R. 2679 is the conservatives' "erosion strategy" at work.  It's used by radical conservatives on a myriad of issues.  On abortion, for example, the tactic works to chip away at the right to choose until abortion, for all intents and purposes, becomes impractical, if not impossible.  On privacy, they have nibbled away at the core protections of the Fourth Amendment, and have sought to prevent citizens from litigating domestic spying cases.  And now, on the separation of church and state, the erosion strategy aims to dissuade patriots from enforcing the Establishment Clause.  

Wholesale rejection of the Constitution is not possible, legislatively speaking.  So the radical conservatives have taken the scenic route to destroying that document.  Via bills like H.R. 2679, they seek to make fundamental constitutional mandates unenforceable.  And in stripping the Constitution of its force and effect, they undermine the very notion of American democracy as well.

Which is just fine by them, since it's a theocracy they desire.

Here is the link to the roll call vote for H.R. 2679. The bill passed the House 244-173.  Twenty-nine Democrats voted for the bill.

Update: To see just how disturbing this bill really is, check out the House report on the bill. Most notably, there were several amendments offered in committee to try and temper the effects of the bill. For example, the committee rejected an amendment by Rep. Nadler that would have exempted from the bill cases "involving a declaration of an official religion."

More from the report below...

Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society. - D. James Kennedy

[ UPDATE, and a cautionary note --

First: is this bill just about religious displays in literal "public squares" ? No, it is vastly farther reaching. H.R. 2679 is sponsored by John Hostettler (Rep Indiana 8th District) currently in a tight race with Dem challenger Brad Ellsworth (see this dKos story re Ellsworth vs. Hostettler**) and is designed to gut the Establishment Clause, to render it largely meaningless. See text of bill, below.]

Receiving subcommittee action last week was H.R.2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act.  This piece of legislation is brief, and designed to chip away at the foundation of the First Amendment by excluding compensation for prosecuting attacks on the establishment clause.

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees. [emphasis mine]

The purpose and support for this legislation is very clear.  The very threat of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) can prevent violations of the First Amendment's establishment clause.  Please read below about this attempt to nullify First Amendment protections.

Think about it....

Well, in the end what prevents, for example, legislators at whatever level of government from voting for spend taxpayer dollars on programs that would seek to convert citizens to one  particular religion, or interpretation of a religious tradition, is quite simply... lawsuits.

Think about it :

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.