Legislating Violations of the Constitution | By Erwin Chemerinsky | Special to washingtonpost.com | Saturday, September 30, 2006; 12:00 AM
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.
A federal statute, 42 United States Code section 1988, provides that attorneys are entitled to recover compensation for their fees if they successfully represent a plaintiff asserting a violation of his or her constitutional or civil rights. For example, a lawyer who successfully sues on behalf of a victim of racial discrimination or police abuse is entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendant who acted wrongfully. Any plaintiff who successfully sues to remedy a violation of the Constitution or a federal civil rights statute is entitled to have his or her attorney's fees paid. ...
...
Without this statute, there is no way to compensate attorneys who successfully sue for injunctions to stop unconstitutional government behavior. Congress rightly recognized that attorneys who bring such actions are serving society's interests by stopping the government from violating the Constitution. Indeed, the potential for such suits deters government wrong-doing and increases the likelihood that the Constitution will be followed.
...
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. ...
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Judge received death threats after ruling on intelligent design
Posted on Wed, Sep. 27, 2006 | Judge received death threats after ruling on intelligent design | Associated Press
LAWRENCE, Kan. - A judge who struck down a Dover, Penn., school board's decision to teach intelligent design in public schools said he was stunned by the reaction, which included death threats and a week of protection from federal marshals.
Pennsylvania U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III told an audience in Lawrence Tuesday that the case illustrated why judges must issue rulings free of political whims or hopes of receiving a favor.
In a 139-page decision last year, Jones ruled that the Dover school board intended to promote religion when it instituted a policy requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. He ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
"And if you would have told me when I got on the bench four years ago that I would have death threats in a case like this as opposed to, for example, a crack cocaine case where I mete out a heavy sentence, I would have told you that you were crazy," he said. "But I did. And that's a sad statement."
Jones' ruling drew attention in Kansas, which was involved in a controversy over evolution last year, after the Kansas State Board of Education inserted criticisms of evolution into the state's science standards. ...
LAWRENCE, Kan. - A judge who struck down a Dover, Penn., school board's decision to teach intelligent design in public schools said he was stunned by the reaction, which included death threats and a week of protection from federal marshals.
Pennsylvania U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III told an audience in Lawrence Tuesday that the case illustrated why judges must issue rulings free of political whims or hopes of receiving a favor.
In a 139-page decision last year, Jones ruled that the Dover school board intended to promote religion when it instituted a policy requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. He ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
"And if you would have told me when I got on the bench four years ago that I would have death threats in a case like this as opposed to, for example, a crack cocaine case where I mete out a heavy sentence, I would have told you that you were crazy," he said. "But I did. And that's a sad statement."
Jones' ruling drew attention in Kansas, which was involved in a controversy over evolution last year, after the Kansas State Board of Education inserted criticisms of evolution into the state's science standards. ...
Monday, September 18, 2006
ANTI-MOSLEM PROPGANDA ON THE RISE ... Rehov is a radical Zionist Jew who has written mainly about the plight of Israel ... few inaccuracies in Rehov's
ANTI-MOSLEM PROPGANDA ON THE RISE | Malcom Lagauche | September 15, 2006
Since 9-11-2001, we have seen anti-Moslem feelings rise immensely. Today, Moslems suffer the brunt of sick jokes and racist remarks, as well as violent actions. The general public in the U.S. is becoming much better at a trait in which it leads the world: xenophobia. A day doesn’t go by that is free of anti-Moslem statements, whether in a joke or in a speech of a politician.
I am the president of the Atheist Coalition of San Diego and I am active in civil rights for atheists. By law, in the U.S., we are not equal to believers.
Atheists do not believe in God. It’s a simple philosophy that believers have a hard time understanding. For some reason, people with a religion (mostly Christians) try to preach to us and show us the errors of our ways. Maybe someday they will have real faith in their religions and realize they don’t have to mouth off every few minutes about their faith.
We have a Yahoo group in which people post relevant articles. For instance, an atheist family in Oklahoma has recently undergone a terrible ordeal. The daughter, a high school cheerleader, was cut from the squad because she refused to say a prayer before a performance. When the father protested, he was accused of assault. Then, school officials made a "deal" for them. They would drop all charges if the family left town within one week. The family did not leave town. They fought the accusations in court and won. They did not back down.
Stories like this are posted on our Yahoo group. But, a few days ago, I was shocked to read a posting of an interview with a French film-maker. It is one of the most disgusting pieces I have seen about Moslems. Here is the piece. It is fairly long, but well worth the read.
...
I was aghast that an atheist would post such an interview. I researched Rehov’s career and discovered he is a rabid anti-Arab person and a militant Zionist. In addition, those in the U.S. who admire him are of the far right wing and Christian Dominionists (those who believe that the end of the world is near). Also, Jospeh Farah, the biggest right-wing nut case alive is a supporter of Rehov. Farah makes Pat Robertson seem like a radical left-wing civil rights activist.
It may seem odd that an atheist would be so upset about denigrating Islam, but atheists, for the most part, are not bigots. And, we are religiously neutral. Here is the response I sent to the person who posted the biased interview:
I read the interview with Pierre Rehov that you published on the Atheist Coalition group page. Did you do any research into Rehov? Or into the U.S. Congressman, Eric Cantor, whom he cites? The interview is outrageous in its assumptions and supposed facts.
Rehov is a radical Zionist Jew who has written mainly about the plight of Israel. His words are about as legitimate as if Osama Bin-Laden gave an interview on Jews. Cantor is a Zionist member of Congress who is considered the most pro-Israel member of the House. But, it is his other views that are scary: he is anti-immigration and supports the Minutemen; he supports the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; he opposed same-sex marriage and stem cell research; he has voted to eliminate any public funding for family planning (home and abroad); he voting record received a high 92% from the Christian Coalition. These are not the views of someone whom an atheist would cite for anything.
I will only bring out a few inaccuracies in Rehov's article. It would take me too much time to refute them all. He puts all Moslems in the same bag for everything. If you notice his words, they all adhere to the exact same philosophy.
Here is a preposterous statement:
The U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi
In reality, Israel has thumbed its nose at the U.N. Currently, there are at least 62 U.N. resolutions of which Israel is in violation. If the U.S. wants to bomb a country, it will cite one resolution of a country and use it as justification. However, it is mute on the 62 Israeli violations.
He mentions the 72 virgins that Moslems get on entering heaven. This is not true. There is nothing in the Koran or in any Islamic works that mention 72 virgins. This is just a convenient story made up to denigrate Moslems.
He says that Saddam Hussein paid suicide bombers' families $25.000. Again, this is a twisting of a fact. The Iraq government gave $25,000 to any Palestinian family who had a family member killed by Israelis. This included Christian families as well as Moslem families. From the time of 1999 to 2004, Palestinians killed 1,500 Israelis. This fact is brought up constantly by Israel. However, little mention is made of the number of Palestinians killed by Israel during this time. It exceed 10,000 deaths. That's a lot more than 1,500.
Rehov says all suicide bombings are for religion, not land. He is way off. Not one Moslem wants to convert Jews to Islam, and not one Jew wants to convert Moslems to Judaism. It is all about land and oppression, not religion. ...
...
Bigotry in the U.S. against Moslems is ascending rapidly. The stereotypes of Islam mentioned at all levels of U.S. society are ridiculous. However, the results are diabolical and will lead to many more violent incidents.
As an atheist, I do not admire certain tenets of Islam, as well as those of Christianity or Judaism. But, I would never use bogus arguments to denigrate anyone of any religion.
In my experiences with Moslems, I have had many an intelligent conversation in which the Moslem respects me and I respect him/her. Unfortunately, I have to say that I have had many negative conversations with Christians. To many of them, atheists represent all that is vile in society, yet they know nothing about atheism.
The interview I posted with Rehov has been widely circulated. Many right-wing Christian sites have run it. To them, it justifies their suspicion of Islam. To millions of people, Rehov’s views are the gospel. He said what the Christian fanatics want to hear. Unfortunately, it will take years to undo the harm done in one interview. ...
Since 9-11-2001, we have seen anti-Moslem feelings rise immensely. Today, Moslems suffer the brunt of sick jokes and racist remarks, as well as violent actions. The general public in the U.S. is becoming much better at a trait in which it leads the world: xenophobia. A day doesn’t go by that is free of anti-Moslem statements, whether in a joke or in a speech of a politician.
I am the president of the Atheist Coalition of San Diego and I am active in civil rights for atheists. By law, in the U.S., we are not equal to believers.
Atheists do not believe in God. It’s a simple philosophy that believers have a hard time understanding. For some reason, people with a religion (mostly Christians) try to preach to us and show us the errors of our ways. Maybe someday they will have real faith in their religions and realize they don’t have to mouth off every few minutes about their faith.
We have a Yahoo group in which people post relevant articles. For instance, an atheist family in Oklahoma has recently undergone a terrible ordeal. The daughter, a high school cheerleader, was cut from the squad because she refused to say a prayer before a performance. When the father protested, he was accused of assault. Then, school officials made a "deal" for them. They would drop all charges if the family left town within one week. The family did not leave town. They fought the accusations in court and won. They did not back down.
Stories like this are posted on our Yahoo group. But, a few days ago, I was shocked to read a posting of an interview with a French film-maker. It is one of the most disgusting pieces I have seen about Moslems. Here is the piece. It is fairly long, but well worth the read.
...
I was aghast that an atheist would post such an interview. I researched Rehov’s career and discovered he is a rabid anti-Arab person and a militant Zionist. In addition, those in the U.S. who admire him are of the far right wing and Christian Dominionists (those who believe that the end of the world is near). Also, Jospeh Farah, the biggest right-wing nut case alive is a supporter of Rehov. Farah makes Pat Robertson seem like a radical left-wing civil rights activist.
It may seem odd that an atheist would be so upset about denigrating Islam, but atheists, for the most part, are not bigots. And, we are religiously neutral. Here is the response I sent to the person who posted the biased interview:
I read the interview with Pierre Rehov that you published on the Atheist Coalition group page. Did you do any research into Rehov? Or into the U.S. Congressman, Eric Cantor, whom he cites? The interview is outrageous in its assumptions and supposed facts.
Rehov is a radical Zionist Jew who has written mainly about the plight of Israel. His words are about as legitimate as if Osama Bin-Laden gave an interview on Jews. Cantor is a Zionist member of Congress who is considered the most pro-Israel member of the House. But, it is his other views that are scary: he is anti-immigration and supports the Minutemen; he supports the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; he opposed same-sex marriage and stem cell research; he has voted to eliminate any public funding for family planning (home and abroad); he voting record received a high 92% from the Christian Coalition. These are not the views of someone whom an atheist would cite for anything.
I will only bring out a few inaccuracies in Rehov's article. It would take me too much time to refute them all. He puts all Moslems in the same bag for everything. If you notice his words, they all adhere to the exact same philosophy.
Here is a preposterous statement:
The U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi
In reality, Israel has thumbed its nose at the U.N. Currently, there are at least 62 U.N. resolutions of which Israel is in violation. If the U.S. wants to bomb a country, it will cite one resolution of a country and use it as justification. However, it is mute on the 62 Israeli violations.
He mentions the 72 virgins that Moslems get on entering heaven. This is not true. There is nothing in the Koran or in any Islamic works that mention 72 virgins. This is just a convenient story made up to denigrate Moslems.
He says that Saddam Hussein paid suicide bombers' families $25.000. Again, this is a twisting of a fact. The Iraq government gave $25,000 to any Palestinian family who had a family member killed by Israelis. This included Christian families as well as Moslem families. From the time of 1999 to 2004, Palestinians killed 1,500 Israelis. This fact is brought up constantly by Israel. However, little mention is made of the number of Palestinians killed by Israel during this time. It exceed 10,000 deaths. That's a lot more than 1,500.
Rehov says all suicide bombings are for religion, not land. He is way off. Not one Moslem wants to convert Jews to Islam, and not one Jew wants to convert Moslems to Judaism. It is all about land and oppression, not religion. ...
...
Bigotry in the U.S. against Moslems is ascending rapidly. The stereotypes of Islam mentioned at all levels of U.S. society are ridiculous. However, the results are diabolical and will lead to many more violent incidents.
As an atheist, I do not admire certain tenets of Islam, as well as those of Christianity or Judaism. But, I would never use bogus arguments to denigrate anyone of any religion.
In my experiences with Moslems, I have had many an intelligent conversation in which the Moslem respects me and I respect him/her. Unfortunately, I have to say that I have had many negative conversations with Christians. To many of them, atheists represent all that is vile in society, yet they know nothing about atheism.
The interview I posted with Rehov has been widely circulated. Many right-wing Christian sites have run it. To them, it justifies their suspicion of Islam. To millions of people, Rehov’s views are the gospel. He said what the Christian fanatics want to hear. Unfortunately, it will take years to undo the harm done in one interview. ...
New Documentary Features Controversial Bible Camp, Evangelical Movement ... "We're kinda being trained to be warriors,
Film Shows Youths Training to Fight for Jesus | By DAN HARRIS | New Documentary Features Controversial Bible Camp, Evangelical Movement
Sept. 17, 2006 — An in-your-face documentary out this weekend is raising eyebrows, raising hackles and raising questions about evangelizing to young people.
Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush — these are some of the activities at Pastor Becky Fischer's Bible camp in North Dakota, "Kids on Fire," subject of the provocative new documentary, "Jesus Camp."
"I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."
"A lot of people die for God," one camper said, "and they're not afraid."
"We're kinda being trained to be warriors," said another, "only in a funner way."
The film has caused a split among evangelicals. Some say it's designed to demonize. Others have embraced it, including Fischer, who's helping promote the film. ...
Sept. 17, 2006 — An in-your-face documentary out this weekend is raising eyebrows, raising hackles and raising questions about evangelizing to young people.
Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush — these are some of the activities at Pastor Becky Fischer's Bible camp in North Dakota, "Kids on Fire," subject of the provocative new documentary, "Jesus Camp."
"I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."
"A lot of people die for God," one camper said, "and they're not afraid."
"We're kinda being trained to be warriors," said another, "only in a funner way."
The film has caused a split among evangelicals. Some say it's designed to demonize. Others have embraced it, including Fischer, who's helping promote the film. ...
Friday, September 15, 2006
ush said yesterday that he senses a "Third Awakening" of religious devotion in the United States ...[coincident with "war" on terror.! ed]
Bush Tells Group He Sees a 'Third Awakening'
By Peter Baker |Washington Post Staff Writer |Wednesday, September 13, 2006; Page A05
President Bush said yesterday that he senses a "Third Awakening" of religious devotion in the United States that has coincided with the nation's struggle with international terrorists, a war that he depicted as "a confrontation between good and evil."
Bush told a group of conservative journalists that he notices more open expressions of faith among people he meets during his travels, and he suggested that might signal a broader revival similar to other religious movements in history. Bush noted that some of Abraham Lincoln's strongest supporters were religious people "who saw life in terms of good and evil" and who believed that slavery was evil. Many of his own supporters, he said, see the current conflict in similar terms.
"A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me," Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. "There was a stark change between the culture of the '50s and the '60s -- boom -- and I think there's change happening here," he added. "It seems to me that there's a Third Awakening."
The First Great Awakening refers to a wave of Christian fervor in the American colonies from about 1730 to 1760, while the Second Great Awakening is generally believed to have occurred from 1800 to 1830. ...
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
ame time, Gingrich was having an affair with a House staffer ...
Hypocrites and GOP values
Just when you thought Republicans couldn't say or do anything worse than in the past few months, two of them stepped over the line with gusto.
I'm talking about former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chair of the Broadcast Board of Governors, which controls Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other entities.
Gingrich, a Georgian flirting with a run for president in 2008, let his mouth run--again. At a party fundraiser in South Carolina, he said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California and currently minority leader, would bring "San Francisco values" to the House if Democrats regain control of the chamber.
What about "Gingrich values"? Forced to leave the House under a cloud of ethics problems, he sent all the wrong signals of conduct to members of his own party.
The thrice-married Gingrich was a cheerleader for the impeachment of President Clinton since the moralistic Republicans were outraged over his dalliances with Monica Lewinsky.
At the same time, Gingrich was having an affair with a House staffer. His middle name should be hypocrite. By the way, the aforementioned Pelosi has had one husband for a long time and not been touched by scandal.
...
Tomlinson, a former editor of Reader's Digest and a pal of Karl Rove's, must think a federal post is an entitlement program.
He has been accused of misusing taxpayer money, overbilling the government, and giving improper aid to a friend. One issue is that he signed invoices of nearly $250,000 for a friendly provider without the approval of the board. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)