The Constitution of the United States guarantees that the U.S. government shall not abridge any expression of religion (covered under free speech), nor establish a state religion (the “Establishment Clause”). As “Bob Park”:http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn092906.html pointed out this week, and as I had heard would happen, the House of Representatives passed a bill entitled the “Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006”. This act (H.R. 2679), while has a longer title than that also covers Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Veterans’ Memorials (the only thing missing are puppies), amends the “Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights” and prevents the plaintiff in an action claiming violation of the Establishment Clause from collecting damages to cover legal fees.
In other words, if the local Congressman decided to place a banner over his office door that read, “Iraq: It’s What Jesus Would Do” and I sue (because this implies that the Congressman believes Jesus should dictate U.S. foreign policy, establishing Christianity as the state religion) I cannot recoupe my legal fees. The argument is rational: if you *choose* to bring suit against a public entity over violation of the establishment clause, why should they pay for your choice? On the other hand, the reason reveals the fallacy: this implies that public officials are free to establish state religions, and I would be punished for legally pointing the finger at their Constitutional violation. The only money I could collect would be related to “…injunctive and declaratory relief…”.
Again, reason dominates this argument. Since establishing a state religion doesn’t cost me money, I am not financially harmed and thus cannot collect money from the guilty party (unless they levied taxes under some Biblical code, which would then count as “injunctive and declaratory” relief). But again, the reason reveals the fallacy: this points once more to the fact that this new law would punish the behavior of good citizens upholding the Constitution, who would have to spend money on a good lawyer to counter the better lawyer of the public official.
All of this brings me to my final thought: our government spends so much time protecting religion, as if religion were some helpless entity awash in a sea of prejudice in this country. What frustrates me is that Congress takes a hands-off attitude when it comes to protecting the existence of established science in our educational system, but a hands-on attitude when it comes to punishing citizens who would bring suit against a judge who claims our legal code comes only from the Bible. If fair and balanced were ever needed, it would be in the protection of religious freedom as a personal freedom, maintaining the state as a secular insitution, and protecting the science education system as a means of preparing students for the real practice of science.
The full text of H.R. 2679 is available in “wp-content/uploads/hr2679.html”:wp-content/uploads/hr2679.html
“http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn092906.html”:http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn092906.html
