Discover the GOPUSA Forum!

Discover the GOPUSA Forum! GOPUSA is a great place for news and commentary. It is also a great place for discussions! Have an issue on your mind? Want to discuss and debate it? Want to share thoughts on current events in a friendly atmosphere? The GOPUSA Forum is the place for you!

Printer-Friendly Version

(AgapePress) -- Some U.S. senators this week have heard testimony from both sides on a piece of legislation that would strip legal fees from church-state lawsuits. Such legal victories, often described as "Establishment Clause" cases, have provided the American Civil Liberties Union with millions of dollars in profits as it pursues numerous cases challenging public displays of religious belief in America.

Senator Sam Brownback (Rep.-KS) says public officials who fear costly litigation often cave in to the mere threat of lawsuits alleging violation of the separation of church and state. That is why he is sponsoring a Senate bill that would block plaintiffs from collecting attorneys fees for lawsuits alleging "establishment of religion."

The Public Expressions of Religion Act (PERA) (S. 3696) was the topic of discussion at hearings on Wednesday (August 2) before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. The U.S. House is considering similar legislation (H.R. 2679) that is sponsored by Indiana Congressman John Hostettler. Brownback has made it clear in recent weeks that if groups like the ACLU want to sue city after city for displays of religious images, it should be on their own dime -- not at taxpayers' expense.

At yesterday's hearing, Brownback said attorneys fees should not be awarded to plaintiffs who file lawsuits alleging violation of separation of church and state. "Many jurisdictions simply acquiesce to the demands of the ACLU and prohibit all displays of religious faith in order to avoid the potential expense of litigation," the senator said. "Legal fees is the threat that the ACLU uses."

Such fees, he said, were never meant to be awarded in cases charging government with establishment of religion. "Congress's intent in passing the fee-shifting statute in 1976 was to prevent racial injustice and discrimination," the lawmaker pointed out. "Thirty years later these laws are being used simply to purge religious faith -- and symbols of any faith -- from our society at taxpayer expense."

But Melissa Rogers, a professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University, defended the fees, saying they are appropriate to discourage government from promoting religion. "I do not want the government to be involved in promoting the cross and the gospel," Rogers stated. "That is my job as a Christian; that is not the government's job."

And in the educator's opinion, religion that is promoted by the government runs the risk of being corrupted. "I am very fearful that the day the government gets its hands on the cross is the day that the cross is used as a means to a political end," she said.

But American Legion lawyer Rees Lloyd charged that lucrative lawsuits -- like the 17-year battle challenging San Diego's Mount Soledad cross -- sometimes are used as a threat against municipalities. He cites as another example a legal threat that prompted the City of Los Angeles to remove a cross from its county symbol. "That is the kind of hocus-pocus that is going on to accommodate views that I think are absolutely in the extreme," the attorney said, "and it made the ACLU the Taliban of American liberal secularism."

>> Continued -- Page 1 2

Copyright © 2006 AgapePress -- All rights reserved.