Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (FREEPERS stop taxpayer funding of ACLU)
Thomas - Legislative Information for the Public ^ | May 26, 2005 | Rep. Hostettler, John N.

Posted on 05/31/2005 11:46:40 AM PDT by ViLaLuz

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last
To: ViLaLuz
Very interesting excerpt from the previously posted article. A former ACLU attorney supports this bill, and had a hand in getting it going. I'm sure Rees Lloyd intimately understands the motivations and inner workings of the ACLU.

"The [American] Legion passed a resolution calling on Congress to amend 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to bar recovery of attorney fees to the prevailing party in cases filed for the purpose of removing and destroying religious symbols located on public property.

Rees Lloyd, a past commander of a Legion post in Banning, California, and himself a former ACLU attorney, drafted the resolution. This week, U.S. Representative John Hostettler (R-Indiana) is expected to introduce the Public Expression of Religion Act. Its goal is to drive out one incentive to file lawsuits where no one is complaining and no one is actually injured. The ACLU pockets the change even when delegating work to pro bono attorneys."

41 posted on 06/02/2005 4:17:26 AM PDT by ViLaLuz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: All

More information on the topic at hand. Details about ACLU profits are found about halfway through the article:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0083.html

High Noon at Sunrise Rock
CHRISTOPHER LEVENICK

*** If Buono v. Norton stands, the distance between the cross at Sunrise Rock and the headstones at Arlington National Cemetery will have effectively disappeared. It is only a matter of time until someone visits that field of heroes and takes offense at all the religious symbols inscribed in marble. ***

Just west of the California-Nevada border, 11 miles south of the freeway that connects San Diego with Las Vegas, a small hill rises above the sun-baked floor of the Mojave Desert. Atop that hill stands a six-foot cross, fashioned out of four-inch-diameter steel pipe. That dusty hilltop and its lonely marker just might become the scene of the most significant church-state controversy since last year's fight over the Pledge of Allegiance.

In 1934, a gritty prospector named J. Riley Bembry gathered a couple of his fellow World War I veterans at Sunrise Rock. Together they erected the cross, in honor of their fallen comrades. The memorial has been privately maintained ever since, with small groups still occasionally meeting to remember the nation's veterans.

A wrinkle developed in 1994, when the federal government declared the surrounding area a national preserve. With the cross now located on newly public land, the memorial soon caught the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union. Working with Frank Buono, a retired park ranger turned professional activist, the ACLU demanded that the National Park Service tear down the cross.

Mr. Buono insists that his seeing the monument ("two to four times a year") violates his civil rights. A federal district court found in his favor, and the decision was subsequently upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Last-ditch attempts to deed Sunrise Rock over to the local Veterans of Foreign Wars were struck down in April. Defenders of the memorial hope to appeal, but their options are narrowing.

The ACLU, however, has made out quite nicely. Not only has it prevailed in the courts to date, but it has managed to pocket $63,000. Owing to a quirk in civil-rights law, the taxpayer once again ended up paying the ACLU for pressing a highly controversial church-state lawsuit.

The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 specifies that anyone bringing an even partly successful civil-rights suit may have the plaintiff pay all legal fees for both parties, a discretionary award that is routinely granted. Such fee-reversals are not permitted to successful defendants.

Congress meant for the law to help citizens with little or no money, but since then wealthy and powerful organizations have perverted that intention. They use the specter of massive attorney fees to force their secularist agenda on small school districts, cash-strapped municipalities and, now, veterans' memorials. According to Rees Lloyd, a former ACLU staff lawyer, such litigation is "manifestly in terrorem," intended to terrify defendants into settling out of court.

And what if the defendants don't knuckle under? For advocacy groups that use staff or volunteer lawyers as plaintiffs' counsel, the result is pure gravy. If they lose their cases, they have lost no money. If they win, defendants pay attorney's fees at the private sector's market rate, which the advocacy groups can keep for themselves.

Working to amend the Attorney's Fees Award Act is Rep. John Hostettler, a Republican from Indiana. Yesterday, he reintroduced the Public Expression of Religion Act, under which plaintiffs could still ask the courts to prevent governmental endorsement of religion — but could no longer soak the public for the privilege of being sued.

By eliminating the financial incentives for advocacy groups to take on trivial church-state cases, the measure would actually help restore the civil-rights law to its intended purpose. Equally important, it would signal that Congress is exercising its duty to correct the judicial branch when it goes astray of the Constitution.

Such is clearly the case here. If Buono v. Norton stands, the distance between the cross at Sunrise Rock and the headstones at Arlington National Cemetery will have effectively disappeared. It is only a matter of time until someone visits that field of heroes and takes offense at all the religious symbols inscribed in marble. Then the courts will have a hard time devising a principle by which those thousands of crosses on federal land are not as unconstitutional as the one in the desert.

Undoing the unholy mess the courts have made of the Establishment Clause will be the work of many years. In the meantime, Congress should at least deter those who would rather destroy veterans' memorials than allow them any religious symbols whatsoever. As Memorial Day approaches, swatting their hand from the taxpayer's pocket is a good place to start.


42 posted on 06/02/2005 4:42:44 AM PDT by ViLaLuz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

An interview with Rees Lloyd from American Legion Magazine:
http://www.legion.org/?section=publications&subsection=pubs_mag_index&content=pub_mag_values

The American Legion Magazine
May, 2005

The Law Against Values

Attorney Rees Lloyd argues the ACLU should not collect profits from taxpayer-funded fees.

In a remote area of the Mojave Desert, atop a rock outcrop, stands a lone cross. Just two pipes tied together, it was erected by a private citizen in 1934 to honor the service of World War I veterans. But when President Clinton issued an order incorporating the site into the Mojave National Preserve, the American Civil Liberties Union saw a golden opportunity. In 2000, the organization filed a federal suit on behalf of retired Forest Service employee Frank Buono of Oregon, who claims to suffer a civil-rights violation every time he drives back to California and sees the cross. A district court ruled for the ACLU and ordered the cross removed.

So far, due to Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. Code Section 1988, the ACLU has made $63,000 in attorney fees off the case. Although Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., succeeded in passing legislation swapping land with a private owner and placing the cross on private land, to be cared for by veterans, the ACLU is back in court trying to nullify the deal as a First Amendment violation.

Longtime civil-rights attorney Rees Lloyd believes Congress never intended such abuse of the law. A past commander of San Gorgonio Post 428 in Banning, Calif., he authored American Legion Resolution 326, which calls on Congress to amend 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and end judges' authority to award attorney fees in cases brought to remove or destroy religious symbols. In a recent interview, Lloyd explained the purpose of the law and how the ACLU exploits it to impose a secular agenda.

The American Legion Magazine: What is 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, and how does the ACLU profit from it?

Rees Lloyd: The Civil Rights Attorney Fee Act was intended to provide an incentive to attorneys to take on representation of victims of civil-rights violations who could not afford legal counsel and thereby to fulfill the promise of the Civil Rights Act and certain specified federal statutes. Instead, its good intentions have been exploited by the ACLU to reap enormous profits through what I believe is manifestly in terrorem - terrorizing - litigation to enforce its secular political, cultural and social will on elected officials and the American people by lawsuits attacking Boy Scouts and every symbol of America's religious history and heritage in the public square.

While the language of 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 is simple, it has been used and abused by the ACLU, as construed by other unelected lawyers, i.e., judges, who hand out enormous hourly attorney fees to the ACLU in such a way as to defeat the intent of elected representatives of the American people, Congress, and to terrorize elected officials at local levels to cower and surrender. Q. How much has the ACLU received through taxpayer-funded attorney's fees?

A: The ACLU, posturing to the public that it acts on principle and pro bono, in the public interest and without fee, in fact has raked in enormous profits in lawsuits brought under the "establishment clause."

These lawsuits are nationwide, coast to coast, and run literally into millions of dollars in the pockets of the ACLU in "attorney fee awards" - although in fact neither the ACLU nor its mascot plaintiffs have incurred any actual attorney fees.

As a onetime ACLU staff attorney, I know that the ACLU recruits attorneys to take on its cases without fee, and that the ACLU does not charge attorney fees to the persons it uses as plaintiffs.

Large firms often provide attorneys from their pro bono units at no cost to the ACLU; the mascot plaintiffs of the ACLU in fact pay no attorney fees; lawsuits to destroy religious symbols, particularly the Christian cross, are as easy as shooting ducks in a barrel as judges follow precedent, in "judge-made law" pertaining to the meaning of the "establishment clause"; and the ACLU achieves its secular political aims, laughing all the way to the bank.

As to the total amount reaped by the ACLU, I do not know of any definitive study that has gathered up all the attorney-fee awards granted to the ACLU across the nation. It is, however, in the millions.

Q: Why won't judges deny these fees to the ACLU?

A: Congress did not require judges to award attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988. Congress made attorney-fee awards purely discretionary. Judges have interpreted that to mean that a prevailing party is to receive "reasonable" attorney fees, even if there are in fact no actual attorney fees. "Market rate" is used. In large cities, that can be a starting point of about $350 an hour.

So, in practice, what is a "reasonable" attorney fee? Whatever one lawyer, i.e., a judge, wants to give to another lawyer, taxpayers be damned.

As far as is known, not one single judge has ever simply dared to say "no" to the ACLU. Why should they? They are lawyers handing taxpayer funds to other lawyers; the fox is in the chicken coop.

Congress should take back the authority it gave to award such fees and forbid them in cases under the "establishment clause." If such cases must be brought by the ACLU, it should have at least the decency to pay its own way.

Q: Hasn't the ACLU done some good in the past? When did it cross the line? A: I am not an inveterate ACLU-hater. I believe that the ACLU, in the past, did much good, and still can, in defending freedom of speech, which I believe was its primary mission. Many of the early free-speech cases, especially in the area of labor when unions were forming, were won by ordinary working people defended by the ACLU. That I respect and admire.

While I respect that early work of the ACLU, I believe whatever good it did in the past has been vitiated by the harm it has done in the present by its fanatical secularism and apparent abandonment of common sense.

I was admitted to the bar in November 1979 and worked at the ACLU for approximately two years. At that time, there was not a "church-state project" and if there was a focus of "separation of church and state," I was not aware of it, perhaps because of my concentration on rights in the workplace.

But then Hollywood money came in to fund church-state litigation at the ACLU of Southern California. Norman Lear and other millionaires poured money into the ACLU. That influx of Hollywood money, I believe, marked what I now perceive as a crossing of the line into fanatical secular attacks on every symbol of America's religious history and heritage in the public square.

Q: Many charge the ACLU with being "anti-Christian." Is this true?

A: The ACLU is much too politically correct to ever be expressly or rhetorically anti-Christian. It would react with horror to the suggestion that it is impure. But it is objectively anti-Christian. It is indicted by what it does, not by what it says.

The ACLU is quintessentially secular. I totally disassociate myself from attacks on the ACLU that say it is a Jewish organization with an anti-Christian bias. The ACLU's faith is not in Judaism, it is in secularism.

It has to be recognized that the ACLU's mission is political. It is an organization of elitists convinced of their sincerity, goodness, intelligence and right to social-engineer American culture and government without ever having to be elected by the people they would govern, and to accomplish their purpose through people like themselves: equally elitist lawyers sitting as judges over mere mortals.

What common sense would dictate a lawsuit against that lone cross in the Mojave Desert honoring World War I veterans? And persecuting the Boy Scouts? The philosopher George Santyana once said, "Fanaticism is the doubling of passion, while halving reason." There you have modern ACLU fanaticism.

The Boy Scouts are not the enemy of America. Veterans and memorials that mark their service to the nation are not the enemies of America. Symbols of our American religious history and heritage in the public square are not threats to our American freedom. Those symbols which the ACLU now so fanatically attacks are but reminders of our American roots, our American heritage, the foundation from which this magnificent edifice of American freedom arose.

Q: Can 42 U.S. Code 1988 be changed?

A: Congress must take the lead to clarify 42 U.S.C. 1988 to exclude lawsuits related to acknowledgement of God. Besides The American Legion, many organizations desire to see the statute modified, such as CourtZero.org, Alliance Defense Fund, Thomas More Law Center, American Center for Law and Justice, The Rutherford Institute and Stop the ACLU Coalition.

In the 108th Congress, on Nov. 21, 2003, U.S. Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., introduced a bill, H.R. 3609, titled "Public Expression of Religion Act of 2003" that would restrict remedies under 42 U.S.C. 1988 in establishment clause litigation to injunctive relief. The congressman intends to reintroduce the bill in the 109th Congress.

Q: American Legion Res. 326 calls for Congress to reform 42 U.S. Code 1988. What can Legionnaires do to help?

A: American Legion Resolution 326, Preservation of the Mojave Desert World War I Memorial, is a concrete measure with which we can stand up to the ACLU and not merely complain. It calls on Congress to amend 42 U.S.C. 1988 to rescind the authority to award attorney fees it gave to judges in cases under the "establishment clause" to "remove or destroy religious symbols."

All Legionnaires, all veterans, all Americans, should unite behind this simple measure, across party and ideological lines, to demand reform and to end this abuse by which the ACLU has waged war against the Boy Scouts, all symbols of our American religious heritage, and now even veterans memorials.

No one should doubt the threat that the ACLU's lawsuit against the Mojave Desert veterans memorial represents: it is the first time in history that private parties have been allowed to sue a veterans memorial to remove a religious symbol. The same legal principles the court followed under the "establishment clause" to order that solitary cross in the desert removed are applicable to all the crosses and Stars of David in our national cemeteries, and the 9,000 at Normandy Beach.

Communicate with your post, district, area, department and National Commander Thomas P. Cadmus. Communicate your support to amend this law to your elected officials. Demand to know where they stand on the issue.


43 posted on 06/02/2005 4:49:17 AM PDT by ViLaLuz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz; EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; ...

Homosexual Agenda PLUS Moral Absolutes Ping - Definitely a two-fer.

Try to read this one - as you all know, the ACLU is the archetype for promoting all that is evil and supressing almost all that is good. And one of the worst things is that the ACLU gets tremendous amounts of OUR tax money to work its evil.

This must stop.

Let me know if you want on/off either pinglist.

Note: Don't forget that the ACLU head honcho is forget-his-first-name Romero, a noted homosexual activist lawyer.


44 posted on 06/02/2005 9:00:12 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Resisting evil is our duty or we are as responsible as those promoting it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony Snow

ACLU ping of interest.


45 posted on 06/02/2005 9:15:43 PM PDT by glock rocks ("racecar" reads the same forwards and backwards... a fact not lost on Humpy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Thank you little jeremiah. I didn't know that about the director of the ACLU, and found info on that. It explains a lot about where the ACLU is heading, and it's not good. Here it is--but be forwarned--BARF ALERT:

ANTHONY D. ROMERO IS NEW ACLU EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; GAY SON OF LATINO IMMIGRANTS TO HEAD PREMIER CIVIL LIBERTIES GROUP

http://www.aclusandiego.org/new_director.html


46 posted on 06/03/2005 2:59:10 AM PDT by ViLaLuz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

bookmark


47 posted on 06/03/2005 3:18:04 AM PDT by Talking_Mouse (Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just... Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Jay777's Stop the ACLU site answers questions about the bill (scroll about halfway down the page). He contacted Hostettler's office to get answers to questions that have been coming up:
http://stoptheaclu.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_stoptheaclu_archive.html#111766906217516776

Clarification On Public Expression of Religion Act

Killrighty had brought up concerns with Hostettler's new bill that would help keep your tax money out of the hands of the ACLU. He asked a very good question!

"Would this bill’s effect would be to deny first amendment protection to the poor who would then be unable to sue to have their rights protected if they are unable to afford an attorney out of pocket?"

I'm happy to say that I have an answer! I talked to a legislative aid to one of the co-sponsor's of the bill. This bill is specifically designed towards "establishment clause" cases, and would not apply to "free exercize clause" cases. In other words, it would help curb groups like the ACLU from violating people's right to express their religion in the public sphere. It does not stop their ability to do so, but takes your money out of their hands if they do so. Furthermore, it could not be used in a case against an individual expressing their religion. So the poor people need not worry about attorney fees if their right to free exercize of their religion comes about. This legislation would not affect them. It will however affect the ACLU pocketbook!

Please check out Jay777's Stop the ACLU website. There is a lot of good information there.

48 posted on 06/03/2005 3:45:48 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Found this letter from Hostettler explaining PERA:
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:jPmbcDPWqN4J:www.house.gov/burton/RSC/Hostettler1.PDF+Public+Expression+of+Religion+Act&hl=en

HELP STOP THE FORMATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THROUGH EXTORTION!

Become an Original Co-sponsor of the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2001

Deadline: March 26th

Dear Colleague:

I will be re-introducing the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), formerly known as H.R. 2057 in the 106thCongress.

PERA frees teachers, school board members, county commissioners, nurses in public hospitals, and all other state and local officials from the fear that they will be held personally and monetarily responsible for damages and attorney's fees because of their expression of religion.

This bill also frees schools, school boards, and county and local government from fear that they will be held responsible for attorney's fees because of the expression of religion by employees. Furthermore, PERA fosters a climate where constitutional law is made through deliberation, not by fear.

PERA does NOT limit anyone's ability to seek injunctive relief (court orders) for perceived violations of the Establishment Clause by state and local government officials. PERA does NOT affect-in any way-claims against the government arising out of the free exercise of religion, free speech, or any other civil right. If you would like to co-sponsor this bill please contact Tom Anderson or Duffy Sabella in my office by Monday, March 26th at x5-4636.

Sincerely,
John N. Hostettler
Member of Congress

49 posted on 06/03/2005 4:05:26 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz
Congressman Hostettler, who is from Indiana, introduced the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), in the 106th Congress just a few days ago.

I notice that the state of Indiana has been under attack recently, by various operatives from the left. Could this be part of a liberal strategy to infect and destroy a red state?

This article is very interesting:

Indiana Cases Scrutinize Prayer, Planned Parenthood
by Pete Winn, associate editor (Focus on the Family Citizen Link

SUMMARY: Indiana courts weigh prayer by legislators, and an apparent Planned Parenthood cover-up.

The Hoosier State got caught in the cross-hairs of the Culture Wars this week.

First, an Indianapolis judge ruled Tuesday that Planned Parenthood of Indiana must let state officials review the medical records of 84 girls younger than 14 who visited Planned Parenthood clinics.

Then, across town in a separate action, the Indiana affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit asking a federal judge to bar references to Jesus Christ in the daily prayers delivered before the state House of Representatives.

Curt Smith, executive director of the Indiana Family Institute (IFI) in Indianapolis, explained what happened in the Planned Parenthood decision.

"Planned Parenthood filed suit here in Indiana," he said, "trying to restrict the attorney general in his role as our chief Medicaid fraud investigator from finding out what's going on with Medicaid funds for 12 and 13-year-old girls, who have come in for either sexually transmitted disease, or to get birth control.

"A good judge, Judge Ken Johnson, in family court here in Indianapolis, agreed with the attorney general and agreed with a common-sense principle that says, 'We need to protect kids, and particularly when tax dollars are being used, we're not going to allow these kids to be abused.' So the effort did not pay off for Planned Parenthood."

Planned Parenthood of Indiana said it will appeal the ruling, which it called "a fishing expedition."

"This ruling puts everyone's medical privacy at risk, shaking the very foundation of the doctor-patient relationship that is at the heart of good health care," Betty Cockrum, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Indiana told the Indianapolis Star.

But in his ruling, Judge Johnson specifically countered the abortion provider's principal argument when he wrote: "The great public interest in the reporting, investigation, and prosecution of child abuse trumps even the patient's interest in privileged communication with her physician because, in the end, both the patient and the state are benefited by the disclosure."

Besides, Smith said, Indiana law is very clear on the matter.

"Any sexual contact with someone under 14 is a crime, period," he said. "Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit trying to prevent authorities from investigating what are crimes."

On the other side of Indianapolis, meanwhile, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) filed a federal lawsuit against Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma. The legal group is going after the speaker for allowing prayers in the opening minutes of the session of the House of Representatives -- specifically, prayers which include references to Jesus Christ, to the Blood of Jesus, or which are, to quote the attorneys of the ICLU, "evangelical in nature."

The lawsuit specifically objects to certain Christian phrases -- including "In the strong name of Jesus our Savior," "We pray this in Christ's name," and "I appeal to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- and says they exclude people who are not Christians.

"The suit does not seek to prevent opening the House session with prayers," said ICLU Legal Director Ken Falk in a statement, but his group wants "respect for the beliefs of all Indiana residents and the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all."

Micah Clark, president of the American Family Association of Indiana, said the suit is really a slap in the face to people of faith -- especially in light of what it asks the government to do.

"I am very concerned," said Clark, "when the government tells people, 'You can pray in front of the statehouse, or before a session, but here's how you have to pray. I think that goes against a minister's free speech rights, and I'm hopeful that the suit will be dismissed.

"What do you expect a legislator or a minister to say when they come and they are asked to give a prayer? Are they supposed to pray only like my 3-year-old, 'God is great, God is good. Now we thank Him for this food?' "

IFI's Curt Smith sees a link between the two cases -- not a direct one, necessarily, but certainly an overarching connection.

"What I see happening is the liberal worldview is on its last legs and the only place they can get any kind of hearing is in the courts," Smith said.

He made this comparison:

"In one part of the courts system, a judge who has common sense, who is a parent, said, 'No. We're not going to protect the privacy of 12- and 13-year-olds who are being sexually abused. They need help. They need a doctor first, and then they need the protection of the state, because something's wrong, and they are being sexually exploited.'

"On the other side of the capital city, the ICLU files in federal court a challenge to these prayers. I think in both cases, the left has been reduced to legal action because they don't have popular political support and they can't sway the executive and legislative branches the way they once could."

50 posted on 06/03/2005 5:38:39 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

I try to remember whenever I mention the ACLU, to include that important factoid.

Now maybe I'll remember his first name as well.


51 posted on 06/03/2005 7:05:06 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Resisting evil is our duty or we are as responsible as those promoting it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Jay777

More ACLU civil rights oppression concerning religious expression:

RICK ROBERTS SUED BY ACLU OVER MT. SOLEDAD CROSS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1415996/posts

ACLU Sues PA School District to Stop Official Prayers at Graduation and School Board Meetings
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1415880/posts


52 posted on 06/03/2005 2:42:40 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA05B57#WA05B57

Federal Judge Orders Removal of Ten Commandments [Earlier this year]

In the latest judicial attack on the Ten Commandments, a federal judge ordered a monument containing the Commandments removed from the lawn of the Gibson County courthouse in Indiana. The monument was placed there by the local Elks lodge in 1956 as a part of a national campaign to check the rising number of delinquent youth. While being carted off to jail for abetting public indecency, a strip club owner said the display caused him "irreparable harm," so he decided to enlist the aid of the ACLU to have the monument removed. Long story short, on January 31 Southern District Judge Richard Young ruled in favor of the strip club owner and said the Commandments had to go. The judge gave the county 60 days to have them removed.

Last week Congressman John Hostettler (R-IN), who represents the area, asked President Bush to exercise his executive prerogative and instruct the U.S. Marshall not to remove the commandments as ordered by the court. The point that Congressman Hostettler (R-IN) is raising is long overdue; it is time someone with the proper authority stood up to the runaway judiciary, which does not have the exclusive authority to enforce its own rulings. The continual stream of judicial decisions from activist judges, beginning in 1947 with Justice Hugo Black when he created the "wall of separation," have steadily eroded the rich spiritual soil of our nation, leaving a cavernous divide in our body politic. Enough is enough! We echo Congressman Hostettler's request - for the sake of the nation.


53 posted on 06/03/2005 6:19:17 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

BTTT!!


54 posted on 06/04/2005 12:23:32 AM PDT by Brad’s Gramma (Yo! Cowboy! I'm praying for a LoganMiracle! It CAN happen!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah


Sorry but there's no market for such a vile, smelly thing.


55 posted on 06/04/2005 12:31:43 AM PDT by snuffy smiff (I sure miss the good old days way back when they used to hang traitors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma

Thanks for the bump Brad's Gramma. We have to keep this thread going so readers will become aware of this act to stop the ACLU.

New World Net Daily article concerning the debacle in San Diego:

ACLU threatens talk-show hosts over cross - (Roger Hedgecock, Rick Roberts threatened)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1416186/posts


56 posted on 06/04/2005 6:34:01 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

Found a new blog with the PERA topic:

http://freedom-of.blogs.com/jt/2005/05/public_expressi.html


57 posted on 06/04/2005 6:39:31 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44155

Bill to take profit out of anti-religion suits
Supporters say measure removes ACLU incentive to challenge faith in public



Posted: May 7, 2005

An Indiana congressman plans to curb the ACLU's appetite for filing suits targeting religion in the public square by introducing a bill that denies plaintiff attorneys the right to collect attorneys fees in such cases.

Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., is expected to file his measure next week to amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorneys fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings.

"Every other civil right case, there is some injury to somebody," American Legion attorney Rees Lloyd of Banning, California, told a Thursday rally in front of ACLU's Los Angeles offices. "Somebody lost their job ... somebody got beat up by authorities – they have some physical, mental, economic injury. But in an Establishment Clause case, it is someone who says, 'I take offense,' and the offense is based on religions, politics, philosophy, but there is no injury."

Hostettler introduced a bill with identical language in 2003 to permit only injunctive relief in cases filed under the religious-establishment clause of the Constitution and to deny attorneys fees. Although that bill failed in subcommittee, Lloyd is optimistic that the current offering will pass this session because of the more conservative makeup of the current Congress and escalating calls to curb an activist judiciary, particularly on religious matters.

"The issue is about the absolute fanaticism of the ACLU and the absolute arrogance of a judiciary that says we have to wipe out of history all the evidence of our heritage," Lloyd told the Los Angeles Daily Journal, a legal newspaper.

Lloyd is a former ACLU attorney who has represented Southern California veterans seeking to save the Mojave Desert World War I Veterans Memorial. A federal judge has ruled it's solitary cross an offense to the constitutional separation of church and state and ordered it destroyed.

The American Legion brought its protest to Los Angeles because of the county's decision to remove the cross from its seal. Veterans fear the ACLU will attempt to have religious symbols removed from veterans' monuments and gravestones in military graveyards.

"We're joining forces with the 'save the Los Angeles County seal campaign,'" Lloyd said. "It's the same issue."

Carol Sobel, a National Lawyers Guild attorney, defended the present system of awarding attorneys fees: "What the legislation is saying is, 'If you enforce the Constitution in a way that [Hostettler] does not approve, you should not receive attorney fees for doing so."

Sobel, the ACLU's separation of church and state staff attorney when the position was first funded, continued, "We have defended religious freedom innumerable times, but when a city or a county puts a religious emblem on its city seal, it is violating this country's principles of religious freedom. And, it sends a disquieting message that the government favors one religion."

As reported by WorldNetDaily, various citizen and legal groups are lobbying to limit standing to bring establishment cases as well as deny attorneys fees.


58 posted on 06/04/2005 6:42:44 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

I can hardly think of an endeavor as important to the future of this country than the defunding of the athiest scumbags of the ACLU. Big, big, BUMP!


59 posted on 06/04/2005 6:46:43 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/6/emw247397.htm

American Legion Honored By Committee To Retain Original LA County Seal

The Committee to Support the Original Los Angeles County Seal is kicking of the newly formed alliance with the American Legion.

Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) June 4, 2005 -- The Committee to Support the Original Los Angeles County Seal is kicking off the newly formed alliance with the American Legion. The American Legion has long been a defender of the Boy Scouts and Freedom of Religious Expression.

The Legion, at the National Level has come to the support of the Seal Committee in their effort to gather signatures. This will place the Original LA County Seal on the June 6, 2006 ballot, giving Los Angeles voters the right to determine the future of the seal and cross.

According to various polls, the residents of the county favor retention of the Original Seal by 92%.

The event is set for June 4, 2005 at 2 p.m. at an estate located at 1823 Foothill Blvd, La Canada-Flintridge, CA 91011. This will be the beginning of the alliance and joint efforts to battle the ACLU and retain the County Seal.

In addition to the County Seal effort, the two groups are mobilizing their base of support for H.R.2679, Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA). Rep. John Hostettler(R-IN) has introduced H.R. 2679 and it is now in committee.

David Hernandez leader of the petition drive and Thomas P. Cadmus, National Commander of the American Legion stated, "Using taxpayers' dollars to pay these court attorney fees, especially when attacking established and traditional American values is absurd."

Receiving the award on behalf of the American Legion is Mr. Reese Lloyd. Lloyd is the former attorney for Cesar Chavez and a former ACLU attorney.

60 posted on 06/04/2005 6:47:06 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson