…and this is a 
The Special Favors for Fundamentalists Act of 2005
Category: Godlessness • Politics • Religion
Posted on: October 1, 2006 9:30 AM, by PZ Myers
Before you read further, browse the Carnival of the Godless. It'll salve the pain when you read about the new conservative perfidy.
Our Republican overlords have taken one more step on the road to theocracy with the approval of H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act. You can read the full text of the bill, but here's the gist:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys to the prevailing party on a claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion brought against the United States or any agency or any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity in any court having jurisdiction over such claim, and the remedies with respect to such a claim shall be limited to injunctive and declaratory relief.
What this does is give religious organizations a special privilege, bestowing on them a small measure of impunity in breaking the law, all with the intent of discouraging citizens from seeking relief from violations of the prohibition against establishment of religion. It's a curious thing: it's basically saying that someone can be found guilty of law-breaking, but if they are carrying out their criminal activity in the name of religion, there is a whole class of punishments that cannot be applied to them, and specifically, lawyers working to prevent violations of church and state will not be rewarded for their efforts if successful. They are legislating to support violations of the Constitution.
Nice and sneaky. The religious bigots know they want to break the law, so the solution is to put hurdles in place to inhibit attempts to make them accountable.
My local representative, Collin Peterson, voted for it. I've got one of his signs in my yard right now, and I'm going to rip it out and throw it away. I've already sent him a letter telling him that I think he's done a vile and Republican thing, and that I don't vote for Republicans.
It's funny how, in the name of fighting against the mythical War on Christmas, conservative morons have declared war on the Constitution…and the dupes in the Democratic party are going along with them.
Comments
Making the word 'Republican' helps absolutely no one - except people who campaign under the arbitrary label 'Democrat'.
It's time for you people to wake up: there really isn't any difference between the two parties, excepting only that one has people that are better at manipulating public opinion than the other. Neither party has anything to do with their historical roots, even going back as little as twenty years ago, and neither has anything to do with what until recently they claimed they supported.
Tell your representative that you won't vote for theocratic, tyrranous attacks on our freedoms. Don't say you won't support him because he acted 'Republican', because when you get right down to it it wouldn't make any difference if he acted 'Democrat'.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 9:38 AM
Drat. The phrase "a slur" was supposed to show up in that first sentence.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 9:39 AM
Parties aren't about historical roots. They are about current politics. In the last few years, the GOP has become the party of the religious right. Dick Armey recognizes that. Jack Danforth has written a book about it. Frist and Santorum exemplify it.
Americans who support civil liberty, who favor separation of church and state, who believe in traditional Constitutional separation of powers, and who want science respected need to face that reality. That doesn't mean the Democratic Party is particularly strong in standing up for those values. Or unified. On those issues, or any others.
But it does mean that the GOP is the enemy, in a way that the Democractic Party is not. And yes, it means that it is quite appropriate, when a Democratic Congressman panders to the religious right, to accuse them of behaving like a Republican.
Posted by: Russell | October 1, 2006 9:51 AM
On the substance of the issue, this provision seems in violation of the 14th amendment. I guess there is an argument to be made that in this case it is the federal government, and not a state, that is creating unequal protection of the law, so the 14th wouldn't apply.
Posted by: Russell | October 1, 2006 9:55 AM
I think you have the chronology wrong. The War on the Constitution long preceded the phony War on Christmas. This is merely the latest expression of a long campaign ... one the Enlightenment is losing.
Posted by: John Pieret | October 1, 2006 10:04 AM
No, no, no! The GOP contains the highest concentration of your enemy. The party itself is a meaningless, arbitrary category - some of your enemies use the label 'Democrat', others 'Republican'. This is ultimately an advertising gimmick, nothing more.
One of the root problems in American politics, if it's not the root problem, is the obsession with style and shadow over substance. Don't attack the shadow, attack the substance. It's the people who have invested a great deal in the brand 'Democrat' who want to vilify the brand 'Republican', but it's the product they're selling that matters, and associating 'Republican' with all of the things you *should* be concerned about - tyranny, loss of rights, unlimited dictatorial power - is what those people think will give their brand an edge.
Ignore the advertising, and attack the unethical, amoral, tyrranical, theocratic politicians! Attack them whatever party they claim to be a part of! Otherwise you'll just replace a cruel master with a slightly gentler one, and be just as enslaved.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 10:12 AM
what next? Who must we kill?
Seriously, I think I'm going to move to canada. That will buy me a few years before the U.S decides to go expansionest and conquers the mythical land north of the border.
Posted by: Asher | October 1, 2006 10:29 AM
I got hit with one of the DNCs fundraising calls the other day. I refused to donate any (more) money, citing the increasing number of Democrats who are trying to out-God God's Own Party. Gave the poor guy on the other end of it holy hell for it, too.
Posted by: Mark | October 1, 2006 10:33 AM
Collin Peterson is one of the most conservative Northern Democrats (a blue dog).
Minnesota's seventh district is one of the most rural of all Congressional districts (Moorhead, its largest city, just barely breaks the urban threshold at 32,000 -- 3,000 smaller and the 7th district would be 100% rural).
It's also a poor district, possibly the poorest white northern district. Parts of the district (e.g. Todd County) have Alabama-level average income.
Posted by: John Emerson | October 1, 2006 10:33 AM
I almost forgot. There was an interesting article in the new york times, concerning how the roman republic fell from a terrorist action. Actually, the terrorists merely provided the excuse. Read it on http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30harris.html?ex=1159848000&en=7b5321a993a151e4&ei=5087%0A
It will sound eeriely familiar.
Posted by: Asher | October 1, 2006 10:33 AM
Doesn't it go both ways?
If the prevailing party is the US agency, it's the agency who has to pay the bill for its lawyers. Their problem!
How would an agency like the Dover school board explain to their tax payers if they hire expensive lawyers?
Posted by: Heinrich | October 1, 2006 10:37 AM
Caledonian's claim that there is no real difference between the political parties is absolute nonsense:
3% of Republicans voted against this bill
87% of Democrats voted against this bill
Do I wish the latter number were 100%? Sure. And I wish I had a pony. But those who oppose the Religious Right and Authoritarian Conservatism must become politically savvy enough to see the difference between 3% and 87%.
I don't think the bill has yet gone to the Senate.
Posted by: lockean | October 1, 2006 10:46 AM
Hopefully, even if gets signed into law, it could be overturned if it can be shown it violates the "equal protection under the law" clause.
Posted by: dogscratcher | October 1, 2006 10:51 AM
The Republicans are currently exercising a voting bloc. The Democrats have previously exercised voting blocs when they had the capacity to do so.
Voting blocs aren't inherently 'Republican'. Nor is abuse of power. Nor is a disregard for our inherent rights. So don't call them 'Republican'!
This "my team vs. your team" mentality needs to stop.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 11:10 AM
I'm way ahead of you here. It's making its way through the Senate now.
Heinrich, in civil trials, if the defense wins, the prosecution doesn't always have to pay its expenses. Only when the lawsuit is frivolous or ridiculous is the prosecution compelled to pay both sides' expenses.
Besides, PERA means that people who can't afford to sue have no civil liberties. The government's in no danger of not being able to afford defending itself in court.
Posted by: Alon Levy | October 1, 2006 11:12 AM
Caledonian writes, "The GOP contains the highest concentration of your enemy."
Exactly. During the Civil War, the Confederate Army contained the highest concentration of the Union's active enemy. Grant didn't worry overly much that there were Confederate sympathizers in Cambridge, some of whom might take up arms. He focused where the enemy was concentrated. Good thing, too.
"The party itself is a meaningless, arbitrary category."
The GOP is not a category. It is not a brand. It is an organization, a political party. It is as real as the Confederate Army was. And today it is the organization that is the single greatest threat to American civil liberty. True, the GOP wasn't always the party of the religious right. And it might morph into the future into a party that isn't based in the religious right. But today it is.
Posted by: Russell | October 1, 2006 11:13 AM
FSM, that link got screwed up. Let's try again: I'm way ahead of you here
Posted by: Alon Levy | October 1, 2006 11:13 AM
dogscratcher has a point?
Is this "law" actually constitutional, under the US's constitution?
Because they have just passed a law regarding the (preferential) establishment of a religion, have they not?
I notice they have not specified which religion (or have they, elsewhere?)
Posted by: G. Tingey | October 1, 2006 11:16 AM
How do you find out how your congressman voted on a particular bill - is there a URL that keeps tally?
Posted by: Phaedrus | October 1, 2006 11:21 AM
Is this "law" actually constitutional, under the US's constitution?
It's constitutional if Kennedy and Roberts say it is.
Posted by: Alon Levy | October 1, 2006 11:28 AM
Um... no. Your statement is quite correct, but the argument you're making is utterly wrong. The Union and the Confederacy were two military forces engaged in a military conflict, in which each side struggled to annihilate the other as an independent force. All's fair in war, and the two sides sought to undermine the other by whatever means possible.
Regardless of what you think about any of the factions involved in US politics, if you think the conflicts between the Republican and Democratic brands are equivalent to the Civil War in any meaningful sense, you're completely out of your mind.
People often vote for candidates, not because of the policies that they personally support or oppose, and not because of their voting records or platforms, but because of their party affiliation. Those affiliations are first and foremost brands. It's an advertising gimmick, pure and simple.
Don't concern yourself with the gimmicks, go for the substance. The politicians who will vote to take away our liberties are the threat - it doesn't matter what label they use. Concepts are threats, ideologies are threats. Fight the threats, not the labels they hide under - some of the threat comes from people using the label 'Democrat'. Fight them!
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 11:38 AM
What sort of abstract cloud do you live on, Caledonia, that you cannot see the different effects on American life that come from...
...the use of a 'voting block' to allow torture versus the use of a 'voting block' to prevent torture?
...the use of a 'voting block' to establish religion versus the use of a 'voting block' to preserve reglious freedom?
...the use of a 'voting block' to suppress habeas corpus versus the use of a 'voting block' to secure trial by jury with the right of the accused to confront evidence against them?
Is the use of a knife to cut celery no different to you than the use of a knife to kill someone? Is all you care about that they are both uses of knives?
My team is the Minnesota Vikings. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is a political organization whose candidates I will be voting for this November, partly in hopes that they will take control of the House of Representatives and perhaps even the Senate. If they do, I hope they will use 'voting blocks' and use them wisely, efficiently, even ruthlessly, to break the power of Bush & Co. At the very least, their 'voting blocks' will slow, even prevent, the further slide of our country into authoritarian hell.
Not because they are my team or anyone else's team, but because that's how politics works.
Posted by: lockean | October 1, 2006 11:44 AM
You mean a voting bloc that wants everyone to be stripped of civil liberties, versus a voting bloc that wants 4.6% of the world's population to be exempt?
Posted by: Alon Levy | October 1, 2006 11:56 AM
Caledonian, again: "People often vote for candidates, not because of the policies that they personally support or oppose, and not because of their voting records or platforms, but because of their party affiliation. Those affiliations are first and foremost brands. It's an advertising gimmick, pure and simple."
No. Those affiliations are first and foremost a political alliance, that determines among other things how committees are organized in the US Congress. That's why it was so important when Jeffords left the Republican Party. It didn't change who he was. It wasn't an advertising gimmick. It had a real impact on political power and what legislation was and wasn't passed that term of Congress.
Posted by: Russell | October 1, 2006 12:08 PM
Barney Frank stood up for atheists during the debate:
"I want to address this notion, too, well, you have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and history. People who came to this country, some of them were objecting to being forced to profess other religions or support other religions. Religious freedom means that your religious practice, whether it exists or does not exist, is none of the government's business. The notion that your right not to be religious does not exist is appalling to me.
The gentleman from Georgia said you have freedom of religion, not from religion. Agnostics, atheists, people whose religion you may not think worthy, they do not have freedom in this country? What kind of a distortion of the principle of freedom is that?
The notion that you do not have freedom from religion means, literally, I guess, that you can be told, okay, look, you have got to pick a religion, pick one; you cannot have none whatsoever. That is not the American Constitution."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-h20060926-34&bill=h109-2679#sMonoElementm12m0m0m
Thank you, Barney. The Republican party is willing to destroy the Constitution to satisfy a bunch of religious fanatics.
Fuck them.
Posted by: George | October 1, 2006 12:25 PM
Phaedrus - follow the link PZ gives about Collin Peterson - and save that http://www.govtrack.us/ site in your bookmarks for future reference - it looks quite well-done.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 1, 2006 12:33 PM
Alon Levy, the torture legislation would have never come to a vote in the Senate if the dems were the majority party, so their timid, confused, and dissapointing tactics for trying to defeat it, and/or trying to 'frame' themselves for the coming election--including offering several feeble amendments--aren't germane to the question of the effects on American life of a dem majority versus a repub majority.
Similiarly Calidonian (Sorry that I've been calling you Caledonia), a handful of pro-life dems in a dem-controlled congress is not threat to abortion rights. A handful of pro-choice repubs in a repub-controlled congress still contributes to the erosion of abortion rights. The same is true of most issues.
It would be wonderful if we could vote for the candidate and not worry about the party affiliation, but if you care about the issues in question, you must consider the effects of which party has majority status. That determines committee chairs, the legislative calendar, rules for how bills are debated, and how congressional oversight of the executive branch functions or doesn't.
Posted by: lockean | October 1, 2006 12:35 PM
>Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys to the prevailing party on a claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion brought against the United State
WTF! I got that far. What are you people doing to your country? Words fail me. Everyone else has said it already.
A - no, *the* - beacon of the Enlightenment is falling apart in front of our eyes.
Vote (and I know anyone reading this will), vote you b@#$@#$.
Failing that (and I never thought I'd say this) viva la 2nd amendment.
Posted by: xyjm | October 1, 2006 12:41 PM
about that Constitutionality thing?
Alberto Gonzalez has already come out swinging against the supreme court, warning them not to 'second guess' a wartime president....
Silly me, I apparently missed Congress declaring a war, but I guess that's just another little detail that Bush doesn't need to worry about.
Posted by: flame821 | October 1, 2006 12:44 PM
Asher,
Forget Canada, man, unless you're a doctor, a computer programmer, or someone else with some serious "trans-national skills" that are truly portable.
Someplace like Croatia is more realistic; check it:
http://shelter.inkom.hr/index.php
-JJR
Posted by: JJR | October 1, 2006 12:50 PM
Arguing that political blocs are powerful because Congress is controlled by political blocs is stupid. At a time when people need to be rallying around the defense of freedom, you're concerned with what alliances people have joined. This is why our system has fallen as far as it has!
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 12:54 PM
Certain factions currently residing under the umbrella of the Republican party realized that, and so they managed to cow sensible Republican party members into supporting their policies - otherwise the organized power bloc would cripple their attempts to do pretty much of anything.
If you vote for people who support taking away your rights just because of the party they belong to, you're out of your mind. If a Republican who refused to support this Administration's and this Congress' actions ran for President, you're telling me that you wouldn't elect him because he's from the wrong party?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 12:59 PM
I'm not voting for any pro-war Democrats; not now, not ever.
I'm voting Green, voting Socialist, and screw everybody else.
No more compromises, no more lesser-evilism, screw all that.
I don't want kinder, gentler imperialists, I want real f*cking ANTI-IMPERIALISTS in office.
I'm not voting for anyone that panders to religion and treats atheists like me as 2nd class citizens, either.
xyjim, I hear you about the 2nd Amendment, bro:
www.liberalswithguns.com
It's funny how all those nutty right-wing militia slogans from the 1990s I used to laugh at suddenly don't seem quite so nutty anymore.
Posted by: JJR | October 1, 2006 1:01 PM
Caledonian, how is it stupid to observe a fact? Political blocs are in fact powerful because they in fact control how Congress operates. Are you saying you wish they didn't? I do too. So what? Are you saying if liberals don't act in a factional way, then by some sort of magic, repubs will cease to operate in a factional way? That is stupid.
Rallying around an abstract defense of freedom gets you nowhere. Bush & Co. can claim--and do claim--that they're defending our freedoms. They can say so just as vociferously as those who are actually trying to.
To contend with an organized faction you must build a larger or better organized faction. We may wish this were not so, but it is so. Which is why political parties have been part of our 'system' from nearly its inception.
Posted by: lockean | October 1, 2006 1:18 PM
So don't vote for people who play into power politics. If a candidate does thing like vote to eliminate civil liberties, withdraw your support and insist that your party cull him. If they won't, leave the party and start a new one if necessary.
This "lesser evil" crap is what's driving the slide into evil. If people don't start applying non-relative standards to politicians things will get worse.
Don't complain about how we're now living in a dictatorship, then say that you're considering maybe not voting for a Democrat who supported the takeover. Power structures work because no one person who abandons the system benefits, and so no one wants to be the first. If a sufficient number of people don't break with the established system, the system will continue as it has been.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 1:48 PM
The Dover ID case was brought about because teaching "intelligent design" alongside Darwinian Theory violated the Establishment Clause.
Even though the attorneys waived their fees in the Kitzmiller case, the legal expenses were still over $1 million and paid by the settlement. If PERA were law at the time, would there have been any parents who could afford to pay these kind of legal expenses to sue the Dover School Board?.
I haven't been following Phil Johnson, Wild Bill Dembski, or the rest of the DI on this, but they're undoubtedly looking at PERA as a boost to their Wedge strategy.
Posted by: txjak | October 1, 2006 1:52 PM
Caledonian writes, "At a time when people need to be rallying around the defense of freedom, you're concerned with what alliances people have joined."
Of course. Because that will determine whether and to what extent we are successful in defending those freedoms. Just as the competition between factions have always determined political outcomes in this nation.
"This is why our system has fallen as far as it has!"
Nonsense. That has been the nature of our system from its inception. Even earlier. The creation of the Constitution was the capstone for the political faction then called the Federalists, which morphed into one of the first political parties after the Constitution was ratified. Now, you might dream of some political system that doesn't include parties or factions as a central part of the political struggle. But (a) that certainly is not part of the US political system, and never has been part of it, and (b) given the way political systems work, it's hard to imagine what kind of system would not exhibit such, especially if it is the least bit representative.
Posted by: Russell | October 1, 2006 2:00 PM
PZ - Instead of calling people "dupes" and "morons", try searching the Constitution for the phrase "loser pays." You won't find it...
Posted by: Herb West | October 1, 2006 2:14 PM
Try: GovTrak. Select your state and when the page showing the representatives for that state comes, click on the representative you're interested. Then, at the bottom of the left panel on the page for that representative, click on "Browse so-and-so's voting record".
Posted by: colluvial | October 1, 2006 2:21 PM
Herb West writes, "PZ - Instead of calling people "dupes" and "morons", try searching the Constitution for the phrase "loser pays." You won't find it..."
No, but you will find the phrases "equal protection." Note that the legislation in question doesn't eliminate the principle of "loser pays" generally, but only for a certain class of defendants. A student suing a school because it wrongly disallows religious clubs, while allowing other kinds of student clubs, would get his lawyer fees paid. A student suing a school because it wrongly mandates morning prayers would not. Do you really think that discrimination raises no first amendment or fourteenth amendment question? What about a law that removes "loser pays," but only for suits in which racial discrimination is at issue?
Posted by: Russell | October 1, 2006 2:23 PM
Yeah, and it's been sliding downhill for a very long time. The latest outrages are just that - the latest outrages. Just because the pace has picked up recently doesn't change the fact that this trend has been progressing since the Jacksonian era.
But it's not whether the government is getting worse, because worse is relative. What matters is whether there is the necessary minimum level of good governance, and as far as I can tell, there isn't.
Christ, how can you all be so blind? Like any other selection and perpetuation system, it's the Law of the Minimum that applies: the lowest standards of the selection agents determines the population quality. If you'll vote for any corrupt idiot because he's slightly better than the opponent, you'll find yourself represented by corrupt idiots anyway.
The people who have hijacked the Republican party managed it because they convinced a threshhold number of people that standing up to them would entail a loss of access to the power system. What are you going to do, beat them at their own game? This isn't even about defeating Republicans - it's about Democratic candidate selection. If you lend your support to any fool because you're afraid of becoming 'irrelevant' the candidate pool will become worse and worse. Being corrupt has a whole lot of advantages over honesty and integrity. If you don't reward honesty and integrity, and seek to uproot corruption when it starts to spread, the corruption will eventually dominate.
There have got to be *some* people willing to draw a line in the sand. *Those* people should be your candidates, and they should hit the issue as often as possible. Every soundbite, every campaign speech, every public appearance not devoted to countering the neoconservative agenda is lost ground - you're wasting time attacking the puppet instead of the puppet master.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 2:25 PM
Caledonian writes, "But it's not whether the government is getting worse, because worse is relative."
Huh? Imagine a physician who says, "don't worry about how well your heart is pumping, since that is relative."
"What matters is whether there is the necessary minimum level of good governance."
Which means what? You seem wont to say that everyone else is doing it wrong, but I haven't heard you explain how your political tactics are better. Better, in the real world, not in some fantasized one.
Posted by: Russell | October 1, 2006 2:50 PM
Russel, I don't agree. Here is why. This bill applies to *violations* not *classes of people*.
Read the bill: the revision applies to "violations of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion"
It is Congress's prerogative to adjust criminal penalties as is done in this bill.
"Loser pays" is meant to disuade frivolous lawsuits. The instances that Congress is addressing in this bill are instances in which "loser pays" is being used to bully potential defendants (particluarly, to bully potential defendants into removing religious imagery from veterans memorials and into banning Boy Scouts from public buildings). Exempting the defendants in such lawsuits is consistent with the spirit of loser pays and unobjectionable. If, however, the plaintiffs were exempted that would run counter to "loser pays".
The bill is Constitutional and, IMO, a good idea.
Posted by: Herb West | October 1, 2006 2:55 PM
Write your Senators before they vote on Senate bill S. 3696, which is the companion to HR2679.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/26316leg20060802.html
Posted by: Mike | October 1, 2006 2:59 PM
If those attempts to "bully potential defendants into removing religious imagery" are groundless, then the fact that the secularists would lose the court cases ought to be defense against frivolous suits. The fact that the Republicans are concerned that they would not win such suits, and must therefore change the law to make it prohibitively difficult for people in the right to seek legal redress, is the problem here.
BAD idea. This is giving special protection to people seeking to insert religion into government.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 1, 2006 3:01 PM
Caledonian,
I wish power politics was unnecessary in the way that I wish the floors of my apartment would clean themselves, but cleaning floors is not evil, just unpleasant. Party politics is a necessary part of democratic regimes--as Russell notes--and so far as I know, democratic regimes are better than all the other regimes. I do not oppose the repubs b/c they use party politics--why wouldn't they? I oppose their policies and the effects of their policies.
I want to defeat republican policies. The best way to do that is to vote into power a democratic majority. I do not view this as the lesser of two evils. The democratic leadership is often craven and unprincipled, but elections are not melodramas where I root for the good guys; elections are not personal statements of who I am or what I believe--there is no essay portion on the ballot; elections are a process for determining who rules. Who will have power over my life, liberty and prosperity? Someone is going to. Who will that be? I am more than happy to compromise with people I disagree with in order to defeat people whose policies are detrimental (IMO) to my country.
Moreover, I have no objection to 'relative standards' in politics. It is entirely reasonable to challenge a dem candidate in a liberal state like CT for opinions which I would welcome in a dem candidate from TN.
I want the democrats to play power politics to the hilt, as Roosevelt did, to split, weaken, and bury the republicans. Not b/c the republicans are the other guys, but b/c the republican party is organizationally dependent on the religious right and authoritarianism and therefore do and will favor authoritarianism and the religious-right in their policies.
Posted by: lockean | October 1, 2006 3:03 PM
Caledonian's comments show that he really doesn't grasp (or just refuses to admit) the factional nature of our political system.
Like it or not, America has precisely two viable political parties, and except in very rare circumstances, a vote not cast for one of them is by default a vote for the other. The two parties do hold to identifiably different standards and governing philosophies. Not every Democrat is good, just as not every Republican is bad, but in both cases every politician in office who belongs to one party gives power to other politicians from that party and therefore assists in advancing their party's agenda.
And like it or not, politics is about making compromises. If you hold out for perfection and withdraw from a party or a candidate because they don't perfectly represent your ideals, you're just assisting someone who probably opposes those ideals even more. On the other hand, if you work to get a candidate elected, even if they don't agree with you 100%, once that person is in office you have more leverage to encourage them to do the right thing.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | October 1, 2006 3:05 PM
But that's why there are only two viable parties in the first place - the system reinforces itself. Other democratic systems have problems, but they're not usually "winner takes all", which leads to whomever is most willing to compromise themselves having the power.
I'm optimistic enough to think that if they're presented with truly principled candidates who won't make ethical compromises on basic, fundamental concepts, people will vote for them. Voting for the lesser of two evils, if there aren't standards that puts lower limits on the quality of candidates and if it goes on for long enough, results in a steady slide into increasing incompetence.
Either you're willing to stop that slide, or you aren't. If you won't challenge the system that produces the slide, I suppose there's nothing more to be said. You'll get the government you deserve, and I'll just have to find another place to live.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 3:13 PM
i am very unhappy with actions on the part of some Democrats as well. most significantly, i cannot believe any of them supporting the Military Commissions Act recently passed, nor can i believe when Ted Kennedy was at Harvard recently he praised the McCain amendment modifying it.
we were originally not going to support Democrats financially at all. but with the Bush junta and their Lead Elephant Party indulging in travesty, we couldn't see supporting the opposition at all. thus, we gave.
i think a lot of people are so fed up with Congress that many of them have don't-vote sympathies or third party sympathies. i think that's a bad mistake. the Republican Inquisition has to go. in our politics, the only means are electing Democrats. they are riddled with problems, but not One Big Problem.
while i cannot excuse some of this behavior, there are parliamentary maneuvers which force Democrats hands. for instance, the attachment in conference committee (from which Democrats were banned) of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to the Ports Security Act was the biggest railroad i've seen recently. the bill trotted out, no amendments were permitted, it was the 11th hour before Congress adjourned, and only an up/down vote was allowed. that Internet gambling act would never have passed by open vote. Democrats opposed to it, however, were faced with voting down the Ports Security legislation, which is okay (but not great) by itself in order to prevent the Internet gambling thing, or allowing both.
now, i know such bundling is something Democrats have done before. indeed, there have been conference insertions trying to kill Cape Wind moved by Kennedy.
i don't know how to convince some people that the Bush junta is evil and simply needs to be contained anyway we can.
Posted by: ekzept | October 1, 2006 3:18 PM
Herb West writes, "This bill applies to *violations* not *classes of people*."
You're ignoring the fact that it applies to violations of one particular type. Establishment suits are directed at different branches or agencies of the government, when the plaintiff thinks there is excessive government entanglement with religion. Why should these and these alone be exempted from "loser pays"? If anything, the fact that it is solely the government that can violate the establishment clause, and the government by definition is the 800 lb. gorilla in such actions, means we should not be stacking the deck against individuals who seek their Constitutional rights.
I'm also unconvinced by your argument that it is about violations rather than classes of defendants. The purpose and effect of the legislation clearly is to favor people who want government support of religion, against those who don't. I suspect the former includes almost wholy the religious.
"The instances that Congress is addressing in this bill are instances in which "loser pays" is being used to bully potential defendants (particluarly, to bully potential defendants into removing religious imagery from veterans memorials and into banning Boy Scouts from public buildings)"
Has anyone ever sued to ban the Boy Scouts from public buildings? That sounds like a wingnut myth to me.
"Exempting the defendants in such lawsuits is consistent with the spirit of loser pays and unobjectionable."
The Boy Scouts can't establish religion. Government agencies can. How is exempting government agencies for this unobjectionable?
Posted by: Russell | October 1, 2006 3:22 PM
Caledonian: "There have got to be *some* people willing to draw a line in the sand. *Those* people should be your candidates, ..."
Oh you mean like Gore? Kerry? Clinton? Dean? The Republicans have established an SOP of politically destroying anyone who could have challenged their power. That's how come the appeasers and quislings are in control of the Democrats -- because the real candidates have been neutered. But you know something? Even though one party has intimidated the other into submission, that doesn't mean there's no difference between them. It means we're losing. And trying to ignore the political landscape is not going to change that. ("Only a flesh wound!") If you're not willing or able to recognize that there is a real difference between the parties, then you're blowing off both the fight to defeat the neocons, and the equally important fight to reclaim and rearm the Democrats.
Posted by: David Harmon | October 1, 2006 3:31 PM
Caledonian:
No, they won't. You're not optimistic, Cally, you're naïve.
The vast, overwhelming majority of Americans vote their party line, period. The individual candidates and their stated platforms are not relevant in any meaningful sense.
Posted by: Dan | October 1, 2006 3:42 PM
I *know* that's the case. I've said as much, before. My optimism lies with the idea that given the opportunity, they'll vote for a qualified candidate. Qualified candidates haven't made it through the primary selection process, on either the federal or state level (at least the ones I was in) in my living memory, so in a very real sense the hypothesis has not been tested.
If my hope is misplaced, and people won't break out of the partisan system even to save themselves, then frankly I don't think you're collectively worth saving.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 3:47 PM
The laws and policies of the current U.S. government were brought into being by republicans. They in fact control all three branches of government. Caledonian's claim that those who oppose this situation are somehow responsible for it, is as factually incorrect as it is maddeningly self-righteous.
The reason the democratic beltway establishment went along with so much of the repub rise to power is not that they were extremely partisan but that they were not. Democrats in the 80s and 90s were as unpartisan as political parties in the U.S. have ever been. They lacked (due partly to their own misplaced efforts) a national party structure to give them both the impetus and the power to fight.
A return to the partisan democratic party of Jefferson or Roosevelt will defend liberalism while we wait for the 'truly principled candidates who won't make ethical compromises on basic, fundamental concepts.' We might need to wait for quite some time.
Posted by: lockean | October 1, 2006 4:15 PM
No, the claim was that people who are willing to sacrifice political principles in exchange for political power are responsible for that. The subset of those people hiding within the Republican party are simply better at it than those hiding with the Democratic party.
I must say that I'm not particularly impressed with the quality of your analysis, lockean.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 4:28 PM
Caledonian, if you're aware that principled candidates rarely make it through the primary selection process ... why don't you talk about changing that?
If I have a choice between voting for someone who will do bad things 70% of the time, and someone who will do bad things 99% of the time - and that may well be what my choices are in the general election - I still categorically refuse to vote for the one who does bad things more often. And yes, a vote for someone who can't win is functionally equivalent to not voting at all. If I can prevent the person who almost exclusively does evil from having power, even if that's only by giving power to the person who mostly does evil ... I still have to do it.
I can vote differently in the primaries. I have in the past, too. In the primaries, I can vote for the best choice - because in the primaries, I do not face the choice I am forced to confront in the generals.
In the generals, if I do not vote for the Democrat, about 95% of the time, my alternative is worse. I'd love to see the system change - but as long as it remains the way it is, it is simple idiocy to place a vote that I know will harm my interests more than another vote I could make.
It is as simple as that. And if you do not vote for the "least bad" candidate who has a chance at winning, you are voting for the worst candidate.
Posted by: Michael "Sotek" Ralston![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 1, 2006 5:03 PM
It's time for you people to wake up: there really isn't any difference between the two parties,
Nonesense.
Puerile nonsense.
There isn't any difference? Not much of an adult, are you?
Posted by: Lettuce | October 1, 2006 5:07 PM
I'm not trying to impress you, Caldeonian. I'm stating that you're wrong.
You're wrong to assume that building a party base sufficient to govern involves the sacrifice of anyone's political principles but your own.
You're wrong to possit some ineffable and historically unattested decline in American politics due to political parties.
You're very very wrong to allow your distaste for power politics to become a filter for the viewing of events, like the rise of the current GOP. You're like a theologian thinking wars are caused by greed or pride or lust, so you speak out against this cause, accomplishing nothing while the war goes on, and thinking anyone who does join your abstract crusade is contributing to the war.
Partisanship has been essential to every political reform accomplished on this planet. Every single one.
Posted by: lockean | October 1, 2006 5:07 PM
That's what I've been talking about! I can hold out hope for the idea that people will choose quality candidates precisely because those sorts of candidates never seem to run. Everyone has always been in a rush to compromise - not by finding common ground, but by violating their integrity. As such candidates are the only options available, people are demonstrably unwilling to give up the tiny amount of influence they have by choosing between them. I can still hold onto the idea that if some brave soul stands up and says "these things are important, and cannot afford to lose them, and so we will not compromise our support for them", people will respond.
The reason most people don't vote is because they know very well that their vote is fairly pointless. The options are limited and narrow, and they'll be presented with the same sort of thing from all sides. More people came out in the '06 elections precisely because there was more difference between the two candidates. Not enough difference, but more than usual. The structure of our system creates the conditions that lead to quite reasonable apathy, and that reinforces itself because it is then difficult for idealists to carry out reform. It's quite possible for demagogues to exploit the system, and they do, and now demagogues who lack the insight to govern in ways even slightly in their own best interests have taken over... and all you people want to to is stick to the old broken pattern.
I simply don't understanding such thinking. Why haven't you cast out the Democratic politicians who voted to remove essential civil rights? Why don't the sane and decent Republicans abandon their party - for that matter, why don't the sane and decent Democrats abandon theirs, if it will not reject petty tyrants and power-hungry manipulation?
Perhaps it's simply time for America to die.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 5:21 PM
Hear hear. Independent Republic of Minnesota, anyone?
Posted by: Cairnarvon | October 1, 2006 5:53 PM
Caledonian:
A willingness to sacrifice principles for power is, last I checked, a non-negotiable pre-requisite for entering American politics in the first place.
The sane among us, on the other hand, know that those candidates don't actually exist anymore (if they ever did), so we no longer hold out hope that they will run.
Because there isn't anyone better who's willing to take their places. And anyway, the majority of Americans don't really seem to mind when their essential civil rights are taken away.
Because they're just as petty and power-hungry as the insane and indecent ones, and they need their parties' support to get what they want.
America -- the America you're talking about, anyway -- died a long time ago. We're well into the self-destructive imperial phase of the political superpower life-cycle, now.
Posted by: Dan | October 1, 2006 6:46 PM
No way this is getting overturned. Not with THIS supreme court.
Posted by: Craig | October 1, 2006 7:38 PM
Hey Russell, there is federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Please note that 'people bringing lawsuits against violations of the establishment of religion' are not a legally protected class of people.
Think of it this way: it is not unlawful discrimination to legislate that people found guilty of murder may get life imprisonment but that people found guilty of shoplifting may not. Shoplifters and murderers are not legally protected classes; they don't have to be sentenced identically. It would be unlawful to legislate one penalty for black shoplifters and a different penalty for white shoplifters because discrimination on the basis of race is forbidden.
I understand your point that the people who would benefit would be "almost wholly the religious". Similarly, some have argued that federal cocaine sentencing laws are unlawfully discriminatory because penalties for dealing crack cocaine are harsher than penalties for dealing powder cocaine and that most crack cocaine offenders are black. That argument has not overturned federal cocaine sentencing guidelines. I don't think your analogous argument should upset this House bill either.
Lawsuits against the Boy Scouts are no myth. Such lawsuits are cited in the house bill at the top of this thread. The ACLU argues that Boy Scouts may not use public land or buildings because they disciminate against atheists and gays. The ACLU brought the lawsuit Barnes-Wallace v Boy Scouts and won. http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/12115prs20040414.html
Posted by: Herb West | October 1, 2006 7:43 PM
That's a little like saying we're legally responsible for the consequences if we falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, so criticism of the government isn't immune from punitive government responses.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 1, 2006 8:42 PM
Herb West:
Plaintiffs in religious establishment cases are entitled to just as much legal protection as a plaintiff in any other kind of statutory case (or at least they will be, until this bill passes). Any law that says otherwise is, by definition, a "law respecting an establishment of religion."
If you read the Eighth Amendment, you'll find that it is, in fact, "unlawful discrimination," pursuant to the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause, to give a shoplifter the same sentence as a murderer.
Posted by: Dan | October 1, 2006 9:06 PM
George: That attitude of Mr. Frank is remarkable. I haven't seen that sort of attitude from US politicians very often recently.
Cairnarvon: There are apparently Vermont seperatists, so why not? :)
Posted by: Keith Douglas | October 1, 2006 9:40 PM
Herb West writes, "Lawsuits against the Boy Scouts are no myth. Such lawsuits are cited in the house bill at the top of this thread. The ACLU argues that Boy Scouts may not use public land or buildings because they disciminate against atheists and gays."
No, they do not. And the specific case you cite is an example otherwise. The ACLU argues something quite different: that the government must treat the Boy Scouts like any other organization, rather than granting them preferential treatment.
Across the nation, thousands of religious groups use public buildings, from Bible clubs in public buildings to churches that rent rooms in town halls. The ACLU thinks this is fine. The only thing the ACLU insists is that the government entities involved not make preferential rules for such things, such preference being a form of establishment.
One of the most dishonest tacts taken by the religious right today is to view the liberal insistence that religious groups are treated the same, by the government as non-religious groups as some form of discrimination against religion. It's not. Equality is not discrimination. The problem is that the religious, the traditionally religious, are so accustomed to preference that mere equality seems a step down to them.
Posted by: Russell | October 1, 2006 9:48 PM
How long before the Exclusive Brethren get a similar clause enacted in Au