I Just received a personal reply from one of my congressmen regarding the Public Expression of Relgion Act
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thanks for contacting me about supporting HR 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005, which would deny reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs to litigants that win cases under the anti-establishment clause of our Constituition.
While I firmly support separation of Church and State, I think we have gone too far toward dis-establisment of religion generally in the interest of asuing that we not establish a specific religion. And I have the same reaction that you do to many of the cases litigating this issue. I wish we could find a better balance. But I'll have to leave that to the Supreme Court (with it's two new appointees that I admire).
That said, I'm not sure the way to handle this by denying attorneys fees to prevailing parties. The actual cost per tax payer is miniscule. And this reimbursement is also given to those who successfully assery their religious rights. Litigants who show that government abridged their religious rights should be reimbursed for the cost of protecting those rights. So for now, I'll hold off on passing judgement about HR 2679 while I listen to more of the pros and cons.
Thanks for writing. Please let me know if I can help in any other way.
Very truly yours,
As a note this is from Rep. Jim Marshall, 3rd District, Georgia
"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen
"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins