On Barely Scaremongering

We’re not scaremongers here. Hell, there’s not even more than one of us, so being scaremongers would be a downright Herculean feat involving quantum mechanics and waaay more booze than we’re comfortable with.

We’re not scaremongers, which is why this post isn’t a seething froth of get-the-hell-out-of-the-US-while-you-canness. (We’re also not in favor of fleeing as a method of influencing politics. If the people who disagree are gone, then who’s left?)

The near-seething…no, the utter foamy seethingness of near-fleemongering…is over this little gem, H.R. 2679, which you probably hadn’t heard of before this weekend, if you’ve heard of it yet at all. It just passed the House of Representatives, and its sole purpose is to make it harder for people to sue over legitimate violations of the separation of church and state. (Yes, passing the House doesn’t make it law yet, but who sees a lame-duck Senate being willing to stand up and fight about something that isn’t even getting media coverage?)

I say this prevents legitimate lawsuits, but actually it only penalizes ones which aren’t only legit, but successful. If you read it, you’ll see that all this measure does is cancel the reimbursement of attorney’s fees in cases where the plaintiff succeeds in proving that a Federal building, monument, etc. displays religious words or imagery in violation of the Constitution. It also bans outright the suing of local governments over these things.

Okay. One. BANNING LAWSUITS WHICH MAY BE LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCES AGAINST A VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION is disgusting on a level that my desire not to puke on my keyboard won’t even let me get into.

Two. The “loser-pays” system of attorney fee reimbursement is widely regarded in most of the world as more fair and more sensible than our system, which I like to call “screw the little guy”. This instance of it, where the Federal government is forced to pay the attorney fees of someone who successfully sues the government over violating the sanctity of one of the most vital cornerstones of our Constitution…this needed to go why?

You know how sometimes people feel a need to be anti-something simply because it’s being shoved down their throats to be it? How blacks can feel that they have to rebel against white culture, or women against male-dominated industries? I’m starting to feel that way about religion. (Well, my previously low-level chronic feeling about religions is going acute.) I have a right not to practice a religion, dammit. That means I have the right not to acknowledge someone’s god every time I go to public court, etc. etc. ad nauseum. It’s in the effing Constitution, man.

In fact, let’s end with that, shall we? IT’S CALLED THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THE VERY FIRST WORDS IN IT ARE:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

…And as must be pointed out every time the “persecuted majority” of Christians in this country gets their wind up, legally speaking, this means that Congress can’t be “pro [this] religion”, and it also means that Congress can’t be “pro religion” or “anti religion”, period. Congress cannot shut down your church, but neither can it fly your effing flag in the public forum. Get used to it. Learn to be okay with being left in peace to do your thing, and stop demanding to be promoted, or people (like me, I confess) are going to start having to rail against you in backlash for invading our rights.

*sigh* No, that’s not right. Backlash, reactionaryism, is never the way to go. That’s not Seeing Clearly or being rational. Dammit…But I’m going to have to go sit in the quiet and get a lot less angry over this before I can think of what the better alternative is.

Polyphasic update later on today, when I’ve stopped having to sit on my hands to prevent the uncontrollable stabbing motions… ;)

-PD