With Christmas rapidly approaching, it is almost certain that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other anti-Christian groups and individuals will ratchet up their campaigns to attack all forms of Christian expression in America.  The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that our government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The number of religious freedom cases is on the rise.  Erica Croder, the 2006 high school valedictorian who spoke about her faith in Jesus Christ during her address, was forced to issue a public apology.  Immediately following her graduation, Erica was informed that she would not receive her high school diploma if she did not apologize for expressing her faith.  Out of fear, Erica did publicly apologize.  However, last year with the legal assistance of Liberty counsel, Erica filed suit against the Lewis Palmer School district.  Two years later, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to hear her case.

The case of Ryan Dozier is another example of infringement on the First Amendment right to public expression of religion.  Ryan is the Yuba College student who was threatened with expulsion for handing out tracts that explain the Gospel message during restricted “free speech” hours.  He filed a federal lawsuit on October 2.  Yuba College allows “free speech” only on Tuesdays and Thursdays between noon and 1 p.m. — and requires permission two weeks in advance. 

Heather Gebelin Hacker, Litigation Staff Counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, says that such a requirement violates a student’s constitutional right to free speech.  “Students do not need a permit to exercise their First Amendment rights on campus,” says Hacker.  “When a student can be threatened with a citation and expulsion while peacefully sharing a Christian message, American colleges can no longer be considered a marketplace of ideas.”

Despite the growing attention to religious liberty issues, lawmakers in the 110^th Congress once again failed to make the passage the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA) a priority.

Re-introduced by Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana), the Public Expression of Religion Act, H.R. 725 is the best piece of legislation to prevent groups like the ACLU from using the legal system in a manner that extorts money from state and local governments and inhibits their constitutional actions.  H.R. 2679, an earlier version of the Public Expression of Religion Act, passed in the 109^th Congress by a vote of 244-173.  Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass the bill, thus leaving courtroom doors wide open for groups like the ACLU to continue in their profiteering litigation efforts to eradicate all forms of religion in public places.  Efforts to pass this bill cannot — must not — be abandoned. 

Currently, under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988, parties can sue state and local governments claiming their individual rights were violated, and then demand attorneys fees in the case if they prevail.  The ACLU and other groups have been using these statutes to threaten litigation against public officials in both their public and individual capacities if the officials express their religious beliefs.  The groups claim that such expression is an establishment of religion. 

The threat of litigation and potential fees often forces states and localities to cave to demands to remove even the smallest religious references on public properties.  Examples include tearing down veterans’ memorials with religious symbols, removing the Ten Commandments from public buildings, booting the Boy Scouts off public property and blotting out crosses from official county seals.

If made into law, PERA would amend sections 1983 and 1988 and prevent the awarding of attorney’s fees to prevailing plaintiffs in these cases.  This would level the playing field against groups such as the ACLU, which have won millions of dollars in attorneys fees while forcing state and local governments to suppress religious speech.  PERA would ensure that each party in an Establishment Clause lawsuit is responsible for its own costs.  Preserving the individual constitutional rights and liberties guaranteed to U.S. citizens must be protected and passing important legislation like PERA is vital.