On Presuppositional Apologetics, Generally

Presuppositional Apologetics was the subject of the talk at our 9th AAFSA meeting the other night, where Prof. Witmer dissected these arguments and showed their fallacies in a few different ways. I want to go through his outline and highlight his major points (as best I can, if they don't make much sense it's my poor phraseology). He will be passing along to me the full talk before long which he has given me permission to publish as a resource. (*update: see it here*)

Basically his questions brought to the fore in my mind, "Can logic be 'accounted for' at all, or is it irreducible and self-evident?" Does the word "exist" make any sense when applied to abstractions like logic, 2+2=4, and other universals/abstractions?

Suffice it to say that it seems to me that if the theist and nontheist have a similar ontology, there is no good reason why they can have no common ground.

Their claim seems valid only if the nontheist is committed to, say, physicalism, which definitionally excludes "spirit", and for that matter, all substances other than matter/energy. It does not seem that their claim could be right for another reason -- that if reason itself is

He mostly focused on the method of argument, he touched on classical foundationalism and "properly basic belief", etc. He also showed the problems with assuming that all alternative explanada are false, and declaring your own explanation right by default. He talked briefly about i) the false dichotomy, and ii) the possibility of a future explanation being offered which was true.

For example, i) why the Christian God is needed to explain X, versus the Muslim Allah, or a deistic concept of God, is rather unclear on the face of the argument -- it isn't "atheism or Christianity", in other words; ii) it is perfectly possible that no one has "given an account of" X that is satisfactory to them that they have encountered yet, or maybe no one at all in all the earth's history, but they must be able to go through and refute every attempt in order to declare a present victory, and they must somehow eliminate future explanada as well.
Recently, I received a comment from an old sparring partner of mine, Peter Pike, aka CalvinDude. We've butted heads many times, but so far, no ugliness or impolity has come from his corner, which cannot be said for many of the Triabloguers (a group blog of presups).

Now, CalvinDude (CD) commented on my post in which I replied to Prov. 3:5-6 by pointing out that the abandoning of reason, aka faith, is a sad thing, and is not why I came to UF. I pointed out that a campus preacher is functionally in the wrong place when he spouts such nonsense.

CD brought up the favored line of questioning -- what is my "account of" reason? CD doesn't try to abandon the pursuit of knowledge, as Joey insisted I should, but insists that there is no neutral ground upon which the theist and nontheist can reason. This is a common claim among presups. I think that it fails, but I won't go into details in this post, but I will in some in the near future.

On Logic and Ontology

One of the favorite arguments of the Christian apologists known as presuppositionalists is that for absolute, universal X to exist, X must be "grounded in" or "accounted for" via something which is, obviously, absolute and universal. Of course, God fits their description nicely, and so the presups argue that X cannot be "accounted for" without God.

Now, at our 9th AAFSA meeting the other night, Prof. Witmer dissected these arguments and showed their fallacies in a few different ways. He mostly focused on the method of argument, he touched on classical foundationalism and "properly basic belief", etc. He also showed the problems with assuming that all alternative explanada are false, and declaring your own explanation right by default. He talked briefly about i) the false dichotomy, and ii) the possibility of a future explanation being offered which was true. For example, i) why the Christian God is needed to explain X, versus the Muslim Allah, or a deistic concept of God, is rather unclear on the face of the argument -- it isn't "atheism or Christianity", in other words; ii) it is perfectly possible that no one has "given an account of" X that is satisfactory to them that they have encountered yet, or maybe no one at all in all the earth's history, but they must be able to go through and refute every attempt in order to declare a present victory, and they must somehow eliminate future explanada as well.

Recently, I received a comment from an old sparring partner of mine, Peter Pike, aka CalvinDude. We've butted heads many times, but so far, no ugliness or impolity has come from his corner, which cannot be said for many of the Triabloguers (a group blog of presups).

Now, CalvinDude (CD) commented on my post in which I replied to Prov. 3:5-6 by pointing out that the abandoning of reason, aka faith, is a sad thing, and is not why I came to UF. I pointed out that a campus preacher is functionally in the wrong place when he spouts such nonsense.

CD brought up the favored line of questioning -- what is my "account of" reason? CD doesn't try to abandon the pursuit of knowledge, as Joey insisted I should, but insists that there is no neutral ground upon which the theist and nontheist can reason. This is a common claim among presups. I think that it fails, but I won't go into details in this post, but I will in the next one.

In my response to CalvinDude, I will stick to the narrow question of logic and ontology, and he promises another rejoinder is forthcoming:

A minor point, but an important one — atheism does not necessitate naturalism, nor physicalism. There is Platonic atheism, and a number of other options.

You sound like you’re just regurgitating Van Till or Frame.

The naturalistic worldview argues that there most certainly is no supernatural being; the supernatural worldview argues that the supernatural being is necessarily obvious. Seeking a “neutral” point between these two is to seek a point that is related to neither. Thus, a person achieves “neutrality” by sacrificing the ability to speak on either worldview. But since the idea of neutrality is the attempt to find an objective way to compare two worldviews, the above version of neutrality doesn’t allow us to succeed in accomplishing that.

I suppose one place to start is to ask, “How do we establish those things which exist, and those things which do not?” If we want to establish whether or not there is a God, how do we begin? Should we use the same criteria to establish the existence of all objects in the universe, and if so, should we use these same criteria to establish God’s existence?

I think where the presuppositionalists succeed in trying to use this method to argue for God’s existence is that they get someone to commit to the existence or non-existence of objects using some criteria, say within a framework of physicalism, and then they bring up the subject of abstract objects, universals, etc.

Said person is then confused and/or contradicts themselves. All the presup has done, though, is show that the framework used is not sufficient to encompass all objects and all classes of abstractions/universals. Let us qualify the presup’s “critique”, then, such that they understand that no single, sweeping, generalized framework “accounts for” the existence of all objects and all abstractions.

Neither the presup nor the person critiqued typically objects that physicalism is sufficient to explain all objects in the universe. What they move towards, then, is abstract objects. Why do we expect that one sort of framework will cross over into another area, one which definitionally excludes itself from the other? Abstractions are not concrete objects, definitionally. Therefore, a framework which intends to show that anything in our physical universe supervenes on physical objects does not assert to “account for” things which do not have a concrete existence.

Logic, for example, exists in multiple places at the same time, right? Thus we cannot consider it as some sort of entity.

It is only with great care and with great attention to detail that philosophers have worked on these questions of abstract ontology, and I think nominalism, conceptualism, and realism, with respect to abstractions, are perhaps the most subtle of explanada. As a really good example, and something I familiarized myself with just recently, there is a “conceptual natural realism” and a “conceptual intensional realism”**, which take into account the sort of “double existence” paradox of saying that concepts (such as the properties of objects, upon which logic depends) depend on a mind, but obviously the properties of objects pre-exist minds, and minds themselves are necessarily part of the explanadum.

And so what philosophers try to do is take these properties and tie them to naturalism — that objects have physical properties that are not in any way contingent upon concepts, and also tie these properties to conceptualism, in saying that abstractions like universals (redness) do not have an existence, but describe properties which do.

And in the end, is an atheist committed to explaining everything? Or is the atheist not free in saying, “There are concepts we agree on. I am not sure that these concepts have a real existence, or if they are just part of our language, or if they do exist in some abstract form.”

The reductio approach only works if an atheist gives you “ammo” to use against them.

(** See here, sections 6-8, pp. 139-46)

Now, in the theists’ use of God as an explanation, is there an explanation given? If God is not physical, then did physical properties exist before God made them, in a physical universe? You would say that these things existed in some conceptual form in God’s mind, but you must admit that nothing physical existed prior to the universe’s ex nihilo creation. And now we get into what I consider quite interesting — this question about logic being necessary or contingent.

The theist often replies to this “Euthyphro Dilemma” (whether about morality or logic or etc) by simply saying, “God’s nature is/has X.” I am still yet to figure out what this really means, considering that if logic is an abstract object that has an existence, as theists say, and it “exists in God’s mind”, then this implies that just as God can change God’s mind about what is moral (everything God does is moral by definition, and God’s actions can change throughout time, God is held to no external standard) why is it that logic itself is not subject to God’s wish? If you say, “God cannot change Its own nature,” you are limiting God, and thus nullifying omnipotence, as well as making a bold assertion without any sort of argument. Did/does God choose Its own nature, or is God’s nature constrained by these abstractions which somehow hold primacy over It?

I also like how Dawson put the problem of the subjectivity of the universe for the theist:

Claim:

The world is made in his [God’s] likeness.

Affirmations such as this indicate that those who want to stand by them do not fully grasp what it is they are saying. For one thing, the subjectivist implications are difficult to miss. It is essentially saying that the world is a product of conscious activity - that a subject created it, that the world is a product of the unconstrainable wishing of a cosmic, omnipotent consciousness. What could possibly serve as evidence for such a position? Theists have throughout history attempted to concoct some way of finally substantiating such claims, but from what I have examined they all fail to deal with the question at hand: How can consciousness can hold metaphysical primacy over its objects? Theists have to assume the opposite, in effect borrowing from a non-Christian viewpoint, to assert and defend such a view as truth, since the concept ‘truth’ is squarely premised on the principle that the entities we perceive exist independent of a person’s wishing. On Christianity’s premise of granting primacy to a subject of consciousness, one has no objective basis to make any truth claims. He has basically pulled the rug out from underneath himself.

Therefore, you have the opposite problem of the physicalist — you have to “account for” how you establish truth itself, when the referents you attempt to refer to (universals-particulars) are themselves subject to having their properties changed, and may in fact constantly be undergoing just that sort of change. When you grant primacy to God’s consciousness over the existence of and properties of objects, you have undermined the foundation of logic, which is about subject-object relationships and descriptions.

The theist is “borrowing” induction and uniformity from the naturalist.

This is the opposite problem of someone who says that before minds existed, concepts didn’t exist, nor the properties and objects to which they refer and describe. It is also a more vexing problem.

----end of comment----

I do want to add one thing: CD has replied (again) that these things are a part of God's nature:

For instance, when you say that logic is based on the mind of God according to theism, this is actually inaccurate (although I’m sure some theist somewhere believes it). Logic is based on God’s nature. God’s nature is His ontology. Thus, logic is derrived from the fact that God exists; it is not derrived by God willing logic to exist. (As such, God cannot “change his mind” and have logic cease to exist; God must cease to exist in order for logic to cease to exist.)

It would be helpful if we could draw Venn diagrams for a moment, to see if God and God's nature are the same circle (with a subset for the nature), and to see if logic and God's nature are the same circle. I would love to see such a clarification. Because if the circle in a Venn diagram representing logic is drawn completely inside of God, then we are functionally admitting that logic is depenent upon, or contingent upon, God's existence, and it does not hold primacy over God's existence. In this case, then logic doesn't apply to God's existence itself -- whether God could be A and non-A at the same time, indeed, whether or not logic rules over God, or God rules over logic is the serious question to ponder. It doesn't seem solved by moving logic from God's mind to God's nature/ontology -- it is still subsumed by God and therefore is not metaphysically primary to God.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy

How Could Scientists Be So Dumb?

I'm finally convinced of intelligent design. After seeing these beautiful instruments of pain and death, I know that only the most careful planning, the most malicious intent, could have produced such exquisite predators and parasites.

If the God described in the Bible, who designed the organisms listed above, exists, drowning children (Gen. 7:21-22), waging ideological wars of attrition (Deut. 20:16-17), stoning disobedient sons (Deut. 21:18-21), owning slaves (Lev. 25:44-46), keeping virginal war prisoners and massacring the rest (Num. 31:17-18), executing rape victims if they don't cry out (Deut. 22:23-24), hating your family (Lk 14:26), etc. are obligatory if He so desires. It's obvious why evolutionists would reject the concept of God and objective Biblical morality for their quaint, humanistic notions of "equality," "justice" and so forth. Belief that we came from a molecular soup (or "magic clay", like that really silly Cairns-Smith hypothesis claims) naturally leads to such insubordination.

But the woeful immorality of evolutionists isn't the subject of this essay; whether they can account for the magnificent, highly refined systems found in nature is. They can deny their maker all they want, but their "scientific" hand-waving rings hollow, for the evidence screams for itself, so to speak. Which is more reasonable to believe? That all these incredibly complex, purposeful designs, painstakingly crafted for the brilliantly-executed infliction of pain and death, are the result of a blind, totally indifferent natural process, or the culmination of the master plans of the most devious (and inspired) engineer ever to exist?

To paraphrase William Paley (Natural Theology), if you're walking along and find a finely crafted Iron Maiden, with fresh blood stains on it, no less, do you suppose it was put together by chance, or an Intelligent Designer?

Indeed. Stupid evilutionists.
________________
Technorati tags: Intelligent Design

Should I Worry? Should We?

McCain tells us not to worry about habeas corpus. It lived a long and full life, from 1215-2006, until the MCA bill gave the Prez the right to, quote,

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

The problem here is -- who determines the label "enemy combatant", and how is it applied? Bush. Subjectively.

Of the 700+ people who have been and are currently detained at Gitmo, only 10 have ever been charged. I'm reminded of some other, brave, intelligent words:

We cannot defend freedom abroad by abandoning it at home.
—Edward R. Murrow

Constitutions are chains with which men bind themselves in their sane moments that they may not die by a suicidal hand in the day of their frenzy.
—Sen. John Stockton

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
—Thomas Paine

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.
—James Madison

Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.
—Ben Franklin

I fear you do not fully comprehend the danger of abridging the liberties of the people. Nothing but the very sternest necessity can ever justify it. A government had better go to the very extreme of toleration, than to do aught that could be construed into an interference with, or to jeopardize in any degree, the common rights of its citizens.
—Abraham Lincoln

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
—Pastor Martin Niemöller

Making Strides Against Breast Cancer -- An Amazing Cause

I want to bring awareness to, and hopefully inspire you to consider supporting, the ACS -- the American Cancer Society. Specifically, October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, and there is a local "Making Strides" walk to raise money for breast cancer research.

On Saturday, October 14th, my wife Amber will be walking 5K in remembrance of her childhood friend Amanda Hamilton who tragically lost her fight with breast cancer this July at the heartbreakingly-young age of 24. Amber will be walking in this team held at Gainesville's NE park (400 NE 16th Ave). You can click on her team (HERE) and give to the ACS in tribute to anyone. You can also mail us any checks or money orders, made out to: The American Cancer Society. This way Amber can take the checks to the event and they can count it as credit for her fundraising efforts. Write me (email) if you need our address.

If you choose to do so, join up with this walk. It begins at 9 AM on 10/14/2006. The information to do so is HERE.

For those of you who wish to give via the internet, you may give with the credit going to Amber's group HERE, or you may give generally (Amber's team won't get credit for raising the amount) HERE or HERE if you prefer.
________________
Technorati tags: American Cancer Society

How Religion is Likened to Porn

Top Ten Reasons Religion is Like Pornography

10. It has been practiced for all of human history, in all cultures
9. It exploits perfectly natural, even commendable, impulses
8. Its virtues are debatable, its proponents fanatical
7. People love it, but can't give a rational reason for it
6. Objectifies and degrades women even when it worships them
5. You want to wash up after shaking hands with any of its leaders
4. The costumes are outrageous, the performances silly, the plots unbelievable
3. There's nothing wrong with enjoying it, but it's nothing to be proud of, either
2. It is not a sound basis for public policy, government, or international relations
1. Its stars are totally fake

(HT: PZ)
________________
Technorati tags: Religion

My Letter to the Editor Published In Alligator Today

I sent in a column to the Alligator, but they redacted it to a letter, published today. I want to put the whole column below the fold so that you can read it, because they kind of mangled some of my sentences. For example, Joey wrote me and asked, "You think I talk to you more than anyone else?" I obviously meant (and said in the column) only that he probably talks to me more out in the Turlington Plaza while he's holding a sign than anyone else. Anyway, click "Read more" to see for yourself:

I want to respond to Todd Portnowitz's column, and some of the reactions it provoked. Ask Joey Johnsen, the centerpiece campus preacher in Todd's column, which individual in Turlington he dialogues the most with, and he will likely answer an atheist who heads up a campus freethought group. Ask him if this individual was always respectful and polite, then see if he’ll concede that this individual appealed solely to logic, evidence and reason, in an attempt to get Joey to defend the assertions that he carries on his signs.

Ask him who that person is, and he'll tell you it was me.

Joey's defense never came; the end result of the conversations, after numerous email exchanges and hours of dialogue, was an incessant reversion to Prov. 3:5-6, a verse that tells us to abandon the pursuit of understanding and "lean on God" through faith. Just believe. You see, Joey cannot, in the end, defend his beliefs -- he can only assert them. He isn't interested in debating the veracity of his claims, only of having people accept them, under threat of damnation.

Is that what we came here for? Christine Miller admits, "If Johnsen is preaching Christianity through fear, in other words, then so is the Bible itself." Exactly. Bravo for your honesty. I wish more Christians were so bold as to admit this. And that is why Joey, Christine, and the rest of our community need to do some serious contemplation over the following quotation by R.G. Ingersoll: "Intellectual liberty is the air of the soul, the sunshine of the mind and without it, the world is a prison, the Universe is a dungeon."

That is why I came to UF -- not to be told I should fear using my mind, and shut it down in the service of invisible magic Beings (or at least how such priests tell me to serve Them), but to be helped in freeing it from fear and ignorance. Thomas Aquinas may be onto something, “If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections--if he has any--against faith.” He admits this directly after quoting Gregory the Great, “faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience.” The problem for Joey (and other religionists) is that human reason reaches far deeper than they would like to know, and gives us courage, rather than fear.

If Joey and those like him only have dogma to offer, let them continue to do so, because we now know that such empty motions are to be expected from a framework of fear based on ancient superstitions, myth and lore. If they (or anyone else) has more to offer, then “come, let us reason together.” (Isa 1:18)

(475 words)
________________
Technorati tags: AAFSA

COTG #50

The 50th edition of the Carnival of the Godless is now up and running at Salto Sobrius. I especially enjoyed this piece by the Atheist Ethicist -- a moral case against Christian supremacy.

Go revel in the power of dogma-less thinking.
________________
Technorati tags: COTG

Beautiful Cell Animation

A buddy of mine sent me a link to this .swf movie (Shockwave Flash) -- The Inner Life of a Cell: a gorgeous, musical animation of cellular processes that are truly astonishing. I recognized the dynein protein shuttling a vesicle immediately. You can download Martjin Devisser's .flv player (you can save Flash movies to your desktop and play them there) here, or here.

You can read more about the animation project in this article.

Who says science isn't awe-inspiring? That sense of awe and mystery is what Einstein referred to when he said that "science without religion is lame" -- as he later described, in his own words,

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it...
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue.
What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries.
Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength.
A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.

I do not chafe at his words. I understand them. Seeing our universe as it is, and as we are, rather than as we wish for it to be -- that is enough, and it is science. And, it is so much more awe-inspiring than the "divine" ramblings, obfuscations, speculations and myths of the mystics...
________________
Technorati tags: Science

WaPo Op-Ed on PERA, Jesus Camp

The Washington Post features an op-ed by Erwin Chemerinsky on the recently-passed PERA legislation, entitled "Legislating Violations of the Constitution". I've placed the full text below the fold.

Have you heard of "Jesus Camp" yet? If not, check it out. As of right now, Jesus Camp will only be featured in one location in Florida -- Gulf Breeze, near Pensecola. Damn! I wish they'd bring the movie closer, and AAFSA could have a movie night. I've placed more resources on the documentary below:

"Jesus Camp: Documentary" (Wikipedia)
"Film Shows Youths Training to Fight for Jesus New Documentary Features Controversial Bible Camp, Evangelical Movement" (ABC News Short Article)
ABC News Story -- Video
Trailer of "Jesus Camp"
Article in Colorado Newspaper: (Ted Haggert is in the film, and his church is in Colorado Springs)
Christianity Today Article

Here is the WaPo article:

Legislating Violations of the Constitution

By Erwin Chemerinsky
Special to washingtonpost.com
Saturday, September 30, 2006; 12:00 AM

With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

A federal statute, 42 United States Code section 1988, provides that attorneys are entitled to recover compensation for their fees if they successfully represent a plaintiff asserting a violation of his or her constitutional or civil rights. For example, a lawyer who successfully sues on behalf of a victim of racial discrimination or police abuse is entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendant who acted wrongfully. Any plaintiff who successfully sues to remedy a violation of the Constitution or a federal civil rights statute is entitled to have his or her attorney's fees paid.

Congress adopted this statute for a simple reason: to encourage attorneys to bring cases on behalf of those whose rights have been violated. Congress was concerned that such individuals often cannot afford an attorney and vindicating constitutional rights rarely generates enough in damages to pay a lawyer on a contingency fee basis.

Without this statute, there is no way to compensate attorneys who successfully sue for injunctions to stop unconstitutional government behavior. Congress rightly recognized that attorneys who bring such actions are serving society's interests by stopping the government from violating the Constitution. Indeed, the potential for such suits deters government wrong-doing and increases the likelihood that the Constitution will be followed.

The attorneys' fees statute has worked well for almost 30 years. Lawyers receive attorneys' fees under the law only if their claim is meritorious and they win in court. Unsuccessful lawyers get nothing under the law. This creates a strong disincentive to frivolous suits and encourages lawyers to bring only clearly meritorious ones.

Despite the effectiveness of this statute, conservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision. For instance, a lawyer who successfully challenged unconstitutional prayers in schools or unconstitutional symbols on religious property or impermissible aid to religious groups would -- under the bill -- not be entitled to recover attorneys' fees. The bill, if enacted, would treat suits to enforce the Establishment Clause different from litigation to enforce all of the other provisions of the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes.

Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. Since they cannot change the law of the Establishment Clause by statute, they have turned their attention to trying to prevent its enforcement by eliminating the possibility for recovery of attorneys' fees.

Those who successfully prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees. Few people can afford to do so. Without the possibility of attorneys' fees, individuals who suffer unconstitutional religious persecution often will be unable to sue. The bill applies even to cases involving illegal religious coercion of public school children or blatant discrimination against particular religions.

The passage of this bill by the House is a disturbing achievement by those who seek to undermine our nation's commitment to fundamental freedoms laid out in the Constitution. Should it come up for a vote, it is imperative that the Senate reject this nefarious proposal. The religious right is looking for a way to get away with violating the Establishment Clause and is now one step closer to this goal. The Establishment Clause is no less important than any other part of the Bill of Rights and suits to enforce it should be treated no differently than any other litigation to enforce civil liberties and civil rights

Erwin Chemerinsky is the Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science, at Duke University.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion