Buttars' new magnet for lawsuits
There are no comments for this page [ Add Comment ]Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The Legislature is in session again, and that of course means there will be, for the next 36 days, an embarrassment of wealth when it comes to subject matter for editorials, opinion columns and letters to the editor.
The Legislature is the real gift that keeps on giving.
And within the ranks of lawmakers, there is no more reliable rabble-rouser than West Valley Republican Sen. Chris Buttars, who in recent years has fixated on promoting legislation to benefit religious expression and belief. This year is no different, as Buttars has bolted out of the gate with Senate Bill 111, "Free Exercise of Religion Without Government Interference." Its "general description" reads as follows: "This bill enacts provisions creating a legal standard for the free exercise of religion."
We think the bill is unnecessary, would invite expensive lawsuits at taxpayers' expense and should be defeated. We are joined in our opinion by Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and other education-establishment insiders.
Nevertheless, the bill passed 4-2 out of the Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee last week. And so it will likely be discussed on the floor of the Senate sometime soon.
If you'd like a revealing look into the debate that produced this suspect piece of legislation, go to the Web address rtsp://ra.le.state.ut.us:554/committee/rW020-0119071.rm. Among the comments you'll hear are Buttars' reasons for sponsoring the bill: "This last Christmas season ... we had one of our major school districts that had 'winter recess' this year instead of 'Christmas recess.' ... I had a young man whose parents got hold of me and was sent home from school because he had a CTR (LDS slogan "Choose the Right") shirt on."
And Buttars explains what he hopes to accomplish with passage of the legislation: Under this legislation, he said, "A young Jewish boy could wear his little cap -- I can never pronounce how they say that, but you know what I'm talking about." And "Although the principal couldn't do it, because he's the government authority, the kids could get together and say, 'We want you to put on the agenda, we're going to have a prayer -- we're gonna have a Mormon open it and have a Jewish boy end it.' And they would be able to do that under this law."
You'll also hear Attorney General Mark Shurtleff warn, "This will ensure civil rights attorneys ... bring additional cases under this law. Because in addition to protecting the majority or the mainstream types of religions that have been mentioned here, as soon as the kid wears a Satanic T-shirt and he says it is his deeply held religious belief or sincere religious belief that he worships Satan, and you have some restriction there, there will be a lawsuit."
Another participant in the committee hearing was David S. Doty, assistant commissioner of higher education. He said when he was a lawyer in the Davis School District, officials had a difficult time resolving a student's wearing of "witch" clothing to school each day, which she said represented her Wiccan religion. If the proposed law is passed, he said, it would give someone like her grounds to sue the district for religious discrimination.
"Obviously," he continued, "our professors face some challenges with respect to the curriculum. We could have, for example, any person going into a freshman biology class and as soon as the topic of evolution comes up claiming that their religion is being substantially burdened and being able to file a lawsuit."
And finally, you will hear the comments of Sen. Bill Hickman, R-St. George: "... we have forgotten what this is all about, and that's individual freedom. ... The situation with the young girl who came to school dressed as a witch: ... The point is, if she chooses to do that, and if her family supports her in that, let her do it. What's the problem? The kids understand. Give the kids a lot more benefit than we are giving them now. They understand -- she's a little strange, but according to their standards. It's individual freedom we're concentrating on here, and it goes even beyond religious freedom. It's individual freedom. And we need to make sure we aren't always interested in protecting the institution so that we don't get sued. We're going to get sued anyway; it doesn't matter."
We think Buttars is wasting time promoting these types of bills. And it's obvious he hasn't put the quality or quantity of thought into this that others have. But the discussions excerpted above are both serious and interesting, and speak well of our lawmakers, attorney general and interested education officials -- whether or not you agree with their opinions on the matter.
Text 
