Because religious freedom is one of the most basic principles protected by our Constitution religion flourishes here in America.

In fact, more than 85 percent of Americans identify with a religion (according to a 2002 Pew Research Council Poll), and more than half of Americans of an extraordinarily wide range of faiths regularly attend services. America is home to more than 1,300 religions and more than 360,000 churches, synagogues and mosques.

The ACLU has defended the right of evangelical preachers to pass out literature on the Strip in Las Vegas and to preach on Washington state sidewalks. We have defended a Nebraskan church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln. We have defended the right of those who want to perform baptisms in a public park. We have defended the right to include religious yearbook messages on behalf of a Christian high school valedictorian. We have defended the rights of students to distribute candy canes with religious messages.

We have defended religious freedom innumerable times, but when a city or a county puts a religious emblem on its seal, it is violating this country's principles of religious freedom. And, it sends a disquieting message that the government favors one religion.

The founders of this country knew what they were doing. They knew that religion would thrive if they made sure government wasn't allowed to interfere by establishing or promoting one single state religion especially since this country has been a haven for many who have come here to escape governments with one state-sponsored religion.

Many groups and individuals fight daily to protect these important civil rights and civil liberties issues. The American Legion's call to change the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 is a retaliatory measure based on misinformation aimed at hobbling a number of non-profit organizations, including the ACLU, that protect all people's civil rights and civil liberties. Attorney fees go to the prevailing party and without funding, the rights of all Americans would be severely curtailed.

We encourage and stand up for freedom of expression including healthy debate, but the Constitution is clear. It protects individuals from any and all attempts by the majority to curtail the liberties and rights of individuals. The ACLU exists to defend and secure those rights.

SACRAMENTO - A new bill that puts California at the forefront of efforts to guard the privacy rights of its residents cleared a major hurdle Tuesday when it was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee with strong bipartisan support.

The Identity Information Protection Act of 2005 (SB 682) zeros in on the use of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. It would prohibit identity documents issued by the state from containing an integrated circuit or other device that can broadcast an individual's personal information. The bill was introduced by Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), and is supported by a diverse coalition of privacy, women's and conservative groups from throughout the state.

The bill now heads to the Senate Committee on Appropriations and then moves to the Senate floor for a vote.

"I think we're one step closer to a thoughtful, rational policy approach on this issue in California," said Simitian. "We're hoping to protect individual privacy, personal safety, and financial security. My goal is to ensure that state and local government will be part of the solution, not part of the problem."

"We believe goods should be tagged, not people," said Pam Noles, a policy associate with the ACLU of Southern California. "California's laws must keep up with the pace of technical advances so residents can be protected from the privacy threats represented by inappropriate use of this powerful and useful technology."

Long in use in the manufacturing, distribution and retail industries to track goods, RFID tags are also widely used in toll booths, inside pet id tags, and even seismic sensors used to collect data in land prone to earthquakes. But the escalating use of RFID in everyday lives poses a threat to the privacy and civil liberties individuals. All matter of personal information can be embedded in these chips - an individual's name, address, telephone number, date of birth, social security number, fingerprint and photograph, which can then be easily captured using scanners widely available off the shelf. Secret and remote reading of this critically personal data broadcasting from the chips puts an individual at risk of identity theft, tracking and surveillance by the government, stalking or even kidnaping.

The legislation was introduced in February, about a month after controversy erupted in a small Northern California town over mandatory use of RFIDs to track student movements at an elementary school. Parents had no idea their children had been tagged with chipped badges that carried the student's name, photo, grade, class year and school identification number.

The bill is supported by a variety of women's groups, civil rights groups, domestic violence prevention groups, business organizations, and conservative organizations including the Capitol Resource Institute, the AARP, The California Alliance Against Domestic Violence, the Statewide California Coalition for Battered Women, California NOW, and the California Commission on the Status of Women.

A Governor who ran for office as the people's politician should unite the residents of California rather than divide.

Gov. Schwarzenegger's recent off the cuff statement that he supports the work of a handful of vigilantes in Arizona staked out on the U.S.-Mexico border without the support of the U.S. Government, the Border Patrol or even President Bush is bad governance. The Governor then took it one step farther in saying he is not opposed to vigilantism within our state. Encouraging this kind of dangerous activity that invites harassment and intimidation is irresponsible.

In a state so rich and diverse, our elected officials are charged with supporting the people, and solving problems, not advocating behavior designed to scapegoat a national issue on immigrants.

A Governor who steers clear of tempered discussion and reasoned debate is not doing his job. Californians voted him into office because he promised no divisive rhetoric and to govern for all the people of California, unfortunately he has sunk far below this claim.