• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama's Stimulus Bill a War on Prayer in Schools

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Conservative Groups Declare Obama's Stimulus Bill a War on Prayer
A provision in the House-passed stimulus bill -- banning money to be used to renovate schools from being spent on facilities that allow "religious worship" -- has ignited fury among those who claim it discriminates on the basis of faith and violates the right to free speech.

By Cristina Corbin

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Democrats in Congress have declared war on prayer, say conservative groups who object to a provision in the stimulus bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last week.

The provision bans money designated for school renovation from being spent on facilities that allow "religious worship." It has ignited a fury among critics who say it violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to prevent religious practice in schools.

According to the bill, which the Democratic-controlled House passed despite unanimous Republican opposition, funds are prohibited from being used for the "modernization, renovation, or repair" of facilities that allow "sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity."

Critics say that could include public schools that permit religious groups to meet on campus. The House provided $20 billion for the infrastructure improvements, of which $6 billion would go to higher education facilities where the limitations would be applied.

"What the government is doing is discriminating against religious viewpoints," said Matthew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that works to advance religious freedom.

"President Obama's version of faith-based initiatives is to remove the faith from initiative," said Staver, who believes Obama has "a completely different view on faith" from what he said during his presidential campaign.

"He is not the infallible messiah that some thought he would be," Straver said.

Civil liberty groups like the Americans United for Separation of Church and State vehemently defend the stimulus bill's provision, arguing that it in no way violates the Constitution.

"This provision upholds constitutional standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court and in no way affects student groups that meet on public school campuses," said the Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The American Civil Liberties Union also defends the constitutionality of the restriction, which they say has been the law since 1972.

"It's almost a restatement of what the Constitution requires so there's nothing novel in what the House did in its restriction," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel to the ACLU. "For 37 years, the law of the land is that the government can't pay for buildings that are used for religious purposes."

Not so, says the Traditional Values Coalition, which issued a statement Wednesday charging that Obama is using his stimulus plan to restrict the exercise of religion in public facilities -- a provision it says violates the right to free speech.

"The economic crisis is being used as a pretext to curb religious liberty at institutions of higher learning," said Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.

"We are not asking that federal funding be used to construct a church, but if a campus ministry wants to hold a Bible study or Mass in the student activity building, we should be encouraging that -- not punishing a college for permitting it," she said.

According to some constitutional law experts, any complaint filed against the provision will gain little ground in court.

"Certainly the provision is treating the act of religious organizations differently from the activities of the school itself," Harvard University constitutional law professor Mark Tushnet told FOXNews.com.

"It's not frivolous to say there's a constitutional problem with excluding religious facilities from these grants, but I think the way of the law is in the other direction," he said.

Tushnet cited a 2004 Supreme Court case in which a Washington student lost a college scholarship awarded by the state after it was revealed that he planned to pursue a degree in pastoral ministries. Though the student argued that rescinding the money discriminated on the basis of religion, the court ruled in the state's favor -- declaring that the taxpayer-funded scholarship's restriction is constitutional.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Administration is correctly following that the Supreme Court rulings/interpretations that have came out....
"This provision upholds constitutional standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court and in no way affects student groups that meet on public school campuses," said the Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The American Civil Liberties Union also defends the constitutionality of the restriction, which they say has been the law since 1972.

"It's almost a restatement of what the Constitution requires so there's nothing novel in what the House did in its restriction," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel to the ACLU. "For 37 years, the law of the land is that the government can't pay for buildings that are used for religious purposes."

Which faith based private schools do you back and which don't you :???:

Conservatives/Repubs would be the loudest screaming if they found some of the money was being used to aid or build Islamic schools...

Sandhusker- as far as stimulus-- locally I know it will mean we will not have to have a mill referendum to build needed additional classroom space, will save the District on heating costs due to the energy efficiency remodeling it will fund, and it will probably save some teachers jobs...
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Conservatives/Repubs would be the loudest screaming if they found some of the money was being used to aid or build Islamic schools...

That's the first thing I thought.

The wingers freaked out when some schools in Michigan were going to install foot washing basins for Muslin students in the restrooms - imagine if an Islamic school received money for renovation!

Trouble is, the wingnuts don't really believe Islam is a religion, but rather a front organization for terrorists.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You libs don't know the difference between "stimulus" and "wild-ass spending" You can somehow justify anything spent at anytime as stimulating something, therefore "stimulus" is a synonym for "rampant deficit pork-barrel pay-off-favors biggest piss-away of tax-payers money at anytime" time for you folks. Where the heck is the cutoff between "stimulus" and "spending"?
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Where the heck is the cutoff between "stimulus" and "spending"?

Are you proposing a spending-free stimulus package?

Thank you, Warren Harding, for you input on the economic meltdown.

It's too bad you died prior to the Great Depression or you might understand these concepts better!
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
Where the heck is the cutoff between "stimulus" and "spending"?


You should have asked this when Bush did the first $600 'stimulus' deal that tanked so badly.

Why would I not be surprised if Bush and his brain trust had proposed a $600 stimulus package? :wink:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
Where the heck is the cutoff between "stimulus" and "spending"?


You should have asked this when Bush did the first $600 'stimulus' deal that tanked so badly.

Why would I not be surprised if Bush and his brain trust had proposed a $600 stimulus package? :wink:


Correct me then.....what was the actual wordage when we all got those $600 'tax refund/rebate'...checks????

You know the $600 per tax payer that was to lead us to the promised land.......but lead more to WalMart and the money going BACK to China from whence it was originally borrowed!!!!! :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I've been watching the Repubs in Congress today--one after another get up and speachify- and rant against excessive spending- and putting a debt on our kids...
AND I WANT TO PUKE....

Where were these same folks when they were backslapping and rubberstamping every $ Hundred Billion GW wanted to squander here and there in the last 8 years while they were building the biggest bureaucracy, biggest deficit, and biggest national debt in history :???:

And he/Repubs have also the biggest economic disaster in our lifetimes-- and they may end up causing the biggest Depression ever seen in the history of this country- if fast action isn't taken to reverse their policies of the past 8-12 years...
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
badaxemoo said:
kolanuraven said:
You should have asked this when Bush did the first $600 'stimulus' deal that tanked so badly.

Why would I not be surprised if Bush and his brain trust had proposed a $600 stimulus package? :wink:


Correct me then.....what was the actual wordage when we all got those $600 'tax refund/rebate'...checks????

You know the $600 per tax payer that was to lead us to the promised land.......but lead more to WalMart and the money going BACK to China from whence it was originally borrowed!!!!! :wink:

Sorry - I thought you were talking about his brilliant TARP funds and left out the "billion".

Somehow a $600 stimulus package for the whole nation does sound like a Grover Norquist inspired idea!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Sandhusker said:
Where the heck is the cutoff between "stimulus" and "spending"?

Are you proposing a spending-free stimulus package?

Thank you, Warren Harding, for you input on the economic meltdown.

It's too bad you died prior to the Great Depression or you might understand these concepts better!

That wasn't a proposal, that was a question. Instead of answering, you employed Liberal debate move #5; Evade the question by asking a question.
 
Top