Stimulus? Not If A School Has Religious Meetings

Well well well, we actually get to see some of the San Francisco liberal anti-religion fervor in the so-called stimulus bill, via Culture and Media Institute

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…unless your institution of higher learning is getting part of the massive (nearly $900-billion and counting) Obama/Reid/Pelosi stimulus proposal.

Both versions of the bill, the House version (H.R. 1) that passed on Jan. 28 by a 244-188 margin, without a single Republican vote, and the Senate version (S. 336), which will probably be voted on in the next few days – include language that would “prohibit” modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities:

(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or
(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission

Such language is regrettable and could leave some institutions of higher learning susceptible to a legal action by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) according to a spokesman from South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint’s office.

So groups like ACORN will get money, there is money for the National Endowment for the Arts, and people who don’t pay taxes will get earned income credit, along with the rest of the Democrats 40 year wish list. But if there is a hint of religion? Nope. They just need to piss off in Liberal World.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “Stimulus? Not If A School Has Religious Meetings”

  1. gus says:

    The law is consistent with FREE exercise of religion. You are demanding TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED exercise of religion. Taxpayer subsidiized exercise of religion is not in the Constitution. Keep religious exercise FREE – don’t make our taxes pay for it.

  2. No, no, you misunderstand me, Gus. Perhaps I could have made it clearer. The bill is explicitly excluding any religious group from getting money, while allowing all these other groups. This is not an endorsement of religion, as laid out in the 1st, because this is about all religions.

  3. John Ryan says:

    Teach religious indoctrination is not a mandated function of the US government.

Pirate's Cove