Religious Discrimination Hidden in the Stimulus Bill

Hmmm. Are you sure that the money just isn't supposed to be used on the worship BUILDINGS? Most all private colleges have a worship building of some sort.

I read through the stimulus bill and that includes any part of the building used for bible studies, meeting of Christian groups, etc. It seems that some of those people who find this provision really do not care. Yes maybe they consider all the benefits that the Church has done, getting rid of slavery, child labor, infaniacide, etc. Would they want those evils to come back? Now my church owns its own building, we have a printing company, etc. and many of our members also own their own companies; we have our own school, but the members have to pay tuition and we pay tithes and offerings, but I have been on the internet and found that many churches do not have their own buildings, that they have to rent a hall or a room for Sunday services and the members of the local church are not flush with money. Yes Christianity is not limited to the rich. For those areas where there is not a church building (and that means that church building will not be renovated and get a discount for the renovation either) and it has most of its members who are making minimum wage, some who are disabled, or on disability, or welfare, those members will have to pay for the repairs. All those people who think that the stimulus package is okay as it is, go hang your heads in shame. I won't stop you. This means that that building cannot be renovated unless the Christians are kicked out and either meet on the street and remember their members may not be rich. So I suppose that this is designed to reduce Christians to the poverty line and make bankrupt. I would say scrap the stiumulus all together. It sounds like socialism and state worship to me.

This same provision has been in every spending bill since the sixties! It simply means funds will not go to religious schools that teach a specific faith, such as Catholic schools. This had been the case for years and it doesn't mean students can't hold a prayer meeting or anything like that. It's explained quite clearly right in the article you linked to. 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." (End of excerpt) Annie

Trust Fox news to blow the whole thing out of proportion. I knew a starting line including "War on Prayer" didn't bode well. I was right. The actual text which they are addressing is this: "(3) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS- No funds awarded under this section may be used for-- (A) the maintenance of systems, equipment, or facilities, including maintenance associated with any permissible uses of funds described in paragraph (1); (B) modernization, renovation, or repair of stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public; (C) 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; or (D) construction of new facilities." It doesn't say anything about schools that let religious meetings occur on campus. In fact, the provisions are quite clear that the primary practice of the school or facility must be religious in nature in order to not receive these funds. So long as these schools "functions" remain "substantially" non-religious, everything is a-ok. Though I can see how they managed to twist the wording. If and when they amend it, they might as well just throw in a 'primarily' here or there to shut the critics up.

I have no problem with not using government money (our money) to for religious things... unless they covered all religions and faiths, which they don't.

good, I don't want my taxes going to build churches or any other place of worship, now if it is going to teach someone some true facts then spend it on class rooms or books.

First, let me say, I do not support this bill in any way shape or form. Second I really do not think that schools should be a part of this. This is supposed to stimulate our economy. Social programs should be separate. That being said, if you are going to give money to some schools, you should give it for all. I think this bill is so stuffed with special interest crap.

OMG! That is horrible! Well, I knew he was a bigotted discriminating jerk, but it can't entirely be him. The president has power sure, but Congress itself actually has even more. If they accept this thing then they are even more hateful and bigotted than Obama himself!

This can be discussed on so many levels. First, since I haven't read the stimulus package word for word, I'm not sure this is being interpreted correctly by its critics. If the Republicans are right then no public college or university in the country would qualify for receiving government funds. As powerful as the higher education lobby is, if that's what this was saying then I think they'd be its most vocal opponents. But that lobby seems to be supportive, which indicates that they aren't afraid of losing any money on it. Secondly, how did Christian church leaders get from "government shouldn't be involved in charity work" to "we want our piece of the pie" so quickly? It used to be that churches and church leaders were against the government performing or funding any charity work. Now, it seems, they are for it only if they give the money to churches. I for one don't think the government should be giving charitable moneys to any organizations, even churches or schools that build religious facilities. That's not a discriminatory position. It's a position of fiscal responsibility.

Good for him!!!!! This is great because the money should be spent on education not religion there is such a thing as seperation of church and state he is in NO way violating anyone's religious rights he is allocating that money for education and to improve academics he isnt going to pay (or ask the taxpayers to pay) so that someone can go to a special building and pray while they are supposed to be learning its not descriminating because he isnt singling out any particular religion he is trying to enforce that seperation of church and state