Obama's Stimulus Bill a War on Prayer

I don't know how the clause actual reads but I do know the GOP depends on fear and plays on the passion of their followers. Something like this would ordinarily sound bad until your realize a religious school is a private school which is not eligible for public funds unless they apply for the funding specifically through grants. So in the end, this is nothing new.

 

The issue isn't about funding private institutions. It's about funding for public institutions that allow religious activities in their facilities. Here's an article with more information directly from the stimulus bill:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2009/02/religious-discrimination---not.html

From what I'm reading, this would mean that a college that allowed a bible study to take place in one of their facilities would not be eligible for funds for that facility.

Granted, I don't think we should send funds through this stimulus in any case, but certainly it shouldn't exclude facilities that allow religious activities to take place.

 

I don't get it, what public institution allows religious activities? We can't put the 10 commandments on a building. You mean we can worship in public places?

 

Schools rent space to churches. I read the bill and the wording specifically says that the buildings in question would have to have religious activities as their primary purpose. I think this is a fear for no reason.

 

Public institutions all over the place allow religious activities. My kid's public high school has a bible study at it. That's religious activity. The boy scouts and cub scouts meet at public schools all the time and they pray and acknowledge God. I imagine I'd be correct if I guessed that the vast majority of public colleges and universities in the US had a bible study or other religious study that happens within one of their facilities.

 

No..it doesn't say that. You need to read it closer.

"PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. - No funds awarded under this section may be used for - (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."

The first part says "used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity" then it says "OR" and then "in which a substantial portion....".

The spirit of it may be as you claim Revmitchell, but the letter of it tells us differently.

 

That is exactly what it says.

 

Why do you ignore the word OR?

 

I've been googling for days and can't find the bill. Can someone link me?

Primary purpose, so this isn't a prayer meeting in the gym. This is an actual religious facility.

 

So even with this statement, that wouldn't be prayer at the boy scout meeting would it? I mean, wouldn't they have to do substantially more praying than meeting?

 

How can a lack of federal funds do anything to affect prayer, much less cause a 'war on prayer?'

 

You want tax money for building American Madrasses? (sp?)

 

Interesting that I had a site that was the bill - 1500+ pages - but when I go to check this particular item under discussion ---POOF!! It no longer exists.

If matt wade's post is correct,

then C-ii is referring to the primarily religious school, but C-i is inclusive of ANY school the permits religious activity on the campus/use of the facilities.

Two different animals.

Now a common sense meaning of C-i would be (IMNSHO anyway) that there be no major emphasis on religious activity here, but a literal reading would be that if the school rented the gym/auditorium etc. for a church service, then it falls under this section -" -used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity--"

As we all know, there can be a tremendous difference in the "letter" and the "spirit" of the law, (disabilities act fer instance) and you all also know what fuels the litigious society we have.

 

Senator Demint said today that he has put in and amendment to strip this phrase from the spending package and the ACLU has been busy trying to get toe Dems to fight his amendment. That seems to give credibility that it would have the effect many are suspicious of.

 

Thank you for making my point better than I could . I don't think there was any great conspiracy to keep funding from a college that may have a bible study or may rent a room to a church group, but as you said the letter of the law said different. I'm glad it sounds like they may be closing this potential problem in the bill. Now if they would just close out the whole bill .

 

Lets say Demnt wins and the wording is removed, what happens when tax dollars go to Muslim and Buddhist temples? Will Obama get the blame or Demint because you know the flames will be large...

 

Maybe you should rethink your question and get back to me.

 

You a funny Brother Rev... You and I both know, if Obama let this money go to religious organization he will be crucified with the first dollar spent on a mosque. I can hear LE now, "see, I told you he was Muslim"... :laugh:

This is a can't win for him...

 

I will try once again to encourage you to rethink your statement.