February 11, 2009

Huckabee: Stimulus is 'anti-religious'

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned his supporters Tuesday in an email which was also posted on his blog against the $828 billion stimulus package. “The dust is settling on the ‘bipartisan’ stimulus bill and one thing is clear: it is anti-religious,” he wrote.
(Thanks: Sandra Kennedy Schimmelpfennig)

Yes, both the House and Senate bills have a provision that prohibits federal dollars for higher education construction grants to be used for:
“…modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities--used for sectarian instruction, religious worship…or a school or department of divinity; or in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.”
[…]
You would think the ACLU drafted this bill …
[…]
I urge you to try and answer one question: Why would Democrats add this provision into a spending bill that they say is “urgently needed” to help our economy?
The answer is troubling and predictable. For all of the talk about bipartisanship, this Congress is blatantly liberal.



Recommend this post on Google!


7 comments:

  1. Is this a joke? You do realize that is standard language that has already existed in Federal grants for at over 20 years,including under Bush 1 and Bush 2, because there is supposed to be a separation of church and state?Just because Huckabee is ignorant doesn't mean the rest of us need to be.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Relata refero, that is to say that "I told the tale as I heard it," without any comment. As far as I know, and as you mentioned, that provision is standard stuff—“neutral,” not anti-religious, I would say—which has been included in previous legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” We have part of a bill that is supposed to be a economic stimulus package, but seems to be using it to ensure no money goes to anyone or any institution that has a religious link. Does that mean the establishment clause really means that congress shall make laws respecting the dis-establishment of religion? If this is an economic package, wouldn't buildings getting upgrades for comfort and safety create jobs? Why did congress put in language that targets, and denies, a specific group, if everyone is supposed to benefit from the trillions of dollars the government is heisting from everyone in the public?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gov. HKuckabee is right. The Federal Government is discriminating against religion, except for Secularism. The first amendment demands no respect to any specific religion, but to have a blind eye to faith or lack there of.

    Strange how everyone speaks to the first amendment but totally ignores the reminding fact of abuse of power spoken to in the 9th and 10th Amendment.

    Some Congreessman did not think it necessary to include the latter two amendments, as it is clear that the Constitution clearly defines the very limited power of the Federal Government. Both Parties are ignoring the Constitution, but for what fits their agenda. We are a very very sick Nation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Seems to me there are two issues here. The first is, should government funds be used for purposes that are essentially religious? The answer is no, although one can argue around the edges as to what facilities are devoted to mostly religious purposes.

    The other issue is the blatant partisanship associated with the bill. Liberals have tried to tack pet projects onto the bill, and conservatives have fought that and tried to expand their pet causes, such as tax reductions.

    As the great Rodney King said, "Why can't we all just get along?"

    ReplyDelete
  6. It seems to me that Metaphysical Peregrine and R. George Dunn have given us something to think about. I’d be tempted to say that their arguments against the stimulus package are solid, but I am well aware that it’s difficult for me—as a non-American, though very interested in what happens in the US—to go into specifics regarding current and much debated US policies and even constitutional procedures. That’s why I prefer to refrain from “pontificating” … Thanks everybody for your comments, I really appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wheeeww, it's hard to please everybody. What is pleasing to you may never be pleasing to the other side. Which is which? So hard to decide and yet crucial if not decided on time. Good decision making talent is the key to open the better alternative. How to achieve? Just think and review the records of "history". It will unfold the truth and pave the way for the correct passage.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails