1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Stimulus package is anti faith

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Cajuncowboy, Feb 7, 2009.

  1. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,476 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    The U.S. Senate has taken action that could mean a legal battle royal over the stimulus bill.



    The Senate rejected an amendment offered by Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) that would have stripped language from the stimulus bill that would force colleges and universities to throw religious clubs off campus if the schools receive federal funds.


    Can anyone tell me what this has to do with stimulating the economy????
  2. CowboyMcCoy

    CowboyMcCoy Business is a Boomin

    12,749 Messages
    234 Likes Received
    Giving money to education is good for the economy because it increases our human capital.

    Throwing religious clubs off campus is just doing what is right. Those people can worship off-campus and not use Federal money to practice their dogmatic moral scripts while on campus.

    Parts of this bill I really like.
  3. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Nothing....just like the 220 million to re-sod the place that hosted the most expensive inauguration EVER.
    That'll make it the 370 million inauguration.

    Ludicrous.
  4. irvin4evs

    irvin4evs Benched

    573 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I'm sure it's not actually as your propaganda outlet worded it.

    What it means, I'm guessing, is that religious student clubs won't be granted funding that can now go toward professor salaries and whatever hypothesized methods of creating on-campus jobs they might have.

    I don't really see why you care about this.
  5. jimnabby

    jimnabby Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    4,126 Messages
    902 Likes Received
    Basically, it's all lies.

    The language in the bill is this:

    "No funds awarded under this section may be used for... 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 language is standard and has been used in bills for decades - the Supreme Court said it was fine in 1971. It does not say or imply that religious clubs will be kicked off campuses - DiMint is simply lying about that. It doesn't even say that the money can't go to religious schools. It just can't be used on facilities that are primarily used for religious activities.

    Even if this language is stripped from the bill, the spending described is still illegal, based on Supreme Court rulings.

    It's just manufactured outrage designed to turn people against the stimulus package.
  6. irvin4evs

    irvin4evs Benched

    573 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Wow. That was really smart. Thank you.
  7. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,476 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    First they don't need to manufacture outrage against this stupid bill.

    Second, the money can't be used on facilities that are primarily used for religious activities but it CAN go to religious schools??

    that makes no sense.
  8. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,476 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    Why shouldn't i care about it?
  9. Temo

    Temo Active Member

    3,735 Messages
    20 Likes Received
    It's simple really. Spend the money on a new classroom, ok. Spend the money on renovating the local chapel, not ok.

    And this part: "in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission"; even says that you can spend on the money on a classroom that is sometimes used for religious purposes, as long as it's not a substantial portion of the classroom's usage.
  10. CowboyMcCoy

    CowboyMcCoy Business is a Boomin

    12,749 Messages
    234 Likes Received
    For instance, religious studies, of all sorts, go on the premises of college campuses. But you can't incorporate the religious school's usage of tax money to support any expense that entail's a religious reason for the expense.

    That makes sense, but it's still slippery in that people will still find a way to abuse the statute.
  11. irvin4evs

    irvin4evs Benched

    573 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Cajun - Let me get this straight: You wouldn't be mad if they banned religious schools entirely?

    LOL.
  12. DIAF

    DIAF DivaLover159

    4,012 Messages
    18 Likes Received
    Is this another example of Cajun bringing up Faith on the political zone, without actually admitting to doing so? I'm surprised he didn't include his standard "I can't talk about it here" whine.

    Nearly every single state school that receives federal funds has multiple student religious organizations ingrained so deeply into the fabric of University life that it would be utterly unconscionable that this is exactly what the bill provision means. More likely it would just bar these particular federal funds from going to those organizations, which is fine by me. Of course, that interpretation Cajun will ever entertain....ITS A WAR ON RELIGION, PEOPLE! THE GOVT IS TRYING TO THROW JESUS OFF CAMPUS!

    I don't see how a federally-funded add-on for the Baptist Student Union at xxxxx State University is really going to stimulate the economy.
  13. CowboyMcCoy

    CowboyMcCoy Business is a Boomin

    12,749 Messages
    234 Likes Received
    Bingo.
  14. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,253 Messages
    2,453 Likes Received
    Perhaps in the same manner that increased funding for STD education is supposed to stimulate the economy? Or funding abortions in foreign countries?

    Essentially, Obama is offering up pork to the special interests that elected him, and removing pork from the special interests that opposed him

    It's the way the game has been played for decades.

    Change, indeed.
  15. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    33,046 Messages
    790 Likes Received
    Bingo.

    :laugh2:
  16. DIAF

    DIAF DivaLover159

    4,012 Messages
    18 Likes Received
    True, none of those have any business being in this bill either. But that's not what this thread its about. It's about one poster's ridiculous assertion that this bill is somehow "anti-faith".
  17. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,253 Messages
    2,453 Likes Received
    Then you should've refrained from redirecting the thread in such a direction. I was responding to a specific comment made by you.
  18. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    28,940 Messages
    356 Likes Received
    That'll leave a mark...
  19. DIAF

    DIAF DivaLover159

    4,012 Messages
    18 Likes Received
    I didn't bring up the other provisions of this bill. You did.
  20. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,253 Messages
    2,453 Likes Received
    I was responding to the following statement, which you made:

    If you're going to criticize one proposal for not "stimulating the economy," it's quite disingenuous to ignore the myriad of other proposals, which are actually attached to this bill, that also do nothing to create economic growth.

    Furthermore, the focus of your above statement has a much wider ranger than the anti-faith premise of this thread.

Share This Page