Fundies: The stimulus package is Gawd-less

[marmar]

from OneNewsNow, the fundie-friendly "news" service of the American Family Assn:



Anti-faith language remains in stimulus package
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 2/7/2009 4:15:00 AM


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.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice had this reaction.

"Well, not only is it disappointing, it's almost a throwback to litigation that we conducted in the 1980s that we won unanimously at the Supreme Court," he says. "And I feel like this particular legislation pokes the finger in the eye of people who take religious faith seriously.

"It's discriminatory in its application, unconstitutional as it's written, (and) unfortunately it's going to take four or five years for it to be litigated all the way through," Sekulow adds.

With passage of the bill with the restrictions in place, how might colleges and universities be affected? "We're going to look at filing an application for a stay of this provision, trying to get it declared unconstitutional through a restraining order," he shares.

Sekulow plans to file suit the day after President Obama signs the bill.


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=411848 (if Rick-rolled, this story's in the onenewsnow area of www.afa.net )

[FLAprogressive]

1. lol. Charlie Butts.

[baldguy]

2. When Gawd starts paying taxes, we'll call him.

[Taverner]

3. Fuck fuck fuck FUCK the Fundies

They had their chance

They fucked up

Fuck them

Fuck them all to hell

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

4. I don't think the bill actually forces those groups off campus.

I believe it states that the funds cannot be used towards construction, development, and hiring of religious specific organizations on campus. IE.. No repairs to a church. But many religious groups meet in lunch halls, and group areas outside of their regular use time - which I believe is still fine.

[gratuitous]

6. No, it doesn't

In fact, the language in the bill is standard for appropriations:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902080007

Media Matters, of course, has the full, true story. Isn't it strange to see a bunch of loud-mouthed, self-proclaimed Christians bearing false witness? Seems to me the Bible addresses that point rather forcefully. It's against lying, as I recall.

[RJ Connors]

5. Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice had this reaction.

When I got to that line I realized no need to read any further. The rest is just hyperventilating to arouse fear among the clueless.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

7. I question this whole issue, something doesn't ring true here.

why would they want to throw clubs off campus? For what reason? they are not official, no one forces you to join or not to join, sounds like right wing nut wind.

[Scooter24]

8. The man doesn't know what he is talking about.

Obviously he is trying to blend the difference between institutions that allow their students to freely engage in Bible study, faith-based clubs, and worship services and those institutions that mandate participation in those programs either through school policy or the curriculum. This policy doesn't prevent anyone from freely exercising their rights.

The money would provide schools with funding to help modernize or build science labs, classrooms, and libraries. What it doesn't allow for is the money to be used to modernize the campus chapel if it has no substantial academic purpose or to a school that freely discriminates based on their faith.

The Supreme Court has ruled, paraphrasing, that if you take the government's money you play by the government's rules. (Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights) (See Locke v. Davey)

There is a substantial difference, but at least he tried.