Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Legalized Religous Bigotry?

According to WorldNet Daily we may be facing legalized religious bigotry and it is all due to the Stimulus Bill (which of course will only stimulate the government):

The problem in the proposed stimulus bill comes from a provision that states: "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."

Hat tip to our friends over at Les Femmes - The Truth.

4 comments:

A WASHINGTONDC CATHOLIC said...

Ryan:

You can write comments but watch the language. So, if you want to repost..please do so.

Katherine said...

Transparency and openness are generally good things, but this is one of the problems of the internet. Some ill-informed crack reads a bill and puts a press release out picked up by Right wing propagandaist like WorldNet.

This is boilerplate language that has been in legislation written by Republicans and Democrats since time immemorial. It presents no real problems for Catholic colleges.

Anonymous said...

Really Katherine?? How do you know? You seem a little too sure of this. Also, why do you need to refer to another blogger as an "ill-informed crack"? So much for resecting an opposing opinion. I believe in taking the words in the Bill exactly written. This appears to be what this Administration feels about "Faith". All you Catholics who voted this way, well "your chickens are coming home to roost"!

Katherine said...

Really Katherine?? How do you know?

I've been around a long time and active in public policy questions.

I believe in taking the words in the Bill exactly written.

That's not a very solid belief when these exact words have been in legislation in the past and we have an actual history of what their practical implications are.

You seems to belive in a personal version of "judicial activism" where you look at legislative text and decide what it means to you, rather than look at the historic understanding. That thinking is what got us into trouble on Roe.