Bigotry and the "Stimulus" Bill

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print


There are many good reasons to oppose the “stimulus” bill, more accurately known as the Bankrupt the Nation Act of 2009, in addition to the basic objection that it is an act of fiscal insanity.  Now we can add one more:  religious bigotry.

Senator Demint (R. SC) offered an amendment which would have removed language from the “stimulus” bill which barred the use of any funds to institutions of higher education where the funds would have been used for the  “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 amendment went down to defeat 43-54.

Now I think the idea that if institutions receive funds and this ban is in effect that religious student groups would be driven off campus is incorrect, based upon relevant case law.  However, I do believe that keeping this  language in does open the door to legal challenges to any college or university affiliated with a religion obtaining such funds.  Similar language has appeared in other funding bills in the past, but this language is very broad.  Of course this problem could have been easily remedied by lifting the restriction.  54 senators can now explain to their constituents why they chose not to do so.

More to explorer

Martin Treptow’s Pledge

Martin August Treptow was a barber from Cherokee, Iowa.  Enlisting in the National Guard, during World War I his unit was called

Saint of the Day Quote: Saint John del Prado

HE was a native of the kingdom of Leon, in Spain, and embraced in his own country the austere Order of the

PopeWatch: Open Thread

We haven’t had a PopeWatch open thread in a while.  The usual open thread rules apply:  be concise, be charitable and, above


  1. It’s a small thing, I suppose, but it’s symbolic. Does anyone really think there is a pressing danger of too much money being directed towards religious facilities on college campuses? If so, they must have spent time at very different public universities. While many Congressional Democrats would be loathe to admit hostility towards religion publicly, these type of petty efforts to exclude religious Americans suggest such hostility is fairly pervasive in the current Democratic party.

Comments are closed.