Unreal!... Dems Ban Religious Expression On College Campuses In Stimulus Bill

Gateway Pundit ^ | 2/6/09 | Doctor Bulldog

[American Dream 246]

Now that ought to create jobs! Democrats are banning religious expression on public campuses in their Stimulus boondoggle.

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement after Democrats voted 43-54 against his amendment to strike language from the economic stimulus bill that discriminates against students of faith. Senator DeMint’s amendment would have eliminated a provision that bans any university or college receiving funds to renovate buildings, from allowing “sectarian instruction” or “religious worship” within the facility. This would in effect bar use of campus buildings for groups like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries, Hillel, and other religious organizations.

This is criminal and Democrats know it. Americans would never go for this crap-- if the media would ever report on it. Here's the roll call on the vote.

[American Dream 246]

Unreal!

[wastedyears]

Does it include Islam?

[American Dream 246]

Of course not!!!

[sloop]

islam is the religion of peace

but you better watch them southern baptists - while they won't behead you, they might do the ultimate leftist sin - judge you

get this news out to everyone you know

[Dallas59]

This is racism against Islam, Moon gods, Winter, Summer and Spring gods and Satan!/s

[sloop]

we need the names of the senators that voted to keep this in the porkulus bill

[Jemian]

I don’t think that Baptists would judge you or anyone any differently than they judge themselves.

We are ALL sinners and guilty deserving hell. We ALL need God’s forgiveness and pardon through the person and work of His son, Jesus Christ.

We ALL must individually receive Jesus as Savior and Lord. Only then can we know and experience God’s love and plan for our lives.

I’m not a Baptist. I’m just a Christian.

[myknowledge]

And give them two options: Holy Bible or firing squad.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[DuncanWaring]

They seem to have missed that whole “...prohibiting the free exercise thereof... “ thing.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Would you believe Collins voted with the democrats on this? We had 5 democrats vote with us.

[American Dream 246]

Here it is:

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs -—43
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs -—54
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2
Gregg (R-NH)
Kennedy (D-MA)

[Arizona Carolyn]

see #11

[sloop]

Question: On the Amendment (DeMint Amdt. No. 189 )

yea = strike the wording
nay = atheist @$%*@&#s to keep the wording

true to form, collins and snowe joined their fellow democrats to vote against striking the provision

YEAs -—43

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs -—54

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2

Gregg (R-NH)
Kennedy (D-MA)

[sloop]

sorry - i meant no disrespect - hopefully, the Big Guy will overlook my warped sense of humor when i face Him

i’m sorta a southern baptist - but not a very good one

work in progress

[Darkwolf377]

Senator DeMint’s amendment would have eliminated a provision that bans any university or college receiving funds to renovate buildings, from allowing “sectarian instruction” or “religious worship” within the facility.

This gets to the heart of why this kind of thing is frightening and destructive to liberty--you take money from the government, you have to play by the government's rules.

The problem is, so many institutions--of learning and business--are so damned lazy and greedy that they would rather take "free" money than maintain their liberty.

Soon enough, we will see this creep into any dealings with the government at the individual level.

This is why a few days ago I was warning people about criticism of the other of the octuplets--we are RAPIDLY approaching a time and place where taking government money in any form (healthcare, retirement, unemployment) will have strings attached FOR 'GOOD' REASONS, and we will accept those strings because most people want the cash, and shrug at talk of "personal liberties".

I think Obama's audacious for trying to get government's tentacles into all aspects of our lives, but I am growing disappointed with how blindly so many are allowing it to happen because certain aspects of it appeal to their own personal biases.

[Budge]

Certainly not! After all, that is the “religion of peace!”

[FFranco]

If the Commie Dems can ban religion at colleges, they can ban it Anywhere. Within four years, all religious expression will be illegal and America will be an atheistic Communist Islamic Republic. That’s what they want.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

The people who voted to shut down "religious expression" on college campuses that receive federal money did so because they despise the exact message you spelled out and will do anything in their power to make sure that not only they don't have to hear it but will do whatever they can to keep it from as many others as possible.

They think if they can just shut Christians up, that incessant, nagging feeling deep down inside of them that makes them feel that maybe something is very wrong, that something is missing in their lives, will go away and leave them alone.

It is the message of the salvation offered by Jesus Christ that they hate and seek to permanently remove from the public arena. But, as Jesus said, generations come and go, but His words will last forever. And no matter how many times those who hate Him attempt to vote Him out of existence, that fact will never change.

[montesquieu]

we need the names of the senators that voted to keep this in the porkulus bill
-

here you go: Make phone calls tomorrow!!! To all who voted NEA.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00047

[Force of Truth]

I think by religious they mean Christians. The overreaching is getting absurd.

[shibumi]

Thanks FRiend, for proving a point I’ve been trying to make for years - that you don’t have to be a Christian to value liberty, free speech and the right to life.

You, as an conscientious atheist and I as a committed Christian can agree as Americans that the government has no right to take what we earn for its own ends, and even less right to “redistribute” it to those who did nothing to earn it.

Unfortunately, those on the receiving end will not realize, until it’s too late, that they do so at their peril.

[rfreedom4u]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I believe this gives students the RIGHT to practice their religion.

[John Leland 1789]

There are people who see the traps that government money set by and by. Take government money, and the master will tell you how to operate. We all no that.

There are socialists who know that we know that, so they twist things is such a way, as . . .

“A church's property, because is is ‘exempted’ from taxation, is actually being subsidized by the government.”

That is, a socialist will figure the amount of money that would be paid on that property if it were owned by a commercial enterprise, and then state that the church is being publicly subsidized by that amount.

I am using the church property thing just as an example. But there are already people in government who want to put rules on churches themselves based on their twisted idea that the government is “subsidizing” the church.

In this context, I try always to use the expression, “not-taxable” rather than “tax-exempt.” I believe the connotation is quite different.

But to the socialist it makes no difference; he is ever trying to establish the ruse that all things begin and end with government — government is the source of all blessings. The air we breath and the airwaves over which we receive information, too, must be regulated by government, for it is OF government.

Hillsdale College and Patrick Henry College are two institutions (so I understand) which refuse to take a single dime from any government program. They know the bonds that government money brings.

Just as SCHIP (or whatever the acronym) is the first step toward government-run universal health “care,” using taxpayer money as a trap to control religious expression on college campuses is the first step to controlling all religious expression, including in the churches.

I back up and say, no, the so-called stimulus plan (what a lie!) perhaps is the second step toward controlling all religious expression. The first step was the IRS 501c3 regime where it applies to churches.

501c3 in the minds of some socialists is just like a subsidy to the churches that are signed up for it, although the churches themselves get nothing. But since the giving to those churches is tax-exempt, there is a subsidy to the amount of whatever taxes would otherwise be paid. That is what the socialist thinks.

For this wonderful privilege granted by the all benevolent IRS, what can and cannot be preached from those pulpits is under the scrutiny of the government.

Even though sin is a Biblical and spiritual issue (a church pulpit issue), and even though governments commit sins and transgressions against people, and even though individuals that get elected or appointed often commit horrendous sins and transgressions, the men in pulpits are required under 501c3 to keep their mouths shut about it. Or at least they cannot name the sinners themselves from the pulpit without being threatened by the IRS.

Of course, where churches are full of members who are on the government dole, or want to be, and so invite politicians to speak and make great promises to them FROM THE PUPLPIT, these churches can usually get along without much, if any, IRS scrutiny.

I back up yet one more time. Perhaps the anti-religious tyranny in the so-called stimulus package bomb is the THIRD step toward total government control over religion.

Step TWO might be the “faith-based initiative” regime where churches are allowed to use government money where they are performing some “social” program. This is also a lure and a trap.

[Jemian]

Oh, Sloop. I didn’t mean to get down on you. You just simply gave me an opportunity to share the Gospel and I took it.

I didn’t think you were being disrespectful. FRiends?

[Jemian]

You know, the Roman Empire had trouble with Christians, too. They didn’t mind if we believed it for ourselves, just don’t share it with others.

All these centuries later, the Roman Empire doesn’t have a problem with us anymore. Hmmm.

[Darkwolf377]

Good points.

I have read few things recently that frightened me as much as that line in the article “from allowing “sectarian instruction” or “religious worship” within the facility”.

Some can’t understand why this would bother me, of all people. It’s because only a blind person can’t see that this kind of thing is not just a foot in the door, it’s the whole BODY in the door—with ANY government funding involved, government gets to set ALL the rules.

As anyone with eyes can see, the Libs see the Establishment Clause as some kind of truncheon with which to bash their pro-life opposition at its base, the religious foundations of 99% of its composition. (Yes, I do believe all roads in the Dems’ loathing of Christianity lead to abortion.) Yet no one ever talks about the Free Exercise Clause.

In this “Stimulus” Bill, the first is the prime motivator of all spending on campuses (where the Dems already control most of the agenda; now they want it all), yet the second is of even higher importance since the government has never attempted to establish a state religion since the adoption of the Bill of Rights that I’m aware of; yet, the Free Exercise Law should be of utmost importance.

The Dems distortion of these clauses shows their true aims, and any Christian should be aware of this active threat to their practice. I am not an alarmist by nature, but if this prohibition is allowed, where does it end? With such a precedent, does anyone doubt we will see lawsuits that will trace any institution—a hospital, for example—to SOME government money, and thus that institution should be REQUIRED to terminate ANY accommodation for Christian believers in that institution?

Sure, they can always meet somewhere else, but once again we are dealing with the exclusion of religious from such places. You will no longer see religion-based pro-life or anti-euthenasia movements in these schools, for example, but you sure will see pro-abortion and Hemlock Society groups thriving there, thus establishing their primacy as the “rational” position on these issues, and the other side—OUR side—as being so outside the mainstream that they’re not even allowed to gather there.

[shibumi]

I’m signing off for tonight, but I would hope that someone out of this group would bump this thread up in the morning - this is way too important to let it die.

We can’t let them think they can slip stuff by us this way.

(What am I talking about??? They’ve been slipping stuff by for 70+ years!)

[Earthdweller]

Commies have to shut down all organized religions eventually. They are a threat to their power. All organization is a threat to a strong arm government.

Moving closer and closer to that totalitarian state.

Floating monks today. Who is next?

[Jemian]

You’re signing off for tonight? Where are you?

I’m asking because I’m in Indonesia and I’m fixin’ to go to bed.

[listenhillary]

Bump

[listenhillary]

Bump

[listenhillary]

.

[listenhillary]

.

[Borges]

“all religious expression will be illegal and America will be an atheistic Communist Islamic Republic”

This statement makes no sense at all.

[Rome2000]

Tyranny on this scale doesn’t get solved at the ballot box.

[hattend]

The GOP should kick Snowe and Collins out of the party. Or strip them of any committee status that may have.

They almost never vote with the GOP, why keep them?

[shibumi]

"“all religious expression will be illegal and America will be an atheistic Communist Islamic Republic”

This statement makes no sense at all."



I know your post was not addressed to me, but I was looking for a reason to BUMP THIS THREAD TO THE TOP anyway. I understand your initial reaction to the use of "atheistic" and "Islamic" in the same sentence.

These terms are, however, not mutually exclusive. The god of Islam is not a God in the sense that any of the worlds great religions use the term. Allah is at best a pagan idol, but with the added dimension of being specifically unknowable, demanding mindless submission and bloody sacrifice. This is exactly the kind of hive mentality upon which atheistic Communism thrives.

Further, under the Constitution of the old Soviet Union, from which the doctrine of "separation of church and state" was derived, it is only the State that is atheistic. The Soviets never entertained the notion that they could completely eliminate religion, merely eliminate it from public life. In this regard, the Communists in Washington and the Islamists share a common goal - to put the Judeo-Christian tradition in this country into a state of dhimmitude.

Whether you, or any lurkers agree with my analysis, or not, we can all agree that this is another overriding reason to DEFEAT PORKULUS MAXIMUS!

[shibumi]

"Tyranny on this scale doesn’t get solved at the ballot box."

I'm afraid I agree with you ..... but I keep hoping.

[Borges]

All good points. But the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ comes from a letter writteb by Jefferson.

[shibumi]

Jefferson’s personal opinions notwithstanding, the phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the US Constitution.

It is, however, specifically used in article 124 of the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1922 - 1991.

[Borges]

Jefferson actually disliked much of the Constitution.

[shibumi]

I’m sure you’re right.

Still, us discussing it is a great way to keep this thread bumped up!

FReegards!