Posted on 02/10/2009 4:35:28 PM PST by AfterManyASummer
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned supporters Tuesday that the $828 billion stimulus package is “anti-religious.”
In an e-mail that was also posted on his blog ahead of the Senate’s passage, Huckabee wrote: “The dust is settling on the ‘bipartisan’ stimulus bill and one thing is clear: It is anti-religious.”
The former Republican presidential candidate pointed to a provision in both the House and Senate versions banning higher education funds in the bill from being used on a “school or department of divinity.”
“You would think the ACLU drafted this bill,” Huckabee said. “For all of the talk about bipartisanship, this Congress is blatantly liberal.”
“Emily’s List, radical environmental groups, etc. all have a seat at the decision making table in Washington these days,” he continued. “Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in charge and they are working with an equally ‘progressive’ President Obama (remember his voting record is more liberal than Ted Kennedy!).”
In the e-mail, Huckabee concedes that there is little that conservatives can do in the near term, but advocated mobilization to defeat those “masquerading as ‘conservative Democrats.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Christianity must be brought down to make way for the mooselimbs.
God will only help us if we stand for ourselves. I can’t believe some of the posters bad-mouthing Huckabee when Hussein is in the WH.
And not a thing about it is to stimulate the economy!
“banning higher education funds in the bill from being used on a “school or department of divinity.” “You would think the ACLU drafted this bill,”’
99 out of 100 who called their reps were against the so-called economic stimulus. Most of the Dems and three Republicans just spit on the voters, and we MUST remember this in the elections.
Just what we need, funding for American madrassas. Or did Huck want to exclude certain religions from the porkulus package? If so, what exactly would be the legal basis for doing that?
This is probably #99 on list of reasons not to support this piece of ‘legislation’.
Does Huck want them to use the money for building mosques?
Just what we need, funding for American madrassas. Or did Huck want to exclude certain religions from the porkulus package? If so, what exactly would be the legal basis for doing that?””
How bout the Judeo-Christian heritage of our nation? These were the founders of the country and the makers of the constitution. I don’t know about “legal basis” anymore. Legal basis often means what can be done to put money in the pockets of lawyers and judges while stomping on the legislative branch of government and the concept of majority rule.
You want for a new improved version of the American government to pick which religions are "good," and therefore deserving of state funding. Sounds almost exactly like a theocracy, with your religion in charge and other religions twisting in the wind, screw the establishment clause. Not in this country, pal, not yet and I hope never.
I don’t know about “legal basis”
And apparently you don't care about it, or you would have responded to my request for a "legal basis" with something that sounded like, you know, a legal basis.
I am not calling for the establishment of religion but freedom of religion.
I don’t get into the legal basis business since it is becoming increasing difficult to decipher some twisted sense of what the law is or means. Just because it is the law, has nothing to do with it being right or wrong. I will go with what is right, not the legal basis which is often interpreted to pad the pockets of shysters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.