See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. The American Pundit » Blog Archive » DeMint’s Amendment to Remove Religious Discrimination Fails
2. Jim DeMint Announces His Candidacy for…Something « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
3. DeMint amendment to ban religious discrimination in stimulus funding fails, 43-54 — But As For Me
4. The TIW Blog » Blog Archive » South Carolina’s DeMint’s losing battle for religious tolerance
5. Obama hits it out of the park! « Riggword Weblog
6. There's My Two Cents
7. Florida Clinic Placed Live Baby In A Waste Bag, And Threw It In The Trash « Goodtimepolitics
8. Stimulating Religious Discrimination « Marque’s Letters
9. Obama Revamps Faith-Based Office - will it effect hiring practices of Christian Ministries? « Jim Blazsik
10. The Stimulus Package is not designed to save the economy, it’s designed to save liberalism - Conservative Groups Declare Obama’s Stimulus Bill a War on Prayer « Jim Blazsik
11. TraditionalValues.org up in arms over "anti-Christian" verbage in Stimulus Bill | Kinderism.net
12. Religious discrimination in the stimulus bill?
13. This Is Not Civilisation; This is a Descent into Tyrannical, Anti-Life Hell at Haemet
14. Wizbang
15. Attack On Religious Liberty Stimulated | Political Vindication
16. Up North Mommy Talks Politics » Religious descrimination in “stimulus” bill
17. Democrats Go RINO Hunting, Kill Religious Freedom and Obama Hates Cats - Your Weekend Links | All American Blogger

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #613089
   On February 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pm, Jet Jaguar said:

   There can be no competition with Gov Almighty.

2. #613090
   On February 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pm, bansharia said:

   …and Jesus will say BEGONE I never knew you.

3. #613092
   On February 5th, 2009 at 6:02 pm, bansharia said:

   MM,
   know you are busy but if you have time can we see roll call on that please?

4. #613094
   On February 5th, 2009 at 6:02 pm, walterc said:

   If the ACLU likes the provision, it needs to go.

5. #613098
   On February 5th, 2009 at 6:04 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

   Wow, wonder what the public’s view of the Senate is going to be now?

   This is why we have a Supreme Court by the way. The pieces of this bill that are unconstitutional can be challenged. Discrimination based on religious ground has been demonstrated in the courts to be indefensible.

   Will be interesting to watch.

6. #613100
   On February 5th, 2009 at 6:05 pm, RTater said:

   to ape the health care troll – who isn’t against religious discrimination?

7. #613101
   On February 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pm, bansharia said:

   JS,
   nothing personal but I am way past “this is intersting” mood

8. #613103
   On February 5th, 2009 at 6:11 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

   ban….

   Just making a point that there is a reason we have 3 branches of government. No one branch gets to do whatever it thinks it can get away with.

   There are plenty of folks who will make it a point to tackle any aspect of a bill like this that may be unconstitutional.

   One reason why I don’t get too excited of the Fairness Doctrine.

   If there is discrimination based on religious grounds, it will not go unchallenged. I’d bet my Help For Home Owners FHA approved mortgage on it….

   

9. #613104
   On February 5th, 2009 at 6:13 pm, brad_sk said:

   Sound to me like a good that thing that this failed…From the link above
   

   Republican Sen. Jim DeMint proposed an amendment Thursday to kill a provision in the Senate stimulus bill that prohibits renovation money for schools that allow religious groups to meet on campus.

   I don’t want any stimulus or any other tax payer money to go schools preaching Islamic prayer aka hatred likes the ones in Minnesota (condemned rightly here in this blog many times). Am I missing something?

10. #613105
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:14 pm, genso said:

    Do you notice how DeMint’s name keeps coming up as a leader? God bless him.

11. #613110
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:17 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    brad…

    The ban on funds isn’t that specific.

    So lets say a group of students, student led, decide they want to meet on the day that Nationally teenagers do “Gather at the Pole” prayer thing. Its all student led and kids on one day, kids who want to, gather at the flag pole of their school and pray.

    The ban on funds would prevent any school that allowed that activity from getting funds.

    This kind of discrimination is tried all the time and never stops. The courts over turn it regularly as well.

    Its a blatant attempt to stop any and all religious activity IF you want some of these “funds”.

12. #613111
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:18 pm, bluesoc said:

    This is why we have a Supreme Court by the way. The pieces of this bill that are unconstitutional can be challenged. Discrimination based on religious ground has been demonstrated in the courts to be indefensible.

    I don’t think you’ll have much luck with the SC. This is a 1971 case where they upheld almost the exact same provision.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=672

13. #613117
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:23 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    In 1971 the resources to fund and organizations that represent religious interest in the court did not exist.

    They do today and they are quite active and have won and overturned many cases just like this one.

    This is just one.

    http://www.aclj.org/

    In other words today is not 1971.

14. #613118
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:23 pm, bansharia said:

    JS,
    I hear you, am ready for vacation T -48 hours, have some tree clearing to do around pond think I’ll give them senate names b4 I drop them

15. #613124
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:26 pm, bansharia said:

    JS,
    am sure Jay Sekulow from ACLJ will be on the case ghm you have same initials

16. #613125
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:27 pm, bansharia said:

    DOINK you beat me

17. #613126
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:28 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    From a quick read of his site, they are already on the matter.

    Time to watch Fox All Stars……

    Glad Brit still makes an appearance once and awhile.

    Sure wish Tony Snow could…..

18. #613128
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:30 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    I’m a lowly simply hospice registered nurse. Would not even try and hold a candle to a someone of Mr. Sekulow’s caliber.

19. #613131
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:32 pm, bluesoc said:

    In 1971 the resources to fund and organizations that represent religious interest in the court did not exist.

    They do today and they are quite active and have won and overturned many cases just like this one.

    1. Prior Supreme Court rulings are difficult to overturn.

    2. Just some more info on the case. Four religiously affiliated universities used the funds to build facilities on their campuses and were sued by someone who thought it violated the clause (because they were religious organizations). The court held that the provision was constitutional, and that the universities could use the funds.

20. #613137
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:36 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    This just posted on the aclj site.

    “The fact is that unless this provision is removed from the final stimulus package, we’ll be in federal court challenging this discriminatory measure.”

    Again this is NOT 1971 folks. Stuff like this goes challenged today in a way that it was not 30 some years ago.

    Hitting the TV now.

21. #613140
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pm, bansharia said:

    The problem with using the courts is that the $ will be spent or are you saying the entire line item would be blocked?
    obambi grasped pretty quick he couldn’t slip the protectionism language through for fear of eurofolk, but Christians are disposable….

22. #613143
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:38 pm, bansharia said:

    GOOOOO JAY

23. #613145
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:38 pm, Marie said:

    Email your democrat senator or congressman and simply say:

    “Don’t let Nancy Pelozi do your thinking”.

24. #613148
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:41 pm, FamilyMan said:

    bluesoc said: Prior Supreme Court rulings are difficult to overturn.

    Especially when the court is stacked with Positive Law addicts.
    Do you want to discuss Natural Law sport?

25. #613152
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:45 pm, bansharia said:

    Fam,
    utoh not that again
    have a nice night gang, God Bless.

26. #613153
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:47 pm, bluesoc said:

    Especially when the court is stacked with Positive Law addicts.
    Do you want to discuss Natural Law sport?

    Sure.

27. #613157
    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:49 pm, FamilyMan said:

    bansharia said:
    Fam,
    utoh not that again
    have a nice night gang, God Bless.

    Sorry I just thought this kid needs to slapped around.
    Some other time then.

28. #613169
    On February 5th, 2009 at 7:05 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    Specter was a complete weasel, and voted against it when he wasn’t certain it would be defeated, then changed his vote for posterity?

    I will send money to any GOP challenger he has. Toomey, Santorum, whoever.

29. #613179
    On February 5th, 2009 at 7:13 pm, chapoutier said:

    Fam,
    utoh not that again

    I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating, if you asked FamilyMan the recipe for chocolate chip cookies, he would reply “2 1/4 cups flour, 3/4 cup brown sugar and NATURAL LAW!!!!”

30. #613184
    On February 5th, 2009 at 7:17 pm, zyzzyg said:

    Religion does not sound like economic stimulus to me.

    However, I don’t want to see money going to Saudi Wahabist Madrassa Academies.

    Yes, meetings should be held, and if that means Muslim/Islamic Schools are barred from sharing in any monies, then I am all for it.

31. #613192
    On February 5th, 2009 at 7:25 pm, kthomas8268 said:

    Hmmm I emailed Evan Bayh and never got a response on his position of this spending bill, but if I had to guess,,,, I would guess he is getting a lot of calls and emails to vote NO! Indiana majority is Republican.

32. #613198
    On February 5th, 2009 at 7:35 pm, goatsbarnyard said:

    On February 5th, 2009 at 6:02 pm, bansharia

    Snow and Collins voted nay, Bayh, Conrad, Dorgan, Nelson(ND),and Leiberman voted yay.

33. #613199
    On February 5th, 2009 at 7:36 pm, FamilyMan said:

    chapoutier said:
    if you asked FamilyMan the recipe for chocolate chip cookies, he would reply “2 1/4 cups flour, 3/4 cup brown sugar and NATURAL LAW!!!!”

    Thank God chappy, you’ve finally got it.

34. #613200
    On February 5th, 2009 at 7:37 pm, goatsbarnyard said:

    GOP has 40 voters, Dems have 57, Kennedy and Gregg are not voting.

35. #613227
    On February 5th, 2009 at 7:54 pm, FamilyMan said:

    I am too tired to go into Natural Law today. What I would like all conservatives to understand is that until Natural Law is returned as the fundamental background for our Constitution, our fight for it’s strict interpretation will be lost. Until Justice Holmes and his relativism, are relegated to the trash heap of legal history, our battle with socialism will not end.

36. #613230
    On February 5th, 2009 at 7:58 pm, chapoutier said:

    FamilyMan,

    I am sure you would not agree that the concepts of positive law and moral relativism are synonymous, would you?

37. #613243
    On February 5th, 2009 at 8:12 pm, FamilyMan said:

    AHHHH! Chappy
    I just spent six hours extracting five thousand dollars from a deadbeat LAWYER who was six months overdue on his account.
    But
    The end result of positive law allows moral relativism.

    Example
    Holmes was criticized during his lifetime and afterward for his philosophical views, which his opponents characterized as moral relativism. Holmes’s critics believe that he saw few restraints on the power of a governing class to enact its interests into law. They assert that his moral relativism influenced him not only to support a broad reading of the constitutional guarantee of “freedom of speech,” but also led him to write an opinion for the Court upholding Virginia’s compulsory sterilization law

38. #613256
    On February 5th, 2009 at 8:21 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Chappy
    FamilyWoman reminded me we have a dinner date, but here is my favorite reference source. Your Jesuit teachers would approve.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

39. #613265
    On February 5th, 2009 at 8:34 pm, chapoutier said:

    Jesuits are definitely of the Aristotelian/Aquinas school of thought rather than the Platonic/Augustinian.

    So they may approve, but I am not sure they would agree.

    Have a nice dinner.

40. #613273
    On February 5th, 2009 at 8:43 pm, chapoutier said:

    So they may approve, but I am not sure they would agree.

    Ooops. Read the link name (containing “plato”) before I read the article.

    My Jesuit teachers would most definitely approve and agree.

    Except maybe that crazy one, Father O’Malley. He was an interesting fellow to say the least. He actually played Father Dyer in the movie “The Exorcist.”

    I will be happy to recount “the creepiest conversation I have ever had” involving Father O’Malley if anyone cares to hear it.

41. #613331
    On February 5th, 2009 at 9:36 pm, Joy said:

    I’d love to hear it Chap… I don’t watch TV.

42. #613352
    On February 5th, 2009 at 10:15 pm, chapoutier said:

    I’d love to hear it Chap… I don’t watch TV.

    A bit of set up:

    I attended Fordham U, a Jesuit school. There were Jesuit priests that lived in each of the dorms.Between my Jr and Sr year, I basically worked as a resident director for summer students living on campus. Me and my staff basically had to spread out around the campus to the various dorms to live and keep an eye on them. I chose Finley Hall, because it was the only one with A/C at the time. For the vast majority of the summer it was just me and the two resident Jesuits in the dorm.

    Father O’Malley lived on my floor, but had no idea I was staying there. So one night, some friends had come over tand we were about to go out to the bars, when we run into O’Malley going in as we are going out…

    FO’M: “Who are you?”

    Me: “Oh, hi Father. I am [redacted]. I am the Summer Coordinator blah blah blah…”

    FO’M: “Ohhhh…so you are the one that I heard in the hall. I thought it was someone coming to rape me!”

    Me and my firends: silence…

    FO’M: “Of course if some one were to want to rape me they would have to be a necrophiliac! Hahaha!!!!

    Me and my friends: silence…

    We then somehow got into a conversation about how he believes evil is an absence of something good (rather than the opposite of good) and he then told us a story about a guy who had two sons, one of which committed suicide with a shotgun, and the father, being a dumb hick ignoramus, gave the other son the exact same shotgun as a Christmas gift the next year. This somehow related to an absence of intelligence or something on the part of the father, and was thus evil. The details are a bit hazy to this day.

    As we slowly tried to creep to the door, we were like “yeah….okay….we are just going to continue on our merry way and go to the bar to get drunk and do other sinful things father…thanks…”

43. #613364
    On February 5th, 2009 at 10:27 pm, hogster said:

    Universities that accept Government bail out money can’t have any religious activities. I’m assuming because of speration of church and state? If that’s true then I also must assume that people of faith won’t qualify for universal health care.
    Government is treading down a slippery slope.
    M

44. #613436
    On February 6th, 2009 at 12:51 am, FamilyMan said:

    “Of course if some one were to want to rape me they would have to be a necrophiliac! Hahaha!!!!

    HMMM! Unnatural Law
    Chappy I think that dialogue would alienate me from studying any form of law.
    WOW!

45. #613442
    On February 6th, 2009 at 1:11 am, Freddy said:

    Does this mean that there can be no more meetings of those religous zealots that believe in global warming?

46. #613444
    On February 6th, 2009 at 1:13 am, Joy said:

    Chap – Well, you’re honest.. when you said creeepy, you weren’t kidding!

    Yikes! That was one messed up man. I can just imagine you guys trying to come up with something to say in response. I think the only response would be domething like. “Dude, one word: counseling”

47. #613482
    On February 6th, 2009 at 5:39 am, graysonret said:

    Liberals know that God must be removed from society, or severely demoted, if they are to promote their philosophy. The best way is to start with the kids and future citizens. Obama Lenin and Pelosi Stalin know that.

48. #613506
    On February 6th, 2009 at 8:12 am, jsmiddleton4 said:

    I don’t think liberals want to remove God from society. They want God to be the government, the government to be God. So if you don’t worship government, you are a heretic and a threat to the belief system that is the foundation of their existence and are a serious threat.

    God is not gone in liberalism. “God” is redefined but not gone. In fact the liberal belief system is taken quite seriously by them. All you have to do is look at their response to criticism. Their response is that of a religious zealot defending what that zealot believes is THE truth.

    So not gone. The real God replaced by an all powerful, all knowing, all encompassing, demanding all allegiance government.

49. #613517
    On February 6th, 2009 at 8:46 am, ex-expat said:

    A.) which Senaotrs voted to keep the provisions in the bill?
    B.) which Senator(s) orginally sponsored this provision?