Frivology

Wow.  I noticed a link today in my RSS reader to an article stating rather boldly that "Conservative Groups Declare Obama’s Stimulus Bill a War on Prayer".  Now, rightfully, seeing that this was a link to Fox News, I probably should have avoided clicking on it all together, but silly me, I did.  It seems all of the fuss is over the fact that the bill *shock, horror*, obeys the constitution.

According to the bill, which the Democratic-controlled House passed despite unanimous Republican opposition, funds are prohibited from being used for the "modernization, renovation, or repair" of facilities that allow "sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity."

Critics say that could include public schools that permit religious groups to meet on campus. The House provided $20 billion for the infrastructure improvements, of which $6 billion would go to higher education facilities where the limitations would be applied.

Let’s get this straight.  First, the Neocons don’t want us to spend any money in the first place, because spending is bad (though Dubya didn’t seem to believe this).  Then, when it comes out that the stimulus bill actually includes text that obeys the constitution, they start whining that their base - the fundies - won’t be getting some of it.

As if this isn’t ridiculous enough on it’s face, there’s comments on the news story.

The constitution is very clear that "CONGRESS shall not establish…" The half-wits that think freedom from religion is somehow written in the constitution are seriously delusional. Anti-Christian bigots have managed to redefine the meaning of our founding documents. The only reason the establishment clause is in the constitution is because of the Church of England having been the only church allowed at the time American colonies decided to break it off by revolution. Separation of church and state would only apply when congress announces that "all hands will now go to the Assembly of God church, all other churches close your doors". I don’t know how else to explain it to the dim-witted, anti-God establishment clause clowns that freedom from religion is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!

- by daiseycutters, Arkansas

Raconteur, I respect your wishes to not have a religion forced upon you and your household, but what you are asking for is freedom from religion. If it offends you when I speak outloud about how God spared my life from a mortar attack in Iraq, it shouldn’t affect my right to tell my story. After all, I am not asking atheists to "pipe down" when they have their free thinking meetings. I understand if you don’t want to attend church, but because you don’t your kids to pray in school when they aren’t being asked to by the authorities within that school it doesn’t mean that those who do want to participate in the "moment of silence" shouldn’t be allowed to. It is an extreme double standard to enforce something the other way when it is being enforced in the first place. Please don’t think this as a personal attack, I wish you the best and thanks for participating in a discussion without the use of vulgarity and namecalling and politician bashing.

- by justinb, Texas

It appears, first of all, that many of the Christian commenters believe that the establishment clause does not protect those who have /no/ religion.  The basic argument seems to be that "you MUST believe in god and follow a religion, our constitution just says you don’t have to follow a SPECIFIC religion".  Who’s the bigot, now?

Just because your first lady does not qualify you to be a spokesperson on any topic. She nor he has proven anything to me…other than put a bunch shysters on his cabinet. If she wants to be a leader set an example save the tax payers some money…get rid of the chef, and maids, cook your own dinner, do your own shopping, take care of your kids…first lady is not a job…leave your husband alone he makes enough mistakes by himself

- by leebb, Oregon

Will the real President Obama please stand up? ————- Knew it was only a matter of tiume before President Michelle Obama worked her way in.

- by reynosa

Is this why her mother Had to move into the White House. So big mouth michelle could be the president. Michelle should move her mother out and raise her little darlings herself, but she thinks she is the president………this country is in big trouble

- by suzieq

Then there’s all of the women-haters out there (probably mostly women), who seem to believe that Michelle needs to take her shoes off and get back into the kitchen.  I feel nothing but pity for these people, most of whom sound as if they’re probably women.  I’m curious, though… what would have happened if McCain / Palin had won?  Surely, Palin would have to stop being mama… and if her husband didn’t pick up the care of her kids, one of which needs a lot of it, would they be calling for his blood, too?  Somehow, I doubt it.

So does this mean that the people who send their children to one of these ostracized schools will get a tax break since they are ineligible for the benefits of those taxes? Folks, you need to be honest and realize that this is not about upholding the constitution. It is about the government using tax money to steer you in the direction that they approve. They have been doing it for years with so-called incentives and now they are using it to try and discourage people from practicing their faith. Interesting that they will move heaven (can I still say that?) and earth to accommodate Musl.im prisoners in the practice of their religion but let Americans (overwhelmingly Christian) practice their faith in public, and they are hit with tax reper.cussions.

-  by jsnyde04

You know… call me silly, but I don’t think that religiously funded schools actually need government money in the first place.  It’s schools that aren’t religiously funded that need the help, anyways.  Plus…  look, another bigot.  How dare Muslims have rights.

just another step towards socialism. Communism. I don’t want it. I want to keep all my freedoms. Today obama and his cronies signed into law the first step towards nationalized health care. Health care for all children. Children I haven’t had, and at this stage of my life I won’t be having. How are they going to pay for it? By raising the federal tax on cigarettes. I’m not a smoker, but this is not the way to do since they need 24 million new smokers to fund it. Then they will implement nationalized health care. And if you should be diagnosed with cancer, you will be asked "do you smoke". If the answer is yes you will be denied medical treatment. You will die. Population control. No different then they wanting us to fund free contraceptives and abortions. What is wrong with you people who are going along with this nonsense. It has to stop. Two weeks into his presidency he has shown nothing but shams, liars, cheaters. Geithner should resign. He should have never been allowed to take that position. Charlie Rangel cheated on his taxes, he should be impeached. Congress is being *****whipped by Pelosi. No respect for those who are going along with this.

- by myvoice

I saved the best one for last.  This isn’t the only one along this line, only the craziest one.  Get this… this person is incensed that people can use birth control and have abortions, but even more incensed that the unwanted children that result from that get to have health care.  I can’t even begin to start painting how much crazy is in this comment.  It’s fucking batshit crazy on top of batshit crazy.

So, to institute population control us commie liberals (who are trying to save capitalism, but that’s besides the point) are going to create a bill that gives children healthcare based off of cigarette taxes.  But, in order to get that, we’re going to force people to take up smoking so that they’ll pay us the money to keep these children alive and healthy.  Oh ho ho ho, the diabolical plan gets BETTER!  Once we’ve got all of these people smoking, we’re going to deny THEM health care because they’re smokers so that we can kill them off, and, to add to our crazy, liberal population cleansing, we’re then going to GIVE AWAY contraceptives and allow people who want abortions to get abortions.

Somehow, I think if we wanted to really do this, there are more efficient ways of going about it.

Related posts:

1. How Could Someone in Washington Be This Crazy? I popped a quick post up earlier form Google Reader...
2. Helping Women = Denying Religious Rights I’m home sick today with a nasty little cold, and...
3. Glenn Beck: Total Moron via: Atheist Media Blog Glenn Beck is my new...
4. Religion and Schools… why do they ask? John Whitehead asks, “Why don’t you let religion into our...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.