“This provision should be removed from the stimulus package.”
Then I take it, Mr. Sekulow, that you are comfortable seeing universities use these funds for renovation or construction of not only Christian religious facilities but also facilities for Muslim, Wiccan, Native American, and Zoroastrian (just to name a few) students?
Personally, I believe the bill is worded quite well. Let the local religious congregations support the religious facilities on these campuses. That will not only insure that the facilities are well-maintained, but also keep the local congregations in touch with the campus communities, something that happens far too infrequently these days.

“PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. – No funds awarded under this section may be used for – (C) 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.”
I am having a hard time figuring out where you read that “student groups would be barred from using facilities for worship or even Bible study if the school accepts the federal stimulus funds”.
The way I see it it is just saying that the schools cannot use the federal money to support buildings used primarily religious organizations (churches, temples, mosques, seminaries, schools of theology, etc.), which is how it should be with the separation of church and state. It says nothing about people using other buildings to hold prayer meetings as long as there are mostly used for other purposes (maybe classes since there are schools!!). I don’t want government money going to support religious organizations it speaks of favoritism.

“A prayer in a public school! God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion.” – Superintendent Chalmers (The Simpsons)
A college campus is a place where religions such as Christianity are studied, dissected and revealed to be the Rube Goldberg inventions the philosophers always said they were. The duty of higher education is to teach students the untruths that all religions are built upon.

Many bible colleges get massive amounts of private donations from people that support the religion that they are teaching. Taxpayers of different religions or no religion should not have to support these schools.

Boris and Debunker are racking up the points. Religions are to be self-sustaining, otherwise, what good are they? Coerced support of religion is an abomination.

Re: Funding ABORTION & FOCA undermines quality health care. It’s a waste of taxpayer money. Women already have “freedom of choice” to say “No” to pregnancy. There is no need for the government or a law to tell women what they already know. Pregnancy is a “Yes, choice.” Right, First Lady and Mother Michelle? In the case of violent rape, health care can already prevent an unwanted pregnancy without an abortion. Just do it!
FOCA will result in the closure of numerous charity health care facilities. It jeopardizes health care for everyone with loss of nurses in a system already suffering acute shortages. Good quality healthcare, like good parenting, only results under the watchful eye of a good conscience.
Re: -VETERANS -
FOCA will create a greater shortage of nurses and undermine your plans for veterans healthcare. The VA Centers are a disgrace and nursing care is very poor all over the country. The VA facilities need a great overhaul before planned parenthood.

FOCA will result in the closure of numerous charity health care facilities. It jeopardizes health care for everyone with loss of nurses in a system already suffering acute shortages. …. FOCA will create a greater shortage of nurses and undermine your plans for veterans healthcare.
Why would there be a loss of nurses in health care facilities, not to mention veterans’ care facilities? Any nurse who objects to abortion can find a job in another field of health care, say care for the elderly or cancer patient care. In fact, I think hospice nurses are among the best there are.

Just a question. I graduated from a non-religious public university. If its auditorium needed repairs (which regularly welcomes speakers from Harvard and many Ivy schools to discuss a wide range of topics), does this prohibit the school from receiving funds because it also occasionally allows religious groups to have church in the auditorium?

The democrats are scared, Because having a Christian function in a scool might have a positive reaction to the student population. Students may evan learn something other than how drink and have sex. WoW !!!That means actual morals would be a part of our society in college what a concept. Do the liberels have Any morals, And if they do they where do the use them at home with momma.

Although people seem bent on separating church and state in the government, I don’t see why religion has to be discriminated against in the receipt of funds. Historically, institutions were once all religious. Where will this stop? I believe that since most people have religious beliefs of one kind or another, government is handing out welfare checks to them,and not separating between church and state. What’s the difference?

Historically, institutions were once all religious.
Yes and we call this period the Dark Ages because Christianity stamped out any social progress and arrested, tortured and murdered anyone who was caught studying nature. Now is the age of enlightenment where WE atheists stamp our Christianity and the rest of the asinine evil and false religions in the world with education and science.

Jay I think you have finally gone over the edge. This provision would not prevent bible clubs or religious speakers. It just means no churches, chaples or dept of religion. It is a restatement of the establishment clause.

Indeed, the provision should be removed from the stimulus package. The law has ruled in favor of religious groups being allowed to use public facilities for meetings because the meetings serve broad interests in facilitating discussion of ideologies among broad and diverse people with varying interests. If the package was accepted as is, in essence, the limitation would have a chilling effect upon previous Supreme Court decisions in favor of religious groups’ rights. Moreover, the wording by the Legislative Branch would overstep the bounds of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch, in clear violation of the separation of powers.

Lois Fox wrote: ” I believe that since most people have religious beliefs of one kind or another, government is handing out welfare checks to them,and not separating between church and state. What’s the difference?”
People, individually, are not establishments of religion. You cannot separate an individual from their unalienable right of holding whatever religious beliefs they do. Subsidising people regardless of religious belief is quite different than giving welfare BASED UPON religious belief, favoring certain belief groups over others. It isn’t allowed. Government does not reward religion, individual people do.