Stimulus to ban religious worship

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

President Obama's proposed economic stimulus plan makes a deliberate
– and unconstitutional – attempt to censor religious speech and worship
on school campuses across the nation, according to a lawyer who argued related
cases before the U.S. Supreme Court 20 years ago and won them all.
"This isn't like a convenient oversight. This is intentional.
This legislation pokes its finger in the eyes of people who hold
religious beliefs," Jay Sekulow, chief of the American Center for Law and Justice, told WND today.

His was the organization that decades ago argued on behalf of
speech freedom on school campuses, winning repeatedly at the U.S.
Supreme Court. Since then, the 2001 Good News Club v. Milford Central School District decision was added, clarifying that restricting religious speech within the context of public shared-use facilities is unconstitutional.
The problem in the proposed stimulus bill comes from a provision that states: "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."
The wording that specifically targets religious speech already
has been approved by the majority Democrats in the U.S. House – all GOP
members opposed it. In the Senate, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., proposed an
amendment to eliminate it, but again majority Democrats decided to keep
the provision targeting religious instruction and activities.
Critics argued schools would accept any money offered, then impose a ban on religious events.

DeMint warned organizations such as the Fellowship of Christian
Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries,
Hillel and other religious groups would face new bans on access to
public facilities that would not apply to other organizations.
"This is a direct attack on students of faith, and I'm outraged
Democrats are using an economic stimulus bill to promote
discrimination," DeMint said. "Democrats should be ashamed of
themselves for siding with the ACLU over millions of students of
faith."
DeMint's comments have been posted online and also are embedded here:





"These students simply want equal access to public facilities,
which is their constitutional right. This hostility toward religion
must end. Those who voted to for this discrimination are standing in
the schoolhouse door to deny people of faith from entering any campus
building renovated by this bill," said DeMint.
The senator said the stimulus bill now becomes an "ACLU
stimulus" that has the goal of triggering lawsuits "designed to
intimidate religious organizations across the nation."
"This language is so vague, it's not clear if students can even
pray in a dorm room renovated with this funding since that is a form of
'religious worship.' If this provision remains in the bill, it will
have a chilling effect on students of faith in America," he said.
DeMint cited Obama's statement at the National Prayer Breakfast this week that faith "can promote a greater good for all of us."

"This provision is an assault against both. It's un-American and
it's unconstitutional. Intolerant and it's intolerable," DeMint said.
The ban on religious organizations is linked to the $3.5 billion intended for "renovation of public or private college and university facilities."

The ACLJ, which focuses on constitutional law, said the
provision "has nothing to do with economic stimulus and everything to
do with religious discrimination."
"The thing is I litigated these cases on these exact issues 20
years ago," Sekulow told WND. "Not only did we win, two of the
decisions were unanimous and the other was 8-1.
"We're seeing a rollback to the 1970s regarding church-state
relations," he said. "That's what is troubling. It is a complete
rollback that now institutionalizes discrimination through targeting
religion."
Sekulow said he already is drafting a complaint that will
challenge the constitutionality of the provision, to be used if it
isn't removed.
He said under current court precedents, it will be a open-and-shut victory.

However, he also warned that the problem is the damage that can
be done within the probable four years it would take to get the issue
to the U.S. Supreme Court and what that court would look like at that
point.
Under Obama, he said, "there will be an ideology shift." New
appointments to the bench by Obama, he said, would be "much more left
of where Justices (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg and (Stephen) Breyer are."

On an online forums page, readers were incensed.

• "Here comes the assault against Christian churches … Looks
  like he's trying to see how much damage he can do in the briefest
  period of time."


• "Obama is the most dangerous man of our
  times, period. He will seek to overturn everything our nation was built
  upon, personal freedom, capitalism, even the rock of faith. And he will
  seek to do it from within, openly, overtly and boldly. Will Christians
  now respond to this dangerous man in a strong, unified way? Or will
  Obama succeed in destroying the fabric of the greatest nation in human history?".
  
  


• "He's just following the Saul Alinsky rule (in his book,
  Rules for Radicals) to 'clothe everything you do in morality' because
  this is what most effectively fools the 'middle class' into agreeing
  with what you want to do."