Standard and Sensible: Why the Stimulus Isn't Anti-Religious
For 46 years, spending bills in the U.S. Congress have included a stipulation barring the use of government funds for projects that are explicitly religious, like a chapel or a building used for sectarian instruction.
Since 1963, mind you-- 46 years!
So it comes as a bit of a surprise that Mike Huckabee is claiming, in an email to supporters, that the stimulus is "anti-religious"... for using the same provision that's been in use since 1963. [By the way, how awesome is the scanned Congressional text with the 1963 law? Thanks Steve Benen!]
As Benen rightly points out, Huckabee is "bearing false witness."
This is standard practice, not some assault on Christianity. Also, it's standard practice that sensibly rooted in our Constitution, which protects against the establishment of religion (which some people seem to forget). Church/state balance is a tricky thing-- as shown by numerous court cases and the controversy over the faith-based initiatives office-- but the ban on direct government funding for something used for sectarian, religious purposes is, to put it bluntly, a no-brainer.
Comments
Kristen: Also, it's standard practice that sensibly rooted in our Constitution, which protects against the establishment of religion (which some people seem to forget).
It's also the practice of people who don't understand what an establishment of religion is. How is supporting or giving money to a church establishing a national church?
Posted by: our founding truth | February 12, 2009 1:36 PM
Funding one to the exclusion of others is favoring. Favoring is a step toward establishing. What confuses me is rhetoric that equates lack of sponsorship with anti-religion bias, which is what Kristin is speaking to.
Posted by: Dan | February 12, 2009 8:14 PM
Our founding truth: thanks for the comment; I see your point! I think many people think the "wall of separation between church and state" is a constitutionally enshrined phrase (which of course it isn't... not unless Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists somehow makes it way into an amendment!). For people who think this phrase is actually in the Constitution, they think the government can't support a church in any way. Of course, as we know, the establishment and free exercise clauses are much more nuanced than this and do not forbid any and all mixing of church and state.
Posted by: Kristin | February 17, 2009 12:04 PM
