Huckabee: Stimulus Bill is Anti-Religious
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee gave fodder to his critics of last year who argued he was too religious to win the presidential election:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned supporters Tuesday that the $828 billion stimulus package is “anti-religious.”
In an e-mail that was also posted on his blog ahead of the Senate’s passage, Huckabee wrote: “The dust is settling on the ‘bipartisan’ stimulus bill and one thing is clear: It is anti-religious.”
Saying these things may make one popular among Christian conservative voters but it’ll give fodder to liberal Democrats wishing to portray the GOP as the party of religious zealots. Even if you agree with the sentiments expressed you can’t possibly consider this a smart move.
Besides, the bill is so bad that there’s no need to bring religion into the debate.
Of course Huckabee is right when he says: “For all of the talk about bipartisanship, this Congress is blatantly liberal.”
President Obama talked to Republicans but incorporated none of their suggestions into the stimulus bill. Even the tax cuts were his own proposals. Moderation doesn’t mean you talk to others; it means you listen to them and do something with their suggestions if possible.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Good!! The constitution seperates church from state. The churches have no business telling the government what laws to pass or we will be another Iran.
I went to the link (an article in Politico). The only specific was this:
“The former Republican presidential candidate pointed to a provision in both the House and Senate versions banning higher education funds in the bill from being used on a “school or department of divinity.””
Well, I’m not sure that this one thing makes the whole bill “anti-religious”. I do have to admit that insofar the a “department of divinity” as part of religious studies, this would suggest a certain “anti-religious” tone.
Frankly, whether the funding is in there or not, such funding categories shouldn’t be in an economic stimulus package. Funding or not funding divinity departments is not my idea of immediate economic stimulus. I’d have the same comment for “Women’s studies” departments or “Black Studies” departments.
With the House cramming so much “crap” into the bill it will inevitably lead to someone claiming “I didn’t get mine!”
> With the House cramming so much “crap” into the bill it will inevitably lead to someone claiming “I didn’t get mine!”
Agreed… people are just going to be left wondering why The Government didn’t bother to save them.
I am not gullible and can sense when something is fishy. But this news about the stimulus plan having an addendum about refusing funds to religious universities just raises the hair on the back of my neck. I can see where this administration is headed and it is certainly not for the betterment of society at large. Just to appease their itches that they up till now never could scratch and in the process leave in their wake a multitude of angry and disappointed voices and creating unnecessary turmoil. This cannot be. This must be brought to naught.
When he said it was anti-religious, it wasn’t that the bill in and of itself was anti-religious but that things in the bill were stopping freedom of religious practice. For example, as soon as this bill is signed, students in state funded colleges will technically no longer be able to have prayer groups in their dorms. Aren’t prayer groups just an exercise of our freedom of religion? Or do we no longer have inherent rights under Obama rule?
Really? It’s a big bill, so I couldn’t find any near reference to what you’re talking about, but maybe you can.
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Recovery_Bill_Div_A.pdf
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Recovery_Bill_Div_B.pdf
So where is the 1st amendment suppressing clause?
Dear “KITTY KATT”
The “Separation of Church and State” is not in the constitution. The phrase is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist. It was really to keep the Govt out of the church, not the other way around.
@Kitty Katt