Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're so stupid you don't realize that many of these groups of faith actually pay for the use of those facilities.
Let them pay. You are not here crying about who the church pays for what. You are here crying about your grubby fucking paws being slapped out of the tax payer cookie jar. By all means, let them pay. Hell, if the boyscouts COULD PAY rather than take public charity then they wouldn't have to be kicked out of their fucking building, eh? You know, that article that one of us posted? THAT would have been RENT if they COULD PAY. But, thats not at all what you are bleeding all over the carpet about, now is it?
Yes, actually it is, but you are too dense to get it. Most of these groups do pay you goof. Now they could be discriminated against from being able to rent these facilities.
I posted MY evidence, dude. Where is yours? Read any good "Boyscouts kicked the fuck out of public venues becaue of their anti-gay stance" articles lately? do you have EVIDENCE that the general population will "pay more taxes" if your silly dogma junkie ass is not allowed free reign of public resources? Non-sequiters may increase the tithes in the donation plate but i'm just not all that impressed.
Indeed, a nation without religion would give each of us one less reason to marginalize others. I look forward to that AFFECTING the nation. The FACT remains that you will not be hindered at all by being excluded from the public tax tit. Tell me, IS THIS WHAT YOU THINK JESUS WOULD HAVE DONE? Crying about funding from Ceasar?
Your evidence is the twisting of our Constitution, plain and simple. When organizations that pay to use these facilities are no longer permitted to use them, then the schools will lose revenue. But I'm sure you believe that by removing these organizations, others will take their place.
Pay close attention to this yahoo's posts, my friend. He's building a straw man and you're missing the importance of what he's not saying.
He's framing the question as if the use of a facility in off hours by a small group of church-goers for a 2 hour Bible study is tantamount to those few people accepting the funds from this bill themselves! The very notion is laughable laughable but pathetic.
He cant argue the issue on a straightforward enunciation of the issue on its merits because his argument would fall from of its own weight.
For example, lets say that this Bible study group comes to the school for their meeting every Tuesday evening at 6:00 P.M. and stays for an hour. In what way, exactly, would they have accepted or requested any of the funds that the school may have used for a roof repair done at the other end of the building? And, how would it possibly relate to the construction of a new church by this group in another totally unrelated location?
The answer is obvious. No construction of this bill given by him would account for any use of or request of the funds in question.
And, yet, the fact is that the bill would forever prohibit the school from allowing the group this inconsequential use of its facility.
So, it really isnt worth arguing with a troll like this
"Nestled away in the now $900 billion-plus stimulus is a provision some conservatives believe is a backdoor attempt to stifle religious dialogue in the public square. While the bill provides $20 billion for the modernization of school facilities with $14 billion going to elementary and secondary schools and $6 billion for higher education it also expressly prohibits using the funds to modernize buildings where religious activities take place." The Bulletin > Philadelphia's Family Newspaper > Archives > Top Stories > Stimulus Plan Includes Religious Discrimination
Under current law a public school must allow after school use of its facilities for religiouos activities such as Bible study and religious services. What this bill will do is make it illegal for any school that accepts these funds for improvements, repairs or new construction to do so.
Excellent. We should not be having prayer and religious activities in public schools. The law reverses the previous one.
Under "What the Constitution Allows"
Religion in U.S. Public Schools
What the constitution allows:
...
I just want to say I got this site from grad classes in Constitutional studies from We the People and James Madison Scholars programs.
"Nestled away in the now $900 billion-plus stimulus is a provision some conservatives believe is a backdoor attempt to stifle religious dialogue in the public square. While the bill provides $20 billion for the modernization of school facilities with $14 billion going to elementary and secondary schools and $6 billion for higher education it also expressly prohibits using the funds to modernize buildings where religious activities take place." The Bulletin > Philadelphia's Family Newspaper > Archives > Top Stories > Stimulus Plan Includes Religious Discrimination
Under current law a public school must allow after school use of its facilities for religiouos activities such as Bible study and religious services. What this bill will do is make it illegal for any school that accepts these funds for improvements, repairs or new construction to do so.
I don't believe that's true. In fact, I don't believe kids ar allowed to have bible study in school at all. I could be wrong about that, though.
To me, it's applying the same standard as the constitution. At least til the right wingers on the court get hold of it.... which could be the reason for the provision.
I don't see anything wrong with it.Government is already prohibited from funding religious pursuits. I can see where the Christian right would be offended by that, having worked so hard to elect presidents and governors to put people on the court who stand constitutional construction on its head.
Your evidence is the twisting of our Constitution, plain and simple. When organizations that pay to use these facilities are no longer permitted to use them, then the schools will lose revenue. But I'm sure you believe that by removing these organizations, others will take their place.
Pay close attention to this yahoo's posts, my friend. He's building a straw man and you're missing the importance of what he's not saying.
He's framing the question as if the use of a facility in off hours by a small group of church-goers for a 2 hour Bible study is tantamount to those few people accepting the funds from this bill themselves! The very notion is laughable laughable but pathetic.
He cant argue the issue on a straightforward enunciation of the issue on its merits because his argument would fall from of its own weight.
For example, lets say that this Bible study group comes to the school for their meeting every Tuesday evening at 6:00 P.M. and stays for an hour. In what way, exactly, would they have accepted or requested any of the funds that the school may have used for a roof repair done at the other end of the building? And, how would it possibly relate to the construction of a new church by this group in another totally unrelated location?
The answer is obvious. No construction of this bill given by him would account for any use of or request of the funds in question.
And, yet, the fact is that the bill would forever prohibit the school from allowing the group this inconsequential use of its facility.
So, it really isnt worth arguing with a troll like this
Hey, dude.. I'm not the one acting like a wounded fucking bird because tax money won't get funneled into your dogma junkie pockets. Your opinion of "inconsequential" is about as nationally valid as your opinion on Witch Confessions. At the end of the day, dogma junkie, YOU still get to fail in your lionfood "they are picking on me, jesus" crybaby shit. When you want to bring more to the table than laughably misconstrued accusations and weak assed opinions then let me know.. Until then, go pray to your zombie jesus because Ceasar doesn't care about you.
Pay close attention to this yahoo's posts, my friend. He's building a straw man and you're missing the importance of what he's not saying.
He's framing the question as if the use of a facility in off hours by a small group of church-goers for a 2 hour Bible study is tantamount to those few people accepting the funds from this bill themselves! The very notion is laughable laughable but pathetic.
He cant argue the issue on a straightforward enunciation of the issue on its merits because his argument would fall from of its own weight.
For example, lets say that this Bible study group comes to the school for their meeting every Tuesday evening at 6:00 P.M. and stays for an hour. In what way, exactly, would they have accepted or requested any of the funds that the school may have used for a roof repair done at the other end of the building? And, how would it possibly relate to the construction of a new church by this group in another totally unrelated location?
The answer is obvious. No construction of this bill given by him would account for any use of or request of the funds in question.
And, yet, the fact is that the bill would forever prohibit the school from allowing the group this inconsequential use of its facility.
So, it really isnt worth arguing with a troll like this
Hey, dude.. I'm not the one acting like a wounded fucking bird because tax money won't get funneled into your dogma junkie pockets. Your opinion of "inconsequential" is about as nationally valid as your opinion on Witch Confessions. At the end of the day, dogma junkie, YOU still get to fail in your lionfood "they are picking on me, jesus" crybaby shit. When you want to bring more to the table than laughably misconstrued accusations and weak assed opinions then let me know.. Until then, go pray to your zombie jesus because Ceasar doesn't care about you.
I think Shogun got beat up by a nun.
Hey, dude.. I'm not the one acting like a wounded fucking bird because tax money won't get funneled into your dogma junkie pockets. Your opinion of "inconsequential" is about as nationally valid as your opinion on Witch Confessions. At the end of the day, dogma junkie, YOU still get to fail in your lionfood "they are picking on me, jesus" crybaby shit. When you want to bring more to the table than laughably misconstrued accusations and weak assed opinions then let me know.. Until then, go pray to your zombie jesus because Ceasar doesn't care about you.
I think Shogun got beat up by a nun.
The hilarious part is that you notice that he still hasn't tried to explain how my use of a school room after hours for a Bible study group equates to money "funneling into my pockets"...
Pay close attention to this yahoo's posts, my friend. He's building a straw man and you're missing the importance of what he's not saying.
He's framing the question as if the use of a facility in off hours by a small group of church-goers for a 2 hour Bible study is tantamount to those few people accepting the funds from this bill themselves! The very notion is laughable laughable but pathetic.
He cant argue the issue on a straightforward enunciation of the issue on its merits because his argument would fall from of its own weight.
For example, lets say that this Bible study group comes to the school for their meeting every Tuesday evening at 6:00 P.M. and stays for an hour. In what way, exactly, would they have accepted or requested any of the funds that the school may have used for a roof repair done at the other end of the building? And, how would it possibly relate to the construction of a new church by this group in another totally unrelated location?
The answer is obvious. No construction of this bill given by him would account for any use of or request of the funds in question.
And, yet, the fact is that the bill would forever prohibit the school from allowing the group this inconsequential use of its facility.
So, it really isnt worth arguing with a troll like this
Hey, dude.. I'm not the one acting like a wounded fucking bird because tax money won't get funneled into your dogma junkie pockets. Your opinion of "inconsequential" is about as nationally valid as your opinion on Witch Confessions. At the end of the day, dogma junkie, YOU still get to fail in your lionfood "they are picking on me, jesus" crybaby shit. When you want to bring more to the table than laughably misconstrued accusations and weak assed opinions then let me know.. Until then, go pray to your zombie jesus because Ceasar doesn't care about you.
I think Shogun got beat up by a nun.
Hey, dude.. I'm not the one acting like a wounded fucking bird because tax money won't get funneled into your dogma junkie pockets. Your opinion of "inconsequential" is about as nationally valid as your opinion on Witch Confessions. At the end of the day, dogma junkie, YOU still get to fail in your lionfood "they are picking on me, jesus" crybaby shit. When you want to bring more to the table than laughably misconstrued accusations and weak assed opinions then let me know.. Until then, go pray to your zombie jesus because Ceasar doesn't care about you.
I think Shogun got beat up by a nun.
The hilarious part is that you notice that he still hasn't tried to explain how my use of a school room after hours for a Bible study group equates to money "funneling into my pockets"...
"Nestled away in the now $900 billion-plus stimulus is a provision some conservatives believe is a backdoor attempt to stifle religious dialogue in the public square. While the bill provides $20 billion for the modernization of school facilities with $14 billion going to elementary and secondary schools and $6 billion for higher education it also expressly prohibits using the funds to modernize buildings where religious activities take place." The Bulletin > Philadelphia's Family Newspaper > Archives > Top Stories > Stimulus Plan Includes Religious Discrimination
Under current law a public school must allow after school use of its facilities for religiouos activities such as Bible study and religious services. What this bill will do is make it illegal for any school that accepts these funds for improvements, repairs or new construction to do so.
I don't believe that's true. In fact, I don't believe kids ar allowed to have bible study in school at all. I could be wrong about that, though.
To me, it's applying the same standard as the constitution. At least til the right wingers on the court get hold of it.... which could be the reason for the provision.
I don't see anything wrong with it.Government is already prohibited from funding religious pursuits. I can see where the Christian right would be offended by that, having worked so hard to elect presidents and governors to put people on the court who stand constitutional construction on its head.
I'm just going to get a macro for this next sentence, since I seem to have to use it in relation to your posts all the time.
What in the hell are you babbling about?
1) No one said anything specifically about kids having Bible studies. As I'm sure you're unaware - since you're usually unaware of nearly everything - many schools rent their facilities out to community groups outside of school hours. One of the local schools in my neighborhood, for example, rents its cafeteria to a church for Sunday services while the group saves up enough money to build its own chapel. The money goes to fund things that the regular school budget doesn't cover. This provision would also include any university building used by religious based organizations, even if they are recognized student organizations.
2) No one said anything about the government funding any activity, religious or otherwise. The purpose here is to withhold government funding from improving buildings whose primary purpose is NON-religious unless they discriminate in their rental and usage rules against religious people. Or are you seriously trying to tell us that you see making repairs to a college's Student Union, which is used for every damned thing under the sun that's related to the college, plus rented out to virtually every imaginable community group, is "funding religious activities" simpy because one or two of those myriad groups paying good money to use those facilities happens to be religious?
3) Where does the Constitution require that facilities and services extended to community groups should be withheld from religious groups specifically because they are religious? Cite the "the government must be hostile to religion" clause in the Constitution for me, please.
I think Shogun got beat up by a nun.
The hilarious part is that you notice that he still hasn't tried to explain how my use of a school room after hours for a Bible study group equates to money "funneling into my pockets"...
He can't
Hey, dude.. I'm not the one acting like a wounded fucking bird because tax money won't get funneled into your dogma junkie pockets. Your opinion of "inconsequential" is about as nationally valid as your opinion on Witch Confessions. At the end of the day, dogma junkie, YOU still get to fail in your lionfood "they are picking on me, jesus" crybaby shit. When you want to bring more to the table than laughably misconstrued accusations and weak assed opinions then let me know.. Until then, go pray to your zombie jesus because Ceasar doesn't care about you.
I think Shogun got beat up by a nun.
The hilarious part is that you notice that he still hasn't tried to explain how my use of a school room after hours for a Bible study group equates to money "funneling into my pockets"...
from the article, it looks like they are talking about COLLEGE CAMPUSES.....near the end it talks of campuses with a ministry on campus.....
Do we call elementary schools campuses? And do elementary schools have religious ministries on their grounds?
PLEASE....this is not what the article made it out to be....it's just not....
Care,
If you go back and look at the full text of the bill (http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf), the part of this text that I quoted reading, funds awarded under this section, refers to the section of the bill relating to public schools including elementary and secondary schools as follows:.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS SUBTITLE
SEC. 9301. 21ST CENTURY GREEN HIGH-PERFORMING PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES.
7 (a) DEFINITIONS.In this section:
8 (1) The term Bureau-funded school has the
9 meaning given to such term in section 1141 of the
10 Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2021).
11 (2) The term charter school has the meaning
12 given such term in section 5210 of the Elementary
13 and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
14 (3) The term local educational agency
15 (A) has the meaning given to that term in
16 section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
17 Education Act of 1965, and shall also include
18 the Recovery School District of Louisiana and
19 the New Orleans Public Schools; and
20 (B) includes any public charter school that
21 constitutes a local educational agency under
22 State law.
from the article, it looks like they are talking about COLLEGE CAMPUSES.....near the end it talks of campuses with a ministry on campus.....
Do we call elementary schools campuses? And do elementary schools have religious ministries on their grounds?
PLEASE....this is not what the article made it out to be....it's just not....
Care,
If you go back and look at the full text of the bill (http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf), the part of this text that I quoted reading, “funds awarded under this section”, refers to the section of the bill relating to public schools including elementary and secondary schools as follows:.
“GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS SUBTITLE
SEC. 9301. 21ST CENTURY GREEN HIGH-PERFORMING PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES.
7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
8 (1) The term ‘Bureau-funded school’ has the
9 meaning given to such term in section 1141 of the
10 Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2021).
11 (2) The term ‘charter school’ has the meaning
12 given such term in section 5210 of the Elementary
13 and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
14 (3) The term ‘local educational agency’—
15 (A) has the meaning given to that term in
16 section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
17 Education Act of 1965, and shall also include
18 the Recovery School District of Louisiana and
19 the New Orleans Public Schools; and
20 (B) includes any public charter school that
21 constitutes a local educational agency under
22 State law.”
patriot,
where in the house bill does it say this?:
“(2) 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; or construction of new facilities.”
it IS NOT on page 164/165....
WHERE did you get THAT statement from? what bill and what page? and include the link, for THAT provision....
call me dumb, but i can't find it????
That's not different from this, actually... and it comports with my understanding. this is from the bill...
"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 think it might just be a way to head off scalia and roberts from changing those limits. And I am very much ok with that.
Pages 164-165 of the stimulus contain the following prohibitions on the use of $3.5 billion available for renovation of public or private college and university facilities:
(2) 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; or construction of new facilities.
OK, Part (2)(C)(i) is the offending provision. Part (2)(C)(ii) isnt a problem because it is already common in federal funding laws. The (ii) paragraph means that the funds cant be used to build, renovate or repair what would be a church or church instructional building. Some campuses include a school chapel. Any work on such a building couldnt be performed with these funds. Although I personally wouldnt have a problem with such a use of the stimulus money some would and I understand such objections.
But, the (i) paragraph is something new and is a departure from already existing federal law. It is far broader and includes all occasional or less than substantial uses for any religious activity. In other words this isnt a matter of banning the use of the funds for an old oncampus chapel or church. It bans the one-time or two-time outreach dinner such as the one my church hosted at that elementary school one Thursday night. Thats a big difference.
The irony is that it wouldnt ban a night of gambling on bingo by a local social club in the same building!
I support the continued separation of CHRUCH and STATE.
Any of you who are belivers ought to join me in supporting that ban, as well.
Why?
Because of the GOLDEN RULE, of course.
As long as the religion does NOT take coin from the government, the government has to leave it ALONE.
The moment you go down the path where the religion becomes in any way dependent on that government for help (other than its tax free status, I mean) your religion has gone down that road to hell paved with expedient intentions.
Absolutely, keep the government out of the churches. It's dirty money with filthy strings attached to it, which is why they shouldn't be in charge of education either. This demonstrates exactly why they should be kept out of everything except for what is outlined in the Constitution. Unfortunately, we are so far gone from that at this point that there is not any likelihood of ever returning.Care,
If you go back and look at the full text of the bill (http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf), the part of this text that I quoted reading, funds awarded under this section, refers to the section of the bill relating to public schools including elementary and secondary schools as follows:.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS SUBTITLE
SEC. 9301. 21ST CENTURY GREEN HIGH-PERFORMING PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES.
7 (a) DEFINITIONS.In this section:
8 (1) The term Bureau-funded school has the
9 meaning given to such term in section 1141 of the
10 Education Amendments of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 2021).
11 (2) The term charter school has the meaning
12 given such term in section 5210 of the Elementary
13 and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
14 (3) The term local educational agency
15 (A) has the meaning given to that term in
16 section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
17 Education Act of 1965, and shall also include
18 the Recovery School District of Louisiana and
19 the New Orleans Public Schools; and
20 (B) includes any public charter school that
21 constitutes a local educational agency under
22 State law.
patriot,
where in the house bill does it say this?:
(2) 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; or construction of new facilities.
it IS NOT on page 164/165....
WHERE did you get THAT statement from? what bill and what page? and include the link, for THAT provision....
call me dumb, but i can't find it????
I apologize. The bill is H.R.1 and the link is http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf. The actual language is at Line 18, Page 186.
patriot,
where in the house bill does it say this?:
(2) 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; or construction of new facilities.
it IS NOT on page 164/165....
WHERE did you get THAT statement from? what bill and what page? and include the link, for THAT provision....
call me dumb, but i can't find it????
I apologize. The bill is H.R.1 and the link is http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf. The actual language is at Line 18, Page 186.
ok Pat,
this is under the section for HIGHER EDUCATION
(d) USE OF SUBGRANTS BY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.
(1) PERMISSIBLE USES OF FUNDS. this is pg 184
so IT IS speaking about COLLEGES, To clear that up.
Now let's look at the passage again, together, and reason it through....
(2) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.No funds awarded under this section may be used for
i. Modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or
ii. Modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are susumed in religious mission; or construction of new facilities.
I asked myself, if the way YOU interpreted it is true....... that the first statement ....''i'', meant that any classroom used at all for any religious reason, even if for just 2 hours a week on one day, the feds could prohibit the school from receiving funds to repair it....
then I would also have to ask myself
WHY would "ii" be needed if all the classrooms that had just one Bible study a week in it were already prohibited by clause "i"?
It wouldn't be needed. 'ii' would not be needed Patriot, if 'i' meant what you think it does or say it does mean?
SOOOOOOOO, then i had to ask myself, if there is no reason for it to mean what you say... then what does it mean and how would it relate to having an 'ii'?
SOOOOOOOOO, what I believe it means, especially since ii was stated, is that:
Prohibited from receiving funds IF:
i = the modernization/repair is for specific School Chapels, and specific buildings for their ministry only.
ii = the modernization/repair is for buildings used PRIMARILY for religious purposes...so, they may have secular colleges classes in these buildings but the MAJORITY of the time would be used for religious groups or purposes.
care
I apologize. The bill is H.R.1 and the link is http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf. The actual language is at Line 18, Page 186.
ok Pat,
this is under the section for HIGHER EDUCATION
(d) USE OF SUBGRANTS BY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.
(1) PERMISSIBLE USES OF FUNDS. this is pg 184
so IT IS speaking about COLLEGES, To clear that up.
Now let's look at the passage again, together, and reason it through....
(2) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.No funds awarded under this section may be used for
i. Modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or
ii. Modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are susumed in religious mission; or construction of new facilities.
I asked myself, if the way YOU interpreted it is true....... that the first statement ....''i'', meant that any classroom used at all for any religious reason, even if for just 2 hours a week on one day, the feds could prohibit the school from receiving funds to repair it....
then I would also have to ask myself
WHY would "ii" be needed if all the classrooms that had just one Bible study a week in it were already prohibited by clause "i"?
It wouldn't be needed. 'ii' would not be needed Patriot, if 'i' meant what you think it does or say it does mean?
SOOOOOOOO, then i had to ask myself, if there is no reason for it to mean what you say... then what does it mean and how would it relate to having an 'ii'?
SOOOOOOOOO, what I believe it means, especially since ii was stated, is that:
Prohibited from receiving funds IF:
i = the modernization/repair is for specific School Chapels, and specific buildings for their ministry only.
ii = the modernization/repair is for buildings used PRIMARILY for religious purposes...so, they may have secular colleges classes in these buildings but the MAJORITY of the time would be used for religious groups or purposes.
care
Care,
Your interpretation is redundant. If (i) means what you say, there is no need for (ii). And, if (ii) means what you say, there is no need for (i) since you seem to think that they both apply to chapels of campus churches or to classrooms used primarily for similar purposes.
Since the two are separated by the term or the principles of legal language interpretation hold that they address something different. The only logical difference is that the first addresses buildings used primarily for non-religious purposes and include occasional uses for religious purposes and the second addresses buildings used primarily for religious purposes regardless of whether they are used for occasional non-secular purposes.
This is a distinction that has heretofore not appeared in federal legislation.
[
That's not different from this, actually... and it comports with my understanding. this is from the bill...
"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 think it might just be a way to head off scalia and roberts from changing those limits. And I am very much ok with that.
If public school facilities or any public facilities are leased for private use, then they can not be denied to religious organizations on the same lease arrangements. That is the law in most states. For years I went to a church that leased the local junior high school. The church leased the assembly hall for church services and about six classrooms for Sunday School services. The city made some money and the school janitors were assured of overtime. That was a win/win situation.
The church grew and is now one of the biggest in San Diego (where I live). It now operates elementary and high schools and relieves the school district of the burden of having to give an inferior education to over 2000 students. The church school is one of the best in the country.
