Much to the chagrin of religious conservatives, Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-SC) provision to the economic stimulus package has failed. The proposed amendment would have stripped language from the package that prevented funding for school improvements going towards "sectarian purposes."
Supporters of the amendment claim that the language was unconstitutional, and Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition considers the vote "the beginning of aggressive anti-Christian bigotry that we will see over the next four years."
In contrast, many other groups maintain that it was in accordance with respecting the separation of church and state. Barry Lynn of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State says this vote affirms "an important principle- that religious groups should pay their own way and not expect funding from the taxpayer."
The vote was pretty much according to party lines, and DeMint's amendment was comfortably defeated by a 54-43 margin. Regardless on your political or religious position, I fail to see how exactly changing this language in any way impacts the primary purpose of the economic stimulus package.
While this type of religious debate and disagreement is one of the healthy elements within our democracy, how does it directly relate to the nation's economy? Does funding school improvements at Yale Divinity School stimulate the economy less than school repairs at the University of Virginia? Granted, many taxpayers probably don't want their funds being used for "sectarian education," but there are also many citizens who wouldn't want their taxpayer dollars to be used for repairs at certain universities they consider to be too secular.
The main crux of this argument is not going to go away once the economic stimulus package passes, and I won't be surprised if we see any upcoming Supreme Court cases debating the constitutionality of the provision. We'll probably also hear the voices opposing much of the economic stimulus package, congress, and the Obama Administration growing louder.