Jewish Groups Get Federal Safety Funds
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has allocated $5.1 million in security funding for nonprofit, faith-based institutions in California, with $3.75 million earmarked for L.A. County. Synagogues, Jewish agencies and day schools across Los Angeles County make up the bulk of local nonprofit institutions receiving the local funding.
A state Office of Emergency Services listing of recipients shows that of the 46 local nonprofits getting funding, 28 are Jewish institutions representing almost $2 million combined out of the $3.75 million. The grants attracted 87 Los Angeles nonprofit applicants. Los Angeles City Councilman Jack Weiss, whose district includes the San Fernando Valley and the Westside, spearheaded the push for L.A. funding.
These grants will cover improvements on physical security, such as fences and security cameras. Jewish institutions receiving $100,000 grants include the Simon Wiesenthal Center/Museum of Tolerance, the Universi By Caryle Murphy
Washington Post Staff Writer
10/20/05 "Washington Post" -- -- Thirty-one nonprofit organizations in the Washington area, including 14 synagogues and eight hospitals, have received federal grants ranging from $26,000 to $100,000 to fortify their facilities under an anti-terrorism program that has divided Jewish leaders and drawn criticism from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The grants are part of a $25 million nationwide program that Congress approved last year and recently renewed for fiscal 2006 to protect nonprofit groups deemed highly vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
Terrorist Grant money going out of DC and New York to CA?
Was this the real story?
Just a political question! Not racist! White Tiger is correct in saying there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Many ppl confuse that fact.
If you are trying to say that Homeland Security is doling out these funds as a security matter, then there is nothing wrong with it. Actually, if the money is going to museums, it actually falls under possibly funding for the Arts, in which case, we don't have any say how those tax dollars are used. There is no seperation between church and state, in the consitution.
People have seperated christianity from the Federal Government and are now complaining for the corruption in it.
Who's fault is that? The first amendment states that Congress can't establish a state religion. This was put in place because the founding fathers did not want a state run church like the Church of England. That is the only thing the amendment says. Congress can pass any law about religion, or give any money to religion, as long as it is not a state run religion that every citizen is mandated to belong to.
Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Where do you think TERRORIST attacks on the US are most likely to occur?
I'd say national landmarks, places of mass gathering (stadiums, arenas, malls, etc.) and any Jewish landmark, especially in large cities.
It is natural to protect whatever assets in the US that would be targets for terrorism, because likely the target won't be the only thing affected (a suitcase nuke or bioweapon detonated at a synagogue will cause peripheral damage).
If you really researched the intent of separation between Church and State, you would come to learn that the Founding Fathers were wary of the Church, any Church, holding disproportionate influence over the governing of the state. The Founding Fathers were not atheists, and in fact were pretty much all devout Christians.
Let's not blur the meaning of this separation by completely ignoring the foundation of our nation: JUDEO/CHRISTIAN VALUES! The government guarantees freedom of religion without governmental control or constraint.
"Separation of church and state", according to the constitution, is only one-directional - that is, state can not interfere with religious practices. Government can neither favor nor show bias for or against any religious organization.
Nowhere in the constitution does it state that religion can not involve itself in government.
In fact, the founding fathers of this country firmly believed that religion should and must dictate government policies. Aren't Jewish organizations the most likely targets for Muslim terrorists?
BTW, separation of church and state, as it was originally intended,
means that there is to be no federally-sponsored church.
It means absolutely nothing more than that. Okee Dokey Jewish institutions in the US have been targeted by independent Muslim crazies looking to kill themselves some Jews and gain Allah's favor.
But this does not violate the mythical separation of church and state.
Mythical? you ask. Yes, mythical. The term 'separation of church and state' was formed from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a preacher, to reassure the preacher that the government would not take over or otherwise force or compel anything upon his church.
The 1st Amendment says that Congress shall not establish a state religion or prevent the free practice thereof.
Federal, or state, or any tax money that happens to go to a religious group cannot be considered by any rational person to be 'establishing' a religion, IMO. But thanks to the anti-religious left and the ACLU bullies, they have turned the 1st Amendment and the freedoms and liberties of the Constitution on their heads.
There is no Constitutional violation in this action - the violation is actually in declaring these actions illegal.
You see, law is not what you want it to mean, but what it actually says. If Congress wants to create and pass and Amendment that says that no tax monies of any kind will go to any group that has any religious association, and no political activity of any kind may go on at any church or religiously-related location, and that Amendment gets passed via the process, then, yes, that will create the separation of church and state that currently is a legal myth.
But let us first recognize the truth - there is no law, no constitutional clause, no basis for the imaginary separation of church and state that the ACLU has forced down our throats. |
