http://www.qando.net/ - Setting a bad precedent

After weeks of prodding by Republican lawmakers and the American Red Cross, the Federal Emergency Management Agency said yesterday that it will use taxpayer money to reimburse churches and other religious organizations that have opened their doors to provide shelter, food and supplies to survivors of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

FEMA officials said it would mark the first time that the government has made large-scale payments to religious groups for helping to cope with a domestic natural disaster.

I'm sorry but that's just nuts.

Look, I gave to my church's disaster relief fund. It, in turn, sent it to an agency supported by churchs of my denomination to be used to feed and house disaster victims.

Note the operative word: gave. I didn't loan it. I don't expect to be reimbursed. I gave to a charity, for heaven sake. Charity. You know, those organizations which collect money and goods and give them away?

So now the Fed is going to reimburse faith based charities?

"Volunteer labor is just that: volunteer," said the Rev. Robert E. Reccord, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's North American Mission Board. "We would never ask the government to pay for it."

Precisely.

Boy, the more I watch this Republican crew in action the worse it gets.

If you're going to tout "faith based" organizations as a way to lessen dependence on government, cut government spending in particular areas and lower the government profile, this sure as heck is one strange way of doing it. This move, in fact, works toward federalizing all disaster relief and raising the profile of the federal government. And it foolishly spends taxpayers money when it isn't necessary (not that that is particularly new).

Another misuse of taxpayer money and another bonehead policy. But then these are the "New Democrats", aren't they?

TrackBacks

Return to Main Blog Page

Comments For This Post

Previous Comments to this Post

Comments

I think they’re reimbursing religious organizations that were specifically asked to help out in a specific way, rather than mere charitable giving. i.e., they’re treating religious organizations in the same way they treat other orgs like the Red Cross.

Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net

I hope they are actually talking about reimbursing churches and other organizations for expenses directly related to feeding and housing disaster victims. In other words, they’re going to compensate these organizations for all those folks sleeping in the church sanctuary every night and eating church provided meals 3 times a day. I’m sure there are a lot of churches down south acting as refugee centers. The additional money required for that food and housing is nontrivial compared to the size of their annual budgets.

I certainly hope they won’t be paying volunteers, considering the magnitude of the disaster, we don’t have that kind of money. Hopefully they aren’t taking about the charitable equivalent of kickbacks either. A lot of liberal churches get enough ~~kickbacks~~grants as it is and conservative denominations like the SBC probably won’t accept it.

Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com

I don’t think they should. They’re set up as charitable institutions and if we’re to believe the use of "faith based" organizations as a replacement for government in some areas and instances, this does more harm than good.

No one I know of who works for a charitable organization expects to be reimbursed for their work, even if asked specifically to provide help of a certain kind. That’s the basis of "charity".

Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net

The additional money required for that food and housing is nontrivial compared to the size of their annual budgets.

Yes it is "nontrivial", however that reimbursment, if there is any, should come from organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention’s North American Mission Board. That is where the donations from the SBC’s member churchs are aggregated and it should be used to support other member churches who did indeed use their churches for what you describe.

Where it should NOT come from is the Fed.

Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net

Absolutely. Charitable giving is just that....giving. Expecting to be reimbursed was never part of the plan. Now, perhaps if a government agency appropriated some facility for emergency use, then I could see using tax dollars to remiburse the owners. But this sounds way more like treating faith-based charitable organizations as conventional businesses. But then again.....from what I can see of so many of them....perhaps this is closer to the truth after all. Paid professional ministers, professional contracted choirs, organists, and even bands? What was it the Scriptures said about Bishops not being lovers of filthy lucre?

Written By: Bob Forsythe
URL: http://

That is where the donations from the SBC’s member churchs are aggregated and it should be used to support other member churches who did indeed use their churches for what you describe.

There are some big assumptions here: (1) that the churches involved have this sort of over-arching denominational structure (2) that there is sufficient free funding in said denomination to do this. Neither are certain. The SBC is a big denomination covering a lot of geography. What about smaller ones that are localized in the disaster area? What about community churches that don’t belong to any denomination?

Saying "its a charity" is nice, but what happens if there isn’t enough charity money to cover the expenses? Do we turn those folks out on the street?

I would much rather see the non-denominational Christian charities like Samaritans Purse coming in to bail the churches out, rather than the Fed. On the other hand, if these people were being housed at the local community center instead of the local church, would there even be a story? Keep in mind small town churches often fill both those roles.

Written By: Jeff the Baptist
URL: http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com

I believe there are provisions that state that if the organization was ’asked by the state or local government’ to provide services then they are to be reimbursed. The key difference should be those churches which volunteered to provide such services as opposed to those churches who had a big parking lot or hall and the state asked to open such facilities. In the later it is appropriate to compensate the church.

Written By: BillS
URL: http://

At cellar.org we have a thread (scroll to post #35) where one of our regulars, a 64-year-old gent from Bay Springs, MS, finds that Red Cross assistance in his town comes from their faith-based arm at the local First Baptist Church. But since he was not a church member, when he went there for assistance there he was turned away.

Written By: Undertoad
URL: http://cellar.org/iotd.php

I think they’re reimbursing religious organizations that were specifically asked to help out in a specific way, rather than mere charitable giving. i.e., they’re treating religious organizations in the same way they treat other orgs like the Red Cross.

See? Just when I’ve given up on you, you utter common sense.
This is exactly what’s going on.

They’re doing so because it’s actually WORKING.

As I said on another topic this morning; If you’re bitching about the color of the life preserver you’ve just been thrown, you have a personal problem.

Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com

Whatever happened to seperation of church and state? I know I don’t want the government having anything to do with my church!

Written By: CyanCyde
URL: http://

As with all things involving the fed there are strings attatched to the money they hand out. As soon as a church accepts the money they have given up their right to give as they see fit or in what way they deem appopiate.

Take the money then remove the word church from the sign out front.

Written By: SkyWatch
URL: http://

Cyan: The Government won’t make your church take any money. And "separation of church and state" is a popular principle, but it’s not a law, not in that formulation.

I begin to wonder how many people bothered to look at the article and what it actually said, really.

Written By: Sigivald
URL: http://

Indeed, Sig.
It seems clear to me that the ones most often beating that drum don’t really have a bloody clue as to what the foudners actually intended.

Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com

I don’t meen to single these 2 posts out as I do understand what you are saying (Sig and Bit) "the government will not make the churches take the money nor did the founders think the church folks had no business in the desciding of what was right/wrong for the country."

But, can you give any single example of the government paying tax money to anyone or group and then after those people become used to the extra dollars not adding some conditions?

The churches that accept some coins later after they have hired folks to take care of the w-2(forms) and what not will be told "sorry , no more nativity scenes out front or no more reading scripture during meals" to qualify.

Just like the Boyscouts now. "Sorry you don’t accept our goals of homosexuality so no more freebie gov land to use."

The same will happen in the years to follow if the churches accept gov money.

The camels nose under the tent.

Written By: SkyWatch
URL: http://

I am getting fed up reading your emotional drivel about those "bad Republicans."

You want bad? Elect some Democrats - in control of the House, or the Senate, or both, and then in control of the White House.

And when they jack up your taxes and surrender this country to the likes of Cindy Sheehan, maybe then you can weep for allowing such stupidity to occur.

Because YOU wanted it.

Written By: George Jones
URL: http://

The way I see it,
The Republicans have two vital arteries; fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Without at least one of these consummators faithfully humping the Republican’s leg, the Party would falter.
Yes there are those who are both fiscally and socially conservative, but not enough of them to keep the PowerParty gettin’ jiggy with it.

And seeing how they’re losing the fisc’ies, it’s time to start a’courtin’ the thumpers all over again.
And we have to pay for the room. (argh!!)

But wait there’s more good news from FEMA. Apparently, our favorite stable boy is back on the payroll. And that should make everyone happy.

We all know that George Bush can’t shovel the mountain of horseshit from his stall all by his lonesome.
Bully for you, Mr. President. Bully for you.

Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://

Sorry i missed this jeff the Baptist,

"There are some big assumptions here: (1) that the churches involved have this sort of over-arching denominational structure (2) that there is sufficient free funding in said denomination to do this. Neither are certain. The SBC is a big denomination covering a lot of geography. What about smaller ones that are localized in the disaster area? What about community churches that don’t belong to any denomination?"

If you don’t have it to give then it is not yours or the churches TO GIVE.

Written By: SkyWatch
URL: http://

It seems clear to me that the ones most often beating that drum don’t really have a bloody clue as to what the foudners actually intended.

I don’t know about the foudners, but two of the key framers of the constitution—James Madison and Thomas Jefferson—left a lot of writings that indicate they intended a "wall of separation" between church and state. Indeed, that’s where the phrase came from. Moreover, no deity is mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and the signed and ratified version of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli specifically asserted that

...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

I don’t see how it could be much clearer.

Written By: David in AK
URL: http://

But, can you give any single example of the government paying tax money to anyone or group and then after those people become used to the extra dollars not adding some conditions?

Can you anticipate this level of emergency coming up again, where the government will have had time to care about such preconditions?

Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com

A nuke going off?

A chemical weapon going off?

Or a louis Farankan thought, a white person lil bomb going off?

kk.. that last one was sarcasm.

Written By: SkyWatch
URL: http://

When the camel sticks its nose under the tent flap "run straight at it and kick it" "yell ""git"". repeat.

Written By: SkyWatch
URL: http://

Sky;

So, you’re going to reject the help of those orgs, under those conditions?
Once again, I say, if you’re bitching about the color of the life preserver you’ve just been tossed... you’ve gotr serious personal issues, and would likely be better off drowning.

Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com

Would you like the feds to take over charity giving so they are all like the red cross?

which i SAW the nooths next to the salvation armies where i got a free sandwich in a tornadoe in 72 kansas.

thats a long time to make a gov org.scuser me gov.org

Written By: SkyWatch
URL: http://

Add Your Comment

	NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
	Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Comment:
	Remember Me

Vicious Capitalism

Buy Dale's Book!