Whoa now.......hmmmmmm - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 09-27-2005, 08:35 AM

Is it not the purpose of religious groups to help those in need?

Isn't the basis of religious groups of a humanitarian helping nature?

Aren't the GOP famous for saying "churches and families should help more and government should back off?"

Do not religious groups make money through tax written off donations?

Do not churches get off with paying no property taxes, no sales taxes, in fact no taxes at all, yet make fortunes (even small churches) on donations?

And who is going to determine how much and which churches should recieve monies?

And which religion do we suppose will make 95% of the monies from the government?

This is a pathetic precedent the GOP controlled FEMA and congress are wanting to do. These are supposedly "conservatives" who believe in less government, less stupid spending and that people should recieve more help from churches, families and private funded social programs......... and yet they will probably be giving MILLIONS upon MILLIONS to these churches.....

I can understand these churches saying, "carpets show 20 years of wear in 1 month" or that their utility bills are higher...... well guess what????? Your PURPOSE for being is to help fellow men in times like these!!!!!!!!!! I have a feeling those carpets and utility bills would be well taken care of by donations.

The hypocrasy of this administration on spending and the horrid precedents it is setting are beyond contempt for the people of this nation.

Quote:

MSNBC.com
FEMA plans to reimburse faith groups for aid
Civil libertarians object; religious groups ponder what to do

By Alan Cooperman and Elizabeth Williamson
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:04 a.m. ET Sept. 27, 2005

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.

Civil liberties groups called the decision a violation of the traditional boundary between church and state, accusing FEMA of trying to restore its battered reputation by playing to religious conservatives.

"What really frosts me about all this is, here is an administration that didn't do its job and now is trying to dig itself out by making right-wing groups happy," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

For churches, synagogues and mosques that have taken in hurricane survivors, FEMA's decision presents a quandary. Some said they were eager to get the money and had begun tallying their costs, from electric bills to worn carpets. Other said they probably would not apply for the funds, fearing donations will dry up if the public comes to believe they were receiving government handouts.

‘Volunteer labor is just that’
"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."

When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, religious charities rushed in to provide emergency services, often acting more quickly and efficiently than the government. Relief workers in the stricken states estimate that 500,000 people have taken refuge in facilities run by religious groups.

In the days after the disaster, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and other Republicans complained that FEMA seemed reluctant to pay church groups. "There are tons of questions about what is reimbursable, what is not reimbursable," DeLay said Sept. 13, noting that Houston alone had "500 or 600 churches that took in evacuees, and they would get no reimbursement."

Joe Becker, senior vice president for preparedness and response with the Red Cross, said he and his staff also urged FEMA to allow reimbursement of religious groups. Ordinarily, Becker said, churches provide shelter for the first days after a disaster, then the Red Cross takes over. But in a storm season that has stretched every Red Cross shelter to the breaking point, church buildings must for the first time house evacuees indefinitely.

‘Strange definition’
"I believe it's appropriate for the federal government to assist the faith community because of the scale and scope of the effort and how long it's lasting," he said.

Lynn disagreed. "The good news is that this work is being done now, but I don't think a lot of people realize that a lot of these organizations are actively working to obtain federal funds. That's a strange definition of charity," he said.

Lynn added that he accepts the need for the government to coordinate with religious groups in a major disaster, but not to "pay for their good works."

"We've never complained about using a religious organization as a distribution point for food or clothing or anything else," Lynn said. But "direct cash reimbursements would be unprecedented."

FEMA officials said religious organizations would be eligible for payments only if they operated emergency shelters, food distribution centers or medical facilities at the request of state or local governments in the three states that have declared emergencies -- Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. In those cases, "a wide range of costs would be available for reimbursement, including labor costs incurred in excess of normal operations, rent for the facility and delivery of essential needs like food and water," FEMA spokesman Eugene Kinerney said in an e-mail.

FEMA outlined the policy in a Sept. 9 internal memorandum on "Eligible Costs for Emergency Sheltering Declarations." Religious groups, like secular nonprofit groups, will have to document their costs and file for reimbursement from state and local emergency management agencies, which in turn will seek funds from FEMA.

David Fukitomi, infrastructure coordinator for FEMA in Louisiana, said that the organization has begun briefings for potential applicants in the disaster area but that it is too early to know how many will take advantage of the program.

"The need was so overwhelming that the faith-based groups stepped up, and we're trying to find a way to help them shoulder some of the burden for doing the right thing," he said, adding that "the churches are interested" but that "part of our effort is getting the local governments to be interested in being their sponsor."

Salvation Army in talks
A spokeswoman for the Salvation Army said it has been in talks with state and federal officials about reimbursement for the 76,000 nights of shelter it has provided to Katrina survivors so far. But it is still unclear whether the Salvation Army will qualify, she said.

The Rev. Flip Benham, director of Operation Save America, an antiabortion group formerly known as Operation Rescue, said, "Separation of church and state means nothing in a time of disaster; you see immediately what a farce it is."

Benham said that his group has been dispensing food and clothing and that "Bibles and tracts go out with everything we put out." In Mendenhall, La., he said, he preached to evacuees while the mayor directed traffic and the sheriff put inmates from the county jail to work handing out supplies.

Yet Benham said he would never accept a dime from the federal government. "The people have been so generous to give that for us to ask for reimbursement would be like gouging for gas," he said. "That would be a crime against heaven."

‘No income coming in’
For some individual churches, however, reimbursement is very appealing. At Christus Victor Lutheran Church in Ocean Springs, Miss., as many as 200 evacuees and volunteer workers have been sleeping each night in the sanctuary and Sunday school classrooms. The church's entrance hall is a Red Cross reception area and medical clinic. As many as 400 people a day are eating in the fellowship hall.

Suzie Harvey, the parish administrator, said the church was asked by the Red Cross and local officials to serve as a shelter. The church's leadership agreed immediately, without anticipating that nearly a quarter of its 650 members would be rendered homeless and in no position to contribute funds. "This was just something we had to do," she said. "Later we realized we have no income coming in."

Harvey said the electric bill has skyrocketed, water is being used around the clock and there's been "20 years of wear on the carpet in one month." If FEMA makes money available, she said, the church definitely will apply.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company
© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9495550/page/2/

Jinn · 09-27-2005, 08:48 AM

As much as I'd like to bash the conservatives and their damned churches, I don't see a problem with this.

A business offers to shelter thousands of evacuees. They do -- their shit gets torn apart.

FEMA says -- hey, look.. these people's shit got ruined when they took in evacuees. We, being an Emergency Management Agency, could give them a little money in order to offset what they spent helping us.

Its not a churches "job" to take people in.. a church is created by people so they can worship what they want. They have no obligation to help people or anything even close.. just because they DO offer help does not mean they were supposed to.

Being compensated for damages caused by generousity is certainly not a crime.

pan6467 · 09-27-2005, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

As much as I'd like to bash the conservatives and their damned churches, I don't see a problem with this.

A business offers to shelter thousands of evacuees. They do -- their shit gets torn apart.

FEMA says -- hey, look.. these people's shit got ruined when they took in evacuees. We, being an Emergency Management Agency, could give them a little money in order to offset what they spent helping us.

Its not a churches "job" to take people in.. a church is created by people so they can worship what they want. They have no obligation to help people or anything even close.. just because they DO offer help does not mean they were supposed to.

Being compensated for damages caused by generousity is certainly not a crime.

I truly disagree, these are non profit, non taxed organizations that are based to help people and to give them money sets a precedent that is truly wrong.

People back in the day would go to churches if their houses were destroyed in tornadoes or fire and so on. Churches have always been a safe haven sanctuary, and once we allow government in we destroy the seperation of chuirch and state.

If we were to talk about taxing them we'd get fried. So it is now ok to not only not tax them but give them money for one of their main purposes?

I just see this as being very wrong and being something that all sides will live to regret.

samcol · 09-27-2005, 09:07 AM

I have no doubt the money will be unfairly distributed. Plus, the federal government has no business handing out tax dollars to religious organizations.

My question is why do we even need FEMA. Aren't these services that the churches and charities provided supposed to be covered in FEMA's budget? The American people basically have to pay twice to get the job done, once to FEMA and again to charities. FEMA needs to take lessons from churches on how to get aid where it's needed.

powerclown · 09-27-2005, 09:34 AM

I see it as humanitarian aid provided under extraordinary circumstances.
Now, if the clergy start arriving to church in slammed 2006 Hummers with spinning chromed 22s, then we have a problem.

Charlatan · 09-27-2005, 10:03 AM

I don't have an issue with this.

Most churches I know barely get by... we are not really talking churches like you see on TV (The Crystal Palace on the Hour of Power for example). We are talking about simple everyday churches that run on a shoe string budget.

These are expenses above and beyond the norm.

Rekna · 09-27-2005, 10:14 AM

I don't see a big deal with this either. The churches I know don't rake in profits like you think they do. In fact it is the opposite they barely get by and if they do have any sort of surplus you can bet they use that to do compassion projects or missions to help the poor.

Here we have a large group of people who are riding on their faith to help people, probably many of them are streaching their finances super thin. They are doing the job that the government should be doing, why shouldn't they be reimbursed partially for it? Do you think FEMA is going to help reimburse huston for using their astro dome? I bet they are. What is the difference? I guarentee you FEMA won't give these churches nearly as much as they put in from their own pockets (not including donations specifically for helping the releif effort).

pan6467 · 09-27-2005, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I don't see a big deal with this either. The churches I know don't rake in profits like you think they do. In fact it is the opposite they barely get by and if they do have any sort of surplus you can bet they use that to do compassion projects or missions to help the poor.

Here we have a large group of people who are riding on their faith to help people, probably many of them are streaching their finances super thin. They are doing the job that the government should be doing, why shouldn't they be reimbursed partially for it? Do you think FEMA is going to help reimburse huston for using their astro dome? I bet they are. What is the difference? I guarentee you FEMA won't give these churches nearly as much as they put in from their own pockets (not including donations specifically for helping the releif effort).

No, churches don't make millions, and this is above and beyond. However, I am sure donations will raise, all except the independants have the nice umbrella from the head council (Methodist, Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, etc.) and those are the million dollar industries.

Now, if the government wants to find ways to ease their utility bills, or structure no interest loans, I could agree with that. But to just give them money..... and the ones with the best lawyers that can write the best papers will get the most (thus leaving out the poorer churches this did strain) is wrong.

As pointed out above, we pay FEMA to do this, we have the RED CROSS that can reimburse these churches, we have the parishioners and the churches across the country that will send money and donations and hold fundraisers.

But again for the government to just outright GIVE money to these churches breaks seperation of church and state, sets a precedent that in the future comes back and bites our asses. And once the government is involved giving money in anything the whole structure changes.

I'm sorry I just don't see any churches losing their land or buildings or going bankrupt for helping and doing what they are supposed to do. However, I see government bureaucracy opening the door and really fucking things up.

I understand the arguments for the government's help, I just don't think they are going about it the right way. No interest loans, getting their utility companies to discount or give them amnrsty for this period of time, etc. I can somewhat agree with and while still having a problem with it, I would not argue against.

But to just throw money and know

- that the ones with the best lawyers and grant writers will get the most,
- that we are opening the door to government bureaucracy,
- and that organizations like the RED CROSS and UNITED WAY get millions upon millions in donations and are designed to help to take burden off government should be doing this and not government,

it's wrong it's just flat assed wrong.

How anyone who argues for less government can accept and support this is, yet bitch and moan about welfare and other government programs that were designed to take burdens off churches is beyond me.

The GOP argue that welfare was given by the churches and people of the community until government stepped in and took it over. So, we have been cutting welfare and government programs expecting these churches to take the slack and the second they do we are wanting to throw millions of tax dollars at them? It truly makes no sense.

If we are going to reimburse these churches then why not just have the government do it all, and leave churches to God worshipping and tell them any "charity" they do is on their own dime... (so to speak)...... oh wait, for the last 200+ years we have done that.........

This is just a way and an excuse to get government bureaucracy in churches, and if you cannot see that then truly open your eyes.

tecoyah · 09-27-2005, 11:43 AM

I must have missed the Box on my W-2 that said I wanted to contribute to religious organizations......gotta pay more attention next time

politicophile · 09-27-2005, 12:23 PM

Would you have a problem with this if the only organizations being given federal money were non-religious charities?

If you answered no, then I'm not sure I understand why the government should refrain from paying for churches to conduct non-religious work. We're talking about salvation in a corporeal sense here.

If you answered yes, why do you think the federal government should refrain from giving money to charities, especially when those charities are reducing a cost that would otherwise be absorbed by the government?

tecoyah · 09-27-2005, 12:41 PM

Yes....I would have an Issue with My tax dollars going towards any organization that does not carry the Burden of the self same taxation

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

To Borrow a bit from Pan...hope you dont mind
But again for the government to just outright GIVE money to these churches breaks seperation of church and state, sets a precedent that in the future comes back and bites our asses. And once the government is involved giving money in anything the whole structure changes.

We have been cutting welfare and government programs expecting these churches to take the slack and the second they do we are wanting to throw millions of tax dollars at them? It truly makes no sense.

If we are going to reimburse these churches then why not just have the government do it all

That pretty much sums up My Issue[/B]

Rekna · 09-27-2005, 12:50 PM

I'd like to point out that your argument for the seperation of church and state doesn't hold. First "seperation of church and state" does not exist, it was never in the constitution. The constitution says "shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion". The government is giving these people money because of the work they are don't not because of they are religious.

tecoyah · 09-27-2005, 12:57 PM

While this is true....the organizations in question are not taxed as I am....they exist (according to them) to do exactly what they are doing....and many people, myself included, donate time and money to them in order for these things to happen. Perhaps I was unclear in my stipulation that ANY nonprofit(read tax exempt) organization would garner the same lack of support from me in this situation. I have no issue with charity helping those in need....I do however, have an issue with my paying for it, without my concent. I will admit to a fear of religion creaping into our Government...but honestly, can you seriously blame a non-christian for worrying about these things.

pan6467 · 09-27-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Would you have a problem with this if the only organizations being given federal money were non-religious charities?

If you answered yes, why do you think the federal government should refrain from giving money to charities, especially when those charities are reducing a cost that would otherwise be absorbed by the government?

Look the GOP has argued for years we are wasting money on domestic programs and that churches and non profit organizations get donations for those purposes.

They also argue that programs giving money away, raises taxes and prevents (from lack of funds and whatever) people from donating more.

So in essence what we are doing here is giving away TAX money to entities that do not pay taxes at all in any form (even welfare recipients pay sales tax, property tax through rent, and so on), the second they are expected to do what the GOP has said they are supposed to do.

Now, my question is what is wrong with giving intyerest free loans and amnesty on their utilities? That makes far more sense, and keeps bureaucracy to a minimum.

And what of the private families that have taken the victims in? They are going to experience financial difficulties are they not? Do we expect the government to pay these people also?

I seriously have problems with this on many levels. The biggest being the hypocracy of the GOP who cut domestic programs, yet are willing to throw big bucks at churches for doing what the have preached for years churches and not government should be doing.

PS Tec.... you can quote me anytime, I feel it an honor.

pan6467 · 09-27-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I'd like to point out that your argument for the seperation of church and state doesn't hold. First "seperation of church and state" does not exist, it was never in the constitution. The constitution says "shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion". The government is giving these people money because of the work they are don't not because of they are religious.

I'm sorry but if that's the case then churches should start paying taxes. I love the argument you make about the constitution because if it was truly not supposed to seperate church and state, then why are churches 100% tax free, can hold primo real estate tax free, and can hold stocks, bonds and other commodities and not be taxed?

To use that old BS that the Christian Right uses and say "the Constitution just protects religion and says no law shall be made against it" is BS. Because if that was ALL the constitution meant then churches would be taxed..... they aren't and the Religions would have shit fits and cry unconstitutional if they were forced to pay taxes.

And to use the GOP argument on the poor...... why should we pay taxes for and to these organizations and people when they do not pay taxes?????

The hypocrasy of all this is astounding.

So instead of spending millions on welfare and putting tax money into tax payers hands, we'll give it to churches who send it to help ministries in other lands, send it up the chain so that the leaders can live very wealthily, and have political action committees to push ONE certain religious agenda.

It's BS because there is a nice percentage of people these establishments do not represent and you are showing favoritism and prejudiced (and I guarantee richer Christian churches will recieve the vast majority of these funds)..... it's wrong.

And as mentioned before..... if you think the government is just "reimbursing" without opening bureaucracies and prejudices.... you are in need of history lessons because that is what will happen, it has happened everywhere and in everything the government has thrown money into.

martinguerre · 09-27-2005, 02:40 PM

i think if i were a pastor in this situation, i would feel hard pressed on both sides.

the average congregation is barely above water. and if other aid providing organizations were being given money, i would have trouble justifying sending money back that would allow existing programs to remain intact. Asking churches to go in to debt becuase they indeed opened their doors seems callous at best.

That said, i do value the church's independance from the state. General aid would certainly be refused. But if specific line item costs were being reimbursed, i would probably accept that funding.

flstf · 09-27-2005, 03:24 PM

Quote:

FEMA officials said religious organizations would be eligible for payments only if they operated emergency shelters, food distribution centers or medical facilities at the request of state or local governments in the three states that have declared emergencies -- Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

I guess one solution is for the government to provide these things and leave the churches out of it. However if we ask them to provide something that we cannot or because it is cost effective because they have the buildings and people close by then we shouild be willing to compensate them.

I don't see why our government requesting a non-profit religious organization to provide a service faster and less expensive than we can otherwise should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state policy. It's just good resource and money management.

If the churches were making a profit on the emergency aid, then I would begin to question the legality of this.

Charlatan · 09-27-2005, 03:35 PM

Look at it this way... the government couldn't get its act together fast enough to take care of people the way they should in these times of crisis. Local churches and other organizations picked up the slack.

I can see your point when I look at it this way... The government isn't given the Red Cross money to help out (or are they?) so why should they help these churches.

I suppose what should really be happening here is that those who have been saying it all along should be crowing that Charities clearly can't pick up the slack. These payments prove this to be true.

Elphaba · 09-27-2005, 03:46 PM

Perhaps my thinking is too simplistic, but wouldn't it be more appropriate for the Red Cross to provide reimbursement to the churches that have taken on the role that the RC normally provides? The RC has received the lion's share of the donations coming in for Katrina and Rita and I believe the financial obligation should be there. I see no reason for FEMA or any other government institution to be involved.

The article Pan provided us appears to be proposing financial relief for churches within the disaster areas. Churches in my extended community have taken in a few families and they are fully capable of local fund raisers to support that effort. The larger churches in the disaster area have been feeding and housing large numbers of people. I believe it more appropriate for the RC to fund those activities.

pan6467 · 09-27-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Perhaps my thinking is too simplistic, but wouldn't it be more appropriate for the Red Cross to provide reimbursement to the churches that have taken on the role that the RC normally provides? The RC has received the lion's share of the donations coming in for Katrina and Rita and I believe the financial obligation should be there. I see no reason for FEMA or any other government institution to be involved.

The article Pan provided us appears to be proposing financial relief for churches within the disaster areas. Churches in my extended community have taken in a few families and they are fully capable of local fund raisers to support that effort. The larger churches in the disaster area have been feeding and housing large numbers of people. I believe it more appropriate for the RC to fund those activities.

Exactly, this is what the Red Cross and United Way and other charities and church donations are for. To have the government step in and pay tax money proves we can not exist without some of the programs the government has cut.......

And if as Fistf pointed out the government did ask churches to help out until they could get there then it's not "giving" money it's paying for services the government requested and while I have a problem with religious entities getting tax money of any kind, I can live with and see a payment of reimbursement as being fair.

But from the way I read this was not that form of reimbursement.

Rekna · 09-27-2005, 04:13 PM

So here in SLC we took in over 500 refugees. The state government did this and placed them on one of our military barraks. The government doesn't pay taxes on that land. The state government expects reimbursment from FEMA. Do you have a problem with that?

Non-profit groups don't pay taxes not just religous ones. Hell Universities don't pay taxes. If a university housed refugees in their dorms would you have a problem with them getting reimbursed?

Hardknock · 09-27-2005, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I must have missed the Box on my W-2 that said I wanted to contribute to religious organizations......gotta pay more attention next time

And I missed the box that told Bush to keep his hands ouf of the money pot to give to his hand picked religious organizations. Just becasue you didnt' specificaly tell the gov't not to hand out money doesn't mean that they don't. You're not that shallow, are you?

tecoyah · 09-27-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

And I missed the box that told Bush to keep his hands ouf of the money pot to give to his hand picked religious organizations. Just becasue you didnt' specificaly tell the gov't not to hand out money doesn't mean that they don't. You're not that shallow, are you?

Yes.....I am that shallow.....is it not obvious

Jinn · 09-27-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

So here in SLC we took in over 500 refugees. The state government did this and placed them on one of our military barraks. The government doesn't pay taxes on that land. The state government expects reimbursment from FEMA. Do you have a problem with that?

Non-profit groups don't pay taxes not just religous ones. Hell Universities don't pay taxes. If a university housed refugees in their dorms would you have a problem with them getting reimbursed?

^^ What a good comparison. Like I said in my first post, its just like any other organization who helped out in the relief effort. EXPECTING the churches to help out and not recieve a little help in return is ridiculous. If you don't have a problem paying back some of the difference in the above situation, and you do because its a church -- then you have a tolerance issue. So they believe in Christ.. are they suddenly different from anyone else who housed citizens in the evacuation process?

To quote myself:

Quote:

A business offers to shelter thousands of evacuees. They do -- their shit gets torn apart.

FEMA says -- hey, look.. these people's shit got ruined when they took in evacuees. We, being an Emergency Management Agency, could give them a little money in order to offset what they spent helping us.

(Keep in mind that I'm a very liberal atheist who strongly believes in seperation of church and state)

pan6467 · 09-27-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

So here in SLC we took in over 500 refugees. The state government did this and placed them on one of our military barraks. The government doesn't pay taxes on that land. The state government expects reimbursment from FEMA. Do you have a problem with that?

Non-profit groups don't pay taxes not just religous ones. Hell Universities don't pay taxes. If a university housed refugees in their dorms would you have a problem with them getting reimbursed?

True, public universities are not taxed that is because they are paid by tax monies..... Private universities, however, do pay taxes (property and sales) to some degree.

To compare tax benefitted places higher learning and tax exempt churches as being one and the same is ridiculous.

Public AND private (in the form of student loans and grants) universities recieve taxpayer money and thus are subject to government regulations and requests. Plus, students are taxed when they attend, they are taxed on books and anything bought on campus.

Churches are private and should not recieve and until now I don't believe ever have recieved public funding from the government in any way (they already get funding by not being taxed in any way shape or form). When was the last time a parrishioner was taxed to attend the church of his choice? Was there a tax on that fundraising Bible he/she bought..... NOPE, were they taxed buying the shirt or bumper stickers???? NOPE.

Military barracks whether for the guard or federal troops are still government owned buildings and are there for emergencies for the citizens..... again you are comparing PUBLIC GOVERNMENT FUNDED INSTITUTIONS to PRIVATE FUNDED AND RUN INSTITUTIONS....... that is impossible as 1 is paid for by government tax revenue and the other by virtue of the 1st amendment and by virtue of thier own existence, should recieve no taxpayer funding whatsoever.

This is a stretch of a comparison.

Churches may also be (not saying they were) prejudicial in whom they serve.

If you read the article there are questions that a place like the Salvation army who is asking only for reimbursement of the nights they had evacuees there, may not be eligible...... this shows that what FEMA and this proposal is all about.... it's a prejudicial, self serving feel good way to spend tax dollars and it sucks sewer water.

You either reimburse EVERYONE including the private citizens that took people in or you reimbeurse NOONE..... not just whom the government deems, which in this case would be churches only..... extremely prejudicial and wrong.

We have entities (United Way, the Red Cross, the Church congresses, private donations, fundraisers etc.) in the private sector that should, could and would be handling this. Giving away tax money is showing that the GOP's argument that the programs they have cut are needed.

You cannot have it one way and not acknowledge the other as being fact.

And again, what is wrong with no interest loans and amnesty on utilities. Far less expensive, and far more fair. Plus, the food and clothing and outside "expenses" these churches had probably came from food banks and private and public companies and individuals. So utilities and maybe some wear are all the true expenses there were.

But let's be the Religious Right GOP and throw money at these churches to maintain their support, while we keep maintaining that we need to cut domestic programs because churches and non profit entities can pick up the slack..... yet the second they are asked to pick it up, they get tax monies. While other programs such as the Salvation Army and Red Cross will doubtfully recieve a red cent. How can anyone support this, it's obvious in the prejudice and the bias and the political power plays?

And noone is denying that with these churches taking this money, you are begging for government red tape, bureaucracies and setting very dangerous precedents.

Jinn · 09-27-2005, 06:52 PM

I read your argument until you started blanket labelling the religious right and the GOP. Your last paragraph is absolute nonsense.

If you owned a church, took in evacuees and lost money -- would you really think it unfair that the government reimburse you for time and effort spent? This has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and you're making it out to be a GOP precedent to start FUNDING churches. It sounds like you have more of a problem with tax exemption than you do FEMA reimbursement. If they were taxed, would you then think it okay to give them money? Or are they all still evil because they own a church?

pan6467 · 09-27-2005, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I read your argument until you started blanket labelling the religious right and the GOP. Your last paragraph is absolute nonsense.

If you owned a church, took in evacuees and lost money -- would you really think it unfair that the government reimburse you for time and effort spent? This has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and you're making it out to be a GOP precedent to start FUNDING churches. It sounds like you have more of a problem with tax exemption than you do FEMA reimbursement. If they were taxed, would you then think it okay to give them money? Or are they all still evil because they own a church?

IF they were taxed they would have every right to monies.

And yes, when an agency like the Salvation Army looks to be not getting a cent and recieves far less donations than most churches.... there is a severe bias.

Like I said, there are ways to reimburse without giving money and opening up churches to government bureaucracies.... no interest loans, amnesty on utilities...... but to give churches tax monies is wrong in so many ways.

And I ask this, do you believe that Jesus himself would ask for federal reimbursement?

In my heart and how I believe in Jesus and Christianity, Jesus would not ask for a cent from anyone and would know that help would come in donations, people volunteering hours to replace what was damaged, and that God would make the parrishioners and followers stronger because this would bring us all closer together...... taking money is the easy way out and setting precedent that every time a church helps in a tragedy it will be able to be reimbursed by the government..... that takes away the religious and humanity and true purpose of the church and makes it more a private enterprise to make money for what they for centuries have done without any want or need for outside help.

So you tell me.... who's stronger in faith .... the fool who says "government needs to help" or the one who says "God and the people will provide and because of this our faith and parish will strengthen"?

I am far more interested in seeing which denominations and sects will not ask for a cent and will survive on donations, volunteerism and faith and which ones will go with hands out.

My guess, the more conservative, GOP supporting churches will be first in line, the more liberal and true faith based churches will be too busy rebuilding and continuing to help and spreading the Lord's word in actions taken than to have a hand out and sell their souls for 30 pieces of silver.

But what do I know according to some on here I must be a heathen and non Christian because I have faith in what GOD will do over what a government is willing to sell me.

pan6467 · 09-27-2005, 07:39 PM

Oh yeah..... and for those who laugh and say "having faith is one thing but getting the money and rebuiling is more concrete", I say that shows where your true heart and faith are.

So faith alone is not good enough? If that is the case what is the sense in believing at all?

politicophile · 09-27-2005, 07:47 PM

The churches were doing work that the government otherwise would have been obligated to do: those families had to get food and shelter from somewhere. I'm just guessing here, but isn't the Red Cross a non-profit as well? If so, I don't see how you could favor reimbursing one and not the other... on either side of the issue.

That said, this is, in the strict sense, not costing the government money. Rather, the government is choosing to accept a burden that the churches took upon themselves. Since some churches will surely turn the money down, the churches will still have saved tax dollars. Furthermore, the churches will be pleased with the government's recognition of their work.

This doesn't look like an establishment clause violation either, but I would have to see how carefully the money was earmarked before I would know for sure...

pan6467 · 09-27-2005, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

The churches were doing work that the government otherwise would have been obligated to do: those families had to get food and shelter from somewhere. I'm just guessing here, but isn't the Red Cross a non-profit as well? If so, I don't see how you could favor reimbursing one and not the other... on either side of the issue.

That said, this is, in the strict sense, not costing the government money. Rather, the government is choosing to accept a burden that the churches took upon themselves. Since some churches will surely turn the money down, the churches will still have saved tax dollars. Furthermore, the churches will be pleased with the government's recognition of their work.

This doesn't look like an establishment clause violation either, but I would have to see how carefully the money was earmarked before I would know for sure...

Some good points..... but now the churches are doing it for recognition and brownie points and not for faith and to help their brethren and in the belief this is what Jesus would do?

One that truly wants to help man and prove a point of faith need not seek attention nor expect and want it, for the attention shall come in actions done and from where and how the actions came.

Deeds done for true faith and wanting to help and being meek and unimposing speak far louder and more honestly and respectfully, than standing up and shouting and wanting recognition or selling your beliefs for silver.

Ustwo · 09-27-2005, 08:23 PM

Tax exempt status has absolutely nothing to do with this.

My wifes (non-religious) choir is tax exempt. These are just organizations which the government has decided not to tax. This does not mean that no tax dollars can go to them, and in fact my wifes choir is trying to get a government grant of some kind.

It’s a shame that some peoples distaste for mainstream religions makes them so hostile to them. I for one praise the Churches for opening their doors (with no promise of reembursement) and would be happy to see them giving some sort of compensation. If we can spend trillions to keep people locked in poverty with welfare, we can give a few churches a little to help them keep their doors open if they so choose to take it.

Also these Churches which will recieve funds had to be ASKED by the STATE to help out to be eligable.

What is the issue here again? I can't seem to find it anymore.

Edit:The more I read this, the more angry I get that people would oppose this. We have a major disaster with people in great need, and they want to keep churches from getting ANY compensation for helping out, when any secular group would be eligable? I have to wonder if common sense has been lost forever, or at least until the next revolution.

pan6467 · 09-28-2005, 02:51 AM

You're right UsTwo, giving them no interest loans and amnesty on utilities is no compensation whatsoever.

Allowing churches to take money from the government for doing what they are there for is not going to cause any bureaucracy in the system, and giving to churches yet, totally blowing off the Salvation Army, who did the exact same thing is not showing any bias at all.

I guess you missed this whole section that pretty much tells it like it is.

Quote:

Civil liberties groups called the decision a violation of the traditional boundary between church and state, accusing FEMA of trying to restore its battered reputation by playing to religious conservatives.

"What really frosts me about all this is, here is an administration that didn't do its job and now is trying to dig itself out by making right-wing groups happy," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

‘Volunteer labor is just that’
"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."

Salvation Army in talks
A spokeswoman for the Salvation Army said it has been in talks with state and federal officials about reimbursement for the 76,000 nights of shelter it has provided to Katrina survivors so far. But it is still unclear whether the Salvation Army will qualify, she said.

The Rev. Flip Benham, director of Operation Save America, an antiabortion group formerly known as Operation Rescue, said, "Separation of church and state means nothing in a time of disaster; you see immediately what a farce it is."

Benham said that his group has been dispensing food and clothing and that "Bibles and tracts go out with everything we put out." In Mendenhall, La., he said, he preached to evacuees while the mayor directed traffic and the sheriff put inmates from the county jail to work handing out supplies.

Yet Benham said he would never accept a dime from the federal government. "The people have been so generous to give that for us to ask for reimbursement would be like gouging for gas," he said. "That would be a crime against heaven."

pan6467 · 09-28-2005, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Also these Churches which will recieve funds had to be ASKED by the STATE to help out to be eligable.

Where exactly does it say the STATE ASKED these churches for help in the article??????? Or are you trying to add to it?

And are you stating the STATE, the GOVERNMENT had to ask churches to show compassion , humanity, and caring support without having to be asked?

So the churches who had doors closed and refused to serve humanity and help their fellow brethren in ways Jesus would, until government asked them to help.... would be the only ones deemed by government acceptable to recieve reimbursement??????

The churches that opened their doors freely, did not have to be "asked" and went about God's work...... well their SOL because they did what they are there to do and government didn't have to ask them for help.

martinguerre · 09-28-2005, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Where exactly does it say the STATE ASKED these churches for help in the article??????? Or are you trying to add to it?

As flstf noted,

Quote:

Originally Posted by the article you first posted, Pan

FEMA officials said religious organizations would be eligible for payments only if they operated emergency shelters, food distribution centers or medical facilities at the request of state or local governments in the three states that have declared emergencies -- Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. In those cases, "a wide range of costs would be available for reimbursement, including labor costs incurred in excess of normal operations, rent for the facility and delivery of essential needs like food and water," FEMA spokesman Eugene Kinerney said in an e-mail.

Emphasis added.

Not that i ever thought i'd say this. But Ustwo has a point.

Rekna · 09-28-2005, 06:51 AM

Churches are not here to give handouts to people in need. That is not their purpose. their purpose is to prove a place of worship for God and spread the good news. Humanitarian relief is something they choose to do because they have compasion but to say thats the reason the church was made is foolish.

Charlatan · 09-28-2005, 07:25 AM

I think that paragraph from the original article about sums it up. If they were asked to help it certainly changes things.

I don't see this as a mixing of church and state rather the use of existing facilities and people to assist the government in their time of need.

xepherys · 09-28-2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

And yes, when an agency like the Salvation Army looks to be not getting a cent and recieves far less donations than most churches.... there is a severe bias.

Oh wait, the same Salvation Army that takes nation-wide donations? The same Salvation Army that has thrift stores throughout the country that are nearly pure profit? Wow, they must have it rough. Far less donations my ass! Do you know anyone in the Sal? They get PLENTY of income, don't worry about them!

xepherys · 09-28-2005, 08:13 AM

The damned government needs to not concern itself with payouts to people doing the right thing. Ustwo, why on earth would anyone expect, or should anyone get, financial compensation for helping their fellow countrymen? That's absolutely un-American on every facet! I feel ashamed to even have a thought like that in this thread. No, I don't think they should get any compensation. I don't think the airlines that ferried the survivors across the country should. I don't think the airports that moved them about should. I don't think the other major cities that took them in should. Oh wait... nobody else IS getting anything. Crazy! Here in Phoenix, well to do people are donating WHOLE HOUSES for people to live in while they get back on their feet. They sure as hell aren't getting reimbursed. Chances are they won't even get a tax break becuase it isn't a donation to an eligible 501(c)(3) organization. Wow, the horrors that be when people do good things for the sake of doing them. If I give a bum a dollar to buy a McMuffin, I don't expect the goverment to reimburse me. It's no different. Charity is charity is charity.

pan6467 · 09-28-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Oh wait, the same Salvation Army that takes nation-wide donations? The same Salvation Army that has thrift stores throughout the country that are nearly pure profit? Wow, they must have it rough. Far less donations my ass! Do you know anyone in the Sal? They get PLENTY of income, don't worry about them!

Yes, I do I work with them every day, they run a chemical dependency recovery center in Akron and I deal with them. Also, one of our counselors and a very close friend was a house manager and his new wife is a Thrift Store manager.

I said "donations". Compared to Methodist, Baptist and other nationally affiliated churches they recieve far less in donations. As for their Thrift Stores, they do not make as much as people think, by the time overhead (the transportation to centers and some deliver, the washing, fixing and sterilizations that must take place) and payrolls are added.

To say they get "plenty" is an exageration, just as it is to say they are borderline bankrupt.

They really make far less in donations than most churches in their areas. So yes they are in just as deep if not deeper financially then some of those churches that will take money from the government.

pan6467 · 09-28-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

As flstf noted,

Emphasis added.

Not that i ever thought i'd say this. But Ustwo has a point.

Ok, I honestly missed it and I read it 5 times, I'm human and maybe I read what I wanted.

However, since when have churches needed to be asked? And those that were not asked and reacted out of their faith and beliefs before someone from the government had to "ask them" should not be reimbursed?

That's really sad.

I still truly see no reason for ANY governmental reimbursement, in the form of money. Again, no interest loans and utility amnesty seems fair and more practical.

09-27-2005, 08:48 AM	#2 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	As much as I'd like to bash the conservatives and their damned churches, I don't see a problem with this. A business offers to shelter thousands of evacuees. They do -- their shit gets torn apart. FEMA says -- hey, look.. these people's shit got ruined when they took in evacuees. We, being an Emergency Management Agency, could give them a little money in order to offset what they spent helping us. Its not a churches "job" to take people in.. a church is created by people so they can worship what they want. They have no obligation to help people or anything even close.. just because they DO offer help does not mean they were supposed to. Being compensated for damages caused by generousity is certainly not a crime. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

09-27-2005, 10:03 AM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I don't have an issue with this. Most churches I know barely get by... we are not really talking churches like you see on TV (The Crystal Palace on the Hour of Power for example). We are talking about simple everyday churches that run on a shoe string budget. These are expenses above and beyond the norm. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-27-2005, 11:43 AM	#9 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I must have missed the Box on my W-2 that said I wanted to contribute to religious organizations......gotta pay more attention next time __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-27-2005, 12:23 PM	#10 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Would you have a problem with this if the only organizations being given federal money were non-religious charities? If you answered no, then I'm not sure I understand why the government should refrain from paying for churches to conduct non-religious work. We're talking about salvation in a corporeal sense here. If you answered yes, why do you think the federal government should refrain from giving money to charities, especially when those charities are reducing a cost that would otherwise be absorbed by the government? __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

09-27-2005, 12:57 PM	#13 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	While this is true....the organizations in question are not taxed as I am....they exist (according to them) to do exactly what they are doing....and many people, myself included, donate time and money to them in order for these things to happen. Perhaps I was unclear in my stipulation that ANY nonprofit(read tax exempt) organization would garner the same lack of support from me in this situation. I have no issue with charity helping those in need....I do however, have an issue with my paying for it, without my concent. I will admit to a fear of religion creaping into our Government...but honestly, can you seriously blame a non-christian for worrying about these things. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-27-2005, 09:07 AM	#4 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I have no doubt the money will be unfairly distributed. Plus, the federal government has no business handing out tax dollars to religious organizations. My question is why do we even need FEMA. Aren't these services that the churches and charities provided supposed to be covered in FEMA's budget? The American people basically have to pay twice to get the job done, once to FEMA and again to charities. FEMA needs to take lessons from churches on how to get aid where it's needed.

09-27-2005, 09:34 AM	#5 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I see it as humanitarian aid provided under extraordinary circumstances. Now, if the clergy start arriving to church in slammed 2006 Hummers with spinning chromed 22s, then we have a problem.

09-27-2005, 10:14 AM	#7 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I don't see a big deal with this either. The churches I know don't rake in profits like you think they do. In fact it is the opposite they barely get by and if they do have any sort of surplus you can bet they use that to do compassion projects or missions to help the poor. Here we have a large group of people who are riding on their faith to help people, probably many of them are streaching their finances super thin. They are doing the job that the government should be doing, why shouldn't they be reimbursed partially for it? Do you think FEMA is going to help reimburse huston for using their astro dome? I bet they are. What is the difference? I guarentee you FEMA won't give these churches nearly as much as they put in from their own pockets (not including donations specifically for helping the releif effort).

09-27-2005, 12:50 PM	#12 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I'd like to point out that your argument for the seperation of church and state doesn't hold. First "seperation of church and state" does not exist, it was never in the constitution. The constitution says "shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion". The government is giving these people money because of the work they are don't not because of they are religious.

09-27-2005, 02:40 PM	#16 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	i think if i were a pastor in this situation, i would feel hard pressed on both sides. the average congregation is barely above water. and if other aid providing organizations were being given money, i would have trouble justifying sending money back that would allow existing programs to remain intact. Asking churches to go in to debt becuase they indeed opened their doors seems callous at best. That said, i do value the church's independance from the state. General aid would certainly be refused. But if specific line item costs were being reimbursed, i would probably accept that funding. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

09-27-2005, 03:35 PM	#18 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Look at it this way... the government couldn't get its act together fast enough to take care of people the way they should in these times of crisis. Local churches and other organizations picked up the slack. I can see your point when I look at it this way... The government isn't given the Red Cross money to help out (or are they?) so why should they help these churches. I suppose what should really be happening here is that those who have been saying it all along should be crowing that Charities clearly can't pick up the slack. These payments prove this to be true. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-27-2005, 03:46 PM	#19 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Perhaps my thinking is too simplistic, but wouldn't it be more appropriate for the Red Cross to provide reimbursement to the churches that have taken on the role that the RC normally provides? The RC has received the lion's share of the donations coming in for Katrina and Rita and I believe the financial obligation should be there. I see no reason for FEMA or any other government institution to be involved. The article Pan provided us appears to be proposing financial relief for churches within the disaster areas. Churches in my extended community have taken in a few families and they are fully capable of local fund raisers to support that effort. The larger churches in the disaster area have been feeding and housing large numbers of people. I believe it more appropriate for the RC to fund those activities.

09-27-2005, 04:13 PM	#21 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	So here in SLC we took in over 500 refugees. The state government did this and placed them on one of our military barraks. The government doesn't pay taxes on that land. The state government expects reimbursment from FEMA. Do you have a problem with that? Non-profit groups don't pay taxes not just religous ones. Hell Universities don't pay taxes. If a university housed refugees in their dorms would you have a problem with them getting reimbursed?

09-27-2005, 06:52 PM	#26 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I read your argument until you started blanket labelling the religious right and the GOP. Your last paragraph is absolute nonsense. If you owned a church, took in evacuees and lost money -- would you really think it unfair that the government reimburse you for time and effort spent? This has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and you're making it out to be a GOP precedent to start FUNDING churches. It sounds like you have more of a problem with tax exemption than you do FEMA reimbursement. If they were taxed, would you then think it okay to give them money? Or are they all still evil because they own a church? __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

09-27-2005, 07:39 PM	#28 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Oh yeah..... and for those who laugh and say "having faith is one thing but getting the money and rebuiling is more concrete", I say that shows where your true heart and faith are. So faith alone is not good enough? If that is the case what is the sense in believing at all? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-27-2005, 07:47 PM	#29 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	The churches were doing work that the government otherwise would have been obligated to do: those families had to get food and shelter from somewhere. I'm just guessing here, but isn't the Red Cross a non-profit as well? If so, I don't see how you could favor reimbursing one and not the other... on either side of the issue. That said, this is, in the strict sense, not costing the government money. Rather, the government is choosing to accept a burden that the churches took upon themselves. Since some churches will surely turn the money down, the churches will still have saved tax dollars. Furthermore, the churches will be pleased with the government's recognition of their work. This doesn't look like an establishment clause violation either, but I would have to see how carefully the money was earmarked before I would know for sure... __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

09-27-2005, 08:23 PM	#31 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Tax exempt status has absolutely nothing to do with this. My wifes (non-religious) choir is tax exempt. These are just organizations which the government has decided not to tax. This does not mean that no tax dollars can go to them, and in fact my wifes choir is trying to get a government grant of some kind. It’s a shame that some peoples distaste for mainstream religions makes them so hostile to them. I for one praise the Churches for opening their doors (with no promise of reembursement) and would be happy to see them giving some sort of compensation. If we can spend trillions to keep people locked in poverty with welfare, we can give a few churches a little to help them keep their doors open if they so choose to take it. Also these Churches which will recieve funds had to be ASKED by the STATE to help out to be eligable. What is the issue here again? I can't seem to find it anymore. Edit:The more I read this, the more angry I get that people would oppose this. We have a major disaster with people in great need, and they want to keep churches from getting ANY compensation for helping out, when any secular group would be eligable? I have to wonder if common sense has been lost forever, or at least until the next revolution. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 09-27-2005 at 08:29 PM..

09-28-2005, 06:51 AM	#35 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Churches are not here to give handouts to people in need. That is not their purpose. their purpose is to prove a place of worship for God and spread the good news. Humanitarian relief is something they choose to do because they have compasion but to say thats the reason the church was made is foolish.

09-28-2005, 07:25 AM	#36 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I think that paragraph from the original article about sums it up. If they were asked to help it certainly changes things. I don't see this as a mixing of church and state rather the use of existing facilities and people to assist the government in their time of need. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-28-2005, 08:13 AM	#38 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	The damned government needs to not concern itself with payouts to people doing the right thing. Ustwo, why on earth would anyone expect, or should anyone get, financial compensation for helping their fellow countrymen? That's absolutely un-American on every facet! I feel ashamed to even have a thought like that in this thread. No, I don't think they should get any compensation. I don't think the airlines that ferried the survivors across the country should. I don't think the airports that moved them about should. I don't think the other major cities that took them in should. Oh wait... nobody else IS getting anything. Crazy! Here in Phoenix, well to do people are donating WHOLE HOUSES for people to live in while they get back on their feet. They sure as hell aren't getting reimbursed. Chances are they won't even get a tax break becuase it isn't a donation to an eligible 501(c)(3) organization. Wow, the horrors that be when people do good things for the sake of doing them. If I give a bum a dollar to buy a McMuffin, I don't expect the goverment to reimburse me. It's no different. Charity is charity is charity.