FEMA to Reimburse Faith Groups for Aid: Good or Bad?

[rbajai]

You know, as I watched footage of Bishop TD Jakes standing side by side with * after Katrina, I began to wonder. Have churches now been sucked into the "revolving door" of government and private industry?

With TD Jakes, I am not sure why he went along with *, but obviously a deal was made. The weekend after Katrina, Bush met with black Christian leaders in the White House in attempts to dissuade people from thinking he is against blacks and the poor. So I betcha he sat TD Jakes down and said, "Look TD. If you'll accompany me and say good things about us and the government's response, we'll be sure to give you and your church a nice payout from the money Congress just approved for disaster relief."

Now I admire TD Jakes and think he's a good guy. While I don't want to think that he would take such an offer, these days I am skeptical of everything. After all, TD Jakes shares *'s Dominion Theology views (the idea amongst some Christian groups that Christians are supposed to Christianize the world through domination in all aspects of life including government, church, and state).

While Christians were lauding * for his faith-based initiative, I saw it as an inroad for further governmental control over the churches. This has proven that it has gone even further than that. Now, effectively churches have become an extension of the state. This is not right and should be fought against rigorously.

What do you all think of this?

<snip>
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. 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.
<snip>

And it would seem that even a Southern Baptist leader has reservations about this:

<snip>
"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."
<snip>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9495550/

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. bad, very bad. VERY, VERY BAD.

church and state do not mix. Oil and water share the same spot more easily.
When one infiltrates the other, everyone else loses.

[eShirl]

2. bad

If they reimburse the volunteer response, that's less money they have for the regular response, which boils down to less help to go around for the people who need all the help they can get.

And I don't think the government should ever be giving money to churches, on principle.

[malta blue]

3. BAD BAD BAD

Everyone who volunteered out of the kindness of their hearts did just that, volunteer. The idea that faith based groups, and not other organizations, will be reimbursed by FEMA is disgusting. God or no God, we helped because we felt the need.

[whatever4]

4. Bad

Churches only gave what they were able to give. So, they don't NEED any compensation. And not that I can speak for them, but I can speak as anyone that donates, I believe even those churches would only, could only, want any federal dollars to ALSO go to the victims, those who have lost so much and NEED the money.

shame on this admin, again and again, like a very bad horror story. Seriously, wouldn't this be almost too much for a horror story? What an in-your-face insult, to "pay back the churches". Bunch of jerks.

[calico1]

5. Very, very bad. I think it may end up

hurting churches because a lot of people will not donate to them if they know the federal government is giving them money.

[Stephanie]

6. umm, what about all the FUNDRAISING the church orgs already did?

What was that money for?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. election campaigns for GOP '06

one hand bribes the other, at least under this administration.

[SCDem]

7. Thank you for posting this

After the Bush Katrina speech I thought that he said that churches were going to be reimbursed. I checked the transcript and I was wrong. But apparently I wasn't.

What do I think of it? I think it is wrong.

[Toots]

8. It means I already gave at the office.

Why shhould I ever contribute again when the government uses my money to reimburse the church. I will never give one dime to a charity ever again as long as the GOP has control. They already take my money in the form of taxes and if they use it to give to church then why should I duplicate that?

[mcscajun]

9. Bad, Bad, Bad

It's bad from a secular perspective, as my (and your) tax dollars now go in part to churches, it begins government intrusion into the churches, so it's not too good for them either (they just don't recognize it yet) and it's bad for future fundraising efforts across the board.

[marbuc]

10. "Volunteer labor is just that: volunteer,..We would never ask the

to pay for it." This seems like the consistently conservative position, it is funny that so many fundie groups reverse their position when something like this is announced.

That being said, I do not think it is necessarily bad for FEMA to contract with religious groups for these basic services, if they do not include proselytizing. However, I do not trust this federal government to make this distinction, no matter how loudly they protest to the contrary. Also, this opens the door for further privatization of govt., which is a bad thing, especially if these groups are allowed to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.

[Booster]

11. If this comes about, I sure won't be donating to any churches.

It seems like we who donate would be paying twice, since we are the ones who pay taxes. It's a tremendous temptation that will spawn more of the likes of Robertson & Falwell, and we all know what they do with donations.