Do you mind if the Feds give churches money for temporary housing?

[Wetzelbill]

After Katrina, one of the issues that Conservatives are pushing is the concept of paying churches to help out with temporary housing. It's been a hot topic for the Religious Right for quite a while now. They want money to go to churches and related organizations so that they can use these dollars for charitable causes. Think Dubya's Faith-Based Initiative program. I am a religious person, I do believe that in many ways this is a good idea, however, often churches discriminate against the people they hire because of religion and other areas. Say if a gay man applied to work for one of these evangelical organizations, well, even though his position may be paid for with Federal dollars, good luck getting hired in that environment, and, oh, btw, burn in hell. It just wouldn't work out.

But other than that, I'm not sure if it is a bad idea. It depends on outreach, are they able to reach as many people as say the government can? Are they effective? Do they discriminate against those who apply for assistance? etc. I was just curious at any of your opinions on this.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. With sufficient oversight I don't have a problem with it. n/t

[Catchawave]

20. Good God (no pun intended)

NO !!!!!!!!!!

Send God's money to support the WAR for chrissakes, use the taxpayers money to take care of our own CITIZENS!

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO GETS THIS????

[electron_blue]

2. Yes, I mind. No federal money to churches, period

Churches should work outside of the federal govt.

Churches can do a lot of good work, sure. No way should our tax dollars be re-routed to churches. If you want to donate to churches, do it directly.

[Sandpiper]

3. As long as they don't discriminate or proselytize

If they can't abide by that, their charitable efforts need to be on their own dime.

But only because this is an emergency situation. Generally speaking, I oppose federal dollars going to churches in any way, shape or form.

[OnionPatch]

14. See, that's just it

Personally, I don't think they can hold themselves back from discriminating and proselytizing. People who need aid don't need to hear sermons and have people harrassing them to be "saved." They just need help. Period. I'd rather just keep the churches out of it. Let them raise money on their own and then they can do whatever they want.

[DURHAM D]

4. Bad idea - very bad idea. They can not help but discriminate

and will promote their own agenda.

[AllegroRondo]

5. When churches start paying taxes, they can get money from the government

until then, they are on their own.

[renie408]

I mind that a friend of mine volunteered to open her home to

a family from the hurricane zone that needed a place to stay and was told by FEMA that 'we are going to go through all the faith based programs first. IF there are still people needing housing after that, someone will contact you.'

[Catchawave]

6. No, I think Churches should give to the war effort !

Seriously, a DUer posted the other day that maybe we should direct taxpayer money to natural disasters, and support the war through donations!

Made sense to me when I first read that, still does.

[flordehinojos]

7. i do have a problem with it .it will only serve to continue to blurr every

line that bush and the right winger want blurred...and it will give them (the churches) an apportunity to proselitize, discriminate, make some administrator rich and give the federal government an opportunity to not do its job (which is not doing anyway) so that more blame can be put on other people.

[Horse with no Name]

8. What I don't understand is

WHY can't they just give the money to the people and let them work it out?
With the $15 billion (can't remember the exact cost--heard it on AAR last week) I think that they awarded to FEMA to take care of these people...it would have given EVERY resident of New Orleans around $12,000 (I did the math when the figures were given).
I would think a family of 4 could take care of themselves nicely for $48k.

[mike_c]

9. I don't have any problem with churches offering federal aid in principle..

...but ONLY if they do so as concerned fellow citizens, NOT as religious groups. They should adhere to open hiring rules to avoid the situation you raised, they should neither ask nor care what aid recipients' religious affiliations are, and they should not even mention their own religious basis. In short, if they can be selfless, I applaud them. On the other hand, if they exploit peoples' needs and evangelize, or if they filter their aid through their own religious perspectives, then I say no.

[napi21]

10. I think they should reimburse churches or any other group that

provides care for the evacuees. HOWEVER, I think it must be based upon some standard rate that is provided to all the groups at the same rate. ie: If the reimbursement rate is $25/day per person, then it should be $25 for every group. I'm not saying how much it should be, but I don't want to risk ANY group just spending $$ on anything and everything, knowing they will be reimbursed for it!

Keep it fair and above board,a nd I have no problem.

[marbuc]

11. I not opposed to faith based orgs receiving money

Many do excellent humanitarian work without proselytizing. Unfortunately, I doubt the groups that are cozy with this administration fall under this category.

[Wetzelbill]

16. that is troublesome isn't it?

When the "bad seed" ones affiliated with Bush mess everything up for the good groups. In anything. Business or whatever. Anybody affiliated with this administration just seems to be the biggest most rattiest people you can imagine.

[marbuc]

24. Exactly

I saw Franklin Graham on television (one of the news shows) last week talking about his work in the area. I think he said his group was offering spiritual support and counseling to the victims. I can't help thinking he's getting federal money for this, and the thought sickens me.

[Bridget Burke]

12. It could be a problem.

Quite a few churches in Houston set up shelters. If they get some reimbursement, OK. They were taking people in long before the Astrodome was opened.

But is this "temporary housing" a long-term situation? Will it involve government funds to pay rent? Really serious oversight would be needed to prevent discrimination--& dishonest use of funds.

[calico1]

13. I wouldn't be against mainstream

churches getting help as long as the work they do does not include religious indoctrination. A lot of mainstream churches do help in the community and do not do this. I am opposed to Evangelical type churches getting help because part of their whole MO is to convert and "save" people. The trouble is, you can't pick and choose. So I'd have to say no because in order to help the mainstream churches you'd also have to give funds to the fundy ones.

[Vickers]

15. They should get as much federal money as they've given.

Fair enough?

[ClassWarrior]

17. Totally fair.

NGU.

[gratuitous]

18. My church does provide temporary housing

My church does provide temporary housing, as well as providing the office space for a local shelter network that caters to homeless families. We charge the princely sum of $1 a year and leave the agency to do what it does best: Help homeless families get back into mainstream housing, develop living skills, and learn how to manage their budgets. The space we provide the community could easily rent for $3,000 to $4,000 a month, so we already contribute nearly as much just in this one area as we budget for our entire congregation annually.

Could we use a federal grant to improve the physical plant of the building and better serve the needs of the people? You betcha. Our teeny tiny congregation in a teeny tiny denomination, like hundreds and hundreds of other churches all over the country, doesn't have millions or even thousands of dollars at our disposal. Dozens is more like it.

But we hustle, we scramble, we make do, and if something more is needed, we'll scrounge, whine, beg and plead. Or do without and work something else out.

How much of a grant would make a vast difference in our work? $5,000. But I understand that the federal government has to pay private contractors to drive military vehicles over in Iraq, so that kind of money just isn't available.

Fortunately, there are a lot of kind-hearted and understanding folks in our community and at DU who know that not every congregation is a Crystal Cathedral or a Thomas Road Baptist Church or a Pat Robertson clone, so we kind of get by. What's frustrating though, is to do this sort of work and have to put up with a bunch of uninformed, ugly comments.

[Wetzelbill]

25. great post

if I could nominate a reply I would do this one. I definitely commend you and your church. Way to go! :)

[tom_paine]

19. The Busheviks are known for structuring their kickbacks this way

And, with the way the churches have repaid this "Faith-Based Financing" (created by Imperial Fiat, NOT Legislative Action, it is key to note) by turning their pulpits into Bushevik Campaign Stations (we all either have seen this for ourselves or have first-person accounts of this pernicious and widespread recent trend), let me say that we should deny them their kickbacks.

Let them do their good works without the kickback, for is that not the definition of charity?

Having said that, let us have no doubt that the Busheviks will use this opportunity to grease the churches in the same way they repaid their Bushevik Contributors from Carnival Cruise Lines to the tune of $192,000,000 (and three times the rate of what luxury liner passengers pay).

[Wetzelbill]

26. that's a major factor....

giving cash to all these churches and then seeing them turn into de facto campaign headquarters. That's definitely an ugly aspect of it.

[OzarkDem]

21. Plenty of others who can do it

There are thousands of housing agencies staffed by professionals who are probably even better at providing the services than a church.

[Toots]

22. Absolutely I have a problem with that. The churches are actively campaign

for GOP Agenda. Why should tax payer money go to promote a Partisan Agenda?

[Wetzelbill]

27. yes that's a good point

No doubt about it.

[Don1]

23. What did they do with the money that the feds already gave them? n/t