The Federal Emergency Management Agency is planning to reimburse churches and religious groups that helped out with Gulf Coast hurricane relief. Is that appropriate?
The Eagle editorial board members couldn’t agree on this one. I argued, and some agreed, that churches shouldn’t get taxpayer dollars for doing what Christian charity should compel them to do voluntarily. Otherwise, churches risk corrupting the motivation behind charity and good works.
But Opinion editor Phillip Brownlee argued that in some large disasters it is reasonable to reimburse churches that are called upon by government to provide extra relief services and shelter that normally would be provided by government.
What do you think?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- situveux1 on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- george on Open thread 11/24
21 Comments
I would agree with Brownlee, Christian charity does have its limits. It would also depend on the Christian group, Robertson’s group can recoup their cost through the asking for money on national TV.
But the average church depend on their members. The impact on their church would be greater and a smaller money base.
FEMA should disbanded and everything turned over to Walmart. No, seriously, Walmart kicked right into action and started shipping water and food immediately. Using their nationwide warehouses and huge fleet of trucks, with all managers in one location, there were by far the most effected relief organization on the job.
I know we all bad-mouth Walmart, but they were getting the job done before BUSH/BROWN debacle knew there was a job to do. Check it out.
I agree with you, Randy. Churches shouldn’t cross that line between church and state. Their help in a disaster is ever so appreciated and should be a Christian response, not one that would expect reimbursement from tax dollars. That slippery slope would further spur on the already murky relationship fostered by the Bush administration. Greed and corruption would rear their ugly heads.
Is FEMA reinbursing hotels and schools for offering shelter and aid to the victims? If so, shouldn’t they at least help these churches, they performed a valuable service to the government that the ALL KNOWING FEMA couldn’t provide.
People donated to the churches to cover the expenses.My first impulse is to say no, the churches made those efforts as a charity. First, take care of the individuals who lost so much.After talking to my brother in Lufkin, TX, I’ve changed my mind somewhat.Many of the churches and businesses in that town that opened their doors to the Houston crowd were left with only the items that were nailed down. They cleaned them of anything that could be picked up and hauled away.If churches and businesses open their doors and lose everything, they wont’ open their doors again. Or at least not as charitable.
You should NOT get reimbursed for your donations. That’s pretty rediculous, and if any church would take the reimbursment I’d question their motives to begin with. Apparently they did it for the love of Jesus, but if they take the money back I don’t see how that’s true.
When one inter-mingles church and state, the power of both are diminished.
“When one inter-mingles church and state, the power of both are diminished.”
Thank god (no pun intended).
The churches were asked by the government to open their doors and shelter the homeless. That request by the government makes it an excersise that should transcend religion: People working together to assist in a disaster.Since most churches rely on donations, those donations can only do so much. This was a request by the federal government, the government should reimburse the churches, just asit would reimburse any other entity that it asked to provide assistance.Religion sholdn’t even enter the equation.
Gee, Sum1, when I suggested the possibility that some of the refugees would be less than upstanding citizens, and therefore unwelcome, the usual suspects – you among them – called me everything but a nice person.
Now here you are, proving that I was right.
Thank you. I won’t call you what you all called me.
On the subject of reimbursement, If we’re all as generous in our donations as we say we are, don’t we write it off on our taxes? Doesn’t that amount to taxpayer subsidized generosity? I wouldn’t support taxes going to support church charity under normal circumstances, but this was not a normal situation. The scope of this disaster was beyond anything imaginable. Most of the churches involved gave everything they could, and I have no problem with tax funds being used to reimburse them. I’d rather churches got the money than seeing Haliburton steal it.
The churches should not be reimbursed They should be proud that they gave what they had to offer. Which is better than the government who likes to be charitable with other people’s money.
Proud, do you donate enough to charity to qualify for the tax write off? Do you claim the deduction?
The churches most definitely should NOT be re-imbursed.
Firstly, it is presumed that their faith mandates their giving. Therefore they may presume that they will be rewarded in their faith, notcompensated by government.
Secondly, though many churches increasingly involve themselves in politics, all churches still enjoy tax exempt status on the presumption that they are charitable organizations. If we are going to worry about the compensating finances of these churches, then we must question whether they should remain tax exempt.
Do you have a point XXX?
It’s too easy to make a blanket statement about it being right or wrong to reimburse the charitable work of church organizations.
I would make this distinction: If the charity is fully independent and managing/conducting its own work on its own mission, then the charity is simply doing its charity – no govt. reimbursement is appropriate. On the other hand, if the charity finds itself essentially operating under government direction, or finds its costs to be unusually affected by government interference and rules, then reimbursement is appropriate.
There are many times when the organizational and operating expertise of large church organizations, such as Lutheran Social Services, can be of enormous help in quickly ramping up in a major emergency. They need to be part of the answer, and it should be easy enough to establish protocols for what can be reimbursed, especially when the charity runs out of its own funds but is still needed.
The protocols need not be extensive. The most important thing is to have them in place before the charity is needed for a major emergency. There should be no problem with a charity declaring beforehand the level of its financial ability to help, and also no problem with covering their actual costs over and above that limit if their help is still wanted.
People seem to worry most about churches getting undue money from the government. But the biggest risk is that charities will get suckered into a situation and then be left dangling by the government’s not holding up its end of the deal.
A good example of this occurred when the Kansas SRS bled Lutheran Social Services of Kansas & Olahoma into bankruptcy by making them responsible for costs over which ONLY the courts had control. The result is that a proud and good organization disappeared. It’s gone, and its donors ended up covering millions in unreimbursed costs that the state stuck them with. Now there is no LSS in Kansas and Oklahoma to help in emergencies.
Gail, I don’t remember responding to your posts at all. YOu’ve confused me with someone else.
OK.
Sum,No, “Gail” isn’t confusing you with someone else, he’s just confused about which one of him you responded to! There’re so many of him!
Hey, Gail, Andy, Puny, Trell,
How’s the visiting professorship going?
Maybe tomorrow you can be a fireman or an astronaut or an Hollywood stunt man . . .
There’s a distinct smell of that wimpy mr. callous around here.