DefendsReason

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

With this directive, churches and religious institutions are in effect a part of the US government -- doing governmental work paid for with public tax dollars.

Anyone keeping tab of what has already been happening behind the scenes, even long before these storms came along, knows of the nearly complete collapse of CSS, and therefore isn't surprised by this at all.

But what more will it take before the non-religious community finally and collectively admits we are fastly becoming a theocracy (if we're not already)? And sadly in this regard, I'm ready to now hear the lame excuses for this serious and extensive breach of separation....

Bill B

This constitutes an enormous threat to preserving even a small vestige of reality for the concept of church/state separation. I am concerned that this is a serious setback for secularism. This is very, very ominous news.

And the thinly disguised political strategy behind this action is beneath reproach.

Worldtraveller

Anyone that donated to this. Get your reciepts, and apply for reimbursment!!

If they deny you, while giving money to all these religious organizations, I think that would tip the final balance. Maybe people will finally wake up.

Cheers,
Lane

SLD

This may actually be a setback for Bush and a push forward for CSS. I read in one article that churches were concerned about taking the money for fear that it would dry up contributions in the future. This is a serious concern. If the public thinks that the Feds will bail out charities now, then why give to charities - it's the government's responsibility.

Bad decision even from a religious perspective. Hopefully it will backfire. I hope the courts will strike it down.

SLD

Jakanapes

If this statement is true, then I actually have no problem with it. This makes it more like a business deal. "Set up some shelters for us, since we can't do it right now, and we'll pay you back". Similar to a state setting up a shelter and then getting paid back by FEMA.

As long as it's limited to this and not to paying back churches who set up shelters on their own.

Seeker630

The problem is that they are supposed to be charitable organizations---not extensions of the government. If they take tax money, where is the charitable part? It's just a re-distribution of someone else's money. Money that was not donated at any point by anyone. If I donate money to the American Lung Association, and the government turns aroud and gives it tax dollars, exactly what was the point of me donating in the 1st place? At that point it is no longer a donation---it's just another tax.

One of the main reasons these outfits get tax-exempt status in the 1st place is because (supposedly) they fill in on a voluntary, charitable basis to provide such services as they are able to. I donated money after Katrina to the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee. So I should be able now to ask for reimbursement from the government? Should anyone who did volunteer work of any kind not related to a church be able to do the same? If not, why not? I mean if I help my neighbor escape the storm by driving her out of town in my car, I should then get tax money to offset the wear and tear on the car, my time, and the gasoline? I should if a church gets money back for driving her out of town in their bus--------right? I mean the exact same service was performed by me as by them. If she shelters in my house instead of the church shelter--I should get rent computed on a daily basis from my monthly morgage payment? Why not?

If they give tax money to a church for any reason, no matter how much they try to sugar coat it, it's still a tax. Calling it something different or trying to come up with any other justifications doesn't change that fact. There is a line between being a private, tax-exempt organization, and being a government agency. This FEMA business crosses that line. I know that there is quite a spectrum of oinion among un-believers on this issue, but in my opinion---the government has no business giving tax money to any church for any reason--------period. The minute a church takes tax money---they are no longer a charitable organization in my view.

That a church may have been asked to set up a shelter is meaningless. Any private organization could refuse. Now if the government had the power to compell them to open a shelter-------then I would definitley agree with you--vastly different scenario---no hint of voluntary/charitable anything involved. And as an interesting side note on that line of thought; Once a church starts taking tax money, will the government in fact then be able to compell it to do something?

Jakanapes

And I disagree, the fact that they have been asked to set up a shelter is the
only meaningful thing.

The government asks a company to make airplanes for them. The company could refuse and the government can't compel them. If the company makes the planes then they get paid. Money in exchange for goods and services, it's just capitalism. This is the exact same thing. The government asked the churches to provide a shelter. The churches provided a service to the government, it's not crazy to pay them back. Anymore than it is for FEMA to reimburse the city of Dallas for all the work with the refugees that the federal government is asking the city to cover until the paperwork is done (hah!).

If the gov. was repaying churches who volunteered shelters on their own initiative instead of opening one at the behest of FEMA, that would be a different matter.

Let's say my company makes blankets. The government comes and asks that we provide a million blankets to refugees who are in immediate need. We comply and later on the government decides to write us a check to cover our losses. How is this any different?

Viti

It's not just churches though. They are reimbursing states and local governments as well, and I need to find it, but my Mom found an article outlining how individuals can be reimbursed for mileage if they drove supplies to the affected areas or for expenses if they sheltered evacuees in their own homes.

Vortex

How about this one?
Then comes either the better or the worse part, depending on how you look at it —

Seeker630

Let's say my company makes blankets. The government comes and asks that we provide a million blankets to refugees who are in immediate need. We comply and later on the government decides to write us a check to cover our losses. How is this any different?

Your company, like the one making airplanes is not tax-exempt. And that is the whole point. Your company, and the other one will make a profit on the sale of the blankets or planes. Churches are called "non-profits" for a reason. There is not supposed to be any reimbursement for anything, or it ceases to be charity.

Maybe I'm missing something conceptual here, but where is the charity in giving money to a church with any expectation that you're going to get it back from the government out of someone else's pocket later on? I'm not sure what the term is for that, but it's damn sure not charity.

On this same note--lets assume that some churches do get some FEMA money--are they then going to give it back to the people who donated it in the 1st place? I mean churches don't generate money--their parishoners do. But I would object to that for the same reason as before--the parishoners got to take their donations off of their income taxes, didn't they? That's why it's a tax-exempt donation, and not a short term loan to the church or the government. Again--there's no charity involved in being reimbursed, which nullifies the whole notion of charitable organizations in the 1st place.

I understand your argument, but it is based on a flawed premise--that a non-profit chaitable organization somehow compares to a capitalistic, for-profit company. There is no comparison, nor can there be.