A church-state breakdown

At first blush, I can understand why it might be tempting to believe the federal government should reimburse private religious charities for their post-Katrina work. But in a situation like this one, if you’ll pardon the expression, the devil is unfortunately in the details.

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.

“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,” said Joe Becker, senior vice president for preparedness and response with the Red Cross.

And why not, right? In the aftermath of this disaster, ministries responded generously to help. The federal government is already poised to spend in upwards of $200 billion; why shouldn’t these charities be reimbursed for their trouble?

Well, as it turns out, there are plenty of reasons.

On principle, religious ministries are supposed to be charitable because of a spiritual calling. They take on the burdens of responding to a natural disaster, for example, because they believe that’s what they should do. If, however, they simply get paid back by the feds for their efforts, they’re less a charity and more an after-the-fact government contractor.

There’s a reason it’s called “volunteer” and “charity” work. Will parishioners be inclined to dig a little deeper for their congregation if they know that their house of worship is just going to get paid back for their work anyway?

Principle aside, there are all kinds of practical concerns as well.

FEMA officials said ministries can and will be reimbursed for a variety of services that have already been provided, including salaries, rent, housing, and materials like food and water.

Of course, some ministries have been going a little further in the kind of services they’ve provided for storm victims.

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.”

Now, in this case, Benham doesn’t plan to apply for a reimbursement, but what about any number of ministries that were equally aggressive in proselytizing? What, exactly, will taxpayers be financing?

One report from last week noted that Southern Baptist aid workers “distributed 11,000 evangelistic tracts and 1,200 Bibles, and saw at least 45 new professions of faith in Christ.” In another instance, Evangelist Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse has been distributing gift bags to displaced children. The bag includes evangelistic tracts and a stuffed lamb that plays “Jesus Loves Me.” Graham urged churches participating in the relief efforts to include evangelism. “[I]n everything you do,” he said, “I encourage you to remember that your primary purpose is to share the redeeming love of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

I’m not saying there’s necessarily something wrong with proselytizing — though I find it discomforting to see that there are major groups who see a disaster as little more than a chance to win converts — but the question here is about what our money is paying for.

When the administration signs no-bid contracts with Halliburton and others, at least there’s some paper trail and reporting requirements. When FEMA starts cutting checks for the church down the street, where’s the accountability? Where are the safeguards for taxpayers and beneficiaries?

As a friend of mine put it, “The federal government cannot start dropping blank checks in the collection plates of churches.”

Aggressive prosyletizing in circumstances like these carries the unspoken assumption is that you wouldn’t have been in this awful situation in the first place if you ‘got Jesus.’ And if these people really wanted to bear authentic Christian witness, they’d just give the food, blankets, etc. with no theological strings attached. Distressed people need basic necessities; they don’t need someone pressuring them to abandon their most personal and heartfelt convictions in exchange for relief.

  • They don’t need someone pressuring them to convert, but it’s a captive audience and these “missionaries” have an opportunity.

    Maybe someone could explain the difference to me between these proselytizers targeting families who need aid and gas stations raising their prices while targeting people who need gas.

  • Don’t you all read your Bibles?

    For I was hungry and you gave me something to read, I was thirsty and you gave me an Evangicube, I was a stranger and you invited me in and told me about the Four Spiritual Laws, I needed clothes and you gave me a stuffed lamb, I was sick and you asked me if I died tonight where would I go, I was in prison and you came to ask me if I have repented.

    Oh, that’s not what it says?

  • And I thought these churches and religious organizations were giving from the heart, not to mention their pocketbooks. Turns out they’re just doing the government’s work. Doesn’t that violate the conservatives’ belief in privatization?

    Also, I would think there would be tax implications when you have religious organizations – tax exempt religious organizations – accepting what amounts to donations from the federal government. Not to mention CONSTITUTIONAL implications.

    Unfortunately, the Christian right doesn’t get it, and they likely never will get it. They believe religion and government should go hand in hand. Something tells me they wouldn’t feel quite so strongly if the government was actively supporting and promoting Judaism or Islam.

  • isn’t the charitable nature of religious organizations one of the reasons to justiry their tax-exempt status?? If they want to be treated just like everybody else, then let them pay taxes just like everybody else.

  • I agree, I agree, I agree, I agree! If FEMA is going to start cutting checks to religious organizations who stepped up, what about all the average citizens who gave time, money and supplies? Doesn’t seem right that the tax exempt church gets a check when the unemployed Mom who volunteered two weeks of her time out of a sense of community gets zip.

    I’m not advocating reimbursement for anyone who “volunteers” in an effort such as this, but if they’re going to start giving MY money to church groups without my permission…! It doesn’t seem like it should be possible for FEMA to make that call without some other branch of government green-lighting it. How does that work?

    As for the prosyletizing, it’s appalling, but not surprising. I remember reading about the Catholic Church setting up food kitchens in South Vietnam for all of the refugees. In order to get the food, the refugees first had to agree to convert to Christianity. The food line passed through the church, the hungry were baptized (or whatever one does to become a Catholic in a nanosecond), then exited the church and received their bowl of rice.

    The mind reels…

  • As a Bible believing Christian I am against tax-exempt status for any and all religions. For the federal government to start paying back religious organizations for their work during emergencies is certainly foolishness of the highest order.

  • Operation Blessing, the Pat Robertson’s business-charity was one of the first to be posted in the FEMA Web site as recipient of voluntary donations; this charity has a dubious history, and it was probed that Robertson used its resources to provide logistical support for his diamond mining interests in Zaire. Now, Robertson has another chance to get federal subsidies for services that will be very hard to verify have ever been provided and an administration more than willing to use tax payer’s monies to buy political support.

  • So would distributing Islamic religious tracts to the victims merit the same eagerness to reimburse? It’s all or none, baby.

  • I think that FEMA’s decision is not only a great use of money, but also the most effective way to care for myriad victims of the hurricanes. Churches and charities are already in-place, have useful resources to tap, a leadership structure, and best of all, motivated and caring staffpeople to care for those they live with: the victims in their own community. Slippery slope arguements are worth considering but do not automatically disqualify. It is sad that more people are getting upset about FEMA’s decision to pay effective disaster organizations and workers instead of the extraordinary cost of governmental bagged ice trucking routes.
    I have written more on the subject at blog.mccannta.com. Challenge me if you think I’m wrong!

  • Tom, you are missing the point. Yes, this government is spending money in a wasteful and in some cases, unaccountable way. But the fact that money is going to CHARITABLE organizations is WRONG WRONG WRONG. FEMA was set up to assist the citizens of this country who were affected by natural disaster or some other man-made calamity. The money should be going to support those people directly effected by such disasters. For FEMA to “reimburse” a charitable organization (religious or otherwise) is 1) shirking its mandate and 2) politicizing the process (whether they mean to or not).

  • Comments are closed.