Faith Based Funding That Makes Sense
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Good Decisions, Money, Religion
I really think this is a good move by Bush, because it’ll help our response time to disasters and speed up recovery efforts. And honestly, who doesn’t want that?
From Wash Post:
Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said the move complements a recent White House “lessons learned” report about integrating such groups in disaster response and “also notes the extraordinary support by the faith-based community” after Katrina.Federal funding is controversial among such groups. Some organizations, such as Catholic Charities, accept such funds, while others, such as the Rev. Pat Robertson’s Operation Blessing, have said in the past that they would not accept it.
Along the Gulf Coast, particularly in Mississippi, religious groups have provided extraordinary help, local officials say, but also contributed to waste and duplication of effort when they failed to coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local and county governments.
Congress has appropriated $67.9 billion for emergency supplemental hurricane relief, among other assistance, a portion of which is reserved for FEMA. Generally, the agency is restricted by law from engaging with religious organizations for disaster operations.
Again, this seems like plain old common sense to me. We can’t keep restrictions on this money if we want the best response to these situations.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 8th, 2006 and is filed under Good Decisions, Money, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 8th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
If you trust a church with your money you haven’t been paying attention. Pat Robertson might need a few more airplanes for his mines in Africa.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No federal funding to religious groups for ANY reason.
Separation between church and state!
If religious groups want to help, they can collect their own money and donate it, or they can volunteer their services (and by service, I do not mean prostelitizing).
March 8th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
So you’d both rather have LESS help during a disaster like Katrina simply because of the division of church and state? I am all for keeping them separate in most EVERY case, but if it’s a matter of life and death, I’d much rather have the Salvation Army pouring their vast resources into helping instead of staying away. Because I think the lesson we learned from Katrina is that the government alone can not handle something like this.
Sometimes we need to drop these “ideals” when reality intersects and makes more sense. This doesn’t mean that Pat Robertson is going to get ANY of this money. And yes, I’m sure their will be abuses, but along with this funding should come oversight committees that make sure the dollars are going towards aid, not God.
March 8th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Justin, Justin, you are the naïve little pup today. Why was Operation Blessing near the top of the list of approved charities?
Snip…even more snark removed (by Rob not Justin)…snip
So you are saying that if we have X dollars and we don’t spend some of it on religious charities then people at the disaster won’t get as much aid? Well I don’t believe it. Show me a study that shows that we can’t respond adequately with out using religious charities. There are many business organizations that can respond, and probably with less “profit� and definitely with less of condescending attitude.
Spend the money on the National Guard to respond, isn’t that what they are for. Any still left in the US anyway.
March 8th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Absolutely NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The faith-based initiatives were the very first stupid comments by Bush way back when. We are NOT in trouble with the Katrina response because of any lack of volunteerism (Faith based or otherwise) we have witnessed (and continue to witness) gross incompetence ….period. As far as having watchdogs? they didn’t help with the considerable misuse of funds in the private sector. AND … not a DOLLAR passes through the Robertson Venue without a tributary division …. period.
The best idea that I have heard is to put FEMA back to the state it was pre-HLS. get the right people in there to set things up and follow through.
March 8th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
I was a bit puzzled when I got the press release from Chertoff saying this was a good idea - it’s not really social services and I wasn’t aware of any particular proficiency of religious groups in disaster management. But I’m willing to be convinced.
March 8th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
There is never a good time for government money to go to religion, especially in the south, where there is too much religious involvement in government already.
March 8th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Actually, Clinton implemented the first faith based intiatives, but obviously I hear all of you loud and clear.
From what Brown has said after that video got out there, FEMA should have never been under the DHLS, but we have three more years with this President…and nothing is going to change. If some religious groups get some money to set up rescue efforts and tent cities, i don’t have a problem with that. Reality over idealism in the short term and once we get new leadership, we can sort out a better way to solve these problems.
March 9th, 2006 at 12:31 am
Before you condem all Christians as Pat Robertson clones, I suggest you visit some churches and get to know some of the folks. What you will find are mostly good and caring people who quite often donate time and money to help those less fortunate all over the world. This happens everyday, not just during natural disasters.
Christians are always going to help in a big way. It doesn’t matter if the government helps them out or not. It’s part of the faith. It’s a truly wonderful thing.
But if government grants to churches can help provide more aid to more people in a desperate time of great need, why wouldn’t we, being intelligent and enlightened people, not want to consider it. After all, what’s the point - protecting some person’s unfounded fear of Christians or getting people the help they desperately need as quickly and cost effectively as possible.
March 9th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Still a flat NO Justin. I lived through a serious flood in 1971, worked with a local Baptist Church that did exactly what you are suggesting. They were funded by private donation from the Community. The MINUTE you pre-fund the Clergy to respond to emergencies it will become a PROGRAM.
Historically, Catholic charities has done some significant good work with “administration of certain social services” and that IS a good path in some instances.
Emergency Response is all about “Command and Control”. All appropriate planning for emergency response centers on “Command and Control” for every indice of response (evac, rescue, recovery) to insure the safest, efficient and effective use of skills, dollars and talent.
Religious folks study and train for admistering to the soul(?). They don’t train for skill sets to make tough decisions that consider the best for the whole in a realistic sense.
There always has been a role for volunteerism in emergencies, whether from faith-based orgs or individuals … there is always something to be done … competence with “Command and control” provides for doing the right things at the right times in the right manner.
March 9th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Actually, Clinton implemented the first faith based intiatives, but obviously I hear all of you loud and clear.
I hear that loud and clear, but I believe that Clinton’s cause’s were related to ancillary services, while Bush’s suggestions were replacement of services provided by professionals. I could be wrong about this but haven’t seen anything to refute it.
March 9th, 2006 at 10:25 am
No, Bush is talking about complementary services too, not primary in the sense of FEMA, etc.
But these are some good counterpoints, some of which have been made here:
Still, I think this is going to help us more than hurt us. Relief and aid work is one of THE things that organized religion does well, but they don’t always have the money to fund those endeavors. If they get some government money when disaster strikes, I’m not going to have much of a problem with that.
It’s when they get consistent money without oversight over years and years for stuff like drug rehab programs…that’s when I have a problem.
March 9th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Justin,
I’m disappointed that you are advocating “exceptions” to keeping church and state separate.
“Sometimes we need to drop these “idealsâ€Â? when reality intersects and makes more sense.”
I think the ACLU would disagree, as do I. Look, I hate the idea of protecting white supremacists’ right to free speech, but it has to be done (unless of course it falls within a category of speech not protected by the constitution). Otherwise, no exceptions. Not when it comes to our civil rights. The government should NEVER, EVER, EVER give money to ANY religious group. PERIOD.
Besides, why do we have to give them money in order for them to help? As Lewis pointed out, Christians are really nice people who help anyway. These groups routinely raise their own money for these causes, or they go volunteer their time. The government needs to fix it’s own ER management situation, not farm it out to religious groups.
March 9th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Justin, I’m pleased to see you defending your position. Stepping outside the bubble is such fun, isn’t it? You’ve got Rob: “All religion = Pat Robertson” and Meredith doing a double-reverse Howard Dean with a half twist: “NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” And look how much good the United Council of Atheists is foing down in the Gulf!
Lewis is right for two-thirds of it. Actually, he’s right for all of it, from a humanitarian point of view. But the separation thing is not about what’s best for people in any situation. It’s not about what’s most caring. It’s a legal doctrine that’s been compromised many times, and continues to be, but it’s worth upholding — for the sake of religion as much as for the sake of the state.
There are wonderful faith-based groups that are doing a world of good in the gulf. The Mennonites up my way are among them — and, yes, they specialize in disaster relief, not in handing out tracts and laying on hands. It seems like half this county is on the Mississippi coast in any given week. People run into each other down there more often than they see each other at market at home. But the Mennonites are scrupulous about staying away from any entanglement with the government.
Are deductions to church groups for disaster relief still tax-deductible? That’s about as far as the government can go, besides using the bully pulpit.
[But you might also try: "If it was an act of God, let God's people clean up the mess"]
As for the shrillness factor, in addition to the principles involved, the natural disaster in the Gulf has become a political gold mine that will pay off for big-government Democrats for generations. “Katrina” will be a one-word argument for why Americans can’t solve their own problems without engineering from on high. Or, to lay it out: “Only big government bureaucracy can save you, and you can’t trust the Republicans with big government bureaucracy.”
It has all the effectiveness and the perverse destructiveness and the accuracy of the GOP’s “national security” argument. Get used to it.
March 9th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
It’s nice to fantasize about FEMA getting its act together, but the government relief effort is going about as slowly and inefficiently as it did after hurricane Andrew, which hit in 1992. If ER management hasn’t been fixed since then, it’s not going to be fixed in time to help these people.
My denomination, the United Methodist Church, has an organization called UMCOR (United Methodist Committee on Relief) which prides itself on getting into disaster areas before even the Red Cross and staying after they’ve left. They’re very good at it, since local UMC congregations provide ready-made infrastructure and an information pipeline to point out areas of greatest need. While FEMA and big relief organizations like the Red Cross are looking for some place to set up shop and send the trucks, UMCOR is handing out food, blankets and cleaning supplies. I’m sure other major denominations have similar outfits whose job is to help, not convert (evangelical Methodist is an oxymoron).
In a place like the Gulf Coast, where you have an abundance of churches, religious organizations have an advantage. They know the people there already, because they are the people there already. If the government effort is failing and the government has additional funding available which it can’t get to the people who need it, then it makes sense to fund those organizations which can help the people. It’s better than saying “Well, until FEMA gets its act together, let them eat cake.”
This is a double edged sword, though. 3 of the 12 UMCOR local chapters which had applied for and received approval for federal funding decided not to take it after all. There’s plenty of support for sereration of church and state from the church side.
March 9th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Listen, everybody can continue to browbeat me on this, but recent history shows us that our federal, state and local governments don’t always have the resources or the sheer numbers to do the job themselves. Perfect example: KATRINA!
Also, simply wishing that they DO have the resources doesn’t solve the problem in the short term. I’m not saying we should do this faith-based thing forever, but until we can build up the needed resources to appropriately address a disaster like Katrina (or worse), I say give them funding.
Even when people are dying? I find this ideologically pure approach pretty disappointing from my fellow liberals. Again, when sacred cows intersect with saving lives, I will pick saving lives any day of the week.
March 9th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Justin,
I don’t really consider disagreeing with you to be browbeating you. Separation of Church and State is just one of those things, like the Death Penalty, that I cannot make any exceptions for. I don’t always feel that it’s THAT important to be “ideologically pure,” but I do know that from a legal standpoint, it is often best to be consistent. Otherwise, doors get opened that we cannot shut.
March 10th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
“Of all the bad places for a faith-based office, this is the most strange,� Mr. Lynn said. “These groups will be able to turn away volunteers if they find their religious views unacceptable. And [disaster victims] will be reluctant to seek aid because frequently this kind of assistance comes with evangelism.�
Yeah, because we all know that somebody that is starving and homeless would rather starve than hear the word ‘God’….
March 21st, 2006 at 3:57 pm
[...] Listen, I’m okay with religious organizations getting federal dollars to help in disaster situations and I’ve said as much on this blog recently. But these consistent and blatant violations of the separation of church and state for mere political gain should not stand. [...]