FEMA Plans to Reimburse Faith Groups for Aid (FlashBack)

[The Straight Story]

FEMA Plans to Reimburse Faith Groups for Aid
As Civil Libertarians Object, Religious Organizations Weigh Whether to Apply

By Alan Cooperman and Elizabeth Williamson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 27, 2005; Page A01

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.

---cut

Civil liberties groups called the decision a violation of the traditional boundary between church and state, accusing FEMA of trying to restore its battered reputation by playing to religious conservatives.

---cut

FEMA officials said religious organizations would be eligible for payments only if they operated emergency shelters, food distribution centers or medical facilities at the request of state or local governments in the three states that have declared emergencies -- Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. In those cases, "a wide range of costs would be available for reimbursement, including labor costs incurred in excess of normal operations, rent for the facility and delivery of essential needs like food and water," FEMA spokesman Eugene Kinerney said in an e-mail.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092601799.html

I really don't see a problem with this. Many religious organizations pitched in from all over the US to send aid, and probably did more than the government. I agree with last paragraph I pasted in - if they were asked to open their doors and incurred expenses at the request of the government they should be paid back, just makes sense to me.

[Debau2005]

1. What happened to

doing it because it is the right thing to do? Churches have funds for this and I am sure they took up special collections. My mother's Church has already stated that they will not apply for the funds, as they feel it is their duty to help their fellow man. I don't agree with a lot of what her Church teaches but in this case I applaud them.

I donated my time and money, and I don't expect a monetary reimbursement. So if we reimburse Churches for doing the work the Bible says they should, why shouldn't the regular citizen that gave of their time and resources be reimbursed as well?

[The Straight Story]

2. to me:

They could then use those funds to help out more people - if the government keeps that money they will just use it for more bombs :)

[Debau2005]

4. Then as part of the reimbursement

let them be accountable for where the money went. I wonder how much of this reimbursement will go into the new sanctuary or upgrades to the building. If I could be certain that it went back into their relief funds I might look at it differently.

Besides this article states it is tax dollars. Why should my tax dollars go to Faith Based groups? Not all of us that pay taxes are part of these groups and want to support them. And it does appear to step on the face of separation of Church and State.

[The Deacon]

7. Actually

The churches are reimbursed for wear, tear & damage to facilities. For instance, the deal I usually worked out with them when I was with the Red Cross was they brought me a bill for utilities for the same month the previous year & then one for the month we had a shelter open - I would pay the difference between them. Also for any damage to carpet or walls. No reason decent people should suffer for being decent. The costs (in a Presidentially Declared Disaster) are then reimbursed by FEMA under its legal responsiblity to shelter people in a PDD.

[Maddy McCall]

11. The church where my father is a deacon does not want federal aid.

They will not apply to be reimbursed for being used as a Katrina shelter. They will not take part in "faith-based" programs.

That church is as conservative as it gets. But they do not want the government stepping foot in their church.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. It's like the devil is corrupting the purpose of the church.

[The Deacon]

3. Surprising

"FEMA officials said it was the first time..." Actually, by law, FEMA has always reimbursed certain expenses in Presidentially Declared Disasters - under the Federal Response Plan (now replaced by a new name I can never remember but 98% the same) FEMA is financially responsible for temporary housing & has reimbursed many churches (usually through Red Cross) for expenses incurred.
I think the difference is that so many trained & experienced people left FEMA after the DHS merger/debacle, there is no one left who knows this.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. WTF? But, but, I thought we were transferring social programs to the

churches BECAUSE they saved us money? This is what happens when you put a capitalist stamp on faith.

[Maddy McCall]

12. Not all churches are money grubbers. See my post above. n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. Of course not. But there isn't enough consistency in their commitment

to perform random acts of kindness without concerns that they will also proselytize and, therefore, are not the best option to provide public services, paid for by the public.

[Maddy McCall]

21. You can't broad brush churches.

I think the "mega churches" and the warehouse churches are most guilty of that.

After Katrina, churches around here (Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian) did a commendable job of distributing aid, sheltering victims, preparing meals--working cross denominationally to help people who needed help. I never heard of anyone having to pass a litmus test before aid was given. And I had a few of those meals, too, and no one preached to me.

My mother went to her church gym where two semi-loads of clothes from up north were unloaded. She and several other men and women spend several days sorting the clothes. When the gym was opened up for disaster victims to take their pick of stuff (and they were allowed to get as much as they wanted) people flocked in. I was more concerned about the assholes who exploited the church's kindness--one woman backed an SUV up and loaded it so full that she couldn't see out of the windows--than I was about the church proselytizing to the Katrina survivors.

I know my story is anecdotal, but I didn't see anyone preach to anyone who was there for aid. Actually, people were more concerned with helping people find the right sizes and load their vehicles than they were with proselytizing.

Some families decided not to go back to New Orleans and they stayed in my hometown. They CHOSE to attend churches here. And some of those families have new homes, thanks to the generosity of businesses and craftspeople here, who helped them start a new life again.

There are MANY churches whose members let their good works speak for their faith and the kind of church that they are. Many take the Bible and Christ's words seriously.

And there are bad eggs. But those bad eggs usually don't last long, end up splitting--because they define themselves by how many new members they can grab instead of what they are doing to attend to Christ's words.

(If I'm giving you the image that I'm some kind of blindfolded bible thumper, you're wrong. I am often very critical of institutionalized religion--but as far as disaster assistance, I have no criticism of what I saw at the churches in my town.)

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Maddy, if you want to go on a crusade to identify the worst

offenders, I think you'd be doing us a big favor.

[Maddy McCall]

29. What do you mean, "crusade?"

[The Backlash Cometh]

30. A mission?

[Maddy McCall]

31. I know that. I meant "what did you mean" by your comment.

[The Backlash Cometh]

32. I mean it would be a good idea if someone with passion would

have the ability and desire to investigate churches so we could identify exactly which ones are overstepping the spiritual boundaries which keep them in the non-profit category.

[Maddy McCall]

36. Ok...

I'm sorry--I didn't know what you meant. And I agree. There is a book to be written about it.

[atreides1]

6. I agree

I don't recall Jesus asking for payment for his healing of the sick or the raising of the dead.

This is what these organizations are supposed to be there for, to help those in need, that's why they have congregations that give tithes, and help fill the food lockers.


Now if the request came from the government, then the government agency that requested the assistance should provide reimbursement.

If the request came from the state, then the state pays the bill, if FEMA asked for the help, then FEMA pays it back.

[rodeodance]

8. Feds should not be funding these organizations.

[Coexist]

9. question - do these disaster victims have to sit through sermons

or lectures at any time, in return for these services? Are all religions included?
You might want to read this?

http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/010223/latz.shtml
>snip>
'While a big admirer of the critical work many such faith-based organizations provide, I have three concerns regarding their public funding. First, there's the "Nation of Islam" problem. Let's say the Nation of Islam establishes an affiliated organization to help get young African-American men off drugs. Assume it works well and meets President Bush's standards for effectiveness.

What's the problem? The program works hand-in-hand with the Nation's leaders to promulgate its anti-Semitic beliefs. And while the drug rehabilitation program might occupy separate space within the Nation's buildings, I believe it would be tough - and likely impossible - to practically distinguish it from the Nation's destructive belief system. Are you comfortable with our money funding this?

<snip>
Second, there's the "fungible money" problem. If we support a particular church's soup kitchen, that church will likely take the money it would have spent on the soup kitchen and spend it for religious purposes. Tax funds will thus be used to: a) support - if indirectly - the religious activities of certain faiths; and b) disproportionately benefit and financially strengthen religious groups that operate social service organizations. The principal impact will be to aid certain religions.

Finally, there's the entanglement issue. Do we really want government workers going into faith-based institutions and determining if a "religious" sermon - or any sermon at all - accompanies the soup? And doesn't the effectiveness of many of these programs depend precisely on the faith-based belief system of the institution?

<snip>
I'll pray that the courts - the ultimate defenders of minority rights - will stop this one"

[Maddy McCall]

14. Not when the church is used as a disaster shelter ...

or a distribution center for aid after a disaster.

Remember, they are staying in a church. The church shouldn't change its behavior because they are helping people.

If people want to attend church, they do. If they don't, then they don't have to.

[Maddy McCall]

15. double post

sorry

[The Deacon]

16. No

Usually the shelters are run by the Red Cross (not a religious organization) & whether there are any services is up to the (Red Cross) Shelter Manager. Typically we find someone to do an ecumenical service off in a small room on a Sunday. If there are significant populations of faiths other than Christian, we also try to do the same there (although the populations are usually small enough we just arrange for their own spiritual leader to have some private time with them.) We also frequently arrange for buses to transport people to the services of their choice.
Guys, this is NOT the Government subsidizing religion - it trying to keep our shelter resources in good repair.

[nosillies]

19. Thanks for the emphasis on that last sentence

This is a facilities issue. Period.

[Maddy McCall]

23. However, your church's view on this is different...

from my father's church's view, as well as the views of many churches here who were used as shelters for months after Katrina, but refused financial assistance.

The largest Baptist church in my town had lots of wear and tear after housing Katrina survivors for months after the storm. A large organization of Baptist men and women from "up north" came down and helped the church--both with funds and elbow grease--clean up, replace worn fixtures, and replenish its pantry.

I respect them for that.

[SoCalDem]

13. And that, folks , is how it works...

Government says.. "It's too harrrrrd, we can't doooo it"..or "We'll have to study it longer".. NGOs & churches step in because they can move faster...they get people to DONATE their time to help and other citizens to donate money,services & materials...

the government says..."See, privatization WORKS...people don't NEED government "in their lives"..."

and then bows out...


months later, they pick and choose their favorite NGOs and cut them checks from the treasury...

Guess who "qualifies" for reimbursement? My guess is that there are many who applied, and were turned down...and whaddayahwannabet they did marvelous work oon the ground, but were not especially GOP-friendly...

The issue is that we will have no way to know..and that's the way this govt wants it..

anonymous people helping anonymous people...and months to "decide" who gets the government money...

[peace13]

18. And come election time the preacher will get the memo

and the sheeple will be told how to vote! That is where I see the problem. And think about this, I gave money and goods to my local church to be sent to NO. Will the church be reimbursed for the goods that I purchased. My take is that givers should not get involved if they need to be reimbursed for their good deeds.

[SoCalDem]

22. That's how they get around the "no prostheletizing" with govt money angle

the use "donated" money/goods for their good deeds, and THEIR money for the preachy stuff...BUT..

If a church would normally spend...say $5K a year on charity...and with the faith-based crap, they now get reimbursed for that charity, they now have that $5K as a bonus to be added back into their "preachy column"


a good deed is a good deed is a good deed, but it sucks that people who need help have to FEEL beholden to a church, when their tax dollars (and all our tax dollars) SHOULD be used for national disasters..

Vulnerable people should not be put into another vulnerable position by having to rely on churches for emergency aid..


Churches who want to help, should...because it's the decent thing to do...not because they hope to be reimbursed...and to gain some new "members" by coerced gratitude..

Don;t get me wrong..I would gladly accept whatever was offered in an emergency, but a prime example of this is Hezbollah..

THEY show up with money for hurting people, and that's how they gain support.. The government of Lebanon should be helping these people, but they cannot..

Our govt CAN, but won;t..:(

[Maddy McCall]

24. As to your question, probably not.

As to your comment, not in the churches that refuse to have their pulpit used as a political soapbox. And those are the majority.

[The Deacon]

26. Once Again

Though this article mentions rent, typically rent is not paid on church facilities - the money is to cover breakage & abnormal wear and tear (you put 100 people in a church sancuary & there WILL be accelerated wear & tear.) These are not usually 'disaster organizations' who have a budget for disasters. These are typically small churches we (when I was with the Red Cross) had agreements with to shelter folks for a couple of days in a disaster (and you can see how Katrina extended THAT way beyond what any of us were used to.) Their memebership shouldn't suffer economically because they acted in good faith.
And a brief history lesson - private non-profits (Red Cross was first, followed by the Salvation Army) and religious organizations were exclusively responsible for disaster relief for most of the history of the U.S. Government response to disasters is a fairly recent phenomena - FEMA, for instance, was started under Jimmy Carter. The Ameriucan Red Cross was chartered by Congress in 1905 to be THE disaster response agency for the United States (no money came with that responsibility, however.) A good 90% of all disaster responders you will see in a disaster are private charities, many faith-based: Mennonite Disaster Response, Church World Service, United Methodist Committee On Relief, The Salvation Army, Seventh Day Adventist Disaster Response, The American Red Cross, Southern Baptist Convention North American Mission Board. Those are the "biggies" who respond to virtually ALL disasters, even those too small for FEMA to have any legal authority in. We each have our own specialties - for instance, Red Cross buys the food & the Southern Baptists cook it in their big mobile kitchens. Disaster is a joint response & government couldn't do it by themselves even if they wanted to.
There are a lot of things wrong with FEMA - this isn't one of them.

[Hubert Flottz]

27. And the guys that stand up on Sundays in their churches and...

support the "MORAL" GOP, will all get the big government entitlement checks! And keep the tax exempt status as another little payoff from the ruling mob.

If they want government entitlements they should pay taxes! You pay on your social security, all your working life, but the GOP cries bloody murder about you collecting your entitlements. Now they want to pass out the entitlement checks to these fat assed crony preachers, who NEVER pay for anything, EVER.

If you earn your way to heaven by the sweat of your brow, most crony preachers will be SOL, on the big day of the big bang II. Crony GOP evango-fascists are getting ready to reap their large pre sElection rewards, from you and me, by way of the King of KKKlods, Mr George "Shrubo-fascist" Bush IMMHO!

The stealing is not a dream, it really does happen.

D.C. United Way Executive Pleads Guilty to Stealing $500,000
By Ian Wilhelm and Brad Wolverton



Alexandria, Va.


Oral Suer, former chief executive of the United Way of the National Capital Area, in Washington, pleaded guilty in federal court today to two felony charges that he stole nearly $500,000 from the organization during his 27-year tenure.

The felony counts carry a maximum prison sentence of 15 years, but prosecutors said that Mr. Suer will probably serve about two years in jail as part of a plea agreement with the U.S. attorney's office in Alexandria, Va. He will be sentenced on May 14.

Officials at the local United Way said they were disappointed with the length of the proposed jail term for Mr. Suer because of the effects the scandal over his leadership had on the organization. "The damage is, and there's only one word for it, incalculable," said Charles W. Anderson, chief executive of the United Way of the National Capital Area.

Mr. Anderson cited an audit by the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, released in August, that said that Mr. Suer, who served as chief executive from 1974 to 2002, received $2.4-million more than his approved compensation and apparently paid back less than half that sum.

http://philanthropy.com/free/update/2004/03/2004030402.htm

EX-OFFICIAL ADMITS STEALING UNITED WAY FUNDS FORMER OFFICIAL ADMITS STEALING UNITED WAY FUNDS FOR PERSONAL USE JAMES FOREMAN TO REPAY $150,000, COURT RECORDS SAY

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950729/07290276.htm

Don't Give Your Hurricane Donations to the American Red Cross
Establishment charities have criminal history of stealing disaster funds

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | Updated September 3 2005

As the aftermath of hurricane Katrina continues to wreak mayhem and havoc amid reports of mass looting, shooting at rescue helicopters, rapes and murders, establishment media organs are promoting the Red Cross as a worthy organization to give donations to.

The biggest website in the world, Yahoo.com, displays a Red Cross donation link prominently on its front page.

Every time there is a major catastrophe the Red Cross and similar organizations like United Way are given all the media attention while other charities are left in the shadows. This is not to say that the vast majority of Red Cross workers are not decent people who simply want to help those in need.

But what the media fails consistently to remember in their promotion of the organization is that the American Red Cross have been caught time and time again withholding money in the wake of horrible disasters that require immediate release of funds.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2005/010905redcross.htm

HURRICANE SEASON: Relief efforts
9 accused of stealing Red Cross funds
Bakersfield suspects allegedly made false claims for relief aid
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, October 5, 2005

Nine Bakersfield residents are facing federal wire-fraud charges for stealing thousands of dollars in American Red Cross funds earmarked for Hurricane Katrina victims, authorities said Tuesday.

Four suspects were temporary employees of Spherion Corp., a company hired by the Red Cross to staff a national call center in Bakersfield to field calls from hurricane victims.

The other five had ties to the workers and pretended to be victims by using special claim numbers to pick up checks at Western Union, authorities said.

"It is beyond the pale that there are those who would seek to capitalize on the tragedy wrought by Hurricane Katrina and the generosity of so many who donated relief funds," McGregor Scott, U.S. attorney in Sacramento, said in a statement Tuesday.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/05/BAG4AF2MSD1.DTL

Fraud Alleged at Red Cross Call Centers
Contract Workers in Calif. Stole From Katrina Aid Program, Indictments Say

By Jacqueline L. Salmon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 27, 2005; Page A02

Nearly 50 people have been indicted in connection with a scheme that bilked hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Red Cross program to put cash into the hands of Hurricane Katrina victims, according to federal authorities.

Seventeen of the accused worked at the Red Cross claim center in Bakersfield, Calif., which handled calls from storm victims across the country and authorized cash payments to them. The others were the workers' relatives and friends, prosecutors said last week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600654.html

[sandnsea]

33. That's it exactly

And not just the churches and NGO's, but corporations too. FEMA was allowed to fail on purpose so money could be diverted to GOP approved institutions.

[partylessinOhio]

20. This just blurs the lines and opens the floodgates to funnel more money

to corrupt religious cults that have taken over our government. There should be NO reimbursement for what the churches have done. If they took donated money and supplies and pitched in to help then they simply used those monies and supplies for what they were intended. We have no way of knowing what conditions they placed on who they would help or if they discriminated in selecting who they helped.

I believe in strict separation of church and state - no compromise.

[Joanne98]

25. I have a big problem with it. This faith-based SCHEMES are getting

on my nerves. It's a KICK_BACK scheme. Give to the churches and they turn around and give back to the GOP. The faith-based WASHING MACHINE!

[Erika]

34. I quit giving to religious organizations

I told them my taxes were being usurped by the government to reimburse them. I'm not going to give to them twice. Once voluntarily and once involuntarily.

[The Straight Story]

35. Ummm, wouldn't be the same for non-religious ones??

You give to a charity, they use their facilities in a disaster to help out at the governments urging, and they are reimbursed for usage/damage/etc. I don't see how religion is a factor in all that....

[Swamp Rat]

37. Not one religious organisation gave me aid.

Though I was standing in lines all day long, wearing only shorts and flip flops, the Red Cross would only give me soap and water, and a tuna sandwich. The folks who denied me aid at the Red Cross were Scientologists.

The ONLY aid I received was from my friends here at DU. :hug:

[nosillies]

39. Tuna with no refrigeration -- YUUMMM

Those damn Scientologists. :D

[uppityperson]

38. What about secular groups?

I see that part of it is "at the request of...governments", so grass roots and/or secular groups may not qualify, but seems they should be counted in also as people do gather and work together, do good things not just through organized churches.