Should Churches Damaged by Superstorm Sandy Receive FEMA Funds?

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2010
71,586
52,243
3,605
*
Should Churches Damaged by Superstorm Sandy Receive FEMA Funds?





Update (Feb. 13): The U.S. House of Representatives has approved legislation that will allow churches (and other houses of worship) damaged by Hurricane Sandy to apply for taxpayer-funded relief aid through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The bill is also expected to pass the Senate, according to Religion News Service.

According to The Hill, the House bill "would amend the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to include houses of worship in the list of non-profit groups that are eligible for federal disaster aid."
FEMA's current policy does not allow churches, synagogues, and mosques to receive federal aid, although religiously affiliated groups may apply.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty weighed in on the issue earlier today, calling FEMA's current policy unconstitutional and discriminatory.
______________________________________


With the U.S. Senate set to vote today on an additional $50.5 billion in disaster relief funds for victims of Superstorm Sandy, damaged churches are hoping to convince lawmakers to let them apply for aid.


Currently, America's separation of church and state prevents churches and religious institutions from receiving public funds, even if those funds are used to repair damage caused by natural disasters. Jewish synagogues and politicians have been leading the complaints against the allegedly unfair allocation of federal disaster relief. But according to a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "hundreds of [Catholic and Christian] houses of worship were damaged by Sandy," including at least 200 Catholic parishes.


"'The wind and waves did not discriminate when it came to destroying property,'" Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of the Catholic Diocese of New York, told the WSJ. "'The houses of worship are the very bedrock of the neighborhoods now trying to rebuild. To not offer natural disaster assistance grants to rebuild a house of worship just doesn't make any sense.'"


Senator Joseph Lieberman introduced an amendment to the Hurricane Sandy recovery appropriations bill which says "houses of worship that were damaged or destroyed deserve federal assistance," according to a statement from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights,which supports the bill.


CT reported on Superstorm Sandy, including how the disaster united NYC churches and how Christian recovery efforts spotlighted the surge in Southern Baptist church plants in New England.


In 2005, CT extensively reported on Hurricane Katrina, including the volunteer heroes of the disaster response, many of whom stayed to help even at great personal risk.








I say no way. Why should taxpayers be responsible to rebuild churches which pay no taxes?
 
No. What kind of welfare is this? Aren't these folks supposed to have insurance?

I guess if it is good for the south with their nirmal weather events every year it is good for the north east just to be fair.

How about a law that says "get insurance for whatever by 2020 because we are shutting down all financial disaster relief".

Ya still have to go save ppl's lives I suppose.
 
I think it would be a nice gesture because of the fact that Church members across the country come out by the thousands to help disaster victims. Baptist men's groups have done astounding work in Texas after hurricanes.
 
Why not? It's a property like any other property, so the property owner(s) should have the same access to help as any other property owner.

I don't see it as anything to do with religion. Religion is what goes in inside the church, not the building itself. Take away the building and the religion goes on; take away the religion and the building goes on.

In fact it doesn't mean that building can only be used as a church-- somebody could build a nice recording studio in there.
 
I see no reason to change the laws for this. If it was 'an act of God', let the faithful pay for it. The churches only exist for their adherents. The adherents should pay if they want their houses of worship back. Otherwise, it is not the general public's concern.
 
Federal funds should only be used to repair government property.

If you own a home and don't have proper insurance then you're shit out of luck.

And not one red cent of taxpayer money should ever go to a church.
 
I see no reason to change the laws for this. If it was 'an act of God', let the faithful pay for it. The churches only exist for their adherents. The adherents should pay if they want their houses of worship back. Otherwise, it is not the general public's concern.

Wrong--Churches exist for everyone. If they didn't exist we would be paying more taxes to take care of those that the churches take care of now.
 
Federal funds should only be used to repair government property.

If you own a home and don't have proper insurance then you're shit out of luck.

And not one red cent of taxpayer money should ever go to a church.


OK, you do have a point here. The lack of input into the system is a problem. There's no reason not to tax churches; that's a hangover from the daze when the Church got a free ride for having kingmaking power. It's past time to turn that page.

I'll stay with the position that the rules for a given building should not vary based on what kind of behaviour is expected to go on in there.
 
Meanwhile we give MILLIONS to modernize and repair Muslim worship structures in the middle east.
The ones we blew up?

Or ones which nature destroyed?

Some people want US support for Israel out of religious motivations. Does that idea conform to the constitution? If it is thought of and treated uniquely as an ally, that is another matter. The idea of theological justification challenges many concepts.
 
I see no reason to change the laws for this. If it was 'an act of God', let the faithful pay for it. The churches only exist for their adherents. The adherents should pay if they want their houses of worship back. Otherwise, it is not the general public's concern.

Wrong--Churches exist for everyone. If they didn't exist we would be paying more taxes to take care of those that the churches take care of now.

I plead the first!
 
Why not? It's a property like any other property, so the property owner(s) should have the same access to help as any other property owner.

I don't see it as anything to do with religion. Religion is what goes in inside the church, not the building itself. Take away the building and the religion goes on; take away the religion and the building goes on.

In fact it doesn't mean that building can only be used as a church-- somebody could build a nice recording studio in there.
They pay no taxes. Taxes are collected to benefit society, and to help society in times of emergency. They do not want to be a part of that. So why should tax money be spent to help those who avoid taxes?
 

Forum List

Back
Top