FEMA plans to reimburse faith groups for aid
Civil libertarians object; religious groups ponder what to do
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.
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.
"What really frosts me about all this is, here is an administration that didn't do its job and now is trying to dig itself out by making right-wing groups happy," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
There's a lot more, go read the story. But I am genuinely torn. On the one hand, I believe very strongly in the separation of Church and State, I believe they do (and should) serve very different functions, and when they get mixed up both tend to suffer. I'm also inclined to be suspicious, for some reason, of anything and everything anyone in the Bush administration wants to do.
And frankly, this seems like the kind of thing Republicans should be pressuring FEMA not to do. Aren't they the ones who don't believe in goverment "handouts?"
But on the other, these are churches that seem to me to be living up to the notion of "Christian charity." The notion of slipping them a few tax dollars for it doesn't exactly make me red-faced with rage.
Any thoughts?
1 comment:
As long as they don't set any restrictions on which religious organizations can get money and which can't, I don't have a problem with it. In other words, a Catholic relief agency, a Protestant agency, a Jewish agency, a Muslim agency, etc., should all be given the same opportunity to collect federal funds.
The way I read the First Amendment, it's not that goverment has to pretend religion doesn't exist - it's that they can't take sides, favoring one over the others. You could argue that atheism is itself a form of "faith," since the scientific method can neither prove nor disprove the question of whether God exists.
Post a Comment