Separation?....We don't need no separation!!

[RightIsWrong]

AGAIN!!

I am sick of this administration thinking that the constitution doesn't apply to them. I am writing every freaking Senator/Rep that I can find and letting them know how p*ssed I am about this. I don't think that it will do much good....but I have to try.

Source for this despicable story

FEMA to reimburse faith groups for helping victims

27 Sep 2005 04:17:27 GMT
Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - The Federal Emergency Management Agency will reimburse churches and other religious organizations that have provided shelter, food and supplies to the victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The payments with taxpayer money would mark the first time that the government has made such payments to faith-based groups at a time following natural disasters, the newspaper reported, citing FEMA officials.

FEMA is a division within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

According to the article, religious groups that operated emergency shelters, food distribution centers or medical facilities at the request of state and local governments in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama would be eligible.

Rita, packing winds of 120 miles per hour (193 kph), struck the Gulf Coast over the weekend. Katrina came ashore in Louisiana on Aug. 29, killed more than 1,000 people and caused as much as an estimated $200 billion in economic losses.

Reimbursements would cover a "wide range of costs," FEMA spokesman Eugene Kinerney was quoted as saying.

Kinerney said they would include "labor costs incurred in excess of normal operations, rent for the facility and delivery of essential needs like food and water," the report said.

The policy was outlined in a Sept. 9 internal memorandum, titled "Eligible Costs for Emergency Sheltering Declarations."

Under the policy, religious groups, like secular nonprofit groups, will be required to document their costs and file for reimbursement from state and local emergency management agencies, which in turn will seek funds from FEMA, the report said.

The report cited a FEMA official in Louisiana as saying it is too early to know how many groups will seek reimbursement under the new program.

 

[Tommunist]

if they are held to the same standards as the non-religious groups who seek reinbursment i'm not sure there is an issue.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

if they are held to the same standards as the non-religious groups who seek reinbursment i'm not sure there is an issue.

While I'm not thrilled with tax dollars going to faith-based groups, as long as those groups don't preach to or try to convert the victims, I don't have as much of a problem with it, esp. given the magnitude of the storms that have hit that area.

 

[Genx87]

Do other groups recieve reimbursement for housing people?

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Do other groups recieve reimbursement for housing people?

no idea....

 

[Moonbeam]

Puts a whole new meaning of 'your faith will be rewarded' and 'render unto Caesar.'

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Genx87
Do other groups recieve reimbursement for housing people?

no idea....

I think we need to find that answer first. My guess is the answer is yes. If other groups recieve reimbursement I dont see why Churches should be exempt just because of their religious status.

 

[TheSlamma]

Why don't they just give them a tax break at the end of the year instead... oh wait


Actually in this case I do not see it as wrong, but if it opens a door to any additional donations to them then we have a BIG problem.

 

[Crono]

How is this unconstitutional?

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: conjurWhile I'm not thrilled with tax dollars going to faith-based groups, as long as those groups don't preach to or try to convert the victims, I don't have as much of a problem with it, esp. given the magnitude of the storms that have hit that area.

Indeed that's the problem with funding religious organizations with government money...sure they are helping people who are in need...but is the government money enabling the church to proselytize as well? If there is any danger that government money is being used for spreading religion...government money should stay out!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Tommunist

if they are held to the same standards as the non-religious groups who seek reinbursment i'm not sure there is an issue.

While I'm not thrilled with tax dollars going to faith-based groups, as long as those groups don't preach to or try to convert the victims, I don't have as much of a problem with it, esp. given the magnitude of the storms that have hit that area.

I wonder how they caculate payments? If they are just paying them back out of pocket expenses that can be proven, then I don't have a problem with it.

 

[AlricTheMad]

I think I would have to agree with the reimbursmet, as long as the same guidelines are kept to for any reimbursment and any group is allowed to apply.

Can't wait to see how this gets tested and for the first idiot(s) to screw it for those who are trying to be legit.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Tommunist

if they are held to the same standards as the non-religious groups who seek reinbursment i'm not sure there is an issue.

While I'm not thrilled with tax dollars going to faith-based groups, as long as those groups don't preach to or try to convert the victims, I don't have as much of a problem with it, esp. given the magnitude of the storms that have hit that area.

What about the fact that they can discriminate against potential employees who do not share their exact faith? Additionally, what about the fact that they are tax-exempt? Who is going to regulate them to ensure that they aren't proselytizing? As far as I know, no one does that so we really have no idea of their activities . . .

 

[0roo0roo]

or that any infrastructure created by this money cannot be separated off as something they can't use for their religious activities. support is support. its a load of cr@p. and yes i remember there was already a case of work place discrimination cuz of this bs.

http://www.au.org/
americans united for the separation between church and state
Founded in 1947, AU brings together Americans of many faiths and political
viewpoints to defend church-state separation.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


Source for this despicable story

FEMA to reimburse faith groups for helping victims

Kinerney said they would include "labor costs incurred in excess of normal operations, rent for the facility and delivery of essential needs like food and water," the report said.

So basically they are reimbursting these organizations that were small and efficient enough to quickly set up operations and render aid while the government sat around with their thumbs up their collective asses? Good.

I think you're coming out of left-field with your "despicable" comments. I couldn't care less if the group was christian, muslim, wiccan, church of bob, etc. They voluntarily provided assistance in a crisis, and while reimbustment may not be the norm, I see no reason why this is a bad thing, at least on the surface. I suppose if you can show evidence that there are some ulterior motives, or that certain groups were not reimburst based solely on what their faith is, then you may have something. Until then, you should probably find something a bit more substantial to express your outrage and indignation about.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


Source for this despicable story

FEMA to reimburse faith groups for helping victims

Kinerney said they would include "labor costs incurred in excess of normal operations, rent for the facility and delivery of essential needs like food and water," the report said.

So basically they are reimbursting these organizations that were small and efficient enough to quickly set up operations and render aid while the government sat around with their thumbs up their collective asses? Good.

I think you're coming out of left-field with your "despicable" comments. I couldn't care less if the group was christian, muslim, wiccan, church of bob, etc. They voluntarily provided assistance in a crisis, and while reimbustment may not be the norm, I see no reason why this is a bad thing, at least on the surface. I suppose if you can show evidence that there are some ulterior motives, or that certain groups were not reimburst based solely on what their faith is, then you may have something. Until then, you should probably find something a bit more substantial to express your outrage and indignation about.

Actually I would be concerned if a church only helped people of their own faith, then recieved gov't money.
And I must add that it sort of makes me wonder isn't helping people part of most church's mission and does receiving gov't money sort of negate their charity?
I have no problem with churches being a part of a federal disaster plan that could mobilize churches in the event of a disaster with the proviso they could receive re-imbursement provided they don't prosletize, turn away other believers, etc.
Otherwise any church is still free to provide aid and try to convert anyone they like as long as they don't get any federal money

 

[Kalbi]

Since when is "freedom of religion" equal to "separation of church and state"?

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Kalbi
Since when is "freedom of religion" equal to "separation of church and state"?

Exactly. Still waiting for OP to answer my question.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Kalbi
Since when is "freedom of religion" equal to "separation of church and state"?

Exactly. Still waiting for OP to answer my question.

Well thats so easy I'll answer it. Freedom of religion is infringed when the government supports one religion or group of religions monetarily.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Kalbi
Since when is "freedom of religion" equal to "separation of church and state"?

FWIW, I don't think the contested payments are even close to being unconstitutional, but . . .

What people are objecting to is not the idea that this impinges on freedom of religion, but rather that they feel it violates the Establishment Clause.

I don't see how anyone could make a credible argument that nondenominational reimbursement to faith-based relief organizations violates the Establishment Clause. I don't like or trust most of the folks in the White House, but I see no foul here.

 

[WingZero94]

Where in the constitution is does it say separation of church and state?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: WingZero94
Where in the constitution is does it say separation of church and state?

It doesn't, although it does prohibit establishment of and infringement on religions. If the government were, hypothetically, reimbursing only Christian faith-based groups, and refusing to repay other, similarly-situated faith-based groups, it would probably violate the Establishment Clause. I don't think that's the case in this instance, however.

 

[WingZero94]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: WingZero94
Where in the constitution is does it say separation of church and state?

It doesn't, although it does prohibit establishment of and infringement on religions. If the government were, hypothetically, reimbursing only Christian faith-based groups, and refusing to repay other, similarly-situated faith-based groups, it would probably violate the Establishment Clause. I don't think that's the case in this instance, however.

Yea, you're right. They are reimbursing all faith based organizations, Christian, Jew, Scientologists, Etc.

People always get on the Seperation of Church and State thing and the constitution. Thomas Jefferson said it to protect the church from the state.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: WingZero94

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: WingZero94
Where in the constitution is does it say separation of church and state?

It doesn't, although it does prohibit establishment of and infringement on religions. If the government were, hypothetically, reimbursing only Christian faith-based groups, and refusing to repay other, similarly-situated faith-based groups, it would probably violate the Establishment Clause. I don't think that's the case in this instance, however.

Yea, you're right. They are reimbursing all faith based organizations, Christian, Jew, Scientologists, Etc.

People always get on the Seperation of Church and State thing and the constitution. Thomas Jefferson said it to protect the church from the state.

I would have a problem with any money going to Scientoligists. Just my own bias.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: WingZero94

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: WingZero94
Where in the constitution is does it say separation of church and state?

It doesn't, although it does prohibit establishment of and infringement on religions. If the government were, hypothetically, reimbursing only Christian faith-based groups, and refusing to repay other, similarly-situated faith-based groups, it would probably violate the Establishment Clause. I don't think that's the case in this instance, however.

Yea, you're right. They are reimbursing all faith based organizations, Christian, Jew, Scientologists, Etc.

People always get on the Seperation of Church and State thing and the constitution. Thomas Jefferson said it to protect the church from the state.

Actually, he stated it for the exact opposite and rightfully so. He was afraid of leaders being coerced or manipulated into forcing a specific religious doctrine down the throats of the people therefore abolishing other people's right to practice their religion freely.

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

"The advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from [the clergy]." --Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, 1802. ME 10:305

"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this [i.e., the purchase of an apparent geological or astronomical work] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If [this] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119

As for the others that asked me the specific question:

How is this unconstitutional?

Maybe this will help determine if it is/isn't?

In 1971, the Supreme Court decided Lemon v. Kurtzman which created three tests for determining whether a particular government act or policy unconstitutionally promotes religion.

The Lemon test says that in order to be constitutional, a policy must:

1. Have a non-religious purpose;
2. Not end up promoting or favoring any set of religious beliefs; and
3. Not overly involve the government with religion.

Now, if ANY of the groups that helped were holding services that any of the evacuees had to attend, they have broken rule #1. I know that the argument will be that they were there to help, which I don't doubt. But I also know through volunteering, that shelters often make those that would like to partake in their generosity sit through a sermon before they are allowed to eat or sleep at their place. If that was the case at any of these as well....they have violated the constitution by giving federal funds to them.

I would think that the army holding recruiting events outside of the astrodome would probably make the churches think that if they can do it....so can we.