Should places of worship receive public funds to rebuild after Sandy?

[Monfang]

The US House of Representatives passed the Hurricane Sandy Reparations Bill that gave much needed funds to help rebuild the areas effected by the superstorm in both the Private and Public sectors. However, it isn't going to one sector. The Faith Sector. Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples are all being passed over by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) when they pass out funds. This is due mostly to a law on the books that, based on Separation of Church and State, states that Houses of Worship are not eligible to receive any federal funds. However, that may change.

Earlier this month, in an effort to rectify the situation, the House of Representatives voted in support (354 to 72) of the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013 (H.R. 592). The measure, sponsored by Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), was opposed by 66 Democrats and six Republicans.

The bill, voted upon on Feb. 13, would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Assistance Act to include churches as non-profit institutions that are entitled to FEMA aid when the president declares a natural disaster. The bill is now moving on to the Senate where its future is uncertain.

Supporters claim this removes discriminatory systems that pass over organizations because they practice a faith. However, critics say that it will end up paying for religious content within the structure, rather than the structure itself.

“Using federal money to build a religious sanctuary of any faith is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent,” writes Alfred P. Doblin, editorial editor of The Record.

According to Doblin, FEMA isn’t supportive of the measure, expressing fears that the government will end up footing the bill for baptismal fonts, stained-glass windows and other exclusively religious elements. If these items are damaged in storms, the worry is that churches will ask the government to replace them, creating a potentially-troubling entanglement. He went on to call the bill a “slippery slope” that America “should not ski.”

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, a church-state separatist group, agreed. BJC Staff Counsel Nan Futrell wrote a letter claiming that public funding would endanger the Establishment Clause and create murky scenarios for the separation of church and state.

“Public funding of houses of worship threatens to undermine religious autonomy and impermissibly involve government in the private affairs of religious bodies,” Futrell wrote in her letter. “It is simply not a good idea — however our heartstrings are tugged — to give churches access to the public till.”

The supporters of the bill disagree, citing how much the places of faith have done to support the communities around them.

Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York, said that she supports giving grants to houses of worship. Pledging to support the bill in the Senate, she noted that churches like St. Francis de Sales Catholic Church in Queens, N.Y., among others, have provided much-needed aid to storm victims. Gillibrand believes that churches should have the same protections that zoos, museums, libraries and other community groups are granted.

And Christine C. Quinn, a Democrat and the speaker of the New York City Council, has joined in Gillibrand’s call for a change to FEMA’s policies. But rather than urging legislative action, she wrote a letter simply asking the agency to consider the massive need churches have in the wake of the storm.

“Recovery from a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy isn’t a matter of state sponsoring religion,” she wrote. “It’s a matter of helping those in need after one of the worst natural disasters our country has ever seen.”

Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/23/u-s-govt-refuses-to-help-churches-damaged-and-destroyed-in-natural-disasters-but-should-it/


Just so we are clear, here is the Constitutional Amendment on the 'Separation' of Church and State in full.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It is my personal opinion that not supporting ALL of the Faith based organizations to help rebuild their places of worship would be synonymous with interfering with their ability to worship freely. To tell these non-profit organizations, regardless of the fact they are related to a faith, that they are to rely on sources that are more than likely going to be dried up to rebuild after all the hard work they did to support the communities around them is not something the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the documents that form the foundation of our law.

Enough money to repair flood damage. Enough money to help them feed and clothe those who can not themselves. Enough money to keep the lights on so the building is warm when those seeking shelter from the cold comes to their door. They aren't asking for a statue to be built that wasn't there before.  Only that what was damaged or destroyed be fixed, just like every other non-profit organization who are not faith based receive.

But do they have a point? Would giving support to ALL faith based organizations be 'Respecting an Establishment of Religion'? Should they be made to rely on the sources that kept them up before the storm? If they made enough money before to build and maintain the structure, should they not have enough coming in to put it all back?

[elone]

It was also stated in the article that FEMA was overruled in other instances, however,

Not all lawmakers, however, viewed the passage of the bill in a positive light, as they held reservations about the bill’s impact on a possible erosion of the barriers of religion and government. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat, who represents New York’s 10th congressional district said there were “real constitutional problems” with using taxpayer dollars to rebuild structures such as religious sanctuaries and altars that are not used by the general public. He argued that the bill was rushed to a vote a few days after it was filed, without any hearings or consideration by the Judiciary Committee.

Also opposing the bill were the Americans United for Separation of Church and State organization who said that taxpayers should not shoulder the burden involved in paying for reconstruction of houses of worship. The group said public funding of religion violates the Constitution and that a long line of federal court decisions bars government support for buildings used primarily for worship.

“A fundamental rule of American life is that congregants, not the taxpayers, pay for the construction and repair of houses of worship. We must not let a storm sweep away the wall of separation between church and state,” said Reverend Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United, said in a statement.

The American Civil Liberties Union also opposed the bill. “Religious liberty starts from the precept that religion thrives when both religion and government are safeguarded from the undue influences of the other,” said Dena Sher, legislative counsel for the ACLU. Sher said FEMA has a longstanding policy of limiting grants only to nonprofits with facilities used to provide emergency, essential, and government-like activities. Houses of worship, just like the many other nonprofit facilities, are ineligible to receive these grants, she added.

The other side of the coin.

Rabbi Abba Cohen, the Washington Director and the Vice-President for Federal Government Affairs of the Agudath Israel of America, an organization also representing Orthodox synagogues in America, said that the vote “brings us closer to greater fairness and equity for religious institutions that have been devastated by natural disasters and suddenly face formidable costs.”

While I feel for religious organizations that had damage, why would they think they should get taxpayer dollars to rebuild their houses of worship? They are exempt from paying taxes and are more than happy about that situation. So in the name of "fairness and equity", as stated by Rabbi Cohen, let them pay taxes and then maybe we could consider government aid. No, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, religious organizations do work for their communities, but they are also among the wealthiest organizations anywhere, they can help themselves.

[Monfang]

Thank you, Elone for filling in what I missed. I had believed that it was only houses of worship that were passed over. So you believe that they receive enough funds from outside sources to help them rebuild? I would think that those sources, specifically those who are part of the congregation who donate money to the houses, would have to stop donating to hep them rebuild their own homes and structures. How long before those return?

[elone]

I think it was just houses of worship that were being talked about. FEMA policy on rebuilding them was overruled in some other instances of disasters, and bombings, and allowed tax money for rebuilding, at least I think that is what the article said.

Actually in my heart I say rebuild everyone, but that damn constitution keeps getting in the way in my mind.

[Monfang]

I think it was just houses of worship that were being talked about. FEMA policy on rebuilding them was overruled in some other instances of disasters, and bombings, and allowed tax money for rebuilding, at least I think that is what the article said.

Actually in my heart I say rebuild everyone, but that damn constitution keeps getting in the way in my mind.

Well the Constitution doesn't say we can't help them. Only that we can't support ONE religion.

[elone]

Actually the Supreme court has pretty much covered this, the wall between government and religion is absolute. Not only does the government not condone any particular religion, it is pretty much forbidden to cross the lines in any way. That is why we can't have a Christmas tree in a courthouse or the ten commandments there either. So it would seem that helping a religious organization, even if it is all of them would be forbidden.

Of course, we still have In God We Trust on the money, and swear oaths on the bible (see the inauguration) as well as prayer in Congress. So things are not as absolute in all categories.

[Monfang]

Actually the Supreme court has pretty much covered this, the wall between government and religion is absolute. Not only does the government not condone any particular religion, it is pretty much forbidden to cross the lines in any way. That is why we can't have a Christmas tree in a courthouse or the ten commandments there either. So it would seem that helping a religious organization, even if it is all of them would be forbidden.

Of course, we still have In God We Trust on the money, and swear oaths on the bible (see the inauguration) as well as prayer in Congress. So things are not as absolute in all categories.

Those last two are mostly from tradition. The others are from some interpretation of the first amendment and a letter from Jefferson telling a church that the government isn't going to force them to shut down that I don't understand.

[elone]

Tradition, but still not totally separate on the last two.

As for the Jefferson thing, what is that, I was talking about coins.

From politifact.

The use of "In God We Trust" on coins dates to the Civil War era, though the phrase only became the nation’s official motto in 1956, and began appearing on paper currency (as well as all coins) after that. While the use of the motto on money has been broadly popular -- a 2003 Gallup poll found 90 percent approval among the public -- it has also been the target of occasional lawsuits citing the separation of church and state. The best-known case concerning "In God We Trust" and money was filed by church-state-separation activist Michael Newdow. It was argued in 2007 and rejected in 2010 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

[RubySlippers]

No, if your not paying property taxes on non-exempt for charity use property I do feel there are proper uses like a homeless shelter a church might run as exemptable while the main property not as well as taxes on income (donations) should be required to then fine. But you should not get money to rebuild that is what insurance is for flood, wind and such to cover damages done.

But I do feel government barring a "damned good reason" has no right to limit or restrict the practice of religion just they should demand proper taxes where they can.

My view as most know is you don't collect the taxes then the STATE as in government overall is promoting the religions message with more money over what they would have if treated like a McDonald's next door both are businesses.

[Serephino]

Giving a place of worship money to rebuild after a natural disaster isn't supporting said religion.  It's giving them the help that everybody else is getting.  If all places of faith are getting the same assistance, that is not one faith being favored over another.  The government can't favor or discriminate against religion.  The way I see it, not helping them just because they are faith based is discrimination.

[Trieste]

I think it was just houses of worship that were being talked about. FEMA policy on rebuilding them was overruled in some other instances of disasters, and bombings, and allowed tax money for rebuilding, at least I think that is what the article said.

Actually in my heart I say rebuild everyone, but that damn constitution keeps getting in the way in my mind.

The sticking point for me is that there are different kinds of houses of worship - and I'm not talking about denomination.

There are the quiet houses of worship that help their community, that provide counseling and support without getting into the politics of their members. These exist, and I would be very happy to help them.

There are the houses that verge toward political, that discourage equal rights and perpetuate the travesty that is anti-choice - not just the most common anti-choice stance but their morals stick people into situations that they are desperate to crawl out of, and then these houses, these vile things, they profit from said person's misery and desperation.

You could call them a predatory HoW, versus a constructive HoW. The idea of tax money going to a constructive HoW, the first kind, makes me happy. The idea of taxpayer money going toward a predatory HoW makes me want to vomit. However, the idea of withholding money from all HoWs due to the actions of predatory HoWs also makes me feel a little ill.

So I guess I've talked myself into saying that Sandy was indiscriminate in her destruction, and so too should we be indiscriminate in our help.

[Haloriel]

In my case - its constitutional.  If HoW's wish to rebuild - they should go to their members for funds to do so.  That is rather part of the point, I've found in any religious system - to keep things a float.

Might be a harsh position - but I speak it from being religious.  I would never expect tax payers to pay for my Torah studies, period.

The fact that we have such separation is a good thing - and I wish it were more so - such as regarding marriage.  But that's a whole different topic, so I will not derail the thread.

* Haloriel tips her hat respectfully. 

[Shjade]

"Should places of worship receive public funds to rebuild after Sandy?"

Yes.

Specifically, they should receive whatever funds the public chooses to offer them, the same way they are always supposed to get funding.

[Monfang]

"Should places of worship receive public funds to rebuild after Sandy?"

Yes.

Specifically, they should receive whatever funds the public chooses to offer them, the same way they are always supposed to get funding.

Public funds are funds that come from the government.

Private funds are what they receive from donations.

[Trieste]

Public funds are funds that come from the government.

Private funds are what they receive from donations.

Public funds are funds that come from the public. They may be administered by the government but they come from... the public.

Ergo the name.

[mia h]

It also depends on how you define rebuilding. Is it just putting the walls and roof up or does it include refurbishing the interior as well?
If instead of it being a place of worship, it was a community centre that was backed by a religious charity would money be available? Places of worship are really just community centres with a highly specialised use.

[Kythia]

Out of interest, what do people feel about the historic aspect of some HoW's?  I have no idea what Sandy affected but, hypothetically, say a 200 year old Church was damaged.  What would be the feeling about some government money going to restoration in the interest of conservation, preservation of antiquities, etc etc etc.?

[Haloriel]

Out of interest, what do people feel about the historic aspect of some HoW's?  I have no idea what Sandy affected but, hypothetically, say a 200 year old Church was damaged.  What would be the feeling about some government money going to restoration in the interest of conservation, preservation of antiquities, etc etc etc.?

In my personal experience and belief - It would depend on if the building in question was under the administration of a local, protected Historic District and generally thus, not used for religious worship of any kind.  Then yes and only with the previously outlined reasoning - it could be restored.  Otherwise - I still feel that only funds that come from a religious community, or private donations.  That is part of the purpose for a religious community - to draw on community members in a time of great need.  Otherwise, there's little point for them. 

I do not at all agree with taxpayer's money being used to assist, with all due respect of anyone that feels otherwise. <3

[Monfang]

In my personal experience and belief - It would depend on if the building in question was under the administration of a local, protected Historic District and generally thus, not used for religious worship of any kind.  Then yes and only with the previously outlined reasoning - it could be restored.  Otherwise - I still feel that only funds that come from a religious community, or private donations.  That is part of the purpose for a religious community - to draw on community members in a time of great need.  Otherwise, there's little point for them. 

I do not at all agree with taxpayer's money being used to assist, with all due respect of anyone that feels otherwise. <3

Hmm... When I often think of taxes, I always prefer that taken from an area such as a state should be used to improve that area except for in emergencies as it would not benefit those from whom the taxes are taken from if it went to a completely different area. It was sorta for this reason that the Sandy Bill was split up because money was being sent to Alaska with the original but that's a different topic.

If I were to treat this the same, I would question why money taken unwillingly from people who would never benefit from the rebuilding be used there.

Originally I was in support of the House Bill, but I might rethink my position. There would be lots of funds that will come to the Churches. Still, speaking politically, it wouldn't send a good message to say no to their requests. Any chance for a compromise?

[Oniya]

Any chance for a compromise?

What about something like this:  Government-administered funds could be allocated to those repairs necessary to make the building safe for use.  This would include replacement of broken glass with ordinary window-glass, and replacement of supports/floors/roofs.  Ornamental masonry, stained glass, and the like would not be covered, but would have to be repaired/replaced by the donations of the community-of-faith.

(I'm throwing this out there because there's a church right next door to us that has an 'Unsafe for use' sign on the door, has been 'For Sale' since before we moved in, and yet they still keep the parking lot chained up so nobody on the street can use it.  We had to get the city to yell at them to mow the parking lot because there were tufts of weeds over a foot high.)

[Rhapsody]

Originally I was in support of the House Bill, but I might rethink my position. There would be lots of funds that will come to the Churches. Still, speaking politically, it wouldn't send a good message to say no to their requests. Any chance for a compromise?

I think it would set a worse precedent for governmentally-distributed money to be handed out in such a fashion. Once a precedent is set, it can (and will be) expanded upon until the original intention is completely buried in a morass of religious groups asking for access to federal funds for whatever strikes their fancy. Perhaps that's an extremely pessimistic outlook, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, especially when it comes to politics, religion, finance, and any intermingling of the three.

[Trieste]

Hmm... When I often think of taxes, I always prefer that taken from an area such as a state should be used to improve that area except for in emergencies as it would not benefit those from whom the taxes are taken from if it went to a completely different area. It was sorta for this reason that the Sandy Bill was split up because money was being sent to Alaska with the original but that's a different topic.

No, apparently you think of taxes as magical dollars that fly out of nowhere, rather than the public's pocket. >.> At least that's how it came across. "Public funds come from the government", indeed.

The problems with taking massive relief out of state budgets for each area affected are many. Here is what I can think of off the top of my head:

1.) Federal agencies like FEMA exist because it is inefficient for each state to see to its own cleanup, and states are kinda bad about talking to one another. Think of it this way: If a giant bunch of snow falls on the driveways of everyone in the neighborhood, and you rent a snow plow to clean up your driveway - are you going to clean the driveways of your neighbors if you're the one paying for the gas? What if someone else came in and said "I'll pay for the gas if you go ahead and do everyone's driveways". Or better yet, if someone actually rented the plow for you, paid the gas, and plowed everyone's driveways, it would then free you and your neighbors up to return to work and get things in the marketplace going again. It's not really all that efficient, comparatively, for each house on the block to rent its own snow plow.

2.) I don't know if you realize this, but states are not permitted to run at a deficit. They must, in theory, balance their budget every single year, unlike the federal government. As far as that goes, only a few states in that region were projected to have a budget surplus for 2012. New York was hit fairly hard, but they have a budget surplus (or were projected to have one). Same with New Jersey, which was also hit hard. Okay, well, assuming they have enough of a budget surplus to cover the repairs, what do you propose to do with places like Maryland and Connecticut, who were also hit hard but have no budget surplus. Do we give federal aid only to those states that have no surplus? What if the other states only have a small surplus and can't afford everything they need? Do they get left to founder or do they get federal help, too? Where is the cutoff?

Rather than wading through all of those questions and red tape, it's much more efficient to say, "The feds are going to give you a check for this much. Use it where it's needed and we'll check in with you periodically to see how it goes".

3.) Those regions are some of the more heavily populated regions in the country, which means that they provide heavy tax revenue. If they can't get back to work, federal tax revenue will fall alongside local tax revenue. Not to mention the fact that NYC, DC, Baltimore, and various other northeastern cities are also nodes of commerce and trade. It makes sense for the whole country to make sure that those nodes are up and running at peak efficiency as close to possible. And that's not even to mention the major communications infrastructure that runs up and down the US east coast - infrastructure that affects the Internet, telephone communications, and many other services that are not only convenient, but considered essential in the modern world of business. So it actually benefits the whole country to make sure the region is running very, very well.

4.) There is no four, because my point should be well and truly made by this point.

[Haloriel]

These are all fabulous and interesting points everyone makes.  But - my personal opinion is firmly in the camp of the Constitution - as it stands.  I'll refrain from addressing many of Trieste's points, which are while well stated - as they kind of vere off of the direct question, in my opinion.  Though granted I believe someone else did before that.  Some of which - I cannot rightly reply upon without citing sources and I don't feel like going through quite that much effort this evening.

No religious house of worship should gain from the state, nor honestly, should community centres run by houses of worship.

Sorry its short, but that's all I have to say on the matter.  I don't see any compromise that leads to a dangerous precedent.  I personally don't trust people enough not to, in the end, show favouritism when they should not. 

Political policy only works as well as those that support it, are most importantly steeped in the historical learning of it, those that enact and lastly, enforce it.

Fascinating discussion, everyone!

[Hades]

My thoughts on the matter is this.   If houses of worship want to recieve federal aid in the event of a disaster, they should pay taxes like everyone else has to as well.  I will leave unsaid except in passing, the irony of a house of worship, asking for aid after a storm their deity created and/or had the power to stop but didn't.

As others have said, it sets a dangerous precedent if the federal government starts handing out aid money to religious organizations.  Given the rather elevated distrust of Islam (I would say ourtight bigotry personally) from certain political circles in Washington right now, does anyone really think that a mosque would recieve the same sort of funding as a church or Jewish synagogue would?   I very much doubt it, which means then the government is determining which faith to give taxpayer dollars to.  That sets up a slippery slope that has the potential then of becoming specific denominations of Christianity recieving prefered treatment, such as Protestants over Catholics, or Baptists over Methodists and so forth.

I freely admit that as a rather vocal and outspoken atheist I am biased when it comes to ideas of government and religions being pushed together more than they already are in this country.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

While I am a big advocate for separation of Church and State, there is a problem here as this does affect the general populace and their ability to recover.  Many places of worship double as storm shelters, food kitchens and temporary housing for an affected populace.  Community centers run by religious organizations are often turned into places for people to find solace, community, help and assistance.  Many times the government will use such centers of the community to rally and relay messages.  A great deal of assistance comes from many of these organizations both within the community and from without.  So denying aide to these institutions also hurts the people because those people are turning toward these organizations for aide at their moment of greatest need.  These places and groups also alleviate the government’s responsibility in terms of manpower and finances. 

Seems a bit odd for the government to benefit from not having to provide food or shelter to some people due to a community place of worship, and then deny that same place of worship needed aide.

[JuliusCaesar]

Seems a bit odd for the government to benefit from not having to provide food or shelter to some people due to a community place of worship, and then deny that same place of worship needed aide.

In this case, I don't believe the government is "benefiting" from not providing food, shelter, etc. for Community A due to HoW assistance. There are budgets; money not used for Community A instead provides food, shelter, etc. for Community B. "I'd like assistance now because I let you rally on my lawn last year" seems silly. If the church helped Mr. Congressman rally, Mr. Congressman probably paid the church to use its property in the first place up front OR, when asked for assistance, wrote a personal check to the church instead of allocating government funds.

We should also ask the people in these communities what they're doing to give back to their HoWs. It's not the government's responsibility to bolster them because HoWs don't pay taxes. I have faith (no pun intended) that religious communities are strong and help their own. Say Mr. Construction Contractor's local church helped him garner funds to pay for his wife's life-saving surgery. He could "pay the church back" by donating workers, equipment, and/or time from his company in the wake of a natural disaster. Even someone who doesn't own a business like Mr. Construction Contractor and benefited from the church, like a patron of a soup kitchen, has two hands and can help do something in the way of physical labor.

And, I may be wrong on this point, I don't assume that all individual church coffers are private -- it makes sense to me that churches would help each other out in times of need. Even if the coffers are individually private, wouldn't a Lutheran church in Iowa wire over some money or volunteers to help out a Lutheran church in New Jersey? Or what's stopping a Maine synagogue from helping a New York church? Or an atheist from helping a Connecticut mosque?

People help each other when they need it, especially when they've been helped reciprocally in the past.

What's stopping anyone from helping anyone when it's the right thing to do?

I think it does a benevolent HoW a disservice to say that the government "owes" it anything and that it would fall into dissolution without FEMA aid. Plus, what's stopping someone from worshipping amongst white-washed walls instead of stained glass? Does it really matter? Will someone's god not listen to them because they're not in a pretty room?

[vtboy]

While I am a big advocate for separation of Church and State, there is a problem here as this does affect the general populace and their ability to recover.  Many places of worship double as storm shelters, food kitchens and temporary housing for an affected populace.  Community centers run by religious organizations are often turned into places for people to find solace, community, help and assistance.  Many times the government will use such centers of the community to rally and relay messages.  A great deal of assistance comes from many of these organizations both within the community and from without.  So denying aide to these institutions also hurts the people because those people are turning toward these organizations for aide at their moment of greatest need.  These places and groups also alleviate the government’s responsibility in terms of manpower and finances. 

Seems a bit odd for the government to benefit from not having to provide food or shelter to some people due to a community place of worship, and then deny that same place of worship needed aide.

Your premise seems to be that the government is under some obligation to furnish financial support to religious institutions which provide services to their communities.  If so, what limits the government's purported obligation to disaster relief? Wouldn't your premise require government to fund church operations, generally, at least to the extent they encompass soup kitchens, storm shelters, bereavement counselling, and the like?

[Rhapsody]

Your premise seems to be that the government is under some obligation to furnish financial support to religious institutions which provide services to their communities.  If so, what limits the government's purported obligation to disaster relief? Wouldn't your premise require government to fund church operations, generally, at least to the extent they encompass soup kitchens, storm shelters, bereavement counselling, and the like?

Most of those churches are also pretty wealthy in their own right. Perhaps not the individual churches, but the Vatican isn't exactly hurting, and it's my guess that Islam and Judaism have similar tithing practices. Local churches might be hurting, but their first recourse should be to apply for relief from their own power structure.

I have the same problem with the government handing out money to churches that I did with Anne Romney's dancing horse getting a free ticket to London last year: if they can afford it themselves without even so much as blinking, the taxpayers should not be responsible for it.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

My premise is that a community in distress needs to have the pillars and centers of that community restored.  Often times, particularly for urban minorities, that center is a local place of worship or religious run community center.  Such structures and places of worship provide a place of assistance for those groups, a center for organization of various civic leaders and a place of solace for those families.  Communities congregate there and so having those places rebuilt is an important part of that community continuing to go forward.  Denying that center funds simply because of being religious likewise denies the community an important step to recovery.  Part of any attempt to rebuild an area is recognizing the socially significant and important institutions and working through them, often which are a place of religious worship.

Saying that such places are rich is a bad generalization.  A poor area is not going to have a rich center of worship.  There are exceptions as in all things, but typically an impoverished area is likewise having an impoverished house of worship.  Also, does a person’s wealth truly matter when a disaster comes?  Do rich people not require assist when their homes are taken away or their belonging stripped of them?  Simply because someone is or was rich does not mean they are immune to the wrath of a disaster.  The government gives plenty of money to corporations (which pay little to almost no taxes) to help them rebuild operations and restore employment to the community.

As for stain glass windows and such, that is up to the leader of that house of worship just as the use of government assistance if up to the recipient in all other cases.  A home owner can decide to spend all that money on a new movie theatre for their home rather than fixing their roof.  If a house of worship would rather a shiny set of stain glass windows than a roof, then let them suffer the consequences.

[vtboy]

My premise is that a community in distress needs to have the pillars and centers of that community restored.  Often times, particularly for urban minorities, that center is a local place of worship or religious run community center.  Such structures and places of worship provide a place of assistance for those groups, a center for organization of various civic leaders and a place of solace for those families.  Communities congregate there and so having those places rebuilt is an important part of that community continuing to go forward.  Denying that center funds simply because of being religious likewise denies the community an important step to recovery.  Part of any attempt to rebuild an area is recognizing the socially significant and important institutions and working through them, often which are a place of religious worship.

Saying that such places are rich is a bad generalization.  A poor area is not going to have a rich center of worship.  There are exceptions as in all things, but typically an impoverished area is likewise having an impoverished house of worship.  Also, does a person’s wealth truly matter when a disaster comes?  Do rich people not require assist when their homes are taken away or their belonging stripped of them?  Simply because someone is or was rich does not mean they are immune to the wrath of a disaster.  The government gives plenty of money to corporations (which pay little to almost no taxes) to help them rebuild operations and restore employment to the community.

As for stain glass windows and such, that is up to the leader of that house of worship just as the use of government assistance if up to the recipient in all other cases.  A home owner can decide to spend all that money on a new movie theatre for their home rather than fixing their roof.  If a house of worship would rather a shiny set of stain glass windows than a roof, then let them suffer the consequences.

Let's imagine two small towns, A and B, in both of which the majority of residents are members of the Great Turtle religion. The towns are substantially identical in every other significant respect, except the following: town A's Great Turtlites have a church which, in times of disaster (fires, storms, blackouts, etc.) has opened its doors to neighbors in need of shelter; the B Turtlites have no church, but plan to build one, and, like their brethren in A, would use it to shelter neighbors in times of distress. Unfortunately, the faithful in town B do not have the funds to realize their aspiration.

An earthquake strikes, demolishing town A's Great Turtle church. The cost of rebuilding exceeds the financial capacity of town A's faithful. Now neither congregation has a church and neither has any hope (absent divine intervention) of constructing one without taxpayer assistance. The Great Turtlites of both towns petition the government for construction funds.

I think there can be little controversy that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment bars government from building a house of worship for the B Turtlites. I don't see how the A Turtlites stand in a materially distinguishable position. Like those in town A, they have no house of worship and are asking the government to give them one. What am I missing?   

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Government aide goes to rebuild, not build anew.  This would be similar to making an argument that a property owner who had no house on their land is petitioning the government for aide to build one after a storm.  The government program is already setup to evaluate damage, not what the person wanted to be there.  If a congregation wants to setup a new Church then the funds they were saving and are untouched by the disaster would go there.  If they decided to spend the money elsewhere then that is their prerogative.  The church though was not an integral part of the community as say the other group, where a long standing church was there providing a service.  This makes the already established church part of the community and a seemingly important part if they provide community services.  Thereby re-establishment of a community would involve that structure, not so with the other.

[Caehlim]

I'm conflicted.

These churches would often be important to the members of the community and to leave them destroyed seems heartless.

Yet at the same time I'm not sure if it's the government's role or even appropriate for them to be funding their rebuilding.

It's a difficult choice and I'm not decided.

[Oniya]

Alternatively, I would point out that the government funds going to non-religious institutions would leave more available funds for construction/reconstruction of religious buildings in the hands of the populace.  If I'm not having to pay out money to rebuild my home, I would be able to contribute my unspent money to rebuilding the church - assuming that the church was important to me.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

That is not necessarily true though.  If government funds did not go to rebuild a religious institution that perhaps provided free after school programs for the young, tutoring programs, daycare services, soup kitchens and the like then the populace must now take their funds to provide their own services.  Whereas if the government had helped rebuild that religious center which already had an infrastructure to support such services, the populace has more money.

[Ephiral]

That is not necessarily true though.  If government funds did not go to rebuild a religious institution that perhaps provided free after school programs for the young, tutoring programs, daycare services, soup kitchens and the like then the populace must now take their funds to provide their own services.  Whereas if the government had helped rebuild that religious center which already had an infrastructure to support such services, the populace has more money.

...or the government could just provide those services, without the extra overhead of running a religious institution on top, and suddenly there's more money to go around for everyone. Just a thought.

[Kythia]

...or the government could just provide those services, without the extra overhead of running a religious institution on top, and suddenly there's more money to go around for everyone. Just a thought.

I suspect overheads would work the other way round - that is, it'd be cheaper to give money to the religious institution and use their infrastructure, staff, etc etc etc rather than create that afresh.  If the choice is "build and staff brand new soup kitchen" or "use existing venue" then it'd be strange if the former was cheaper.

[Ephiral]

I suspect overheads would work the other way round - that is, it'd be cheaper to give money to the religious institution and use their infrastructure, staff, etc etc etc rather than create that afresh.  If the choice is "build and staff brand new soup kitchen" or "use existing venue" then it'd be strange if the former was cheaper.

If that were the choice, you'd be correct. But we're talking about places in which that infrastructure has been destroyed - the entire pro argument, as I see it, is "If the government doesn't supply funds to rebuild, people will be without these services."

[Rhapsody]

Saying that such places are rich is a bad generalization.  A poor area is not going to have a rich center of worship.  There are exceptions as in all things, but typically an impoverished area is likewise having an impoverished house of worship.  Also, does a person’s wealth truly matter when a disaster comes?  Do rich people not require assist when their homes are taken away or their belonging stripped of them?  Simply because someone is or was rich does not mean they are immune to the wrath of a disaster.  The government gives plenty of money to corporations (which pay little to almost no taxes) to help them rebuild operations and restore employment to the community.

I didn't say the individual churches are rich. In fact, I specifically said "Perhaps not the individual churches", though some of them certainly take in more than their fair share of the tithes. What I said was that their power structure was wealthy, and that their first recourse should be apply to that power structure (like the Vatican, which is ridiculously wealthy, which comes in a large part from international donations IE: the congregations) for relief.

[vtboy]

Government aide goes to rebuild, not build anew.  This would be similar to making an argument that a property owner who had no house on their land is petitioning the government for aide to build one after a storm.  The government program is already setup to evaluate damage, not what the person wanted to be there.  If a congregation wants to setup a new Church then the funds they were saving and are untouched by the disaster would go there.  If they decided to spend the money elsewhere then that is their prerogative.  The church though was not an integral part of the community as say the other group, where a long standing church was there providing a service.  This makes the already established church part of the community and a seemingly important part if they provide community services.  Thereby re-establishment of a community would involve that structure, not so with the other.

There is no constitutional prohibition to government's funding construction projects, whether to rebuild a damaged structure or to build a new one, as long as the project would not violate a constitutionally protected right or otherwise exceed the government's constitutionally limited powers. Without offense to the constitution, the government could, for example, give people money, either to rebuild homes lost to some catastrophe or to build first homes. Similarly, there is no constitutional proscription against the government funding municipal projects designed to provide services to communities in times of hardship.   

The government's doling out of funds to build or to rebuild churches is quite another matter, however. The First Amendment bars the government from acting for the purpose of either supporting or burdening religion. It does not distinguish between churches which have become "an integral part of the community" and those which have not. In fact, were the government to prefer established churches over new ones in the distribution of funds, a compelling argument could be made that, by favoring one congregation or sect over another, its action would violate the Free Exercise Clause, as well as the Establishment Clause.   

The reason the government cannot fund the construction of a church for the B Turtlites is not that the church would be a new structure, but that such support would violate the First Amendment. In this respect, government's funding the reconstruction of the A Turtlites' church would be every bit as constitutionally offensive as its giving money to the B Turtlites to build anew. 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Rhapsody, you are assuming a Catholic Church for the most part.  Protestant churches tend to be highly individualized.  Also there are temples, Jewish synagogues, mosques and so on that do not have access to such a structure as the Vatican.  Still, even then a lot of Catholic Churches are still left to their own devices and must do their own fund raising.

Infrastructure is not just a physical locality Ephiral.  Infrastructure is also staff, planning, design and the method of implementation.  Already having run a certain setup or service before means that running that service again will be faster and cheaper than having to start from scratch.  The government, as been seen in the past, also has little interest in running many of these types of programs.

Nothing does prevent the government from constructing new buildings, but that is not how disaster relief works.  Disaster relief works by the government coming into an area hit by a storm, seeing the damage, assessing the cost of the damage and writing checks to repair what was there.  They do not build what wasn’t there.  The government does not build someone a house when they did not have one.  Just as they would not build a church that wasn’t there.

[vtboy]

Nothing does prevent the government from constructing new buildings, but that is not how disaster relief works.  Disaster relief works by the government coming into an area hit by a storm, seeing the damage, assessing the cost of the damage and writing checks to repair what was there.  They do not build what wasn’t there.  The government does not build someone a house when they did not have one.  Just as they would not build a church that wasn’t there.

That government will not build a house for someone who did not have one, does not mean it is prohibited from building the house. It is, however, prohibited by the First Amendment from either building or rebuilding a church.

[Rhapsody]

Rhapsody, you are assuming a Catholic Church for the most part.  Protestant churches tend to be highly individualized.  Also there are temples, Jewish synagogues, mosques and so on that do not have access to such a structure as the Vatican.  Still, even then a lot of Catholic Churches are still left to their own devices and must do their own fund raising.

Infrastructure is not just a physical locality Ephiral.  Infrastructure is also staff, planning, design and the method of implementation.  Already having run a certain setup or service before means that running that service again will be faster and cheaper than having to start from scratch.  The government, as been seen in the past, also has little interest in running many of these types of programs.

Nothing does prevent the government from constructing new buildings, but that is not how disaster relief works.  Disaster relief works by the government coming into an area hit by a storm, seeing the damage, assessing the cost of the damage and writing checks to repair what was there.  They do not build what wasn’t there.  The government does not build someone a house when they did not have one.  Just as they would not build a church that wasn’t there.

You are persisting in not fully reading my comments.

Most of those churches are also pretty wealthy in their own right. Perhaps not the individual churches, but the Vatican isn't exactly hurting, and it's my guess that Islam and Judaism have similar tithing practices. Local churches might be hurting, but their first recourse should be to apply for relief from their own power structure.

I have the same problem with the government handing out money to churches that I did with Anne Romney's dancing horse getting a free ticket to London last year: if they can afford it themselves without even so much as blinking, the taxpayers should not be responsible for it.

I bolded it for you.

And some further, cursory research indicates that synagogues have yearly membership fees, and Islam has a Pillar called "Zakāt" (or "alms giving"). So practices of tithing to charity and religious houses seems to be a common theme. This are tax-free donations and, as Christianity, Islam and Judaism have old, well-established structures, I'm almost positive there's a collection of wealth trickling upwards. 

[Kythia]

You are persisting in not fully reading my comments.

I bolded it for you.

In fairness, you bolded PART of your comment.  Here, I've bolded the rest of it for you

and it's my guess that Islam and Judaism have similar tithing practices.

I'm not sure its fair to criticise her for overlooking that bit.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." – First Ammendment

The clause does not say that government will not help religious institutions struck by disaster.  Governmental agencies would simply be giving money to another business applying for government assistance.  Which considering most of said assistance is actually comprised of SBA loans, this becomes even less of an issue.


Yes Rhapsody, I read your comment and once more put forward that communities with money will have houses of worship with money.  Poor communities, more devastatingly struck, will have impoverished houses of worship.  Once more you are trying to bring up a great conspiracy of money hiding somewhere that may or may not exist.  If the government of the United States has difficulty recovering from a disaster such as Hurricane Sandy, then somehow I doubt the smaller organization of the churches will fare better.

[TaintedAndDelish]

OK, so I build a religious temple in YOUR town called, "The First Church Of Lucifer". We teach that Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists are cancerous to mankind, and that through enlightenment, persuasion, and if needed, force, they *must* be converted to our faith.  I teach that members should aggressively preach and convert people in public, knock on their doors and hand out brochures even after being told to stay away. I also teach that only those who are bisexual cross dressers will be *saved* - the rest of society is Satan's scum and will burn for an eternity in a smelly lake of brimstone and fire.

Years later, hurricane sandy hits.. or something nasty like that and my glorious temple is blown down.

Should I not be entitled to some FIMA money to rebuild? After all, my organization provides public services, we offer free schooling and childcare to anyone who will attend. We offer free, blessed food to anyone who enters our temple. ( our meat is first offered up to demons, but doing so is harmless. ) Oh, did I forget to mention that we are tax exempt because we are a religion?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Yes actually.  I am guessing you had hoped to shock me into another answer, but I would contend that yes the house of worship should be rebuilt if they are providing public services to the community and as such are important to the community.  In this way the community is aided by the presence of this house of worship and provide an important role that should be re-established in order for the community to be rebuilt.

[TaintedAndDelish]

I would agree with you to a marginal degree only if this mock church paid taxes and if the payout was proportional to what they contributed in tax revenue and what they contributed to society. There is a big difference between a non-religious non profit organization and a tax exempt religious group.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Not in their serivce to the community and importance as a social institution in regard to the structure of that community, there is no difference.  Punishing a community for having a social institution that performs a great service and assists them but also happens to be religious rings of being spiteful and harmful.  As I have pointed out, most aide from FEMA is already tied up in a SBA loan so the church would simply be applying for a loan like every other buisness. 

[TaintedAndDelish]

Not in their serivce to the community and importance as a social institution in regard to the structure of that community, there is no difference.  Punishing a community for having a social institution that performs a great service and assists them but also happens to be religious rings of being spiteful and harmful.  As I have pointed out, most aide from FEMA is already tied up in a SBA loan so the church would simply be applying for a loan like every other buisness.

My issue has more to do with them being tax exempt and being in favor of a subset of the population. If they paid taxes and did not favor people of a given religion, then I would be much more inclined to offer a measured portion of tax payer's money to help them rebuild.

As a tax payer, I do not want my tax payments going into the pockets of a group that caters only to their own. To a group that would exclude me based on religion.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So far as I am aware the services offered by most such institutions do not require membership in their groups or involvement in their activities.  One may have to listen to them preach their philosophies or faith while eating a hot meal, but if you take up a company on their charitable offer then you will have to sit through their expounding on their own greatness.

Now I would be in agreement that maybe such non-tax paying institutions should be ineligible for grants, but I would contest that the loan portion should be availble to them as this does not hurt the tax payer base any and still supports the community.

[vtboy]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." – First Ammendment

The clause does not say that government will not help religious institutions struck by disaster.  Governmental agencies would simply be giving money to another business applying for government assistance.  Which considering most of said assistance is actually comprised of SBA loans, this becomes even less of an issue.

Are you serious about this?

Religion is not "another business." The Establishment and Free Exercise clauses were added to the Constitution precisely because religion, as history attests, is different from other enterprises. Nor does the absence of a specific proscription in the First Amendment against handing out disaster relief funds to religious institutions suggest that this form of government subsidization of religion is beyond its reach. The framers of the Amendment, recognizing their inability to foresee all possible variants of the mischief they were attempting to avoid, crafted a prohibition of general application. The First Amendment does not, for example, explicitly proscribe prayer and the teaching of intelligent design in public school, religious displays on public property, or government funding of religious activities. Yet, all of these have been held to run afoul of its proscription. As Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), put it:

"The language of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment is, at best, opaque, particularly when compared with other portions of the Amendment. Its authors did not simply prohibit the establishment of a state church or a state religion, an area history shows they regarded as very important and fraught with great dangers. Instead, they commanded that there should be "no law respecting an establishment of religion." A law may be one "respecting" the forbidden objective while falling short of its total realization. A law "respecting" the proscribed result, that is, the establishment of religion, is not always easily identifiable as one violative of the Clause. A given law might not establish a state religion, but nevertheless be one "respecting" that end in the sense of being a step that could lead to such establishment, and hence offend the First Amendment.

"In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: 'sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.' Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U. S. 664, 397 U. S. 668 (1970)" (emphasis added).

I can imagine no clearer example of sovereign sponsorship of, and support for, religion than the doling out government funds to rebuild a church, where some sect's dogma will be proclaimed, its members will pray, and its holidays will be celebrated. Further, government funding, which generally comes with regulation and oversight, at the very least raises the specter of active government involvement in religious affairs. 

Finally, before you try to tell me that some churches, in addition to spreading their own peculiar brands of nonsense, provide useful, nonsectarian services to their communities, please read Lemon v. Kurtzman (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/602/case.html). At issue there were Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statues under which public funds were used to support private schools, most of which were religiously affiliated. Notwithstanding explicit statutory provisions designed to limit subsidization to strictly secular educational purposes and to avoid the funding of frankly religious activities (e.g., religion classes), the Supreme Court found the laws fostered an excessive entanglement of government in religion, and struck them down as offensive to the First Amendment.

Let churches buy hazard insurance. They have no claim on secular tax dollars.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

My first point is to state that during this discussion I have been polite to all participants and have not made use of commentary that ridicules or belittles my opponents’ arguments.  I have made every effort to remain polite and considerate to all parties.  I would ask for the same in return vtboy and warn you that asking if my argument is serious certainly borders on disrespectful.  I do not believe that I have ever given any indication that my arguments are not thought out and reasonable in purpose and at least supported enough to substantiate an actual argument.  If you choose to make this debate something personal or engage in belittling tactics then I will simply call an end to my participation.  I ask only for the same courtesy I have shown and ask only for the respect I am willing to give.

My second point is that the case of Lemon v Kurtzman was not judged based on neutrality or religious intent, but rather entanglement of the government with a religious institution.  Chief Justice Burger notes on several occasions within the brief that the law being considered makes allowances for government oversight and intervention in the disbursement of the funds to the parochial schools.  This oversight is meant to ensure that the funds are appropriated for secular teaching (including teacher salaries, textbooks and materials).  Chief Justice Burger points toward the religious markings, activities and purpose of a parochial school as evidence that such intervention would be required to ensure proper distribution of funds.  That the government would then have to take action to oversee and be witness to private church documents.  Please note the actual reason and law he used to uphold this decision.

“Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion.” Pp. 403 U. S. 611-625.

Chief Justice Burger further go on to elaborate on criterion used in the past by the Supreme Court in regard to public funds used in regard to religious institutions.  This also invalidates your final statement of religious institutions having no access to secular tax dollars. 

“Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 392 U. S. 243 (1968);
Page 403 U. S. 613
finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 397 U. S. 674.

The problem with this particular legislation as Chief Justice Burger points out is the final point.

Circuit Court Judge Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handled a case similar to the one we are currently discussing where city and state funds were used to help rebuild works owned and operated by religious institutions.  As part of a program to reinvigorate the neighborhoods around several new public works, grants were being distributed to property owners and businesses to assist in their rebuilding and maintenance.  Nine of those grants went toward areas owned and operated by religious organizations.

““Everyone agrees that the program allocates benefits to a broad spectrum of entities on a neutral basis, as the City awards grants without regard to the religious, non-religious or a religious nature of the entity. The facial neutrality of the program, everyone also agrees,
does not mask an intent to advance religion: Detroit sought to fix up its downtown, not to
establish a religion. And as will generally be the case when a governmental program
allocates generally available benefits on a neutral basis and without a hidden agenda, this
program does not have the impermissible effect of advancing religion in general or any one
faith in particular. By endorsing all qualifying applicants, the program has endorsed none
of them, and accordingly it has not run afoul of the federal or state religion clauses.”

Circuit Court Judge Sutton also makes a point of noting various other state funded protection and programs offered to religious institutions.

“A comparison to other permitted benefits proves the point. A city may extend sewers
and sidewalks to churches, synagogues and mosques. See Everson, 330 U.S. at 17–18. It
may provide police and fire-protection services to them. See id. And it may extend
property-tax exemptions for charitable organizations to them. See Walz, 397 U.S. at 680.
All of these generally available benefits facilitate the operation of the religious institution,
either by saving them money directly or by sparing them the expense of providing the
services on their own, and in the process they make it more likely that newcomers will attend
their religious services. Yet the Court has long approved the extension of these general
government benefits to religious entities. The same is true of school-bus services, books and
school technology offered to religious schools, even though the assistance facilitates the
religious and secular missions of the recipients. See Everson, 330 U.S. at 17–18; Allen, 392
U.S. at 238, 244–48; Mitchell, 530 U.S. at 809–14 (plurality opinion); id. at 836–37(O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). If a city may save the exterior of a church from
a fire, it is hard to understand why it cannot help that same church with peeling paint or tuckpointing—at least when it provides the same benefit to all downtown buildings on the same
terms.”

Please make note that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has previously stated ““a FEMA disaster grant is analogous to the sort of aid that qualifies as ‘general government services’ approved by the [Supreme] Court”

This shows that there is certainly legal precedent and instances allowed by the law where tax dollars are used to not only rebuild and repair religious structures, but also to enhance the services offered by religious institutions.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0188p-06.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/olc/FEMAAssistance.htm

(Please excuse the poor formatting, I got tired of fighting with the text.)

[Vanity Evolved]

Personally, I don't think so; if I were to avoid paying tax, I wouldn't be entitled to recieving aid from the government. I don't see why a church, which already benefits from not paying tax in the first place, should benefit from the money others do. Once religious groups begin paying into the system, they can feel free to claim from the system. I find it hardly fair that other people who have paid their tax will have to share their money to rebuild with one of the few groups today which don't pay tax in the first place. It's a similar issue here in England, where a large portion of taxpayer money is exclusively given to various faith schools, by law, schools which can (and very often do) exclude children based on faith. There's quite a fasinating documentary on the subject I recall watching once upon a time (I think it was by Richard Dawkins?). Heck, my own upper school ended up being funded by a Christian organization, and practically organized mandated prayer - there were mumblings that a lot of students in the school were still only there because it reflected badly to expel those who didn't associate with the faith, but considering they were taking over a previously non-faith school, a lot of students were of varying faiths or lack thereof.

In essence: Just like I don't enjoy people without jobs claiming healthcare which I'm paying in for, I don't enjoy the idea that a group of people who get to keep their tax money can also take -my- tax money to build houses of worship to ideals and morals I find disgusting.

[vtboy]

My first point is to state that during this discussion I have been polite to all participants and have not made use of commentary that ridicules or belittles my opponents’ arguments.  I have made every effort to remain polite and considerate to all parties.  I would ask for the same in return vtboy and warn you that asking if my argument is serious certainly borders on disrespectful.  I do not believe that I have ever given any indication that my arguments are not thought out and reasonable in purpose and at least supported enough to substantiate an actual argument.  If you choose to make this debate something personal or engage in belittling tactics then I will simply call an end to my participation.  I ask only for the same courtesy I have shown and ask only for the respect I am willing to give.

I was not trying to be disrespectful, only emphatic, and did not imagine you might take offense at the remark. In all candor, the idea that anyone might suggest, in the context of this discussion, that religious institutions are just "another business" was startling to me, as was your contention that the absence of language specifically referencing disaster relief programs meant they were not subject to restraint under the First Amendment's religion clauses. In any event, I regret any unintended insult you may have perceived.

My second point is that the case of Lemon v Kurtzman was not judged based on neutrality or religious intent, but rather entanglement of the government with a religious institution.  Chief Justice Burger notes on several occasions within the brief that the law being considered makes allowances for government oversight and intervention in the disbursement of the funds to the parochial schools.  This oversight is meant to ensure that the funds are appropriated for secular teaching (including teacher salaries, textbooks and materials).  Chief Justice Burger points toward the religious markings, activities and purpose of a parochial school as evidence that such intervention would be required to ensure proper distribution of funds.  That the government would then have to take action to oversee and be witness to private church documents.  Please note the actual reason and law he used to uphold this decision.

“Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion.” Pp. 403 U. S. 611-625.

Chief Justice Burger further go on to elaborate on criterion used in the past by the Supreme Court in regard to public funds used in regard to religious institutions.  This also invalidates your final statement of religious institutions having no access to secular tax dollars. 

“Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 392 U. S. 243 (1968);
Page 403 U. S. 613
finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 397 U. S. 674.

The problem with this particular legislation as Chief Justice Burger points out is the final point.

The final paragraph of the foregoing passage, which has since been denominated the "Lemon Test," sets forth three hurdles government action affecting religion must clear to avoid violation of the First Amendment: (i) the action must have a secular purpose; (ii) its primary effect must neither to advance nor to inhibit religion; and (iii) the action must not embroil the government excessively in the affairs of religion. Government action which fails to surmount any one of these obstacles is unconstitutional. The scenario we have been discussing -- use of government funds to replace a church which has been destroyed -- trips over all three.

First, while the purposes behind the creation of FEMA and the allocation of funds for disaster relief are undoubtedly secular, a particular decision by FEMA to supply funds to reconstruct a church manifestly is not. Church buildings exist to promote religious activity. The objective in subsidizing the construction of a fixture so central to religious observance and activity can only be presumed the support of religion.

Second, even assuming for argument's sake FEMA's purpose in rebuilding the church were entirely secular, the primary effect of reconstruction would necessarily be the advancement of religious practice. Again, the central and fundamental functions of church buildings in religious ritual, teaching and proselytizing cannot be ignored. To suggest that the primary effect of constructing a church would be something other than fostering these activities is to disregard reality.

Third, to the extent the church's claimed provision of nonsectarian services to the community were offered as justification for government financing of reconstruction, as you have suggested, FEMA would necessarily need to undertake the same sort of inquiry into those services (e.g., are they truly nonsectarian? are they important to the community?) and the same sort of oversight of use of the public's funds which so concerned Chief Justice Burger in Lemon.

Circuit Court Judge Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handled a case similar to the one we are currently discussing where city and state funds were used to help rebuild works owned and operated by religious institutions.  As part of a program to reinvigorate the neighborhoods around several new public works, grants were being distributed to property owners and businesses to assist in their rebuilding and maintenance.  Nine of those grants went toward areas owned and operated by religious organizations.

““Everyone agrees that the program allocates benefits to a broad spectrum of entities on a neutral basis, as the City awards grants without regard to the religious, non-religious or a religious nature of the entity. The facial neutrality of the program, everyone also agrees,
does not mask an intent to advance religion: Detroit sought to fix up its downtown, not to
establish a religion. And as will generally be the case when a governmental program
allocates generally available benefits on a neutral basis and without a hidden agenda, this
program does not have the impermissible effect of advancing religion in general or any one
faith in particular. By endorsing all qualifying applicants, the program has endorsed none
of them, and accordingly it has not run afoul of the federal or state religion clauses.”

Circuit Court Judge Sutton also makes a point of noting various other state funded protection and programs offered to religious institutions.

“A comparison to other permitted benefits proves the point. A city may extend sewers
and sidewalks to churches, synagogues and mosques. See Everson, 330 U.S. at 17–18. It
may provide police and fire-protection services to them. See id. And it may extend
property-tax exemptions for charitable organizations to them. See Waltz, 397 U.S. at 680.
All of these generally available benefits facilitate the operation of the religious institution,
either by saving them money directly or by sparing them the expense of providing the
services on their own, and in the process they make it more likely that newcomers will attend
their religious services. Yet the Court has long approved the extension of these general
government benefits to religious entities. The same is true of school-bus services, books and
school technology offered to religious schools, even though the assistance facilitates the
religious and secular missions of the recipients. See Everson, 330 U.S. at 17–18; Allen, 392
U.S. at 238, 244–48; Mitchell, 530 U.S. at 809–14 (plurality opinion); id. at 836–37(O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). If a city may save the exterior of a church from
a fire, it is hard to understand why it cannot help that same church with peeling paint or tuckpointing—at least when it provides the same benefit to all downtown buildings on the same
terms.”

The Sixth Circuit case you quoted -- Amerian Atheists, Inc. v. City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority -- involved uses of government funds which are readily and materially distinguishable from what we have been discussing. The case is thus not relevant to the question at hand.

To begin with, your statement that the municipal funds at issue in American Atheists were available for "rebuilding" is misleading. The government program in American Atheists provided partial reimbursement of funds spent in giving facelifts to buildings in blighted downtown Detroit, including churches ("As to buildings, applicants could receive grants for “[p]ermanent physical improvements” to “building facades generally visible from a public right-of-way,” ... such as renovations to storefront windows, exterior-lighting fixtures, masonry, brickwork, awnings, shutters, exterior doors, windows and signs"). In contrast, we have been discussing a scenario under which the government supplies money to construct a home for religious activity where none exists. The church buildings in American Atheists were already there and already functioned as churches. The distinction is paramount, as the grants in American Atheists did not create physical facilities for the performance of religious functions, whereas FEMA financing of church rebuilding would.

Please make note that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has previously stated ““a FEMA disaster grant is analogous to the sort of aid that qualifies as ‘general government services’ approved by the [Supreme] Court”

DOJ legal opinions are just that -- opinions. They lack the force of law. The one you cite was authored in 2002, during the Bush administration, which was notorious for its hostility to the separation of church and state.

[Caela]

Without reading anyone else's response to the OP's question, my initial reaction is, No. I don't think that houses of worship should receive taxpayer money while they hold tax exempt status. There are plenty of individual and businesses that actually pay into the tax system that should be given that money before organizations that haven't paid into the system at all.

And yes, this means that my basic answer would be that any tax exempt organization should be blocked from receiving gov't/taxpayer funds, though not from receiving fund made available from the variety of fundraisers and sponsors that have been earning money for relief aid.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Department of Justice opinions are the statements of recognized, vetted and credentialed members of the Department of Justice giving published statements on matters of law.  To simply disregard their opinions on matters pertaining to their field of expertise is paramount to neglecting the publications of a scientist or physician simply because their opinions are not scientific fact.  Also off handedly dismissing them because of unsubstantiated belief that the entire Department of Justice is corrupt enough to publish misleading documents and present biased opinion is a bit far.  One or two particular members I can understand, the entire Department of Justice is another matter entirely.  Obviously grounds were found, in their opinion, to substantiate use of FEMA funds to assist religious institutions. 

In the case of Detroit, you are correct that the funds are going to structures already in place.  There is little leap to go from structures standing in disrepair to structures damaged by natural causes.  If the city of Detroit can fund construction projects to make the city more slightly, there is no real reason to prevent funds from being used to restore a pre-existing building and improve the local community.  Seems odd that a city can decide to make the Church more slightly and appealing for others, but cannot ensure that the structure is safe to conduct charitable and secular projects to help the community.

As for the Lemon Test, I will address those point by point as presented.

First, basic social theory and principle give testament to the secular important of a social institution such as a religious structure or community center.  The structure provided a service to the community before and so putting the structure back to previous condition will serve a secular purpose.  The funds then will provide secular benefit to the community.

Secondly, the case presented of Lemon v Kurtzman demonstrated that a building or structure funded by a religious institution does not by virtue of its existence promote religion.  If a structure alone promoted religion then the case would have been easily dismissed along with the Detroit case.  Both judges clearly state that the structures were religious in nature and purpose, but did not make their rulings based on this finding.  FEMA has policies in place to ensure neutral disbursement of the funds so that a religion is not promoted or hindered in the process.

Third, I can only assume that you have never had dealings with FEMA.  The money give for disaster relief is based on an assessment of the damages and the stated need of the owner.  FEMA then dispenses money or makes recommendations to the SBA loan committee based on their findings.  As in the case of Detroit, no true oversight is required or needed for FEMA to conduct their business or investigation.  The case of the school, as the Chief Justice indicated, was that law in question mandated oversight of where the funds went.  FEMA has no such stipulations.

[BadForm]

Pumpkin Seeds - your argument about funding the repair appears to be based on the secular uses of the religious establishment - soup kitchens, food pantries etc. From a period in my own life a few years ago when my wife and I, though a disability, had lost virtually all income, I can tell you that at least around here only a very small percentage of the religious organizations provide these services at all. Further, where they do provide them they are for very limited times (one afternoon a week etc). Could you indicate whether you feel a religious organization would have to prove they provide such services in order to be rebuilt, and further how much time they must invest in providing such services to meet the criterion?

[Sabby]

If I may be so bold...

Want the benefits of paying taxes? Pay taxes.

[vtboy]

Department of Justice opinions are the statements of recognized, vetted and credentialed members of the Department of Justice giving published statements on matters of law.  To simply disregard their opinions on matters pertaining to their field of expertise is paramount to neglecting the publications of a scientist or physician simply because their opinions are not scientific fact.  Also off handedly dismissing them because of unsubstantiated belief that the entire Department of Justice is corrupt enough to publish misleading documents and present biased opinion is a bit far.  One or two particular members I can understand, the entire Department of Justice is another matter entirely.  Obviously grounds were found, in their opinion, to substantiate use of FEMA funds to assist religious institutions. 

In our legal system, laws mean what judges say they mean. The legal opinions of judges are law. The opinions of others are not. Period.

The authors of DOJ opinions are lawyers, not judges. Just as lawyers in other corners of the profession advocate legal positions beneficial to their clients, DOJ lawyers urge views of the law which favor the policy choices of their client, the executive administration. When presidents change, the DOJ may abandon previous opinions and adopt different ones which are more consistent with the policy preferences of the new administration. This happened, for example, in 2009, when the DOJ withdrew at least five Bush era opinions endorsing the use of aggressive interrogation techniques on alleged terrorist detainees. In this respect, DOJ opinions are not at all analogous to professional papers published by scientists, since bias may legitimately influence the former but not the latter (indeed, I do not believe the term "opinion" is commonly used to describe publications in scientific and medical journals).

Since the Bush administration was singular among recent administrations in both its willingness to provide material support to religious organizations (e.g., Faith Based Initiatives Program) and its receptiveness to the influence of religion on public policy (e.g., reduction in federal funding for family planning services, curtailment of funding for research on newly created embryonic stem cells, support for sexual abstinence programs, advocacy for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, etc.), it is hardly surprising that the DOJ opinion you cited, written during the Bush years, advocated a restrictive construction of the Establishment Clause. 

Though DOJ opinions are properly viewed in political context, there is nothing in what I wrote that might rationally be understood as accusing the DOJ of corruption for constructing arguments which promote the policy preferences of the administration it serves. Your suggestion to the contrary betrays either a lack of comprehension or intellectual dishonesty.

The major failing of the DOJ opinion, in my view, is its likening of a specific FEMA grant for the reconstruction of a building to be used for religious purposes to  the provision of "general government services," like police and fire protection, which benefit all or a broad segment of a given population and, only incidentally, the religious groups it includes. As I have previously pointed out, the primary effect of government's funding the construction of a church is to promote religion by creating a facility for its practice, a frank violation of at least the second prong of the Lemon test. The same cannot be said of police protection or sanitation services. The error in the DOJ's analysis flows from its focus on the facial neutrality of the law under which FEMA grants are made, rather than on whether the specific use of FEMA funds in issue would principally further religious practice.

In the case of Detroit, you are correct that the funds are going to structures already in place.  There is little leap to go from structures standing in disrepair to structures damaged by natural causes.  If the city of Detroit can fund construction projects to make the city more slightly, there is no real reason to prevent funds from being used to restore a pre-existing building and improve the local community.  Seems odd that a city can decide to make the Church more slightly and appealing for others, but cannot ensure that the structure is safe to conduct charitable and secular projects to help the community.

To the contrary, the "leap" is a great one, since it involves government in the support of religious function. A church with peeling paint or grimy stonework still functions as a church. A church knocked down by some natural disaster cannot. When the government funds the replacement of a church building which has been destroyed, its aid directly facilitates religious function.   

As for the Lemon Test, I will address those point by point as presented.

First, basic social theory and principle give testament to the secular important of a social institution such as a religious structure or community center.  The structure provided a service to the community before and so putting the structure back to previous condition will serve a secular purpose.  The funds then will provide secular benefit to the community.

I have no idea what you mean by "social theory and principle," but doubt they have ever been hallmarks of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Assuming that, by "community center", you are referring to something operated by a municipality or other secular institution, your lumping it together with a "religious structure" obscures the critical distinction that the former serve secular purposes while the latter serve primarily, if not exclusively, religious ones. In any event, the Supreme Court has already rejected notion that government may fund the construction of buildings for religious use if they are also used to provide some amount of nonsectarian service. See, e.g., Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971) (holding unconstitutional portions of a law which would have permitted religious use of buildings constructed with government funds after 20 years of solely secular use). The operative principle is that government cannot finance the construction of buildings used either in part or in whole for religious purposes.   

Secondly, the case presented of Lemon v Kurtzman demonstrated that a building or structure funded by a religious institution does not by virtue of its existence promote religion.  If a structure alone promoted religion then the case would have been easily dismissed along with the Detroit case.  Both judges clearly state that the structures were religious in nature and purpose, but did not make their rulings based on this finding.  FEMA has policies in place to ensure neutral disbursement of the funds so that a religion is not promoted or hindered in the process.

Yes, the existence of a building funded by a religious institution does not necessarily promote religion. But, what does this have to do with the price of beans? A building which exists to house religious functions, like a church, obviously does promote religion. Once again, the question under the second prong of the Lemon test, which you seem strenuously to be avoiding, is whether government's financing of the building of a church -- a building which will be used for preaching, prayer, and biblical brainwashing of the young -- will promote religion. It is sheer casuistry to contend that it would not. 

Third, I can only assume that you have never had dealings with FEMA.  The money give for disaster relief is based on an assessment of the damages and the stated need of the owner.  FEMA then dispenses money or makes recommendations to the SBA loan committee based on their findings.  As in the case of Detroit, no true oversight is required or needed for FEMA to conduct their business or investigation.  The case of the school, as the Chief Justice indicated, was that law in question mandated oversight of where the funds went.  FEMA has no such stipulations.

Fortunately, I have yet to be cast upon the mercies of FEMA. However, assuming (solely for the sake of argument) that FEMA may grant funds to rebuild churches in which some secular services will be offered, FEMA (or the SBA or whatever other government agency may be involved) will obviously need to adopt and enforce rules calculated to ensure, among other things, that applicant religious organizations satisfy the prerequisite of performing some secular function and that distributed funds will be used only to rebuild and not to subsidize other activities. (The latter problem was not present in the American Atheists case, since the government program in issue did not provide funds prospectively, but instead reimbursed funds which had already spent for approved purposes). 

[Sethala]

While I'm a supporter of the first amendment and separation of church and state, I think I'm going to go against that and answer the OP's question with a "yes".  Or rather, I would answer it with a caveat: "yes, they should receive the same support that other businesses and organizations that don't pay taxes are receiving".

For me, the issue of the government giving taxpayer money to help rebuild a HoW isn't that it's religious, but rather its tax status.  I don't know what FEMA's giving to other groups, if there are any non-taxpaying groups that aren't religious in the area, and so on.  My gut reaction is that places that don't give the government money shouldn't get money from the government, but I would say it's discriminating against religion to give non-religious non-taxed groups money if the religious non-taxed groups don't get the same treatment.  As an aside, if there are any HoWs that actually pay taxes, then yes, they should get the same money other tax-paying groups are getting.

I'll also say that the money given has to be the same regardless of what religion the HoW is for, for obvious reasons.  Doing otherwise would definitely be a violation of the First Amendment.

[Kythia]

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question.  If it is, please blame my lack-of-being-american-ism.  But...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." – First Amendment

(Emphasis mine)

Does that mean states can?  I get that FEMA is federal and so it doesn't matter in this particular case.  But in the general one, can, I dunno, Utah turn round and say "This state has an established church and a portion of our money will go towards supporting it."

[Sethala]

There's actually a bit of history to it on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In short, while the original interpretation was that it only applied to federal government and not the states, later interpretation decided that yes, it applies to state governments too.

[Hades]

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question.  If it is, please blame my lack-of-being-american-ism.  But...

(Emphasis mine)

Does that mean states can?  I get that FEMA is federal and so it doesn't matter in this particular case.  But in the general one, can, I dunno, Utah turn round and say "This state has an established church and a portion of our money will go towards supporting it."

It used to be argued that the states were free to endorse/deny certain religions because the Constitution only addressed the federal government's prohibition.  In fact, several of the states that were formed prior to the Civil War included in their state constitutions a clause that said only Christians could hold public office (and some states included provisions that only certain denominations of Christianity could do so).  However, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and that is where the Equal Protection clause and Due Process clause comes from, that said that the Constitution applies to the states just as much as it does the federal government.

[Bandita]

Giving a place of worship money to rebuild after a natural disaster isn't supporting said religion.  It's giving them the help that everybody else is getting.  If all places of faith are getting the same assistance, that is not one faith being favored over another.  The government can't favor or discriminate against religion.  The way I see it, not helping them just because they are faith based is discrimination.

And there are some of us who are not religious who would argue that if they help fund 'all places of faith' but don't give to any atheist or agnostic associations, and in fact allow religious groups to intimidate them and force their groups out of neighborhoods, and deface their billboards etc.., then some of us would argue that they are, in fact, supporting religion. 

Another piece of thought:  if the government funds two temples, a mosque, a quaker meeting house, and seventy three churches, is that really fair? It seems more like "establishing a religion."  My point is that they a bunch of organizations who don't pay taxes, there are better places to give money, such as temporary shelters, rebuilding schools, or, just a crazy thought.....

Build some better freaking subways.  Prevent the shutdown from happening again.  Wouldn't prevention of another disaster be far far better than giving money to churches?

*signed: Bitter that my old priest drove a bmw.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Perhaps the coffers of religious organizations should be taken by the government and used to rebuild homes, abortion clinics, fund wars, or whatever else uncle Sam might deem appropriate. Does that sound fair or does it sound more like theft? Or are religions somehow special and worthy of preferential treatment?

[Sethala]

And there are some of us who are not religious who would argue that if they help fund 'all places of faith' but don't give to any atheist or agnostic associations,

I completely agree, but I also agree with the inverse: that if the government is giving to atheist and agnostic groups, they should also give to places of faith.  Now I admit, I don't know what places are eligible for funds or what kind of criteria has to be met, but if there are other places in those areas that are tax exempt and still getting government money to help with damages, then churches (and the like; when I say "churches" it refers to all places of worship) should be eligible to receive the same money.  (Now, if every tax-exempt organization in the area isn't getting government money, then I agree that churches shouldn't either; I haven't looked into the actual situation much, to be honest.)

and in fact allow religious groups to intimidate them and force their groups out of neighborhoods, and deface their billboards etc.., then some of us would argue that they are, in fact, supporting religion.

While I agree that such acts are heinous, it doesn't seem fair to lump them all into the same group because of a few bad apples.

Another piece of thought:  if the government funds two temples, a mosque, a quaker meeting house, and seventy three churches, is that really fair? It seems more like "establishing a religion."  My point is that they a bunch of organizations who don't pay taxes, there are better places to give money, such as temporary shelters, rebuilding schools, or, just a crazy thought.....

And giving money to those other places and not the religious buildings would be discrimination, as far as I'm concerned.  As far as the number of buildings that get money, it depends on why they got them.  If those were all of the groups that qualified for the funds, then yes, I say it's fair, even if there's more of one type than another, because that's what the city has.  If the city, however, had two dozen mosques and only one of them got money, while every single church in the city got money, and there wasn't a legitimate reason for the rest of the mosques to not get anything, I agree that it's discriminating against one group.

Build some better freaking subways.  Prevent the shutdown from happening again.  Wouldn't prevention of another disaster be far far better than giving money to churches?

*signed: Bitter that my old priest drove a bmw.

Probably a better way to spend that money, yes, but in that case I'd say pull it evenly from all of the groups eligible to get money otherwise, not just from the churches.  Again, it's discrimination to say that they don't get money just because they're religious.  (Saying they don't get money because they don't pay taxes, on the other hand, is perfectly alright so long as that criteria applies to all groups.)

[Vanity Evolved]

And there are some of us who are not religious who would argue that if they help fund 'all places of faith' but don't give to any atheist or agnostic associations, and in fact allow religious groups to intimidate them and force their groups out of neighborhoods, and deface their billboards etc.., then some of us would argue that they are, in fact, supporting religion. 

This one is a bit more awkward, for me; if you're talking about (or so I've heard) a trend of Atheist churchs - now, if those Atheist churchs count as a religion for the purposes of tax exemption and are forced to raise their own funds? Then absolutely. However, if these churches pay tax? Then no, they are entitled to their tax dollars in rebuilding.

Where it gets awkward is the fact that if a building isn't religious, it is Atheist; a hospital doesn't push a religious agenda, so it is giving to an 'atheist group'. It's the awkwardness of the Atheist label; if you treat it as a religion, which it isn't, then you wind up with lots of crazy things popping up, like 'We should fund rebuilding of shops, because these shops are atheist', if I'm making any sense.

[vtboy]

This one is a bit more awkward, for me; if you're talking about (or so I've heard) a trend of Atheist churchs - now, if those Atheist churchs count as a religion for the purposes of tax exemption and are forced to raise their own funds? Then absolutely. However, if these churches pay tax? Then no, they are entitled to their tax dollars in rebuilding.

Where it gets awkward is the fact that if a building isn't religious, it is Atheist; a hospital doesn't push a religious agenda, so it is giving to an 'atheist group'. It's the awkwardness of the Atheist label; if you treat it as a religion, which it isn't, then you wind up with lots of crazy things popping up, like 'We should fund rebuilding of shops, because these shops are atheist', if I'm making any sense.

There is a difference between an organization or association whose mission or practice it is to promote the view that there is no god, and one, like a barber shop or a not-for-profit trust for medical research, to which views about the existence of god are entirely irrelevant. The former should be treated by government the same way religions are treated. The latter should not.

[Vanity Evolved]

There is a difference between an organization or association whose mission or practice it is to promote the view that there is no god, and one, like a barber shop or a not-for-profit trust for medical research, to which views about the existence of god are entirely irrelevant. The former should be treated by government the same way religions are treated. The latter should not.

Mm. Admittedly, I did word my post badly, on looking at it again; I should have added 'secular' in there. If someone creates the Richard Dawkin's <3 Society, I completely expect them to recieve funding, unlike churches - unless they get to claim tax exemption status, also.