Politics is full of fear-mongering. Be it the fall of American Democracy if an anti-abortionist Supreme Court judge should be confirmed or the government's role is blowing up New Orleans levees, the game is scare those people then ally yourself with your scared constituency: "I won't let this happen, I will fight for you!"
One of my favorite topics of apocolyptic, slipper-slope harbingers of doom regards the relation of the church to government. While the phrase 'seperation of church and state' neither appears in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution, the idea can be found in the first phrase of the Bill of Rights. It states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof;
The fearmongers, or their plausably deniable hatchet 'think-tank public policy' groups (MoveOn, Americans United For the Seperation of Church and State), are at it again in response to the government's latest decision regarding hurricane assistance. On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that FEMA has decided to begin reimbursing "churches and other religious organizations" for expenses incurred while assisting in the relief efforts of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This decision would "mark the first time that the government has made large-scale payments to religious groups for helping to cope with a domestic natural disaster."
Understandably, many have taken issue with FEMA's decision claiming that this is an unlawful endorsement of religion. Most of the arguments offered for this have been similar to those offered when President Bush sought federal funding for faith-based organizations that provide public assistance: faith based groups employ discriminatory hiring practices, that they may discriminate against those they are charged to help, and that some of these groups also prostelitize in the course of their work. All these reasons amount to an unlawful, so goes the argument, governmental endorsement of religion. In addition, some see FEMA's decision as evidence of the Bush Administration trying to placate his religious conservative political base in light of the federal governmental bungling of the initial relief effort for Katrina. Most liberal bloggers (though not all: see EcclesioLeft and a great post from x I'm tc), instead of making rational arguments, are just criticizing the plan by mischaracterization (should taxpayers be funding church?) or just plain hate-mongering (Are they going to reimburse the religious right groups for their "ex-gay" ministries?). Why would FEMA agree to these reimbursements? Are these criticisms valid in FEMA's case?
The scope of destruction wroght by Katrina along the Gulf coast in terms of number of people and breadth of geographic area effected has the agency turning to groups and organizations local to the areas effected. It makes sense for FEMA and national charities like the Red Cross and The Salvation Army to partner with local churches and charities in the local areas because already have the personel and organization to help people immediately. Local churches and charities have facilities, local knowledge, an organized leadership structure, and most importantly, their workers and volunteers are extremely motivated.
What originally fueled the push by the Bush Administration for funding for faith-based groups offering local assistence is what makes this option attractive to FEMA: these groups are much cheaper to fund and they are much more effective. Local churches and charities have facilities, local knowledge, an organized leadership structure, and most importantly, their workers and volunteers are extremely motivated. The responsibility a church or charity local to an area is something that governmental aid programs cannot duplicate. No governmental beaucracy on earth can effectively care for humans as individuals. Members of a church or charity help, not because they have to, but because they want to. Programs don't care, people do.
While local churches and charities may be effective and cheap, this alone does not answer the question of thier legality. FEMA, in a very simplistic way, seems to be agreeing to pay the expenses of local relief experts already on the ground doing the work. Many suspect alterior motives when something controversial is suggested, specially regarding religion or government. As reported, this does not seem to be a free-for-all. The article makes it clear that the only groups will be reimbursed
...if they operated emergency shelters, food distribution centers or medical facilities at the request of state or local governments in the three states that have declared emergencies -- Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. [emphasis mine]
This is not a wholesale government-funded southern revival. This is FEMA reimbursing qualified charities and churches with resources that were identified and approached by local and state officals to assist in the relief efforts, above-and-beyond their normal operations. The artice estimates "that 500,000 people have taken refuge in facilities run by religious groups."
This may be the best news that has come out of the relief efforts in full-swing along the Gulf coast. Getting the government out of way of local citizens taking responsibility for the recovery and rebuilding of their own lives is great news. The government should do what it does well and empower those groups that do things it cannot. FEMA is reimbursing local groups that are working hands-on with citizens in-need. High minded liberals should start questioning bagged-ice trucking routes instead of effective releif groups, faith-based or not.
(h/t: Outside the Beltway)
