Lawsuit: Why are Texas churches seeking FEMA money after Hurricane Harvey ineligible?

[montanajoe]

Ok call me dense but for years I've heard that government needs to get out of the way and folks need to depend on churches for the charity not the government...

So now the churches are getting on the government gravy train...geez

[kevindavis007]

Care to show us where in the constitution "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" is? It is often quoted as fact - a fact that doesn't exist.

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


What it means that the Federal Government shall not establish an official religion.  Also, it means that any tax monies should not go to any Churches, Temples. Mosques, etc just to rebuild after a major incident.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Where do the monies in "general revenue" come from?  Taxes that have been paid in.  FEMA has a 2017 budget of roughly $17,000,000,000.  You think you can make the American people pay that and then turn around and tell the ones who have paid that they can't collect if needed?

Note, I am not saying I am in favor of FEMA having that kind of budget nor spending money the way they do.  There are some instances where I think some spending is necessary; road and other infrastructure type repair.  But seems that I remember when Florida had the 4 hurricanes go through in 2004 there were articles about FEMA handing out money for people to go buy generators and other such items,  buying trailers for Katrina victims that never got used, etc.

Now, why should your tax money be used for someone to go out and buy a generator for their personal use?

As much as I would like it so, not paying taxes is not a disqualification for receiving govt benefits.

You are using logic, therefore you cannot be a liberal.

[RoosGirl]

As much as I would like it so, not paying taxes is not a disqualification for receiving govt benefits.

You are using logic, therefore you cannot be a liberal.

I ain't no damn liberal, that's for sure.  No, people who don't pay taxes no receiving benefits would go over like a lead balloon.  And that's why I will never run for public office. :)

[DB]

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


What it means that the Federal Government shall not establish an official religion.  Also, it means that any tax monies should not go to any Churches, Temples. Mosques, etc just to rebuild after a major incident.

Those things you mention are not "separation of church and state" in the way the term is commonly used. Those words do not exist in the constitution. The first amendment does not forbid anyone from praying on government property or in any official capacity or in public schools among many other things claimed. It simply means what it says it means, the government shall not establish an official religion. It doesn't say the government will be devoid of religion.

[DB]

As much as I would like it so, not paying taxes is not a disqualification for receiving govt benefits.

You are using logic, therefore you cannot be a liberal.

I'd argue that those who do not pay taxes should have no vote. Voting to tax someone else is immoral.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'd argue that those who do not pay taxes should have no vote. Voting to tax someone else is immoral.

I'd argue the same way.  No skin in the game should disqualify you from voting or receiving any type of welfare.

I could go even further such as possessing some minimum qualification such as reading comprehension, civics literacy, etc.

Ignorant people have no place in selecting our leadership.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'd argue that those who do not pay taxes should have no vote. Voting to tax someone else is immoral.

Churches don't vote, people do.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Churches don't vote, people do.

Ok, I agree. But pray tell me where that dumb comment came from?  Certainly not what you responded to.

[jpsb]

Since the founding of this country NO FEDERAL MONEY HAS BEEN USED to build religious buildings. There is something called the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

I am inclined to agree.

[thackney]

Are they paying taxes that would, in part, fund FEMA?   Probably not.

Neither do other non-profits.  Why specifically exclude only those because they are faith based, while funding the others?

[RoosGirl]

Neither do other non-profits.  Why specifically exclude only those because they are faith based, while funding the others?

No reason to exclude them, if they are functioning in a way that it takes some burden off of FEMA facilities then they should receive some funding.  Otherwise, none for any of them.

[thackney]

No reason to exclude them, if they are functioning in a way that it takes some burden off of FEMA facilities then they should receive some funding.  Otherwise, none for any of them.

Exactly.  My preference would be have the government out of it all together.  But if taxpayer money is going to be used to fund some, treat them all equally.  The government should never be picking winners and losers.

[Cyber Liberty]

No reason to exclude them, if they are functioning in a way that it takes some burden off of FEMA facilities then they should receive some funding.  Otherwise, none for any of them.

FTA:

"In addition, the Hi-Way Tabernacle serves as a FEMA staging center, sheltering up to 70 people and distributing more than 8,000 emergency meals."

This one church served as a "contractor" for FEMA by sheltering people and distributing meals, and as such should be paid like any other contractor.  I don't know if any of the other places written about in the article served such a purpose.

[Cyber Liberty]

Exactly.  My preference would be have the government out of it all together.  But if taxpayer money is going to be used to fund some, treat them all equally.  The government should never be picking winners and losers.

I like the idea of keeping government out of it because it's impossible to do anything without having strings attached.  I've been against private school vouchers for the same reason.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I like the idea of keeping government out of it because it's impossible to do anything without having strings attached.  I've been against private school vouchers for the same reason.

what do you find objectionable about handing out private school vouchers?  Seems it is the most fair thing one could possibly do, allowing one to decide with one's own money what is best for one's child.

The government is not connected with this with 'strings attached'.

[Cyber Liberty]

what do you find objectionable about handing out private school vouchers?  Seems it is the most fair thing one could possibly do, allowing one to decide with one's own money what is best for one's child.

The government is not connected with this with 'strings attached'.

Sure they are.  The instant an entity receives a check from the state, the state can insist on regulations.  Most states won't, but I'll bet CA already has laws on the books to impose regulations on any school foolish enough to accept a single voucher.

Look at colleges.  All Colleges in the country are subject to Title IX regulations if they so much as accept a single student on a Federal loan.  There are maybe two colleges free of the Regs (Hillsdale and Bob Jones, maybe more now), and they had to sue to get the freedom.

If the government can justify it from one penny's funding, they will regulate.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Sure they are.  The instant an entity receives a check from the state, the state can insist on regulations.  Most states won't, but I'll bet CA already has laws on the books to impose regulations on any school foolish enough to accept a single voucher.

Look at colleges.  All Colleges in the country are subject to Title IX regulations if they so much as accept a single student on a Federal loan.  There are maybe two colleges free of the Regs (Hillsdale and Bob Jones, maybe more now), and they had to sue to get the freedom.

If the government can justify it from one penny's funding, they will regulate.

What you are describing is not practiced as the vouchers are awarded to an individual, not a school.  See https://www.privateschoolreview.com/blog/what-strings-do-school-vouchers-have-attached

Think GI bill.