Nowhere on either site could I find any mention that donations would be going to reimburse “local houses of worship” for the expenses they have had in helping others.
I know that many houses of worship continue to play an extremely important role in helping the evacuees. One church in my neighborhood opened their doors to one hundred people who slept in their gym. It gave a place for Red Cross workers to carry out their duties.
But shouldn’t contributors to these charities be made aware on the website itself that some on the donations will be going to religious organizations?
(Of course, there is an upside. I have to smile when I think about fundamentalists contributing to Buddhist temples, Jews contributing to mosques, and Muslims contributing to synagogues.)
But naturally I think that no money should go to any fanatics that want to take away my freedom!
Actually, I read an article about a muslim organization that raised a ton of money (at least a mil) and gave it to a christian church-based organization to distribute to hurricane victims in need. This news came just as I was fighting with my brother-in-law about how the “muslims hate us” statement is unfair to non-radical terrorist muslims. It warmed my heart!
The church I go to is 1,000 miles from New Orleans. Still, I can’t see them accepting money for being reimbursed for helping others. We’re a church. That’s what we do. Being reimbursed for helping others is completely contrary to what I understand the teachings of Christ to be. I mean, this is the Man who told a rich man, “Sell all you have and give it to the poor.” I don’t recall anything in the Gospels about “And get receipts so Judas [the treasurer for the Disciples] can reimburse you later.”
Me too. I’ve never heard of a church operating like a business when it comes to charity. I saw a figure the other day that said people (non-government funds) raised an unprecedented amount of money, something like three-quarters of a billion dollars, for Katrina victims. There is PLENTY of money in this country to rebuild their lives. No one asks for reimbursement. They do it because it’s the right thing to do. Reimbursement would sort of defeat the purpose of charity, don’t you think?
I’m with you on this. What the hell? Of course Bush is catering to religious conservative zealots for support. I thought the whole government “support faith based charities” thing was completely wrong if not a violation of seperation of church and state. This is more of the same. Give money to them, they’ll love me and vote republican.
Maybe he was talking about churches that were pressed into service last-minute as Red Cross-operated shelters, just to reimburse them for the costs of use of the building? It would be like renting out a school gym at, say, a private school that receives no government funds; it wouldn’t be paying people back for their charity, just paying an institution back for using its space, electricity, etc. That’s about the only reimbursement I wouldn’t get bent out of shape over, especially churches near the disaster area whose members are also dealing with so much damage they won’t be able to fund charitable disaster-related services that they might be able to in better times.
But even there you’re skating on very, very thin ice, it seems to me. I suspect it was just lip service to the RR, as Bush does in every speech.
I hope some of you have been thinking about developing a secondary hobby. In only three years GWB will no longer be President. There may be some serious psychological damage when your main pleasure in life, bashing Bush, is suddenly lost.
“Don’t read the thread then?” Well, for about the past year I’ve avoided opening most threads that had the words “Bush”, “Shrub”, “Duba” etc. in the title.
I opened this one because the Op, Zoe, has made some valid points over time and I’m always interested in what she’s thinking. She, at least, doesn’t seem to bash Bush as a pointless obsession.
Her question in the op is an interesting one in general. Then we get the responses below.
Some of you need to get a life.
My take on the question of distributing the donated funds is that we’ll have to trust that the people in charge will send them to organizations that are spending money to help the victims.
It’s not government money, after all.
If you think that the Evil Bushco[sup]TM[/sup] is going to funnel the money into the coffers of the RNC, don’t donate.
Now, it’s Saturday, football’s here and there is a lot of interesting stuff to do. I’ll be back sometime after midnight, or else tomorrow morning in the unlikely event that anyone wishes to reply to this post. I hate to hit and run, but I have my fun doing lots of things that don’t involve worrying about whether the Prez actually had to piss or not.
John Carter, am I correct in taking your post to mean you think it’s ok for the President to take money donated to help Katrina victims and channel it to religious organizations?
I can see reimbursing some of the churches that supported the displaced. It isn’t like people walked in needing 1 hot meal and left- those churches took serious financial hits by helping these folks out. And I know that is their mission, but that means less money to help their local parish members, and it sounds like they’re going to be given some money so they don’t run short. Big deal.
BoBettie I agree with you. There’s plenty of good reasons to take a swipe at Bush but I don’t think this is one of them.
Churches have utility bills to pay just like any other household or business. They also have the ability to do charitable work. I think that Katrina’s refugees put a serious strain on the pocketbooks of churches and other organizations.
My friend in Texas told me that the September electric, gas, and water bills are expected to be twice the budgeted cost for his church since it had refugees living in its dinner hall for these past few weeks.
People needed help and a lot of religious organizations responded. Some of them took large financial hits doing so.
Oh, I dunno. There are still plenty of people, some here on this very message board, who take great pleasure in bashing Clinton. I suspect that there will be a subset of Bush bashers still gleefully pounding away in 2014. Me, I’ll be bashing (or defending, as appropriate) whoever is President then.
So do the other organizations that took in evacuees get reimbursement? The Boys and Girls Club here used their gym to house about 200 folks until other housing could be found.
I guess my main problem with it is that if the people who donated the money wanted it going to religious organizations, they would have donated it to them.
Now that is really cool. I like it when people of one faith can knowingly reach out to another.
If the government (state, local, or federal) came to the places of worship and asked them to take in evacuees with the understanding that their expenses would be repaid, I could understand. (And an explanation should be made at the Bush-Clinton Katrina Relief website.)
But if the places of worship opted to open their doors without promise of repayment, then I don’t think that money donated to the evacuees should go to the places of worship. It should be used as additional funding for the victims of the storm. This is especially true since the charities are reached through a government website and promoted in a Presidential address to the nation.
I do not hold the current president particularly responsible for this. The former presidents who are in charge of the charities are responsible.
Is this fund also going to be used for rebuilding houses of worship? Is government money? Something was also mentioned about this in the speech, I think. I’ve heard it somewhere.
That could get to be a touchy matter when it comes to size, grandeur, etc. I have mixed feelings about it. I had rather see a special fund set up for that purpose. (Yes, even I would contribute.) But I think the buildings should be simple – and built upon a rock, of course.
John Carter of Mars, I thought about putting this in GD or IMHO and maybe I should have. My apologies if I made the wrong choice.
I’m glad you showed up. I’ve been wanting to make sure you and your kin have faired well through the recent mess.
As a peace offering, I arranged a special surprise which I’m sure you have already received: 63-3
Would you still see this as unethical? Instead of Bush saying,
“Some of that money is going to governors, to be used for immediate needs within their states. A portion will also be sent to local houses of worship, to help reimburse them for the expense of helping others.”
He instead said, " Some of the money is going to the governors to be used for the immediate needs within their states. A portion will also go the the local houses of worship to be used for the immediate needs of the victims they are helping."
I don’t see how it can be bad to give the charity organizations that are already helping these people more money to help them. I would see it as the difference of a local shelter being able to provide people with donated clothing, and a shelter being able to take some of the victims out to a store so they could chose their own clothes. Or if the shelter had received dontions of so many hours of phone time that each person was allowed 30 minutes a week then with the additional money each person could have 60 minutes a week.
I just don’t understand why you would want to deny this money to the people who need it. It seems to me this additional money will go a long way to making the victims lives more livable right now when they need it. In fact if I were able to stipulate where my donation to the Clinton Bush Katrina fund would go, I would wish it to go to the houses of worship that have taken people in, rather than go to a government agency, that will have to deal with all sorts of red tape, and have the usual inefficiencies.
My, but the SDMB doth create some strange situations! Now we have the Christian Zoe questioning giving donated funds to churches and me, who only darkens the door of a church for some wedding/funeral obligation, defending the practice. Weird!
See BoBettie’s post number 13 for my thoughts. I couldn’t have said it better.
I’d certainly hope and assume that organizations other than churches get their fair share as well.
No damage here. I’m a little too far east for this one to cause trouble. Opal in '95, however…shudder.
You’re the one that did that?
In other breaking news, FEMA is setting up 511 house trailers at Wind Creek State Park near Alexander City, Al. (population 15,000.)
They expect 3000+ Katrina victims to be housed there for an extended period of time.
Locals there are glad to welcome these people but are concerned about the strain an unexpected 20% increase in population, school attendees, etc. may cause. I guess they’ll find out.
My concern was that only religious organizations would get any of the donated funds. I don’t have a problem with churches getting money, as long as secular groups are given money too. Here the Boys and Girls Clubs do a great deal to help keep kids off the streets - which gives the kids something to do other than get in trouble. The B&G Club programs were suspended (of course) to give shelter - and many of the kids helped.
I still think it sucks. I think it is wrong. There are many people who, like me, don’t have a lot of faith in religion. So they donate their money to what, they believe, isn’t a religious group but will help the needy. Then they hear that the donation they intentionally didn’t make to a religious group…is going to a religious group.
