I'm torn on this one … but I don't see, constitutionally, how to justify federal grants (vs. loans) directly to religious groups to rebuild houses of worship after a disaster.
(And I suspect some of the folks who'd be most eager to see that happen would be offended if it were a local mosque, or Hindu temple, etc., asking for their tax dollars).
Religious communities don't get government grants to have their houses of worship built in the first place. They banded together and raised the funds, often over time. If they didn't carry insurance, and can't afford to rebuild on their own, they can apply for SBA loans and the like. But I honestly don't particularly want my tax dollars given as a gift to (re)build worship spaces — not even for my own congregation.
Embedded Link
Houses of Worship Seeking FEMA Grants Face Constitutional Barrier
Jewish organizations are leading an effort to allow storm-damaged houses of worship to qualify for disaster aid despite the separation of church and state.
Google+: View post on Google+
More importantly, they paid no taxes on their property or income — so it's not like there's even a case of "you owe us, Government". You can't have it both ways.
But of course they will get it both ways.
Yeah, my general philosophy is that the government shouldn't discriminate. All religious institutions should pay taxes and all should be entitled to FEMA assistance in emergencies. There should be no exceptions.
The reality, of course, is it never ends up that way.
If they paid taxes on property or income, then yes, I agree.
So I belong to a religion that does not, for the most part, own buildings or real property. There are a few seminaries, a few libraries, and a few historical buildings in which no religious ceremony or ritual is likely to be held on a regular basis. Some of us may belong to a 501(c)3 organization, but it doesn’t mean we have anything to insure nor structures to repair. Most pagani/druids/witches/heathens/indigenous do not hold rituals inside, save in inclement weather, although mobility issues and imprisonment can interfere with that.
Many of us have our rituals on public or rented private land when weather permits. If our preferred place for outside rituals is damaged by the elements, we might try to raise money/political pressure for restoration, and not just for our own needs. When we rent, we expect that some of that goes to the owner’s insurance fees.
Were we to have a bit of property, most members would insist on insurance, and even if the laws changed to allow places of worship to get federal/state/local govt. funds, at this point, I’m sure we’d still be told ours weren’t “real” religions, and thus ineligible. Because the idea of “no official religion” is overlooked when considering “minority religions”, I don’t think I’d be willing to trust a government agency to dispense funds, loans or not, fairly.
But what Gary and Dave say, I agree with.