"Hurricane-Damaged Houses Of Worship Can Receive FEMA Aid." BOOOO!

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why didn't He protect the people in the fatal car accident;
Why didn't He protect the person slipped of the edge of a cliff;
Why didn't He protect the person who fell off the ladder;
Why didn't He protect the person who broke a bone falling of a tree;
Why didn't He protect the child who fell while he was on the bike.

The reason would be because then we would be robots who had no will.

Being protected doesn't make one a robot.

Having a will does not prevent one from being a robot.

Nor is it undesirable if one desires those things that lead to satisfaction when desired. I don't care if those desires come from neuronal systems acting deterministically, and delivering their commands to the body as I look on contentedly.

Why should a religious or even community building not get the same opportunity to get the flood coverage it can't get else where the same as a home owner? Not sure what taxes have to do with it. It's about insurance companies not covering flood damage.

Because the rebuilding of a religious building is not a vital concern of the government or the American people. Those that want such a thing to exist must bear the burden of ensuring that, not the government. How about a little of that self-reliance we keep hearing about? Those who want churches should build and when necessary, rebuild them

Extending your example further, a religious building on fire can not call on the fire department

Why should a church or synagogue that can afford to pay the same taxes everybody else pays get services that only others pay for? Conservatives generally object to socialism and income redistribution, don't they? How is spending my dollars on your church not that?

a hostage situation in a religious building can not expect police aid

Why not? Government is there to protect and serve people whether in churches or not.

a religious building should not expect street lights, paved roads, or sewer and drainage services

People not paying taxes that could be paying taxes shouldn't expect to get what taxes pay for.

When the government is the only agent to provide aide when flooding is the issue all entities should have access. Including all religious buildings. As long as no one is turned away for not being the right one. Congress is not setting up a church.

Why should the government insure more than people's homes?

Religious organizations give back in spades to the community.

Why should anybody believe that? Because a Christian claimed it? Christians believe by faith. They need no evidence.

Skeptics need a better reason to believe.

 

[Holdasown]

Why should the government insure more than people's homes?

My point was when it comes to flood insurance companies refuse to do insurance so the government has to help. Or let the whole town die. Why should they insure anyone. It's an insurance company issue.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And I agree. If you want aid from FEMA start paying property tax.

I would be more on board if this were an issue of putting in a new stereo system or something, but lives and health and safety are on the line in disasters. I don't think it's an appropriate time to ration arbitrarily. I think, at most, religious properties should pay for what they can for repairs and FEMA assist with the rest.

I don't think we should assist people who call 911 after a flood to be saved from a house that should've been evacuated as ordered days or weeks ago. But you can't just let people die, either.

But worship doesn't need buildings.

True, but churches love to argue they multitask with charity and stuff.

The reason would be because then we would be robots who had no will.

How does falling off a cliff have anything to do with free will? If the ground gives way and you fall, shouldn't the One who made the ground so crappy do the rescuing?

The church is for fellowship. They don't have to do charity work but most do something if you really look.

They should be judged as they judge. They say they have to follow Jesus. Jesus told them to pony up the cash and help others. Why should we reward them for disobeying their own religious demands?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Do you want the government to discriminate? If a piece of property was damaged, it should not matter if it was used for religious purposes or not. Otherwise they are discriminating against religion. Would you want them to refuse to help property owned by atheists? No, that would be discrimination just like refusing to help religious buildings would be discrimination.

 

[Revoltingest]

True, but churches love to argue they multitask with charity and stuff.

I'm sure they do.
But I live in an area with a high density of churches, & notice that
other than Sunday morning, there are hardly any cars parked in
their lots. So charity doesn't consume much in resources or time.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I'm sure they do.
But I live in an area with a high density of churches, & notice that
other than Sunday morning, there are hardly any cars parked in
their lots. So charity doesn't consume much in resources or time.

And I believe the lot that are lying should be held accountable.

 

[Kenny]

How does falling off a cliff have anything to do with free will? If the ground gives way and you fall, shouldn't the One who made the ground so crappy do the rescuing?

What are you doing standing on a cliff that is made by crappy soil? Free will.

For that matter... why in the world on you on that cliff!

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Erosion sucks.

 

[columbus]

I'm sure they do.
But I live in an area with a high density of churches, & notice that
other than Sunday morning, there are hardly any cars parked in
their lots. So charity doesn't consume much in resources or time.

It depends hugely on the particular organization.
My RCC church has a huge charitable budget, minimum of 10% of total contributions. When they built a big new building, it was a windfall for the Peace & Justice committee because 10% of the building cost also went to charity.
But that's still only 10%. Most churches give far less. 90+% of their tax deductible donations get spent on the buildings and staff and services for members, very little actually used for charity.
In fact church going religious people give less to charity than non-religious people, because church donations count in their minds as charity and they have the drain on their budgets that the church donations use up.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

I'm sure they do.
But I live in an area with a high density of churches, & notice that
other than Sunday morning, there are hardly any cars parked in
their lots. So charity doesn't consume much in resources or time.

Just to butt in here: the church I belong to has one of, if not THE best, welfare and charitable systems among Christian groups. We take care of our own members, of course, but we also send plenty of aid to people who are dealing with catastrophes. We pair with other groups, too...groups that don't share our doctrines but DO share our goals in this matter, and distribute a lot of aid.

.....and we have a whole bunch of churches and none of that charity is DONE there. it's done in warehouses, on trucks, on scene where the help is needed. The only church houses that are actively involved (the property, not the people who worship there) are those in the middle of the area affected by whatever disaster is happening, when it would actually be useful to open the buildings up to refugees for safe houses and medical aid.

I think, to be honest, this is probably how other churches deal with this issue, as well. If you haven't seen a whole bunch of people parked in the lots at church during the week, it's probably because the people are elsewhere....where the help is needed.

(shrug) But don't believe me...just think about how much help a bunch of people meeting in a church house in Boston would have done for the folks affected by floods in Houston. You were far more likely to see that help driving trucks full of supplies on the roads, and volunteers in the flooded neighborhoods helping rescue/cleanup/help the victims. When this sort of thing is needed, the LAST thing you want to see is cars in the church parking lot. Those cars had better be elsewhere, taking their drivers to the place and people who need the help.

But hey. That's just me. I suppose the folks who limit their charity to Bingo Games for fund raising might spend their time at their local church house, and there really is a place for fund raising, but frankly?

That's a very small part of charity. It actually isn't something we do, come to think of it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I don't think it's an appropriate time to ration arbitrarily.

That’s a very good point! FEMA should help all facing life-threatening emergencies,....but not to replace ‘a stereo system’, as you put it. A+.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just to butt in here: the church I belong to has one of, if not THE best, welfare and charitable systems among Christian groups. We take care of our own members, of course, but we also send plenty of aid to people who are dealing with catastrophes. We pair with other groups, too...groups that don't share our doctrines but DO share our goals in this matter, and distribute a lot of aid.

.....and we have a whole bunch of churches and none of that charity is DONE there. it's done in warehouses, on trucks, on scene where the help is needed. The only church houses that are actively involved (the property, not the people who worship there) are those in the middle of the area affected by whatever disaster is happening, when it would actually be useful to open the buildings up to refugees for safe houses and medical aid.

I think, to be honest, this is probably how other churches deal with this issue, as well. If you haven't seen a whole bunch of people parked in the lots at church during the week, it's probably because the people are elsewhere....where the help is needed.

(shrug) But don't believe me...just think about how much help a bunch of people meeting in a church house in Boston would have done for the folks affected by floods in Houston. You were far more likely to see that help driving trucks full of supplies on the roads, and volunteers in the flooded neighborhoods helping rescue/cleanup/help the victims. When this sort of thing is needed, the LAST thing you want to see is cars in the church parking lot. Those cars had better be elsewhere, taking their drivers to the place and people who need the help.

But hey. That's just me. I suppose the folks who limit their charity to Bingo Games for fund raising might spend their time at their local church house, and there really is a place for fund raising, but frankly?

That's a very small part of charity. It actually isn't something we do, come to think of it.

You're part of the discussion.....not butting in at all.

Btw, if anyone tells you otherwise, let me know.
I'll flame them mercilessly!

 

[columbus]

we also send plenty of aid to people who are dealing with catastrophes. We pair with other groups, too...groups that don't share our doctrines but DO share our goals in this matter, and distribute a lot of aid.

This brings up something else about churches and charity that's hard to see if you don't belong to one. The ability of a church to muster and organize volunteers.

Like after Katrina, volunteers flooded in. Our church partnered with churches just outside the disaster zone who provided a place to stay and organized relief efforts. Being local folks they knew the area, the problems, and could put people into volunteer jobs they were suited for. Instead of a bunch of well intentioned people just milling around they could go right to work. And people who would be hesitate to just go, or unable, could help as much as they were able. The youth groups in particular came through by the dozen, bus loads of people came and went for many weeks.
It didn't actually cost the church itself much money, and donations to cover the costs flooded in. It was the ability of the church to organize that was so valuable, but didn't show up on the balance sheets much.
Tom