Yesterday, a bipartisan House majority passed H.R. 592, sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.), which requires FEMA to provide disaster assistance to houses of worship using the same criteria it has for other applicants. A letter to Rep. Smith from the Becket Fund assures him that his bill is on solid constitutional ground. Not that anyone is asking me, but I agree. While practices have not been consistent, there are plenty of examples of government programs and funding being made available to all eligible recipients, defined without regard to religion.
Let’s hope and pray that the Senate quickly follows suit.
As I understand it, the issue is whether houses of worship are eligible for grants that go to facilities that provide “essential services of a governmental nature to the general public,” not reconstruction loans, for which they are already eligible. What we’re talking about, in other words, is whether soup kitchens, meeting places, classrooms, homeless shelters, and other such facilities offered by houses of worship are eligible.
Since both the ACLU and Americans United opposed the legislation, be ready for lawsuits when it is implemented. But as the Becket Fund points out, there would likely also be lawsuits if FEMA persists in discriminating against houses of worship in its provision of disaster relief.
February 14th, 2013 | 11:54 am
Yes and … maybe.
HR 592 would make two changes in law. First, it would amend 42 U.S.C. § 5122(10)(B) to clarify that FEMA may extend grants to “any private nonprofit facility that provides essential services of a governmental nature to the general public,” without discriminating on the basis of religion. Sounds good to me.
Second, the bill would amend 42 U.S.C. § 5172. This statute grants the president the discretion to give tax dollars to “a person that owns or operates a private nonprofit facility damaged or destroyed by a major disaster for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of the facility and for associated expenses…” regardless of whether that facility serves any public function at all.
Now, government already offers a variety of disaster assistance, including loans, etc. Why should we subsidize the president’s choice to subsidize his pet projects that are unrelated to any public purpose? If Planned Parenthood’s administrative offices get flooded, the president can just write them a check from the Treasury? Seems like a dumb idea to me. Let’em take out a loan like everybody else.
Anyway, the bill would now extend this dumb idea to cover “houses of worship … without regard to … the primary religious use of the facility.” I guess this amendment vindicates equal protection of the laws, etc. But I can’t get excited about broadening the scope of a fundamentally bad policy.
February 15th, 2013 | 8:24 am
The current FEMA criteria (Stafford Act) provides for grants to private nonprofits that supply critical (essential, of a governmental nature) services to the general public. Catholic hospitals, for example, would qualify. The question is whether tax dollars should go to “houses of worship” that are damaged in a major disaster even if they do not supply essential services. This is what the legislation would address by allowing such grants. Churches and so on are already granted tax exemptions, costing the taxpayers indirectly, so what’s the problem?
February 15th, 2013 | 2:16 pm
Churches and so on are already granted tax exemptions, costing the taxpayers indirectly, so what’s the problem?
Thomas James,
I think point would be that all churches are granted tax exemptions. However, in the event of a disaster, government would be able to pick and choose which churches (mosques, synagogues, etc.) would get taxpayer dollars. This would simply be a direct gift of taxpayer dollars to houses of worship—which seems to me to raise First Amendment issues in and of itself—and there would be no guarantee that some religious bodies would not get more favorable treatment than others. It is a lot easier to be evenhanded and grant all houses of worship tax exemptions than it is to decide which to give government money to.
Also, this seems to imply that houses of worship supply “essential services of a governmental nature to the general public”—that is, that worship itself—not feeding the hungry or giving shelter to the homeless—is something that the government should support with tax dollars.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact