FEMA to reimburse religious groups and churches

[mickeyfan2]

From the article, only the ones that FEMA asked to do the job are getting reimbursed. That seems completely fair.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I would be very uncomfortable if my church were involved in housing evacuees and then turned around to apply for reimbursement from the government. I believe that churches perform acts of charity out of love for God and their fellow man, not because there is financial reimbursement available. Somehow applying for/accepting reimbursement for an act of charity would negate that act entirely.

 

[ncgolfer]

Exactly right- secular and faith-based non-profit organizations that ran a shelter, food distribution center, or medical facilty would be eligible to apply for funds.
Churches, Mosques, Temples, Synagogues... have opened their doors, hearts, and wallets beyond measure. I am surprised this is even a controversy.

Many posters on this board see the word church, and it is instantly a controversy.

 

[jgmklmhem]

I would be very uncomfortable if my church were involved in housing evacuees and then turned around to apply for reimbursement from the government. I believe that churches perform acts of charity out of love for God and their fellow man, not because there is financial reimbursement available. Somehow applying for/accepting reimbursement for an act of charity would negate that act entirely.

I guess it would depend. If the church asking for money used up most of their funds to stage a shelter or food distribution then I could see asking for some help. Most church budgets run for the most part on a month to month basis hoping people keep up with what they pledged. If a church used up or seriously drained their normal operating funds to help these people out then I see nothing wrong with them applying to get funds if they are available. I think most chuches helped because of the reasons you listed...but if a church might go under or couldn't keep up with their normal charitable load (all those things a church helped out with before are still there, Katrina didn't change that) due to Katrina then if the money is offered take it.

 

[cardaway]

Yes, because assets have little or nothing to do with not-for-profit status. For example many not-for-profit museums have huge assets, but that doesn't corrolate to their taxable status. So in your zeal against the Catholic Church, would have also have the taxable status of institutions like The Smithsonian and The Chicago Institute of Art altered becase of their incredibly large assets?

Since I agree with wvrevy on this I'll respond with a big YES, make those not-for-profits open the books and possibly lose their exepmpt status as well if things don't line up.

I'll also add that income tax isn't the only tax that I believe they are expempt from. If that were the case almost any organization could be sure to spend their projected profits any given year and claim to be non-profit.

For example, I don't see any reason all non-profits (not just churches, but especially big churches) shouldn't have to pay property and inventory taxes. Makes no sense at all IMO.

 

[wvrevy]

Many posters on this board see the word church, and it is instantly a controversy.

And many posters see the word "church" and think that anything they do should be completely excusable. That door swings both ways.

 

[brerrabbit]

Our Church opened it's doors to 80 evacuees from hurricane Rita and housed them for over three weeks. The Last one left days before Rita. We will not be seeking reimbursement from FEMA or the Federal Government. Intially we were told not to house these people but rather send them to Red Cross shelters in our county which at the time were 50 miles away and not even set up yet. We did not send them away but rather housed and fed them. We worked in our community to get them places to live and jobs to start rebuilding their lives. We did this because it is as a Church what we believe to be the right thing to do. I know many here and across the country have problems with the tax free status of churches and other organizations and given the world we live in and the need for additional resources to fund our government and social programs. However in the case of my church as well as many others a large percentage of the money we collect goes to fund these programs. We support Habitat for Humanity, the Christian Alliance ( a local group that sends food and medical supplies across the US and the World), Builders Without Borders ( a group that runs continual Mission Projects to Mexico to build homes, and schools in small towns), UM Army ( a Methodist Youth group service project that does building, clean up, and service projects across the country during the summer). We have also built and fully equiped a mobile medical facility that was shipped to the Tsunami relief are to provide medical care in that region of the world. We have many, manyy local projects we fund and support. We do these things because of our beliefs. We do not seek repayment for our actions and we do not do these things for recognition, we do them because our Christian faith and beliefs motivate us to help our fellow man. We are non profit, as all churches are but I can assure you the amount we spend on mission works would qualify us as a 501 c 3 organization even if we were not a church. The ability to operate as a non profit organization only allows us to utilize more of our money, time, and talents to actually help those in need. Personally I would hope that most if not all churches chose to not seek reimbursement for their expinditures because if they do, then I feel like they really don't "get it".

 

[Free4Life11]

Maybe the churches who can't afford it could contact the denomination headquarters? No way could my dad's small country church afford this, but I'm sure the denomination would help out a lot.

I think a 100% reimbursement is out of the question, but if a church went above and beyond what they could feasibly do, then I think getting some reiumbursement would be ok, providied it ONLY went towards paying the bills...not paying salaries, funding religious programs, etc. The church should have to provide a copy of the utility bills before and after the hurricane and maybe FEMA could make up part of the difference?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I would be very uncomfortable if my church were involved in housing evacuees and then turned around to apply for reimbursement from the government.

How would you feel if they couldn't pay the bills as a result of their generosity and may later have to close it's doors?

 

[jgmklmhem]

I also think people are missing the point. Most of these churches were probably not financially budgeted to help as evac shelters for this amount of time or people and thus were using funds from other budgets to help cover the costs of helping out in this disaster. So if these churches are not reimbursed somehow their other chartable giving, mission work etc could be greatly downsized or disappear entirely. The people who would have benefitted from these things are still out there in need and due to the hurricanes there are probably more. So I do not in any way begrudge or fault a church or claim they don't "get it" in any way applying for funds that are going to be offered. Yes some churches are "rich" or have "rich" members who might make up the differences, but many are not and would need the extra funds to keep up all their work. But to say a church doesn't "get it" because they want to get some funds to help keep their soup kitchen going or even pay their staff (which they need to keep running) because they did reach out and help in a time of need to me seems very wrong. Now if they are taking the funds to build a gym or get a new organ sure blast them.

 

[What the Heck]

I don't have a problem with any group getting reimbursement for taking care of the refugees from Katrina. This was a huge disaster for everyone concerned, and I don't believe there were too many people thinking "well, we will get reimbursed by the US government" especially those who are charities. And, in my opinion, getting reimbursed for the work doesn't take away from the charity given - provided they didn't go into the situation thinking they will get reimbursed.

Now, it would be nice, and I'm sure some will, put those funds towards other potential disasters, to help take care of others. And I am sure there will be some who don't. But, that is up to their conscientious, not for my oversight. The important questions in my mind are: 1. Did they do this? 2. Were there out of pocket expenses for it?

As for their tax status, I really don't care depending on the answers to those 2 questions. Just my thoughts.