What Would Jesus Charge?

From The Washington Post:

FEMA Plans to Reimburse Faith Groups for Aid

As Civil Libertarians Object, Religious Organizations Weigh Whether to Apply

By Alan Cooperman and Elizabeth Williamson

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 27, 2005; Page A01

After weeks of prodding by Republican lawmakers and the American Red Cross, the Federal Emergency Management Agency said yesterday that it will use taxpayer money to reimburse churches and other religious organizations that have opened their doors to provide shelter, food and supplies to survivors of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Ummmm... yeah. The federal government should not be reimbursing charities for doing the charitable work that charities do when people need it. Charity means the food, shelter, assistance and so on is given without the expectation of compensation. The Salvation Army announced that it would not immediately accept the reimbursements from the government, but a spokesperson said on "NewsNight" tonight that it would be open to working as a subcontractor.

My main concern is that the payments represent a violation of the separation of church and state. The government should not be subsidizing churches. Their job is to be available to assist in the community during times of need, not to get a government contract. Especially when one considers the size and look of some of today's "mega-churches" that seem quite a bit removed from the concept of charity.

Maybe it's time for some churches to get down in the gutters and work with the poor. Would Jesus have sought a government kickback? I doubt it. Churches should be helping, just as many other secular organizations should also be partners in the relief efforts. But they should not expect to get paid by the government to do so.

-- Wenatchee, Wash.