The Sisters of Mercenary

Whenever I'm in a charitable mode (having both the mood and the moola at the same time), I tend to give to the Salvation Army; the Salvos as they are affectionately known in Australia. I'm no great study of charities, but what I've seen in Australia is that whenever there's a disaster of some sort, they're always johnny-on-the-spot with a cuppa, a blanket, an arm and a shoulder and, if you want it, a bit of prayer -- and if you don't, how's your coffee? The Australian Salvos are pretty earthy people. They're direct, simple, personable, non-sanctimonious, low-overhead and effective, and I have never seen their aid appeals based on any desire to preach or convert, only to serve. I don't believe in their religion, but that isn't important to them or me; we both believe in their mission.

So, if there were an extraordinary emergency and the Salvos were in the thick of it and a government had the goods but not the means of getting the stuff to where it was needed and the Salvos were there to handle it and were running short of their own goods, I would be quite happy to see the government hand off the stuff for the Salvos to deal with it.

But if, say, the Hare Krishnas were there offering aid, or the Watchtower folks, or others who would make as much or more about their "message" as the aid, I'd have an entirely different think about it. People who want to make you beholden to them for the aid they offer should not be allowed to push their brand of religion with the aid of government support.

And the catalyst for this post is the announcement by FEMA that, in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, they will be making aid available to certain faith-based groups.

(Anything that is "faith-based" is Christian. It's code. Christians speak of their religion as "faith", which it is. Other religious groups don't refer to themselves as "faith-based" even though it is technically accurate to say that any religion is based on faith, i.e., an unprovable belief. Bush's use of the term is intended to be inclusive all non-Christian groups, but it must grate on them. They could be referred to as "belief-based" groups, but that would put the Christians off-side, because in the code of Christians, "faith" is of a higher and probably more specific order than belief. Sigh.)

Anyway, this little can of worms is troubling. Is tax money going to support evangelical "reaching-out"? Or is this simply a pragmatic way to get support where and when it is needed in the most effective way? Is it a one-off, or the thin end of the wedge of tax supported ministry? It will all depend on how it works out. And that's the rub. How accountable is the government and how accountable are the "giving hands" who are finding it better to receive?

There are many issues and questions simply because we cannot trust those who come to do good to refrain from doing very well indeed.

For instance, if the government pays the Carnival cruise lines to provide emergency accommodation, the shipping lines must pay taxes on the subsidy. (Oops, bad example: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/milliondollar-refugee-ships-lying-half-empty/2005/09/29/1127804608638.html But they would have to if they were registered in the US.) Shouldn't the faith-based group so so likewise?

And there is the issue of misrepresentation: if you get put up by Carnival, you have to know they are being paid by the government. But if a faith-based group is looking out after you, isn't it a bit of a misrepresentation to imply it is out of the goodness (and faith) of your group if you don't disclose that the government is underwriting your "hand-out"?

And the misrepresentation cuts both ways. Say you feel the "calling" to minister to people in need as part of your out-reach mission. Don't you think it undercuts your sincerity if the people receiving your care think you are doing it as an agent of the government, or for mercenary purposes and not religious ones? Isn't there a difference from really giving and only being seen to give? Isn't there an obligation to be honest about it; isn't that part of spreading "the truth"?

I don't know. The more I want the idea to work, the more problems I see coming from it. So much so that I'm not sure it's worth getting involved with. That's probably one reason the founding fathers put that separation of church and state thingy in the whatsit. It's the entanglement conundrum.

You can see what others think about this at:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU05I23&f=PG03I03 The reference to the program as a "Faith accompli" probably says it all. And don't overlook the assessment of what a dirtbag the new acting FDA chief is -- from their perspective.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/12124
I particularly like the tasteful side-bar ads that show up on this and so many like-minded sites (yes, I do go there; plumbers often find themselves up to there with other people's stuff).


http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article_print.cfm?id=3236

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/3374289

And there's lots more around. If it's not already in your email inbox it's not too hard to find on the net.