more on James Carroll: Church, state, and Katrina

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: EEkid () aol com
Date: September 22, 2005 12:13:49 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] James Carroll: Church, state, and Katrina


Early this week, I heard Senator Santorum ask why America couldn't  
provide federal funding to religious organizations to assist in the  
hurricane relief efforts.  He claimed that America's churches were  
the most efficient means to disburse aid to the needy.

Of course, he's speaking of the funding of Christian organizations.   
When would we fund Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu and other faiths?  Let's  
just suppose you're a Christian hurricane survivor and had to go to a  
mosque to receive food, water, clothing and a pamphlet on converting  
your faith. How would you feel?  Certainly Christian churches are not  
exempt from fraud and the mishandling of church funds.  Why would  
federal funds be any different?

Why do we assume that the federal government is incapable of  
providing needed assistance to survivors in a timely fashion?  If  
they fail to perform, you replace the management until you get  
results.  Preferably before a disaster strikes.

I also find it interesting that, several days before hurricane Rita  
is due to make landfall, FOX news was calling it a "looming  
disaster". Today they called it "potentially catastrophic".  The  
President as ordered military troops to be on standby to help provide  
aid.

After Katrina, we all heard Chertoff and Bush proclaim that "No one  
could have foreseen this disaster".  Well, hurricane Rita hasn't  
caused a single fatality, yet suddenly our government is capable of  
foreseeing this disaster.  What's changed?

Jerry Ballman

In a message dated 9/22/2005 9:04:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
dave () farber net writes:
From the Boston Globe -- http://www.boston.com/news/globe/
editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/12/church_state_and_katrina/

Church, state, and Katrina
By James Carroll

THE DISASTER on the Gulf Coast is the occasion for public prayer.
President Bush invites the nation this week to place the victims of
Katrina in the hands of an all-loving God, an impulse many of us
share. In Boston and other cities, religious figures have been at the
forefront of welcome expressions of concern. On the scene of the
catastrophe itself, religious organizations have provided heroic
relief, often in stark contrast to hesitant government agencies. The
value -- and values -- of religion have been on full display during
this crisis.

And yet, Katrina's aftermath opens a curtain on the new -- and
troublesome -- place religion occupies in the culture of America.
Continuing a train of thought I began last week, I find myself
wondering if the abysmal performance of government agencies in
responding to this crisis isn't related to the unprecedented emphasis
the government itself has been putting on ''faith-based" groups as
key providers of social services? There is nothing new, of course, in
religious organizations as generous suppliers of various public
needs. One thinks of the parochial school system or the Salvation
Army. But politicians from Washington to the state capitols have
exploited this tradition of religious generosity to justify the
rollback of programs dating to the New Deal.

Why is the shift from government to religion troubling? Doesn't it
square with the idea that common-good activities flourish from the
grassroots up? And isn't religion essentially a matter of
compassionate love, an ideal no one would claim for public
institutions? Religion directly addresses the mystery of death and
suffering: What better institution to meet the needs of the
suffering? Aren't religiously motivated providers, for whom the
cardinal virtues are professional qualifications, less prone to large
and small corruptions? What's to choose between, say, Mother Teresa
and a form-obsessed social worker? Wouldn't we all prefer to have our
needs met by the communion of the saints?

Maybe not. My unease is partly rooted in a question about religion
and partly in concern for something essential to civil society.
Religion, too, is of the human condition, and religious people (as
they will tell you) are as sinful as anybody. The good reputation of
religion survives despite those sins. Government, meanwhile, is held
in contempt, a dichotomy related to a divide of the mind embodied in
the ''separation of church and state," which has virtue on one side,
corruption on the other. The state is firmly located in ''secular"
culture, lately denigrated as the ''culture of death."

An over-the-top critique of the nonreligious realm -- ''secularism"
-- is a staple of religious rhetoric, but the main tenets of  
democracy itself (pluralism, human rights, rational inquiry) were
vigorously opposed as ''modernism" by almost all religious
organizations. The ''state," it turns out, is as holy as the ''church."

The church-state divide, undercutting norms of supervision and
accountability, means religious groups, even while entrusted with
public functions, can embody antipublic values. To take last week's
most glaring example, Operation Blessing, one of the FEMA-recommended
relief agencies, is affiliated with Pat Robertson, an advocate of
assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Why were American citizens
being encouraged by the United States government to support Pat
Robertson's enterprise?

Even when faith-based groups claim to offer social services with no
strings attached, one must ask if such detachment is possible. The
missionary impulse is implicit in the good works of religion. Mother
Teresa required nothing of those she helped, but she still hoped that
the compassionate face of Christ shined through her eyes. To some of
us, it surely did -- but that hope itself can become an imposition on
those who are in need.

The problem is redoubled when religiously sponsored good works supply
essential needs in place of government responses. Something essential
to democracy is at stake here. The rights of citizens to basic
relief, especially in times of crisis, are rooted not in charity, but
in justice. Charity can be an affront to the dignity of citizenship.
Citizens in a democracy, after all, are the owners of government;
therefore government help is a form of self-help.

Finally, appeals to ''faith-based" substitutes for the supply of
basic needs have disguised a hidden agenda. The destruction of public
social services has been nothing less than an attack on people in
need, as if their need itself is deserving of punishment. The war on
poverty has become a war on the poor. That it is waged in the name of
God, in alliance with those who claim to honor God, is blasphemy.

James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose
use
has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The
'johnmacsgroup' Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of
literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. I believe that this
constitutes a
'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of
the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for
purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain
permission
from the copyright owner.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/