The Disaster (Aid) Artist

During the period of August seventeenth to September third, hurricane Harvey ravaged the American south.  Without prejudice, the storm damaged buildings and infrastructure leaving a trail of destruction in its path.  Homes, schools, and churches were left devastated, many in a state of disrepair.

The storm eventually passed and then began a period of rebuilding.  Disaster aid from both private and governmental groups was given to help reconstruct many of the damaged buildings.  Much of the aid was distributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, better known as FEMA.

Overall, thousands of organizations applied for aid.  Among them were three Texas churches.  Nothing out of the ordinary, right?

Here’s where it gets interesting: much to the dismay of the three churches, FEMA as a policy, made religious buildings ineligible for post-disaster aid. 

The plight of the Texas churches was short-lived, however.  Once President Trump was informed of the rule, he put an end to the policy, allowing the churches to receive federal aid through FEMA. This act was applauded by many who believe that houses of worship should receive the same type of federal aid as any other affected building.  In addition, many believe that not giving aid to the churches would violate the first amendment free exercise clause.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, on the other hand, believe that repealing the policy shows a “clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and its protection of the separation of church and state” citing the establishment clause of the first amendment.  Other critics state that FEMA has limited funds, which should be spent repairing buildings which serve the entire community.  This point is bolstered by the fact that FEMA oftentimes withholds aid from facilities that promote vocational training, community-wide athletics, and political education.

Personally, I believe that the separation of church and state is crucial to the very fabric of American democracy and see the value in the federal government staying neutral towards religion or the lack thereof.  That being said, a clear distinction must be made between “neutral” and “secular.”

           

In reference to the state and religion, secularism means that the state doesn’t support any religious entity and instead focuses on just the secular needs of its people.  This is a mentality held by countries like France.  In France, for example, it’s largely illegal to wear outward symbols of religion, such as crosses, in public schools.  As one of my high school French teachers most eloquently put it, “in France, we have freedom ‘from’ religion instead of freedom ‘of’ religion.” 

Things are done a bit differently in America.  Instead of secularism, neutrality (arguably) is the mentality held by our government.  This means for example, that students in a public school are allowed to wear a cross necklace or hijab without protest, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of anyone else.

In this case I chose to evaluate the issue through the lens of the aforementioned neutrality.  Was FEMA truly being neutral by making religious buildings ineligible for aid?  I think not.

As the hurricane didn’t tiptoe around the churches, destroying everything else, every affected building should have the ability to receive federal aid for damages, regardless of religious affiliation.  It is one thing to argue that other buildings such as schools or community centers should receive aid first, but that shouldn’t mean that religious buildings be completely barred from the discussion.

 These claims should be reviewed as a case by case basis.  If it’s between an elementary school and a church, repair the school.  If in a different storm, a church and a monument dedicated to Nickelback are damaged, maybe go for the church.  The church may not serve everyone in the community but it most definitely serves more people than the Nickelback statue.

 A similar conclusion was reached this past June when the supreme court reviewed a case in which the state of Missouri refused to give taxpayer grants to Trinity Lutheran, a private, religious elementary school.  The Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 decision that the school should not be excluded from public grants towards the construction of new playground equipment.  In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts states that “By denying a benefit to a church school because of its avowedly religious character, the state is penalizing the free exercise of religions guaranteed by the Constitution.”

In the same light, withholding aid to the Texas churches would in a sense be penalizing the churches for being churches.  An organizations ability to receive FEMA benefits shouldn’t have to do with what they do or don’t believe in.