U.S. Gov’t Refuses to Help Churches Damaged and Destroyed in Natural Disasters — But Should It?
Residents pick-up items at a church which has been turned into a relief supply center following Hurricane Sandy in the Rockaways on January 25, 2013 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images
In addition to wreaking havoc and rendering thousands of Americans homeless, Hurricane Sandy brought with it yet another nation-wide church-state separatism debate. The focus? Whether Congress should be in the business of financially assisting houses of worship.
While private homes and businesses were dilapidated by the historic storm, Hurricane Sandy also left scores of churches without the funds and support needed to rebuild. The natural question quickly became: Should the Federal Emergency Management Agency help recovery by offering grants to these institutions?
While many Americans would agree that churches, too, should be eligible for government assistance in the wake of nature’s wrath, current law actually restricts such an intermingling of religion and state. This naturally offers up quite a conundrum to houses of worship that find themselves in desperate need.
Earlier this month, in an effort to rectify the situation, the House of Representatives voted in support (354 to 72) of the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013 (H.R. 592). The measure, sponsored by Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), was opposed by 66 Democrats and six Republicans.
The bill, voted upon on Feb. 13, would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Assistance Act to include churches as non-profit institutions that are entitled to FEMA aid when the president declares a natural disaster. The bill is now moving on to the Senate where its future is uncertain.
To provide more context regarding what’s being proposed, here’s a summary description of the House measure as it currently stands:
Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013 – Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to include community centers, including tax-exempt houses of worship, as “private nonprofit facilities” for purposes of disaster relief and emergency assistance eligibility under such Act.
Makes a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other house of worship, and a private nonprofit facility operated by a religious organization, eligible for federal contributions for the repair, restoration, and replacement of facilities damaged or destroyed by a major disaster, without regard to the religious character of the facility or the primary religious use of the facility.
Makes this Act applicable to the provision of assistance in response to a major disaster or emergency declared on or after October 28, 2012.
A rescue center is being organized by volunteers in the gymnasium next to St Gertrude’s Church as New York recovers from Hurricane Sandy on November 4, 2012 in Far Rockaway, New York. Credit: AFP/Getty Images
While some would call this a common-sense corrective measure that helps to remove discriminatory practices waged against churches, others disagree and have fears about how far this bill might be taken. Critics charge that public funds would potentially end up paying for exclusively-religious content inside of churches and not merely the structural damages that result from natural disasters.
“Using federal money to build a religious sanctuary of any faith is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent,” writes Alfred P. Doblin, editorial editor of The Record.
According to Doblin, FEMA isn’t supportive of the measure, expressing fears that the government will end up footing the bill for baptismal fonts, stained-glass windows and other exclusively religious elements. If these items are damaged in storms, the worry is that churches will ask the government to replace them, creating a potentially-troubling entanglement. He went on to call the bill a “slippery slope” that America “should not ski.”
The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, a church-state separatist group, agreed. BJC Staff Counsel Nan Futrell wrote a letter claiming that public funding would endanger the Establishment Clause and create murky scenarios for the separation of church and state.
“Public funding of houses of worship threatens to undermine religious autonomy and impermissibly involve government in the private affairs of religious bodies,” Futrell wrote in her letter. “It is simply not a good idea — however our heartstrings are tugged — to give churches access to the public till.”
But others, like Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York, said that she supports giving grants to houses of worship. Pledging to support the bill in the Senate, she noted that churches like St. Francis de Sales Catholic Church in Queens, N.Y., among others, have provided much-needed aid to storm victims. Gillibrand believes that churches should have the same protections that zoos, museums, libraries and other community groups are granted.
Donated goods inside St Gertrude’s Church as New York recovers from Hurricane Sandy on November 4, 2012 in Far Rockaway, New York. Veterans of the campaign to bring Wall Street to a standstill are now in an army of volunteers helping the tens of thousands in a crippled district of New York one week after superstorm Sandy struck. Credit: AFP/Getty Images
And Christine C. Quinn, a Democrat and the speaker of the New York City Council, has joined in Gillibrand’s call for a change to FEMA’s policies. But rather than urging legislative action, she wrote a letter simply asking the agency to consider the massive need churches have in the wake of the storm.
“Recovery from a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy isn’t a matter of state sponsoring religion,” she wrote. “It’s a matter of helping those in need after one of the worst natural disasters our country has ever seen.”
FEMA, though, has continued to express concern, noting that lawsuits would likely follow if the bill becomes law. Additionally, there’s disagreement from legal experts over whether it parameters are constitutional. While the American Civil Liberties Union argues that they are not, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty claims the opposite.
Considering both sides of the argument, what do you think? Should the federal government help churches as it does other non-profit organizations — or is this a violation of the U.S. Constitution? Take the poll, below:
In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.
Popular Stories
‘Bigoted, Religious [Zealots]‘: High School Senior Allegedly Expelled, Charged With Felonies Over Gay Relationship With ‘Consenting’ Fellow Student 966 Comments
‘The Daily Show’ Creator Makes Outrageously Offensive Anti-Conservative Joke About Okla. Tornado 418 Comments
Washington Times Writer: Fox News Scandal Goes ‘Much Deeper,’ W.H. Sitting on Something Top Obama Aides ‘Terrified’ About 370 Comments
University Will Investigate Christian Professor’s Intelligent Design Class Following Atheist Furor 280 Comments
CNN Poll: Obama’s Approval Rating Unchanged Since Scandals Hit 255 Comments
Faith
-
Is This Video of Pope Francis Performing an Exorcism?
Read More
-
Boston Cardinal Snubs Irish PM Over Abortion Support
Read More
- Incredible: The Moment a Woman’s Dog Emerges from Rubble During TV Interview Right After She Describes Losing Him 115 Comments
- See the First Behind-the-Scenes Photos as Beck and Mercury One Survey the Damage in Okla. 167 Comments
-
Here’s the Inspirational Story of an American Flag Hanging Amid the Oklahoma Tornado’s Destruction
Read More
Business
-
Disgraced IRS Interim Chief Now Fully Admits Knowledge of Planted Question (but Did It Reveal a Past Half-Truth?)
Read More
-
Ex-IRS Chief: I Have no Idea How This Conservative Targeting Happened
Read More
-
Treasury Sec. Ready to Deploy ‘Extraordinary Measures’ as U.S. Hits Debt Limit (Again)
Read More
-
‘In the End, Everything Will Be Claimed’: Creator of First 3D-Printed Gun Highlights Creeping Gov’t Control of Technology
Read More
-
Sebelius’ Controversial Fundraising Efforts Raise Concerns, Allegedly Chase Away Potential Donors
Read More
Technology
-
Meet the Blind Man Nicknamed ‘Midnight Gunslinger’ Who Has 80% Shot Accuracy
Read More
-
How a $4.5 Million Network of 181 Sirens Helped Save Lives in Oklahoma Twister
Read More
-
See the Record-Setting Python a Man Caught With His Bare Hands (and Guess How Much It Weighed)
Read More
-
This Teen’s Invention Means You Could Charge Your Cellphone in Less Than 30 Seconds
Read More
-
One of the Most Unlikely Animals Being Trained to Hunt Land Mines
Read More
The Blog
- ‘First they came for Fox News…’
Most Republicans not following news about Obama admin’s three scandals ‘very closely’
Obama DOJ relied on 1917 Espionage Act to target ‘co-conspirator’ Fox News
Stuart Stevens predicts racist ‘small cable show’ co-hosted by Sharpton, Weiner
Report: More Benghazi whistleblowers to come forward?
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (164)
Carlinpa
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 10:01amRE”“Using federal money to build a religious sanctuary of any faith is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent,” writes Alfred P. Doblin, editorial editor of The Record.”
Yeah. we only build mosques in Foreign countries.. NOT Christian Churches here.. right?
Report this comment
banjarmon
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 1:31pmWhy do people rely on the Worse Government programs to get things done. Who gives them the authority to enforce their regulations.
IF YOU WANT SOME THING DONE, DO IT YOUR SELF!!!!
You be be better off relying on yourself and friends!
Report this comment
DeniseJ
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 1:48pmRight, Carlinpa, our gov’t has no business building mosques overseas. Nor should they be rebuilding anything except infrastructure, fire and police houses, etc. I know I’m in the minority here, but it is not a government function under the Constitution to rebuild your ruined house, or house of worship, or store, etc. Let them put their resources if necessary to getting the roads clear and utilities working…..HOW long after Sandy did it take to get the water and electricity back?????
Report this comment
Mudd
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 2:24pmI’m with BANJARMON. Do it yourself and quit complaining.
Report this comment
CathyvanDyke
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 2:52pmBoston Mayor Tom Menino Says No To Chick-fil-A For Supporting Marriage, But Yes To Islamic Fundamentalism
July 27, 2012 l
Michael Graham from the Boston Herald writes:
Given his stance on Chick-fil-A, would Mayor Tom Menino grant permits to a group that has counted among its leaders a man who has repeatedly called homosexuality a “crime that must be punished” by death?
Actually, he has done that . . . and more! Menino effectively gave away city land valued at $1.8 million to the organization, and he gave a speech at its ribbon-cutting ceremony. ….
Read more:
http://tedshoebat.com/2012/07/27/boston-mayor-tom-menino-says-no-to-chick-fil-a-for-supporting-marriage-but-yes-to-islamic-fundamentalism/
http://bostonherald.com//news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2012/07/radical_imam_ok_not_chick_fil_a
Report this comment
marssnw
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 3:44pmIts not so much that the churches will not get funded for this. Its the fact that there is a double standard in this country. They will build mosques but not churches. I agree, we should rely on our own two hands, but the fact that we are building mosques just boils my blood.
Report this comment
CathyvanDyke
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 4:00pmmarssnw
I agree. It is the double PC standard when it comes all things Islam.
A Call to Islam in the Arizona Senate
February 14, 2013
Last week, a representative of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) gave a prayer before the Arizona State Senate.
No news media picked it up. No one reported on it. It was a commonplace thing. CAIR, after all, is a “civil rights” organization; why should anyone be concerned if a CAIR leader prays in a U.S. government body? CAIR has been linked by the Justice Department to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, but no one seems to mind. What could go wrong?
Read More:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/a-call-to-islam-in-the-arizona-senate/
Report this comment
KyleD
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 4:46pmIs it discrimination? Probably, but I don’t think churches should be funded by the government anyway. Plus, if you need to rely on the government to congregate something is wrong with your congregation.
Report this comment
tnkrstoyco
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:09pmLooks like an act of God tome, let God deal with the churches. After all they seem to have more money than God.
Report this comment
Barnesrickw
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:31pmPretty sure, at least in this case, what the government is doing is paying the insurance companies to help them pay their claims.
Report this comment
NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:57pmQuite honestly, I believe any ‘church’ that has a tax free status, should throw it away and pay taxes on offerings. This way they are free from the government rules on political leanings and the like. Tell the IRS to blow it out their backside!
Report this comment
Dr Vel
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:44pmIronically Fema was not to be found in the week after the storm based upon many reports, yet churches were helping thousands with food, water, shelter and many other needed items. Glenn Beck’s trucks brought large amounts of supplies immediately and people at the churches were reporting on the situation on the ground.
Report this comment
Phattdad144
Posted on February 24, 2013 at 8:02amI believe the founding fathers intent was to keep the federal government out of our churches. Any money from the federal government would come with government strings attached. The federal government does not just offer aid. It will choose who the winners and losers will be. So stay away from any form of government assistance. Its the drug choice of our politicians.
Report this comment
James
Posted on February 24, 2013 at 11:51amChurch’s, do not get into bed with the Feds period!
Report this comment
bungal3
Posted on February 24, 2013 at 12:24pmNo matter who is in office and has the throne in Washington, and I mean House; Senate; and White House, sooner or later the Liberals would use financial ties to faith organizations to control their freedom of speech. We see this now just with having tax exemption the Liberals try this same thing.
One church in San Antonio had their funds confiscated and much more under Bill Clinton. They had to go to court to get them back. What was the crime, if any? The Pastor spoke on what was happening and compared it to Scriptures. How terrible using freedom of speech with a Commie as president! We got a worse one now and we will always have Liberal fools trying to control us when they, as individuals cannot even control themselves!
Report this comment
AugustKat
Posted on February 24, 2013 at 5:05pmNotyerhucklberry: “I believe any ‘church’ that has a tax free status, should throw it away and pay taxes on offerings. This way they are free from the government rules on political leanings and the like.”
The pastors of our founding days and up until the 1950s spoke loudly and often about political matters. AND we often had pastors in the state legislature.
Separation of church and state is NOT in our Constitution. It’s a reference borrowed from Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Report this comment
curmudgeon60
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 3:51amWe build footpaths at the U of Michigan too! ;-)
Report this comment
SquidVetOhio
Posted on February 25, 2013 at 8:37amThe ridiculous double standard not withstanding….
CHURCHES: ACCEPTING FEDERAL MONEY IS MAKING A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL!
There WILL be unknown strings attached.
Report this comment
sligresda
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:56amChurches don’t need the government to help rebuild, they have someone far superior. If God wants it to be rebuilt, it will be. In addition, why are people getting funds from the government to rebuild their homes, isn’t that what insurance is for?
Report this comment
Elena2010
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 10:06amIndeed! But the feds want their nose in EVERY tent. FEMA itself is likely un-Constitutional.
Report this comment
COFemale
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 12:11pmYes, but wide spread damage as such in a natural disaster the insurance companies do not have the funds to burden the entire force. One or two no problem. hit them with 100s well that is a different story. Some people who lost their homes in Colorado Springs due to the Waldo Canyon fire (347 homes lost,) are having trouble getting funds from their insurance companies because they’ve been hit hard. No one should have to worry about getting any funding after a disaster.
Report this comment
battles
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 12:44pmThe government is missing a great chance here though. Everything that comes from government comes with strings attached. After a church blunders into federal help, they could then be pressured by the government to accept government political correct doctrine. The only other option is to use private homes for worship and bible study, and you probably remember what that meant in Phoenix.
Report this comment
mattmo79
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 12:53pmThe only Federal money that should be spent would be for infrastructure such as highways etc. that was damaged or destroyed by the storm. Not a dime for anything else!
Report this comment
JGraham III
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 1:54pmThe Feds got their filthy hands on church operations by slyly getting them to accept the 501-c3 tax exempt status, which effectively puts the IRS on any church board that accepts the exemption. Through a morass of tax code misdirection and misinformation the Federal government has convinced churches that they are liable for tax on anything and everything they do if they don’t have this ‘hook in the jaw’ exemption. Before the 501-c3 churches were historically tax exempt; even the concept of “sanctuary” goes back past the middle ages. The Christian community needs to not accept the governments supposed controls or their help. Maybe some ‘hardship’ might get them back to the first century model for the Church which met in people’s homes. Perhaps more $$$ would be available if a large debt to keep a building afloat weren’t constantly needing attention. Perhaps national denominations, especially those who specify that they own the property and not the local congregation need to pony up the money or lose the brand name on the building. Besides, churches need to prepare for the current administration’s hostility to ANY resistance from the Christian community. The govt. will sooner or later come for the taxes because they are running out of available places to collect them. The time may be very near for the IRS to start stripping away the 501-c3 for any petty reason and then start the confiscation process… it has happened elsewhere. Time to go underground!
Report this comment
CathyvanDyke
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 2:20pmU.S. Gov’t Refuses to Help Churches Damaged and Destroyed in Natural Disasters — But Should It?
It is said “Along with sheckles cames shackles”.
Report this comment
iampraying4u
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 2:47pmDont count on fhe govt for anything
Report this comment
GrandpaOf4
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 3:48pmAbsolutely. I fail to see why we need to spend 3 dollars of government money for 1 dollar in relief to anyone. I crashed my car during a snow storm a few weeks ago is FEMA going to come running over with a grant for that? As far as the Churches go I’m thinking that it might be wise for them to just tell the FEMA grant guys to take their grant and burn it. We want them to get used to being around smoke and flames.
Report this comment
TEXASGRANNY73
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 11:42pmA building is not a church; a church is the people who worship. Me, myself and I think the government should stay out of the people’s business.
Report this comment
G-WHIZ
Posted on February 24, 2013 at 9:25amAll insurance-companies pay billions to lawyers from millions of REGULATIONS to adhere. This money could have been used to help their disaster-funds instead of feeding lawyers and REGULATIONS!!
Report this comment
Rebecca Olesen
Posted on February 24, 2013 at 3:27pmBecause most insurance companies do not cover flood damage or ‘acts of god’. If nobody gives a crap about god, then insurance companies should not be able to claim non payment on ‘acts of god’ in the policies they never intend to pay out on.
Report this comment
Southernsoul
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:54amYeah, to echo a lot of the sentiments here, Why is the Federal government paying for any of the repairs to homes and businesses. Thats what insurance is for. Yet another example of how we cannot take care of ourselves without the help of Big Brother. Besides, churches are tax exempt. If anyone has no claim to government funds it would be a tax exempt organization. If there is no insurance, shouldn’t it be the people who attend the church who pay for repairs?
Report this comment
COFemale
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 12:15pmHow can the people pay when they lost everything too? Think man. we aren’t talking about a fire at the church and everything else is okay. We are talking where everything is destroyed, congregation homes also. The key word is ‘catastrophic disaster’.
Report this comment
Carrie3570
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 12:52pmCorrect. The Federal Government should not be paying to fix anything in a disaster. People, businesses, churches, etc. need to prepare for these things. The only time the Federal Government should fix anything in a natural disaster is if it belongs to the Fed. Gov. Example: Federal Prison.
Each state should have a disaster line in their budget and put money in it. When something happens, they would have the money to repair the things they need to repair without Federal Government help.
Report this comment
booger71
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 1:00pmCarrie3570
===========
Correcto-Mundo
Report this comment
ThePostman
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:46amA church is just a legal tax entitiy in the eyes of the government. It should be bailed out no more than a damaged Walmart should be. The ONLY relief the government should provide is emergency disaster humanitarian aid. Anything more encourages people to continue building their houses in dangerous places. Most people do not realize how much danger we put so many people in by encouraging such behavior.
Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:51amTaxpayers shouldn’t bail out churches or banks or any business for that matter and when you start going down that road you end up with a state sponsored religion.
Report this comment
chucksue351
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:59amor individuals that is what private homeowners insurance is for
Report this comment
BasketFullOfPuppies
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:16amI agree to the extent that our government has no mandate to rebuild ANYTHING. Disaster assistance should come from the community and surrounding communities and then the state and surrounding states, all acting as neighbors. The federal government should not be a one-stop shop for disaster aid.
Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:28amI have to agree with you on that, inch by inch the government would conclude – state funds used to rebuild churches = you belong to us now!
Report this comment
oldslori
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:50amKeep the Government out of Churches! Churches usually have a group they are linked to such as Southern Baptist is linked to the Southern Baptist Convention they will usually help out with damages. Plus churches should be insured against damage just like everyone else.
Report this comment
snixy
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:43amif the federal govt aids any non-profit – they should extend aid to churches to rebuild – if the federal government aids any small business – then the federal government should help rebuild churches because they employ millions in America
Report this comment
SocialistSlayer
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:43amFor once ( and probably only once ) I have to agree with the government – No aid to any church no matter what the religion. It is not the governments responsibility.
Report this comment
watashbuddyfriend
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:43amNo, the Taxpayers (Fed) should not bailout Churches of any denomination! Keep it separate!
Report this comment
RightUnite
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:40amIf the Government is going to pay for Mosques abroad to be rebuilt, or repaired, then they need to help local churches, otherwise no….
Report this comment
HOOT_OWL
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:33amThe Government should just take care of government buildings and infrastructure period. Any and all entities in the private sector should take of their own through insurance and such .
Report this comment
Glock29
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:24amTaxpayers should never have to pay to rebuild homes or businesses that were destroyed by mother nature….this is one of the many reasons we are broke! Our founders never intended any of these socialistic values to take place. Every year we get soaked from one or more natural disasters and this needs to end!
Report this comment
DeniseJ
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 1:59pmIndeed each state should allocate part of their state taxes toward a disaster fund. The FEDS need to keep out of it. Sorry, each state has their own vulnerable areas, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes……maybe some areas need to get insurance or stay unbuilt???
Report this comment
wolverine
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:19amThey don’t pay property taxes and get several other perks as a non profit religious org why should it churches get federal money
Report this comment
sta
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:54amSo every non-profit should be treated the same.
Let the Humane Society and the ASPCA rebuild their own as well.
Report this comment
lgccac
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:13amWhy should my tax dollars be used to rebuild anyone’s home? That’s what insurance is for.
Report this comment
Mapache
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:12amThe government should not be bailing out anyone. They could make loans available to individuals and entities since it might be difficult climate to get them but Grants, NO. Not to individuals, not to businesses and not to non-profits. I hope the lesson has been learned. Insurance is an important part of being responsible OR you are a chump for paying for insurance since you can expect the government of take care of you.
Report this comment
DougHuffman
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 10:42amWhy should the government be in the loan business? They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Report this comment
BIGZIPZ
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:09amNatural Disasters are an Act of God. So of course they should not be paid.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:01amThe government shouldn’t be rebuilding any private property unless the government was responsible for destroying it.
Pave the roads.
Defend the border.
Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:14amExactly. That is why the free market provides insurance plans. Didn’t have insurance? Your choice, tough luck. That is the way it should be.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:15amdont even pave the roads – let the states do that
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:28amHi East,
I noticed your post was at 8:01am and it reminded me of something I wanted to tell you.
I know you like music so look up the bands “801″ and “Baron Von Tollbooth and the Chrome Nun”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Usb26HywtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3thciHZ8Ve4
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:00amWow Monk…
thanks for that. 801 was cool. I’d never heard that before. Got a little scared when i saw Brian Eno in the by-line. lol. Simon Phillips is a killer drummer, too.
Baron Von Tollbooth ….. lol! I haven’t heard that stuff since my Trippy Dippie Hippie dope days.. Probably 20 years ago… seemed better then.. wonder why? ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogARPx1KKGI
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:14amHi East,
801 was put together when Roxy Music broke up and Baron Von Tollbooth and the Chrome Nun was Jefferson Airplane after they broke up and before they became Jefferson Starship. Both are rare and good albums.
Presently I listen to stuff like Hariprasad Chaurasia…. met him back stage in 1990 at Ruth Eckert Hall. I told him, “You fed my Soul” while hugging him. LOL
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hariprasad+chaurasia&qpvt=hariprasad+chaurasia&FORM=VDRE#x0y114
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:25amHey Monk,
That was cool too.. although not all that different in a way from the other stuff you posted…
Chaurasia would have fit right in with Eno, Starship, Jerry Garcia, etc….. THAT would have been one cool Super Group!
Report this comment
DeniseJ
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 1:55pmDefend the border!! Your comment makes me rethink mine. The states should take care of getting the utilities and roads clear of debris. Our all powerful fed. gov’t should concentrate on what they are here for……defending our large borders (Yeah, Canada too….they’re sneaking in undetected, not just Canadians but unidentified jihadists also). Where did we get to the idea the gov’t should fix everything after a disaster???
Report this comment
Toltepeceno
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 4:48pmEastinfection 20 years ago, lol. Youngster.
Report this comment
nonofmybiznez
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:00amChurches shouldn’t be beholding to any government (including Mosques). The people built the church and the people should rebuild them. If they paid for government flood insurance that is a different question. They should be given whatever the insurance provided for. God will provide.
Report this comment
Dodsfall
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:56amI question why the government needs to be in the business of bailing out anyone at all. The behemoth that has been created is because people expect the government to be all things to all people. This also allows the government to be all powerful.
Report this comment
DougHuffman
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:53amGovernment rebuild churches, nope, nor homes nor business. That’s why there’s insurance and that’s why there’s Obamascare. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Report this comment
TexPat
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:47amThe bigger question is why did they vote so much money for relief and then spend so much of it on PORK? We have a spending problem.
Report this comment
Mr.Fitnah
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:47amTo do so would be against sharia . Only mosques can be built and repaired by the US government.
Report this comment
gauge
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:53amExactly!
remember the number of slimeball politicians that had something to day about the mosque being built at ground zero.
Report this comment
mtsnj
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:41amInsurance is right. They have monies to build it you better have it to insure it. I can just see it now if we rebuild any church they’ll all want a piece of it… But fortunately we have something on our side “Aetheists” yeah!!!
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:39amyea if your church doesnt have insurance then you are srewed. if you look to the government for help with building our church – then you shouldnt be surprised when the government starts meddling with other things in the church…..
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:28amMother Nature can be a b i t c h.
That’s why God created insurance. : )
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:51amlol MONK….
you had to go there didn’t you!
it’s not nice to fool (that female dog) Mother Nature!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrTPrp-fW8
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:33amHi East,
I’m going even further….
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/22/obama-admin-calls-on-supreme-court-to-strike-down-defense-of-marriage-act-defining-marriage-as-between-a-man-and-woman/?corder=desc#comments
And I replied to you above with some music.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:10amwhoa?
Occupy?
Look forward to your thesis..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqdZJNO7dg
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on February 23, 2013 at 11:54amHi East,
Yep. one of their head people. Had a nice long talk with him. He was at Zucotti Park even. Ran their “media center”. Michael Moore even sat on him. LOL.
Report this comment