What steps have missionary organizations done to repay the US government for rescue?

Tourists pay taxes and generally pay income tax, but professional clergy generally live tax free. When the US government pays to rescue a missionary from a place with a travel ban or warning at the time of their capture, what does the church pay the US government to reimburse the moneys lost by voluntarily violating the travel ban or disregarding the warning? http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-10-17-haiti-america_x.htm (travel warning issued July 7, 2006) http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/16/iraq.main/index.html (travel warnings and bans since the mid 1990s) For a list of travel warnings and bans, consult http://travel.state.gov/ Cruise lines, for example, can be found criminally liable if they carry US citizens into a travel advisory place without taking "all due precautions" So, if the US rescues a cruise ship, the liability settlement pays the funds. Mountain climbers are billed. Missionaries are not. Victor- you're very lucky. I posted links to the billed people last question. Posted links to people the US government paid to resuce abroad and got accused of lying about the travel bans, post the travel bans and there's not enough about rescues.... I guess it's true those things Barnum said... Oh, and yes, I am offended by how little we pay healthcare workers of all religions.

Public Comments

1. I think it is just something we do. After all, there are any number of dumb asses doing stupid things like climbing mountains etc that constantly need someone to come along and save them. Should rescue costs be included? Yes, by all means.
2. Pastors in the US must file as operating a small business. They don't live tax free. However, a missionary is a US citizen and should enjoy the beneifts of being a US citizen and that includes being rescued. People go in these countries because they care about these people knowing that God loves them. I'm willing, as a taxpayer, to rescue them............it's the least of my tax worries.
3. They should have to repay the government. It's ridiculous for someone to know there is that kind of danger but they feel they have to go to spread the "word of God". They endanger their lives and the lives of the people doing the rescue. I have no pity for them. They should be left there to figure how to get out on their own.
4. I guess you have no idea what missionaries do. The ones I know provide a great deal medical aid to third world countries. They also provide homes for orphans and teach not just the children, but illiterate adults as well since the governments of those countries prefer to keep their people ignorant and oppressed. They show them how to farm and provide for their families and villages. So they become independant and develop better living conditions. For all of the missionaries that are in these countries, very few have to be rescued. Your lack of knowledge shows how easily mislead you are of our liberal media's agenda.
5. I see links to travel warnings and bans but I don't see links to rescues. I'm not saying there aren't rescues, I just haven't heard of them and I don't see a source. That said, a travel warning is just a warning. It's not a ban. The US government has the same obligation to all citizens. If it would rescue someone who is traveling for business to a country with a travel warning then it needs to also rescue a missionary.
6. mountain climber here... was rescued by government workers in the Rockies, never got the bill, strange... Nuns work in countless hospitals helping the sick and the dying for pennies, does that offend you ?
7. Well first off there is a difference between travel warnings and bans. If there is a travel warning it is left up to the individual whether or not they will travel to the area. If there is a travel ban, most organizations do not allow their workers to travel there. Although I said "most" I can't think of any that would allow that. Most missionaries or humanitarian workers, although affiliated with an organization, go as individuals. As such, they are citizens of their country (Canada, U.S., etc.) and should be treated the same as any citizen that needs to be "rescued" from a dangerous situation. If other citizens are charged for being rescued from a war-torn country...then it would be fair for humanitarian workers to be charged. If not, then it wouldn't be fair.