Discuss the extent to which religious organizations have supported affected communities.

Aside from government organizations, religious organizations of various denominations, particularly Christian and Catholic organizations, have played a central role in aiding communities that have been affected by political and military conflict, terrorism, natural disasters, and many others. The reason for it, aside from the usual attempt at evangelization, is that the very core of the Christian faith is to support those who are most vulnerable in society.

For example, it is enough to look at regions of the world that have been devastated by war and famine, to be able to see this issue. When you look at Africa, there is no clearer picture of how religious organizations have supported these communities through diverse activities, like feeding them, teaching them, or providing healthcare services for free. Countries in the Middle East, one of the most violent regions in the world, right now, also receive enormous percentages of aid from religious organizations, through money, but most of all, through human resources; people who go to the devastated countries to provide healthcare services and others.

The most important issue here is that, unlike governmental agencies, and international agencies, religious organizations have affected vulnerable communities not just for a short period of time - just during the peak of the problem- as has been cases like Haiti, after the earthquakes, or Venezuela in their internal conflict, but they work long-term and their effect are also long-term.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )