Administration pouring money into religion
 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._north_grant_6

why am i not surprised that bush would do something like this?


i'm not saying the site is historic, but i'm opposed to this because the STILL use the site for church services = giving money directly to churches.

if this was an old church converted into a museum, i would have no problem w/ it, but this is an active church!

anyway, what's your view on this?

I really don't see any problem with it, it's a historically significant marker that will be preserved for generations to come. I mean, come on if we eliminated all references to the Bible and fundamental Christian values and symbols from all American History, you'd have to burn the Constitution, replace our three branch, and bicameral legislature government with a new one. We would have to deny the fact that a good portion of the Founding Fathers ever existed, and besides, this doesn't establish a national religion, which is what Separation of Church and State protects us from, as well as protecting the Church from being persecuted by the State (whether it be a Christian Church, Jewish Synagogue, Muslim Mosque, etc. etc.) which was really what Thomas Jefferson meant by the phrase.
Lynn said that if Revere were alive today, he would "ride around the country, saying your tax dollars are being abused and warning that the church-state separation wall has just seen another crack."
What the hell? Revere was a well known member of the church, he's more likely to applaud the move. Anyways, that's my two cents.

If they were giving funds to the Episcopal church, yes, I would have a problem.

But funds to restore the Old North Church? No. No problem.

It's a historically significant landmark. I think it's alright. As far as the misuse and misallocation of government funds, there are a lot of other hard-hitting problems right now, and this doesn't strike me as one of them.

The article seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Sorry, but it's a historical landmark. The funds are going to restore it, not directly into the church itself. I don't see the problem.

it's restoring the landmark, so it can benifit a certain group, doesnt that strike you as unfair?

If it were Joe Blow's corner church that had no significance to anyone but Joe Blow's parishoners, I would agree. The Old North Church has significance to all Americans. So the 'group' that benefits is us.

ok fine, i guess i underestimated the significance of this one.

but what's next?? the next "historic" church also gets money to repair?

There is a fine line that is being crossed here. I disagree with giving federal money to religious organizations, but also believe that the building itself is historic to this country, not for its religious signifigance but for its part in the Revolution. I'd say yes, give them the money, but just like an insurance company, make sure the money is used for the upkeep and historical preservation of the building, not for printing flyers for the Easter Sunday mass.

No I don't have a problem with giving Federal money in this instance, but the line is getting blurry. The prediction that "dozens of grant applications from religious groups with rundown buildings would be filed each year", is disturbing.

And what will happen the first time the church takes a cheque meant to repair some historic steeple and uses it to fund an excursion down to the local family planning clinic (or something)?

Nothing - by then the horse will have already bolted. Do I think Bush's federal bureaucracy will strictly enforce the use of funds in historical preservation projects ONLY?

Fat chance - the precedent has already been set; all the bureaucrats need to do now is turn a blind eye and make sure to deny any FOI requests from Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

It is pretty obviously a historical landmark that should be restored. I see no problem with this, and fail to see how anyone can.

"Separation of Church and State" is meant to prevent the establishment of a national religion, not to deny restoration funds to an organization simply because it is a church or prevent the act of free religious expression.

My problem with all of this is far larger. Yes we have the problem where it is subjective which landmark is historical and deserving of funds from the governement. . . BUT

The larger issue here is why do we need to depend on the governement for this kind of thing at all? Why not have private sources get together to support this type of thing if it is important to us? Yes, our history is a public good and it is difficult to evenly distrubute the costs over those who benefit from it. I know that there are folks who care about this sort of thing (myself included) who would be happy to donate time and money to fixing things like this up and preserving them for future generations.

Instead of filtering through many levels of government where only 10% of the money that went in came out (the other 90% goes to "running" the governement) lets just give our own time and money to preserving these things ourselves.

I think it is important for being another "crack" in the wall.

But pointing to a small crack and saying "look, we're in danger" just makes those who value the church-state seperation look stupid.

What we need to do is build a picture up of all these little cracks and the reasons they appear (remember those senators who lived for free in a house paid for by a religious group?). Then people may take it seriously.

This is from the country that has an official National religion??

:D

I don't make the rules yet.

But give me time. Give me time.

Lebell, are you trying to say that America is less religious, in this case Christian, than England? England may be technically Anglican, but when people talk about Christian fundamentalism, they tend to mean the United States.

No,

I'm trying to say that hearing remarks about "church-state separation" sound kinda funny coming from a guy living in a country with an "official" religion.

So ease up there, tiger :D

funny point, but i dont see how he can change the fact that england has an official religion. i think it's beyond the power of 1 person to change that.

Sorry, Lebell, I didn't mean to sound like I was copping a 'tude; I'm just saying that America has been slowly easing into becoming a church-state for the past fifty years, whereas England, while being nominally Christian, is practically an atheistic nation.

yes, the brit's are far less religious in their day to day activites than americans. far less brit's attend church regularly compared to americans.

The First World War broke the back of the Anglican church, and the Second World War didn't help. A lot of English men and women found it very hard to believe in God anymore once they'd been to Passchendale or Normandy.

I would rather see my tax money going to a historical site like the old north church than alot of other places.
People really need to get a life.

You mean, you would rather that money go towards restoring a historical landmark that dates back to the Revolutionary War than to federally sponsored tattoo removal programs for youths from gangs? You must be a fundamentalist Christian zealot! :rolleyes:

No problem here.

People make the church. The building is just that--a building. The money was give to the restoration of the building, not the members.