Administration pouring money into religion - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

The_Dude · 05-28-2003, 11:19 AM

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

Quote:

U.S. Changes Policy in Grant to Church

BOSTON - The Old North Church, where two lanterns were hung to signal Paul Revere that the British were coming, will receive federal grant money for a fix-up under a change in government policy on church and state.

Old North is still an active Episcopal church, and up to now, historically significant structures that were also used for religious purposes have been ineligible for federal historic preservation grants because of concerns about the separation of church and state.

But Interior Secretary Gale Norton said Tuesday that under a new policy, all nationally significant historic structures can get grants.

"This new policy will bring balance to our historic preservation program and end a discriminatory double-standard that has been applied against religious properties," Norton said in a statement.

The announcement drew criticism from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a 52-year-old Washington-based group.

"Gale Norton is wrong on the Constitution at a minimum because the Constitution prohibits turning the public treasury into a church building fund and that's apparently what this administration now wants to do," said Barry Lynn, the organization's executive director.

"It's really a gross abuse of tax dollars to drop public funds into the collection plate of an active church."

The new policy was approved by President Bush (news - web sites) after he consulted with the Justice Department (news - web sites) and the White House counsel's office, said Jim Towey, director of the Bush administration's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

It is part of a campaign by the president "to remove barriers that have prevented faith-based groups from being treated fairly in the public square," Towey said.

Diane Cohen, co-director of Partners for Sacred Places, a national group that helps religious congregations preserve their buildings, called it a "wonderful day for us" and predicted that dozens of grant applications from religious groups with rundown buildings would be filed each year.

The $317,000 grant has been approved to repair and restore windows in the building and make it more accessible to the public.

The 280-year-old church still has an active congregation, and services are held every Sunday.

On the night of April 18, 1775, two lanterns displayed from the church steeple warned Revere that the British were heading to Lexington and Concord.

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."

But Towey said, "Americans don't want to fund religion. But this isn't funding religion. This is preserving a national treasure."

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?

archer2371 · 05-28-2003, 11:30 AM

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.

Lebell · 05-28-2003, 11:40 AM

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.

hiredgun · 05-28-2003, 11:43 AM

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.

spectre · 05-28-2003, 12:02 PM

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.

The_Dude · 05-28-2003, 01:22 PM

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

Lebell · 05-28-2003, 01:27 PM

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.

The_Dude · 05-28-2003, 01:31 PM

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

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

retg34 · 05-28-2003, 01:58 PM

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.

Frowning Budah · 05-28-2003, 07:28 PM

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.

Macheath · 05-29-2003, 02:53 AM

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.

seretogis · 05-29-2003, 08:39 AM

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.

Mondak · 05-29-2003, 09:58 AM

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.

4thTimeLucky · 05-29-2003, 11:43 AM

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.

Lebell · 05-29-2003, 01:32 PM

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

4thTimeLucky · 05-29-2003, 02:55 PM

I don't make the rules yet.

But give me time. Give me time.

Easytiger · 05-29-2003, 03:25 PM

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.

Lebell · 05-29-2003, 03:31 PM

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

The_Dude · 05-29-2003, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
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

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.

Easytiger · 05-29-2003, 05:43 PM

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.

The_Dude · 05-29-2003, 05:57 PM

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.

Easytiger · 05-29-2003, 07:03 PM

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.

reconmike · 05-29-2003, 07:27 PM

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.

seretogis · 05-29-2003, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
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!

duckduck · 05-29-2003, 09:53 PM

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.

05-28-2003, 11:30 AM	#2 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	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. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

05-28-2003, 11:40 AM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	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. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-28-2003, 12:02 PM	#5 (permalink)
spectre Junkie	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. __________________ "Fuck these chains No goddamn slave I will be different" ~ Machine Head

05-28-2003, 01:22 PM	#6 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	it's restoring the landmark, so it can benifit a certain group, doesnt that strike you as unfair? __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-28-2003, 01:27 PM	#7 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	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. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-28-2003, 11:43 AM	#4 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	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.

05-28-2003, 01:31 PM	#8 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	ok fine, i guess i underestimated the significance of this one. but what's next?? the next "historic" church also gets money to repair? __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-28-2003, 01:58 PM	#9 (permalink)
retg34 Upright	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.

05-28-2003, 07:28 PM	#10 (permalink)
Frowning Budah Slave of Fear	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.

05-29-2003, 02:53 AM	#11 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	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.

05-29-2003, 08:39 AM	#12 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	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. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames Last edited by seretogis; 05-29-2003 at 08:42 AM..

05-29-2003, 09:58 AM	#13 (permalink)
Mondak Industrialist Location: Southern California	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. __________________ All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed Second, it is violently opposed and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

05-29-2003, 11:43 AM	#14 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	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. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-29-2003, 01:32 PM	#15 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	This is from the country that has an official National religion?? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-29-2003, 02:55 PM	#16 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	I don't make the rules yet. But give me time. Give me time. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-29-2003, 03:25 PM	#17 (permalink)
Easytiger Insane Location: Tigerland	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.

05-29-2003, 03:31 PM	#18 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	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 __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-29-2003, 05:43 PM	#20 (permalink)
Easytiger Insane Location: Tigerland	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.

05-29-2003, 05:57 PM	#21 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	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. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-29-2003, 07:03 PM	#22 (permalink)
Easytiger Insane Location: Tigerland	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.

05-29-2003, 07:27 PM	#23 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	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. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

05-29-2003, 09:53 PM	#25 (permalink)
duckduck Psycho Location: Where hockey pucks run rampant	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. __________________ Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way!