The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Citizens United for Separation of Church and State, has an article up up at HuffPo expressing concern over First Amendment brutalization. The source of his ire? Well, the NPS recently announced the 2010 recipients in the "Save America's Treasures" grant program. And with it, Christianity is cemented as national religion. Apparently.

Among the 61 grants(.doc) issued to preserve things such as the works of impressionist painter Hans Hofmann, silent films from the 1920s, a "Jim Crow" railroad car, the Tougaloo College Civil Rights Collections and a surprisingly diverse range of other "national treasures" (providing some hope that someone, somewhere in government doesn't 100% suck) ... were Three, count 'em THREE, grants to help maintain church structures. The National Cathedral, D.C.; Trinity Church, Buffalo; St. Mark’s Church, Philadelphia. Lynn is not happy about this. Clearly, a tithe collection line on our 1099 forms is just around the corner.

Astute readers may have guessed, this post disagrees with Rev. Lynn. Sometimes an organization with a completely agreeable stated mission will take a stand that simply doesn't make sense, and often undermines the larger objectives of the group. The NRA has become master of such things. If the NRA stakes out a position actually advancing the objectives of sane, responsible gun owners ... the "1 million monkeys at typewriters" theory probably applies.

Lynn's premise on this one is not much better. The argument he presents boils down to this conclusion:

The fact that the cathedral is historic or that it plays an important role in public life is irrelevant. In this country, churches are expected to pay their own way. The men and women occupying the pews pay for building construction and upkeep. Anything else is a religion tax.

The basic assertion is true. But it is equally true that in this country, individuals are supposed to pay their own way. As are businesses, non-profits or any other private entity. All non-governmental entities (organizations or individuals) are considered equal. As such, there is an equal responsibility for the owners of Trevino-Uribe Rancho to maintain the structures for their educational programs and artist colony. However, it seems pretty difficult to demand private owners pay for any and all repairs while at the same time demanding they respect historical considerations and carry out those repairs to a historian's satisfaction. In fact, it seems kind of difficult to ask that they be maintained at all.

The grant program is based on an idea the public interest is served by investing some public funds to preserve artifacts of historic importance - regardless of any responsibilities held by the owners. The rest of us are indeed paying a tax. But it is a tax handed to a range of various interests with primary responsibility for maintaining something of historic value to the public at large. The recipients apply, agree to conditions and are selected based on an objective criteria defining the historic nature of the object being maintained.

If a private entity in ownership of a structure deemed "historic" is eligible for federal funds based on the nature of that structure - all private entities in possession of an equivalent structure should be equally eligible. If one building employed in active daily use is eligible, all such buildings should be. Likewise, if artifacts maintained by one non-profit group are eligible - all non-profits maintaining equivalent artifacts should also be eligible. An honest determinat­ion of an object's historic value can not be based on the beliefs or practices of the entity currently in possession­ of the object.

It is one thing to demand that American government be an independen­t secular entity. That is a position the vast majority of Americans - of all faiths - hold dear. We have FAR too many cases of members in a certain party demanding the declaration of a "National Religion". But we also must be careful to not go the other direction and discrimina­te against people of faith under the guise of keeping religion and government separate.

Following Rev. Lynn's desires, a benefit available to all other entities would be withheld from a specific sub-group based entirely on their religious nature - which is separate and irrelevant to the historic value of a structure or object. In this case, it is fully appropriate for religious groups to be treated equally. Not better. Just equal. There is nothing wrong with a grant being issued so long as the artifact being maintained meets the standards.

When it all boils down, what Rev. Lynn advocates is ultimately religious discrimination. He must not have thought through his position as thoroughly as this case warrants.

(Note: it is also interesting that Lynn does not take issue with funds directed to preserve the writings of Rabbi Mordecai M. Kaplan - the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism or a grant for the 1889 Soldiers Home Chapel & Chaplain's Quarters, Milwaukee, which would "[allow] the resumption of services for veterans and their families." Unlike the highlighted money for physical architectural preservation - these grants go directly to maintain religious documents or facilitate religious practice. I would expect these two to be seen as most offensive from a "government supported religion" standpoint as they can be asserted to advance religion itself. Odd omissions on his part.)