dagblog - Comments for "Rev. Lynn: Separation of Church and State or Discrimination?"

I don't say that it unfairly

kgb999 — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:32:16 +0000

I don't say that it unfairly cheats worthy landmarks. I say it discriminates against a specific population in America based on their religious affiliation.

Some people have been known to argue the government gives minorities enough already with welfare and affirmative action. Such an opinion does not mean a minority can be prohibited from seeking a scholarship available to members of all races. This was an open opportunity for all cultures and aspects of American history so seek preservation assistance.

I'm not understanding the logic by which you assert violation of the establishment clause is "obvious". The prohibition is against Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion or preventing the free exercise thereof. I don't see any law having anything to do with establishing a religion - it's a law establishing funding to preserve inanimate artifacts that represent America's culture, ideals, characteristics and way of life to maintain a story of who we are as people. As people, many Americans engage in religion. The natural history museum certainly treats religion as worthy of presentation when cultural displays are created. It can't be that preserving religious artifacts from Native American culture is paramount to the government establishing national Shamanism; even though some Americans engage in Native religions today.

The stuff you underlined seems to support preserving at least some historic articles related to religion in the context of our nation's culture. You can't honestly present who we are outside of government while at the same time barring any cultural aspect of American life that involves religion. This is a big part of our cultural heritage which forms the underlying basis for many of our ideals and it certainly illustrates a way of life that pertains the the majority of Americans who have lived. I don't see refusing to preserve examples and aspects of important American cultural history because some people don't like the religion of those who lived it.

If a historic church building were owned by a corporation or secular nonprofit, does the building then become eligible for preservation? If so, the only discernible difference underlying a decision not to preserve would be the faith of the applicant. To whatever extent the establishment clause comes into play - it seems interpreting it as you have could be construed as a law impeding the free exercise of religion (or at least penalizing it).

Do you also think preserving the Kaplan papers showing the establishment of Reconstructionist Judaism was also wrong? I think this is an important American heritage as well and should be preserved. From my perspective the NPS did an awesome job of representing a very diverse portfolio of historic interests.

Read further. Those are the

artappraiser — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 04:58:48 +0000

In reply to There is a list of

Read further. Those are the judgment criteria applicable for all property and items

but real property, like church buildings, is further limited:

Historic Property Projects
The historic property will be considered to be nationally significant according to the definition of "National Significance" listed above if it meets one of the following criteria:

• Designated as a National Historic Landmark or located within and contributing to a historic district that is designated as a National Historic Landmark District.

• Listed in the National Register of Historic Places for national significance or located within and contributing to a historic district that is listed in the National Register for its national significance.
Please note that properties can be listed in the National Register for significance at the local, state, or national level; most properties are not listed for national significance. The level of significance can be found in Section 3 - State/Federal Agency Certification of the property's approved National Register nomination.

Questions about listing in the National Register of Historic Places, levels of significance in such listings, and contributing buildings in historic districts should be addressed to the State Historic Preservation Office for the state in which the property is located.

This totally supports kgb's argument. Churches are not what's being supported here. Churches which happen to use buildings which they have already allowed to be designated as historic places (and therefore being shared with the public in certain ways) can apply for grants to help keep those registered buildings in good repair. I'm sure that there are rules for those designations that cost those churches money that they might not spend if not in a historic building. The people using these buildings have already decided to submit themselves to some measure of public availability.

I really don't know all the full particulars about the responsibility to the public for National Historic Landmarks and Nationa Register of Historic Places, but I am sure there are some. Some that cost money.

This program is really a bad example for the Rev Lynn's cause; he would eventually lose the argument that it's the churches that are being supported. He'd be much better off complaining about churches being exempt from taxes. Or else argue that any building that was ever used as a church should never receive these designations, in which case I doubt he'd get much support either.

A reminder that in NYC, owners sometimes want to avoid having their home or building categorized as historic, because it can become an expensive and onerous proposition. I.E., you no longer have the choice of putting the latest aluminum siding or windows on it, you've got to hire artisans to restore that facade and find replacement casement windows.

There is a list of

mageduley — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 04:26:39 +0000

In reply to Rev. Lynn: Separation of Church and State or Discrimination?

There is a list of definitions for "National Significance" at the link you supplied. These are the most interesting:

• Represent great historic, cultural, artistic or scholarly ideas or ideals of the American people; or,

• Embody the distinguishing characteristics of a resource type that:

• Is exceptionally valuable for the study of a period or theme of United States history or culture; or

• Represents a significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack individual distinction but that collectively form an entity of exceptional historical, artistic or cultural significance (e.g., an historic district with national significance), or

• Outstandingly commemorates or illustrates a way of life or culture;

(underlining mine)

While this government program is great for the preservation of other landmarks, for churches it should be absolutely taboo. It is an obvious violation of the establishment clause. While you may say that this would unfairly cheat otherwise worthy landmarks of funding simply because they are a church, I disagree. The door swings both ways and the fed gives churches tons of tax breaks that others do not get. It all evens out. Churches do no need additional federal funds, they get enough leniency from the IRS