American Tax Money is used to fix up churches (violation of Church & State)

Xevious

Xevious

CAGiversary!
PRESS RELEASE  **  PRESS RELEASE  **  PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
November 17, 2004

Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Contact: Rob Boston or Jeremy Leaming
202.466.3234 telephone
202.466.2587 fax
www.au.org


AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES HOUSE VOTE FUNDING CALIFORNIA MISSIONS

Church-State Watchdog Group Plans To Challenge Unconstitutional Religion Subsidy
In Court

A bill providing public funds to refurbish California's mission churches
violates the First Amendment and is certain to provoke a lawsuit, says Americans
United for Separation of Church and State.

Today the House of Representatives passed the California Missions Preservation
Act (H.R. 1446), which provides $10 million to "restore and repair" 21 mission
churches, 19 of which are owned by the Roman Catholic Church and have active
congregations.

Americans United said the bill goes against basic constitutional principles.

"The Constitution clearly forbids government from funding religion," said the
Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "If the bill is
signed into law, we plan to challenge it in court. Taxpayers should never be
forced to maintain houses of worship."

Lynn testified earlier this year before a Senate committee considering the bill
and today issued a letter to House members urging them to defeat the measure.

"In short, the California Missions Preservation Act would violate the First
Amendment by forcing taxpayers nationwide to pay for church repairs, even
repairs and restoration of facilities with active congregations," Lynn stated in
the Nov. 17 letter.

The bill, which has already been approved by the Senate, states that the
Secretary of Interior shall make grants to the California Missions Foundation to
repair the missions and their artifacts. The measure now goes to the desk of
President George W. Bush.

"We appreciate the important role that these missions play in California's
history," Lynn said. "But they are not museums; they are houses of worship. The
First Amendment protects taxpayers from having to support religion, and the
California missions bill blatantly violates that principle."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious liberty
watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization
educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in the
safeguarding religious freedom.
 
This is what happens when people vote in a religous asshole.

I think they should only spend the money thats from the states that voted for Bush.

This has been oing on for awhile now.
 
I forwarded the press release to a local channel here in the Bay Area. I dont know if they will run the story but I thought it was worth trying.

I really dont want my tax money to fix California church ESPECIALLY since they are closing schools, fire stations, etc here in the state. My tax money should be used to keep a Fire station open instead of fixing up a church!
 
[quote name='David85']This is what happens when people vote in a religous asshole.

I think they should only spend the money thats from the states that voted for Bush.

This has been oing on for awhile now.[/quote]

What the hell does this have to do with voting george bush as the next president?

You should learn to write a fucking letter to your congressperson. They are the ones who introduce bills, vote on them and have the constitutional authority to appropriate money. Then take some time and read the freaking constitution. You'll find out theat we have a court system also. I can't believe they don't require this in highschool anymore.

Stay in school kids. And take 2 YEARS of government. Not just the required 1 semester. You'll thank me later in life when you actually know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to politics and law.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='David85']This is what happens when people vote in a religous asshole.

I think they should only spend the money thats from the states that voted for Bush.

This has been oing on for awhile now.[/quote]

What the hell does this have to do with voting george bush as the next president?

You should learn to write a shaq-fuing letter to your congressperson. They are the ones who introduce bills, vote on them and have the constitutional authority to appropriate money. Then take some time and read the freaking constitution. You'll find out theat we have a court system also. I can't believe they don't require this in highschool anymore.

Stay in school kids. And take 2 YEARS of government. Not just the required 1 semester. You'll thank me later in life when you actually know what the shaq-fu you're talking about when it comes to politics and law.[/quote]

I agree. Democrats in congress have to approve this too.
 
[quote name='bignick']I agree. Democrats in congress have to approve this too.[/quote]
In case you didn't hear, they're the minority party in congress right now. For the most part, that means that the value of their opinions mean something between jack and shit...
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='bignick']I agree. Democrats in congress have to approve this too.[/quote]
In case you didn't hear, they're the minority party in congress right now. For the most part, that means that the value of their opinions mean something between jack and shit...[/quote]

Well, considering that nothing can pass unless democrats vote for it too, I would say their opinion means something.
 
[quote name='bignick']Well, considering that nothing can pass unless democrats vote for it too, I would say their opinion means something.[/quote]
There's a few things that require a greater majority (meaning 2/3 of congress need to approve it), but the vast majority of business that Congress does merely needs a simple majority (50%) Since Repubicans make up more than 50% of congress, they can essentially do anything they want short of, say, impeaching the president or amending the constitution.

Essentially, the only meaningful power that the Democrats have left is the Filibuster, and any use of that invariably hurts the party that uses it.
 
What a joke. I'm sure lawsuits will delay and hopefully prevent this money from being spent. I could see it if they were historic buildings owned by the government, but they are active churches.
 
I hate to fuel the Republican CAG's fire but the bill was (Shockingly) introduced by a democrat Barbara Boxer. I am a Democrat so I think this is nuts!

I found out about this by doing a google search on California Missions Preservation Act"
 
I'm not surprised this was intorduced by Senator Boxer. You're not dealing with the creation of new churches here and true, 19 of these are being used as active congregations. However the majority of large California towns started out as Spanish missions. Can you imagine no government funding in Plymouth, MA for anything historical since it was a religous colony? Can you imagine no government funding for historical structures in Virginia, Maryland or Pennsylvania since they were founded by Anglicans, Catholics and Quakers?

When any structure in this country gets to be a certain age (I think it's 100 years.) it can be deemed a historical monument. This makes it hard to tear down, alter but because it's on the historical roles also allows it to be part of government spending for preservation and restoration. I have no problem with this. It's done in every European country to preserve their Cathedrals. California has no older base to mark civilization in their state besides these Spanish Missions.
 
They'd rather see a historical building crumble because it is religious than try to perserve it with tax money.

And they say that liberals aren't trying to eradicate religion from the US. Yup, religion is safe in their hands. :roll:
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'm not surprised this was intorduced by Senator Boxer. You're not dealing with the creation of new churches here and true, 19 of these are being used as active congregations. However the majority of large California towns started out as Spanish missions. Can you imagine no government funding in Plymouth, MA for anything historical since it was a religous colony? Can you imagine no government funding for historical structures in Virginia, Maryland or Pennsylvania since they were founded by Anglicans, Catholics and Quakers?

When any structure in this country gets to be a certain age (I think it's 100 years.) it can be deemed a historical monument. This makes it hard to tear down, alter but because it's on the historical roles also allows it to be part of government spending for preservation and restoration. I have no problem with this. It's done in every European country to preserve their Cathedrals. California has no older base to mark civilization in their state besides these Spanish Missions.[/quote]

But private property does NOT qualify for public funding. If that was the case the government would have to pay for repairs and maintenance on my house because it is a historical landmark, half of the houses in my neighborhood are historical landmarks. My house is 103 years old.

Churches get private funding from their congregations, and they use that money to maintain the building.

Just because a church is old doesn't mean the government should pay for maintenance, unless the church is unused and unsellable (they usually sell property like this for $1), then the local government must decide whether to make it a historical landmark and maintain it or demolish it.

It is funny how Scrubking and PAD say we should spend tax dollars on preserving churches, but also say that national forests should be opened for logging and wildlife refuges should be opened for oil drilling.

Flip-Flop!
 
[quote name='Scrubking']They'd rather see a historical building crumble because it is religious than try to perserve it with tax money.

And they say that liberals aren't trying to eradicate religion from the US. Yup, religion is safe in their hands. :roll:[/quote]

Scrubking almost had something resembling a valid position, and then he had to go and say that last sentence. D'oh! #-o

(FYI Scrubking, religion is not supposed to be "saved" by the US government, there's actually a separation between the two in the US)
 
Saving religion and saving a falling building are two different things that your small liberal mind could never understand.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Saving religion and saving a falling building are two different things that your small liberal mind could never understand.[/quote]

I know I'm going to regret this, but you said:

[quote name='Scrubking']Yup, religion is safe in their hands.[/quote]

Ideologically, liberals, conservatives, or anyone in the US government should not be concerned with keeping a particular religion "safe" (I am assuming that by keeping religion "safe", you mean maintaining religion's active place in the American cultural landscape. This is not the job of the US government)

And for the record, I think it is good to save buildings when they do have historical importance. However 21 mission churches sounds like an awful lot to save (gee it is a coincidence that Ahnold is Catholic).
 
I interpret 'keeping religion safe' as making sure people are not punished for the government, or rewarded by the government, for practicing/believing one religion or another. That's all separation of church and state means. And yes, liberals and conservatives should make sure that is the case. If it truly meant church and state could not coincide at all, tell the politicians to quit speaking at churches or going to churches, tell churches and church attendees to quit voting, etc.
I don't necessarily have a problem with this. Helping to renovate a building is not 'promoting religion' any more than helping feed junkies is helping promote illegal drug use.
And there's a whole lot of tax money going into other places it 'shouldn't', check out Ted Steven's bills for quite a few examples.

And agreed, GWB didn't singlehandedly cause this to occur. Obviously a lot of other people, including non-religious assholes [note the hyphen], Democrats and Republicans, wanted it to happen. To me it falls under 'community revivification', since in many communities, the church is a major nexus.

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad about this, go explore Citizens Against Government Waste's website and see what else your money is being wasted on; and not even big things of debatable necessity [the war, ANWR, etc, that could have nationwide impact], but stupid crap that helps one state or one community or one person.
Or for a real eyeopener [though boring], read the Congressional Record.
 
[quote name='David85']This is what happens when people vote in a religous asshole.

I think they should only spend the money thats from the states that voted for Bush.

This has been oing on for awhile now.[/quote]

Hey numnuts, California was a Kerry state.

Truth be told, I'm not exactly in favor of this idea myself. I'm assuming you aren't either but blaming it on Bush is just plain idiotic. You're one of those people that likes to blame everything on one political party (and more specifically their biggest candidate) and it gets old really fast because your using the same blind hatred for your arguments when at the same time your so upset about other people's blind hatred.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='David85']This is what happens when people vote in a religous asshole.

I think they should only spend the money thats from the states that voted for Bush.

This has been oing on for awhile now.[/quote]

What the hell does this have to do with voting george bush as the next president?

You should learn to write a shaq-fuing letter to your congressperson. They are the ones who introduce bills, vote on them and have the constitutional authority to appropriate money. Then take some time and read the freaking constitution. You'll find out theat we have a court system also. I can't believe they don't require this in highschool anymore.

Stay in school kids. And take 2 YEARS of government. Not just the required 1 semester. You'll thank me later in life when you actually know what the shaq-fu you're talking about when it comes to politics and law.[/quote]

I took as much Government as I can, Bush is the won that pushed it.

And heres a hint, I'm from Mass, they didn't vote for this. So maybe next time you will think before you speak.
 
The best part of all this is that I just heard Clinton on the news say he was PRAYING for President Bush.

Oh, the irony!
 
[quote name='Scrubking']The best part of all this is that I just heard Clinton on the news say he was PRAYING for President Bush.

Oh, the irony![/quote]

That's not irony, it's just coincidental.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']The best part of all this is that I just heard Clinton on the news say he was PRAYING for President Bush.

Oh, the irony![/quote]

Hmm...

Are you sure it wasn't a women "praying" in front of Clinton?
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='David85']This is what happens when people vote in a religous asshole.

I think they should only spend the money thats from the states that voted for Bush.

This has been oing on for awhile now.[/quote]

What the hell does this have to do with voting george bush as the next president?

You should learn to write a shaq-fuing letter to your congressperson. They are the ones who introduce bills, vote on them and have the constitutional authority to appropriate money. Then take some time and read the freaking constitution. You'll find out theat we have a court system also. I can't believe they don't require this in highschool anymore.

Stay in school kids. And take 2 YEARS of government. Not just the required 1 semester. You'll thank me later in life when you actually know what the shaq-fu you're talking about when it comes to politics and law.[/quote]

I took as much Government as I can, Bush is the won that pushed it.

And heres a hint, I'm from Mass, they didn't vote for this. So maybe next time you will think before you speak.[/quote]

One...and your statement still doesn't change the fact that Geroge Bush has little or nothing to with a decision made up by the Congress. He probably hasn't even seen the thing. Also this isn't a partisan poltical venture either, considering the House Bill was made up largely by both Republicans AND Democrats from California, the bill is even sponsered by Sam Farr, a Democrat of the 17th District in California.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']The best part of all this is that I just heard Clinton on the news say he was PRAYING for President Bush.

Oh, the irony![/quote]

I guess he wanted to return the favor.
 
Most of the votes on bills passed by the house and senate do not fall strictly within party lines. There are over 435 legislators who are more apt to vote for their constituents wants than for a republican or democratic bill becuase it's the part they belong to. Only the highly politicized and publicized bills are the ones that are usually highly partisan. Point being that just becuase majorities are held in the legislature by Republicans does not mean Republican bills will automatically be passed or signed by the President. The sky is not falling, people.
 
First of, these churchs that are under the juridiction of the Catholic Churchs should NOT be renevated with our tax payer money. They are the responsibility of the Catholic Dioseses.

If your neighbor lets his house get run down, do you go over and fix it up for them????? NO! Its not your freakin' responsibility.

So why the hell is this an issue? We should not have our tax money used to restore church- no matter how historical or how old they are.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']The best part of all this is that I just heard Clinton on the news say he was PRAYING for President Bush.

Oh, the irony![/quote]

What does that even mean?

Stop the jibba-jabba, fool! :lol:
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Scrubking']The best part of all this is that I just heard Clinton on the news say he was PRAYING for President Bush.

Oh, the irony![/quote]

What does that even mean?

Stop the jibba-jabba, fool! :lol:[/quote]

Yeah, it's on par with "It if wasn't for my horse I wouldn't have spent that year in college."
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Scrubking']The best part of all this is that I just heard Clinton on the news say he was PRAYING for President Bush.

Oh, the irony![/quote]

That's not irony, it's just coincidental.[/quote]

:rofl: Ah Futurama, How I miss thee..
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'm not surprised this was intorduced by Senator Boxer. You're not dealing with the creation of new churches here and true, 19 of these are being used as active congregations. However the majority of large California towns started out as Spanish missions. Can you imagine no government funding in Plymouth, MA for anything historical since it was a religous colony? Can you imagine no government funding for historical structures in Virginia, Maryland or Pennsylvania since they were founded by Anglicans, Catholics and Quakers?

When any structure in this country gets to be a certain age (I think it's 100 years.) it can be deemed a historical monument. This makes it hard to tear down, alter but because it's on the historical roles also allows it to be part of government spending for preservation and restoration. I have no problem with this. It's done in every European country to preserve their Cathedrals. California has no older base to mark civilization in their state besides these Spanish Missions.[/quote]

The issue really doesn't have anything to do with who founded what and who built what. The issue is public funding for a private organization, a religious organization. Why should my tax money pay to fix up your church? Why should your tax money pay to fix up my church? It's ridiculous. If they want to sell the property to the federal government and make it a public historical property with all that goes with that, I have no problem with that.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'm not surprised this was intorduced by Senator Boxer. You're not dealing with the creation of new churches here and true, 19 of these are being used as active congregations. However the majority of large California towns started out as Spanish missions. Can you imagine no government funding in Plymouth, MA for anything historical since it was a religous colony? Can you imagine no government funding for historical structures in Virginia, Maryland or Pennsylvania since they were founded by Anglicans, Catholics and Quakers?

When any structure in this country gets to be a certain age (I think it's 100 years.) it can be deemed a historical monument. This makes it hard to tear down, alter but because it's on the historical roles also allows it to be part of government spending for preservation and restoration. I have no problem with this. It's done in every European country to preserve their Cathedrals. California has no older base to mark civilization in their state besides these Spanish Missions.[/quote]

The issue really doesn't have anything to do with who founded what and who built what. The issue is public funding for a private organization, a religious organization. Why should my tax money pay to fix up your church? Why should your tax money pay to fix up my church? It's ridiculous. If they want to sell the property to the federal government and make it a public historical property with all that goes with that, I have no problem with that.[/quote]

If you dislike this situation, you can send an email to Barbara Boxer at this address http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/

I fear though it may be too late. It already passed the Senate and its going to the President's desk for signature.
 
[quote name='David85']I think they should only spend the money thats from the states that voted for Bush.

This has been oing on for awhile now.[/quote]

Heard someone say that the states that voted for Kerry should grow their own food.

[quote name='bmulligan'] ........Then take some time and read the freaking constitution. You'll find out theat we have a court system also. I can't believe they don't require this in highschool anymore...........[/quote]

Agree 100% And maybe they'll find out that the words, "Separation of Church and State" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It's a catchy phrase the liberals like to throw around and I betcha most Americans think that it is actually in the Constitution. :shock:
 
[quote name='Inmate #10943']
Agree 100% And maybe they'll find out that the words, "Separation of Church and State" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It's a catchy phrase the liberals like to throw around and I betcha most Americans think that it is actually in the Constitution. :shock:[/quote]

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson:
"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The "wall of separation" quote is based on Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the Constitution's first amendment. Since Thomas Jefferson was so prolific in the founding of our country, being there at the founding, I think it is fair to give the quote the weight it has been afforded by historians.

There is a new group of historical revisionists in America. These Christian revisionists assert that the founding fathers setup the Christian religion as the basis of the US government. This assertion (along with Creationism and the "National Treasury" movie :wink: ) is factually untrue.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Inmate #10943']......find out that the words, "Separation of Church and State" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution..........[/quote]

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson:
"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The "wall of separation" quote is based on Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the Constitution's first amendment. Since Thomas Jefferson was so prolific in the founding of our country, being there at the founding, I think it is fair to give the quote the weight it has been afforded by historians.[/quote]

May be true but my original post said that this phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Which it does not. In Supreme Court Hearings Jefferson's writings have not had that great of an impact on decisions through the years made by this Court. Good work digging that one up :D
 
[quote name='Inmate #10943'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='Inmate #10943']......find out that the words, "Separation of Church and State" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution..........[/quote]

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson:
"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The "wall of separation" quote is based on Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the Constitution's first amendment. Since Thomas Jefferson was so prolific in the founding of our country, being there at the founding, I think it is fair to give the quote the weight it has been afforded by historians.[/quote]

May be true but my original post said that this phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Which it does not. In Supreme Court Hearings Jefferson's writings have not had that great of an impact on decisions through the years made by this Court. Good work digging that one up :D[/quote]

Yes and I never said you were wrong, I was just explaining why people use that phrase, and why it is not an inaccurate interpretation of the constitution.

Yes, it is a sound byte, but it is an excellent example of a sound byte that captures the essence of the matter. Unfortunately, this art has been lost by politicians today and as a result people walk around yelling things like "flip flopper", instantly labelling themselves as idiots while causing anyone with a healthy respect for examining the truth and making an informed democratic decision to shake their heads in dismay.

http://www.tcnj.edu/~unbound/elections/wordassociation
 
Separation of Church and State was in the Bill of Rights; Not the Constitution. I remembered that being teached in grammer school.

Maybe certain "schools" decided not to teach that anymore. Who knows....
 
[quote name='Xevious']Separation of Church and State was in the Bill of Rights; Not the Constitution. I remembered that being teached in grammer school.

Maybe certain "schools" decided not to teach that anymore. Who knows....[/quote]

The Bill of Rights is a portion of the Constitution.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Xevious']Separation of Church and State was in the Bill of Rights; Not the Constitution. I remembered that being teached in grammer school.

Maybe certain "schools" decided not to teach that anymore. Who knows....[/quote]

The Bill of Rights is a portion of the Constitution.[/quote]

Yup. No Child Left Behind strikes again!! :rofl:
 
[quote name='Xevious']Separation of Church and State was in the Bill of Rights; Not the Constitution. I remembered that being teached in grammer school.

Maybe certain "schools" decided not to teach that anymore. Who knows....[/quote]

Perhaps your school failed to explain that the Bill of Rights is simply a name that's used to describe the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. The idea of an Amendment is that it fills in gaps that previously existed in the Constitution, or overwrite things that previously were in the Constitution. They are, in essense, White-Out, on top of which a new version of the affected sections of the Constitution are written.

Or to put it simply, as was already said, the Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. They were, in fact, written by the exact same group of people who wrote the original sections of the Constitution, so you can't even argue that it was other people who came along later and 'corrupted' the original meaning - it WAS the original meaning, they simply realized they didn't spell it out clearly enough the first time around, so they *went out of their way* to make it as clear as possible for you - RELIGION AND THE US GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT MIX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top