AU Files Lawsuit to Block Taxpayer Funding for CA Missions

[Fleurs du Mal]

http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr010=9egwlw5pt1.app5b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=7067&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

Government Assistance To Churches Is Unconstitutional, Watchdog Group Says

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today filed a lawsuit in federal court to block taxpayer funding of mission churches in California.

The Americans United lawsuit targets a recently enacted piece of legislation, the California Missions Preservation Act, which provides $10 million in federal funds to "restore and repair" 21 mission churches, 19 of which are owned by the Roman Catholic Church and have active congregations.

Proponents of the aid argue that the missions are historic and should be preserved with government funds. But the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said the bill amounts to taxpayer-supported religion.

"Houses of worship must be maintained by their members, not the federal government," Lynn said. "All but two of these missions house active congregations and hold regular worship services. They are not museums."

Lynn said that while Americans United appreciates the historic nature of the missions, it is vital that separation of church and state be maintained.

"If this type of assistance is upheld, every house of worship in America that is deemed 'historic' could demand upkeep and repair courtesy of the taxpayer," Lynn said. "The Constitution simply does not allow the government to force a taxpayer to subsidize the maintenance of houses of worship. That's a core principle of separation of church and state:"

Lynn noted that it was forced support for religion that first inspired leaders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to wage a national effort to enact church-state separation.

"This bill is a backdoor church tax," Lynn said. "It's a throwback to a time when the state forced everyone to support certain churches, whether they belonged to them or not."

The bill, H.R. 1446, was signed into law Nov. 30 by President George W. Bush. It requires the Secretary of Interior to make grants to the California Missions Foundation to repair the missions and their "artifacts." AU notes that many of those artifacts are, in fact, religious symbols and artwork.

AU's lawsuit, Doe v. Norton, includes several California taxpayers as plaintiffs. It was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton was named as the defendant.

[David__77]

1. This is ridiculous.

The state should not be pumping tax dollars into privately-owned church buildings. If they are public-accessible, that's another thing.

[Khephra]

2. If they were abandoned historical sites, then sure

But active Catholic missions? Screw that!

(Kef: A proud AU Indianapolis VP for 2 years now.)

[tk2kewl]

6. have the pope hock a couple of gold chalices

[kikiek]

3. Appears to be election support payback time.

[Malva Zebrina]

4. A lot of those crumbling huge cathedral like churches are falling apart

and the congregation too few or too poor to keep it up. They will be deemed historical in no time.

Support AU. They do good work.

[Maat]

5. I support A.U. and am a member, and I support ..

Senator Boxer (Cal.). She, for some reason, say 'pork,' voted in favor of the funding. I was notified by A.U. I was stunned. I grew up near the San Juan Capistrano Mission, and I thought they were all museums. I had to consider this matter. I am against funding the upkeep if the structure is not a museum/historic site, in which there is not active congregation.

I'd like to see them preserved, but not as a part of the Catholic Church.

Isn't the Mission Inn in Riverside, Ca. a privately-owned hotel now? Went there for a meeting about a month ago. The restoration was beautiful.

[Trillo]

7. First restore with taxpayer money, then the church firesales it. Hmm.

Another way to pay off contributors.

[CAcyclist]

8. I'll break with progressive thought on this if true, but I doubt

the accuracy of the claim that these are active churches owner by the Roman Catholic Church. If they are in fact owned by the Church, we should negotiate to buy them, since the Church seems to need a lot of funds.

I cannot think of one mission which is actively used as a church - every one I have ever visited are all historic buildings used as museums. I want to see them preserved. We have lost so much of our history - we need to save what little is left. I am an atheist and I still think it is important to preserve this.

[sweetheart]

9. what about the american indians

Who were subjugated by these "missions" in california. It strikes
me that the real compensation should be going towards the historical
families of those persecuted by the missions... not the self-serving
missions themselves.

[Maat]

10. Agreed.

It's history ... some of it representing cruel behavior. Still would like to see the buildings preserved, though, after being bought as museums. Then informative displays could be put up.

[tsuki]

11. If these buildings are historic, then a campaign to

save them with funds that people WANT to donate should replace tax dollars.