burn down the mission?

SAN FRANCISCO — Rich in history and treasured by tourists, schoolchildren and parishioners alike, California's 21 Spanish missions are nevertheless in peril.

Built in the late 18th century, the aging structures and the artifacts they hold are in dire need of repair and upgrades, but a debate is smoldering over whether taxpayers should foot the bill.

If a measure passed by the U.S. Senate becomes law, $10 million in federal funds would be earmarked for mission restoration — a violation, critics say, of the separation of church and state, since most of the missions are still owned by the Catholic Church and continue to hold Mass.

"If people who are religious and of that particular faith do not want to find ways to privately raise these funds, it's not up to the American taxpayer to bail them out and rebuild those religious structures," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State (search).

But the California Missions Foundation (search) says that while most missions do hold Sunday services and have active parishes, they are primarily used for secular and educational purposes. Knox Mellon, executive director of the foundation, said he believes missions should get tax money since they're historic monuments, and his organization will make sure the money won't be used to support religion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135838,00.html


sounds like a case for the Anti-Christian Liberties Union

IS it owned by the church, the church should pay for the restorations. could i expect the goverment to pay for any other privatly owned building...if so my house could use renovations.

Give up the missions to the government to be federal or state parks and I would be more for the government footing the bill.

Quote:

---

Built in the late 18th century, the aging structures and the artifacts they hold are in dire need of repair and upgrades, but a debate is smoldering over whether taxpayers should foot the bill.

If a measure passed by the U.S. Senate becomes law, $10 million in federal funds would be earmarked for mission restoration — a violation, critics say, of the separation of church and state, since most of the missions are still owned by the Catholic Church and continue to hold Mass.

---

It shouldn't matter whether or not it is still owned by the Catholic Church but that it is a historic relic! I live near Gettysburg <a battleground in our Civil War > and they fix/repair the Gettysburg era homes even though the homes are not apart of their ownership. Money is very tight in the Catholic church now since it took three and a half years for my former church to repair itself. I wonder if this was a Muslim mosque if there would be such an uproar?

Why doesn't the Catholic Church sell the property to the government?
The government can then make them protected monuments, and repair and upgrade them with tax money.
If they don't want to sell, they should either pay for the repairs themselves (kdk > if this is the roman-catholic church we're talking about, then you're statement that money is very tight is completely wrong), or stop whining.

here, if you own an "historic related building" you should maintain it by YOURSELF in good conditions. Its the law. If you to conserve the building you can just loose it for the Goverment patrimony and still MUST PAY the reform !!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by kurt_der_koenig
Money is very tight in the Catholic church now

---

Yes, the Catholic church is having money problems right now. Mainly because they're paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in legal settlements to children that they allowed to be systematically molested.

The thought of tax money going to renovate churches, of ANY religion, sickens me.

Quote:

---

Money is very tight in the Catholic church now since it took three and a half years for my former church to repair itself. I wonder if this was a Muslim mosque if there would be such an uproar?

---

The Catholic church is one of the biggest land owners in Europe, and it is also one of the richest organisations around, and it has been around for a while. But they are notoriously tight when it comes to spending money on their own property.
Passing the plate was supposed to be a way to raise the vicars stipend, but as that was paid from central funds................

As for the mosque dig ........ when they have been around as long as the churches, then we will see whether they have any of those oil dollars left to maintain their buildings.
Or will they too, pass the plate ....................

Whatever they choose; just don't let ANY tax dollars go near them. If they fall, so be it.

Quote:

---

Yes, the Catholic church is having money problems right now. Mainly because they're paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in legal settlements to children that they allowed to be systematically molested.

---

And I know who and what you are.............

You sold this site out.............so pi$$ off and spend your money on your nob jockey friends............you are not what we need here?

Go away and create your own new site

and conform with your contractual agreements?

Quote:

---

"If people who are religious and of that particular faith do not want to find ways to privately raise these funds, it's not up to the American taxpayer to bail them out and rebuild those religious structures," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State (search).

---

Is it not the same were abortion is concerned? It is not up to the taxpayers to foot the bill. How about affirmative action, should the taxpayers foot the bill? Or bailing out corporations that are going under? Were does it stop, or who will stop it? Oh thats right, anything to do with a church is a no no, but everything else is fair game.

It's a tough call since the buildings have both historical and religious
significance. A case can be made that gov't ought to support the maintainance of
properties that are part of the national and cultural heritage, but there's no
way you're going to convince me that the Roman Catholic Church cannot afford
to do it themselves. They're just being cheap. If they really can't maintain those buildings
they can give them to private historical foundations, or to State or Federal Government.
:cool:

Quote:

---

(kdk > if this is the roman-catholic church we're talking about, then you're statement that money is very tight is completely wrong), or stop whining.

---

Yes, all the money stays in Europe and/or gets redirected to Vatican and doesn't get past down as much to the small churchs such as my former church. I'm not your little baby so don't tell me to stop whining. :fpissed: wawawawawawawa :p :fpissed:

Greetings:

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil
And I know who and what you are.............

You sold this site out.............so pi$$ off and spend your money on your nob jockey friends............

[...]

and conform with your contractual agreements?

---

What in the hell kind of nonsensical reply to this thread was THAT? So this is the new typical 11 green dot member huh?

*Avoids urge to flame.*

They're historic sites and the people should vote whether or not they think it should be supported by tax dollars... I myself wouldn't mind seeing a historic site saved and restorted for educational purposes and tourist attractions, but since I think that preserving a mission is the last place the USA should be spending money at the moment, I'd vote against it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kurt_der_Koening
Yes, all the money stays in Europe and/or gets redirected to Vatican and doesn't get past down as much to the small churchs such as my former church. I'm not your little baby so don't tell me to stop whining. wawawawawawawa

---

Maybe it's time you start paying attention to punctuation and brackets ;)

Here's my original comment:

Quote:

---

If they don't want to sell, they should either pay for the repairs themselves (kdk > if this is the roman-catholic church we're talking about, then you're statement that money is very tight is completely wrong), or stop whining.

---

Notice that there are brackets around the part directed at you. The subject the "or stop whining" part refers to is "they", not you :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Maybe it's time you start paying attention to punctuation and brackets

---

lmao sorry but that must be a new punctuation cause I didn't learn that in English class jk. Sorry again just did a quick glance-cause I had to run somewhere- and noticed "whining" and "kdk" so I freaked out some. But how dare you call me kdk atleast kurt... Very rude, very rude. You don't see me calling you "NGE". lol bad joke. nvm