NationStates Jolt Archive

Carson City’s funds to historic church protested

By MARTIN GRIFFITH
Associated Press

RENO, Nev. (AP) — A group that advocates separation of church and state has protested a Nevada city’s decision to provide funding to a church that Mark Twain helped build as a fledgling writer in the 1860s.

Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State contends Carson City supervisors’ votes concerning the First Presbyterian Church violated the First Amendment.

City and church officials disagree, saying the money is merely going toward additional costs stemming from an agreement that paved the way for the congregation to construct a new church in return for backing off its plan to raze the original one.

Earlier this month, supervisors voted to give $78,800 to the church for sidewalks, landscaping and roof repairs. In 2006, the city gave $67,700 to help with design costs for the new church, which is located adjacent to the old one.

Americans United will consider a lawsuit if supervisors fail to rescind the votes, said Alex Luchenitser, an attorney for the group.

“It seems to be a very clear constitutional violation,” he said. “The First Amendment mandates separation of church and state. Public funds can’t be used to support religious activity directly or indirectly.”

But city officials defended their votes, saying the money is designed to save the historic brick church and not support religious activity.

“Just because someone on the East Coast writes you a letter doesn’t mean we’re going to jump through a bunch of goddamn hoops,” Supervisor Pete Livermore told Carson City’s Nevada Appeal.

In 2005, church officials sought city approval to tear down the old church and use the site for the new church. They said the original church was structurally unsound and too small.

City officials rejected the request, citing its location in a historic district and its status as Nevada’s oldest church building.

But they agreed to help the congregation with additional costs associated with constructing a new 9,000-square-foot church on an alternative site adjacent to it.

Bruce Kochsmeier, the church’s pastor, said the city’s money is “minimal compensation” for the church having to revise its plans.

He criticized Americans United, saying the city’s money benefits all residents and isn’t being used to support the church.

“Doesn’t the door swing both ways? Wasn’t it a violation when we weren’t allowed to tear down our building?” Kochsmeier asked. “Wasn’t that right of religious expression being squelched?”

While he defends supervisors’ votes, Mayor Bob Crowell said he’ll seek an opinion from the city’s legal counsel on a letter sent Thursday by the advocacy group.

“Like every other threat of a lawsuit, we’ll turn it over to (the legal counsel). He may think it’s worthy of a response or he may not,” Crowell said.

The group said in the letter that a governmental entity can’t help pay for the construction or repair of a building used for religious reasons.

The group cites several cases as examples, including a 2007 ruling on a Boise, Idaho homeless shelter by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Nevada.

Kochsmeier has said the congregation could use the old church for a smaller chapel and classrooms.

“We’re quite confident we would prevail in court, especially given the recent ruling by the (federal appeals court),” Luchenitser said.

The group will give the city a chance to respond to the letter, then consider its options if it doesn’t agree to rescind the votes, he added.

At the request of two church trustees, Twain raised $200 — worth about $2,200 today — to help complete construction of the church by charging admission to his January 1864 “roast” of Nevada lawmakers in Carson City, the state capital.

At the time, Twain was a reporter for the Territorial Enterprise in nearby Virginia City.

His brother, Orion Clemens, was a church member and secretary of the Nevada Territory.

Twain’s nearly three-year stay in Nevada ended a couple weeks after the church was dedicated in May 1864.

Historic preservationists argued it would have been a mistake to tear down the old church because it’s a rare link to Twain’s days in Nevada.
http://rgj.com/article/20090301/NEWS18/90301014&OAS_sitepage=news.rgj.com%2Fbreakingnews

Ok, just to be fair, I do have a personal stake in the issue, given that particular church is MY church, but even so, this just strikes me as being a bit silly given that the whole reason why funds were given in the first place was for preservation of an historic building.

The fun comments from the Carson City supervisors (And the idiots that populate the paper's forums) aside, I don't see this as a violation of the first, but what says NSG?

http://rgj.com/article/20090301/NEWS18/90301014&OAS_sitepage=news.rgj.com%2Fbreakingnews

Ok, just to be fair, I do have a personal stake in the issue, given that particular church is MY church

Are you a Christian? Or do you mean its YOUR church due to its historic significance?

Are you a Christian? Or do you mean its YOUR church due to its historic significance?
Yes, I am a Christian and it is MY church, as in I was baptized, conformed, and ordained as an Elder there.

Yes, I am a Christian and it is MY church, as in I was baptized, conformed, and ordained as an Elder there.

Ah. Now your previous comments in other threads make much more sense.

In this thread tho, you are right, historic buildings should be preserved.

Ah. Now your previous comments in other threads make much more sense.
I thought I was pretty up front with it, but oh well.

In this thread tho, you are right, historic buildings should be preserved.
What'da mean 'in this thread'? I'll have you know that I am ALWAYS right. :p

...this just strikes me as being a bit silly given that the whole reason why funds were given in the first place was for preservation of an historic building.

I'm going to agree with you on this one. The city is taking steps to preserve a historical site, which coincidentally happens to be a church. I doubt this is going to lead to the establishment of a theocracy.

Besides, is Americans United In Having Too Much Time On Their Hands really all that concerned with the Carson City, NV city council, or...do they just want to justify a 'fact-finding' trip to Reno and Las Vegas?

Is it just me or have there been a spate of these sort of reports.

I mean, it seems to me that, possibly due to the advent of online, the media is picking up on the agitation and discussion involved with these stories and creating a battle out of very little.

As one of the quotes says: “Just because someone on the East Coast writes you a letter doesn’t mean we’re going to jump through a bunch of goddamn hoops,”

I just feel, lately, that the media are more interested in the vitriol raised on both sides by picking up these relatively minor stories and inflating them to be some sort of ideological battle.

Sure, there's a battle out there, but the way the media reports it serves merely to entrench opinion, harden the battle lines to the point where, as in this case, a relatively minor issue is made out to be so much more.

I understand this is of personal interest to NERVUN, fair enough, I just, I mean media attention over some monument in a park or providing funds to an historical building,

I am irked.

Besides, is Americans United In Having Too Much Time On Their Hands really all that concerned with the Carson City, NV city council, or...do they just want to justify a 'fact-finding' trip to Reno and Las Vegas?
It'd have to be Reno, given Vegas is a good 8 hours away by car.

Is it just me or have there been a spate of these sort of reports.

I mean, it seems to me that, possibly due to the advent of online, the media is picking up on the agitation and discussion involved with these stories and creating a battle out of very little.

As one of the quotes says: “Just because someone on the East Coast writes you a letter doesn’t mean we’re going to jump through a bunch of goddamn hoops,”

I just feel, lately, that the media are more interested in the vitriol raised on both sides by picking up these relatively minor stories and inflating them to be some sort of ideological battle.

Sure, there's a battle out there, but the way the media reports it serves merely to entrench opinion, harden the battle lines to the point where, as in this case, a relatively minor issue is made out to be so much more.

I understand this is of personal interest to NERVUN, fair enough, I just, I mean media attention over some monument in a park or providing funds to an historical building,

I am irked.
I was surprised about it as well when I say the AP byline. I mean, I could understand if it was a staff writer for the local paper, but a national news service?

If the building is being preserved for its historical value, against the needs of the diocese for a place of worship, then it is quite fine that council funds go to its restoration or maintenance.

It cannot be used as a place of worship any more. Not least because the religious organization which owned the building didn't want it for that any more ... they would have bulldozed it.

Bulldozing a House of God. Funny in a way.

Hang on, I have a better idea which truly separates Church and State. Ownership of property is only legitimized by the State, so let us ban the ownership of property in the name of any Church!

I'm a little confused, is the church going to retain ownership of the old building as well, or is this in compensation for the old building, like is the state more or less buying the old building to preserve it? If it's the latter, then it really is just the preservation of an historic landmark. If instead it's building the church a new facility while the church 'keeps' the old building, that's something different. Honestly, without knowing how historic landmarks are dealt with normally it's hard to say. I mean, if anyone who has an historic landmark can threaten to tear it down in order to get state money to build themselves a new building on a different site, well, then, that's that.

I'm a little confused, is the church going to retain ownership of the old building as well, or is this in compensation for the old building, like is the state more or less buying the old building to preserve it? If it's the latter, then it really is just the preservation of an historic landmark. If instead it's building the church a new facility while the church 'keeps' the old building, that's something different. Honestly, without knowing how historic landmarks are dealt with normally it's hard to say. I mean, if anyone who has an historic landmark can threaten to tear it down in order to get state money to build themselves a new building on a different site, well, then, that's that.

I'm not sure how it goes elsewhere, but in Australia the National Trust which buys historic buildings is massively burdened with properties it cannot afford to maintain and can rarely make any money from.

Rather like the National Parks really. Inflating land values require investment in the "real" estate first, the cultural values second. Not being funded to the extent of the ideal (preserving history or preserving nature,) the second comes a very long second.

I'm not answering your question. I did read the article, and I don't know.

Writing as an archaeologist, I think Americans United for Separation of Church and State might be over-reaching themselves here.

The site is clearly historic, and not just because of the Mark Twain connection (how many standing structures from 1864 are there in Nevada).

The church don't want to use the original structure, and were planning on tearing it down.

In what way can it violate the separation of Church and State for the State of Nevada to choose to preserve am unused deconsecrated church building of known historical value?

In the American context, offering state funds to the preservation of a place of worship (not necessarily a Christian church) that was still in use would be trickier, though even there I'd argue that it was potentially justifiable if a request for a preservation funding contribution were to be made to the relevant State preservation authority on the merits of its past historical value rather than current religious use. But that's not what we're discussing here, is it?

If the building is being preserved for its historical value, against the needs of the diocese for a place of worship, then it is quite fine that council funds go to its restoration or maintenance.

It cannot be used as a place of worship any more.

Or at least not an exclusive place of worship. If after restoration every religion that wishes to can in principle use it (in principle, because I would not consider it unfair to charge rent - and one imagines that the "I am awesome" religion of little Tommy (8) may be unable to afford it) , this spending of funds is also fine with me.

I'm a little confused, is the church going to retain ownership of the old building as well, or is this in compensation for the old building, like is the state more or less buying the old building to preserve it? If it's the latter, then it really is just the preservation of an historic landmark. If instead it's building the church a new facility while the church 'keeps' the old building, that's something different. Honestly, without knowing how historic landmarks are dealt with normally it's hard to say. I mean, if anyone who has an historic landmark can threaten to tear it down in order to get state money to build themselves a new building on a different site, well, then, that's that.
The background history is more like this, the building was declared structurely unsafe about 5 to 10 years back (bear with me here, a lot of this happened while I was either at university or had already left for Japan). The church decamped from the sanctuary and had been conducting services out of an attached gym/multi-purpose center. This, for obvious reasons, wasn't really an acceptable solution, but the church did not have the money to renovate the original sanctuary as well as the original building was too small. The idea was, given that the church didn't own other land and didn't have the money to buy some more, was the tear down the old building and build a new sanctuary. This of course made a number of people upset to lose such an old, historic building and Carson City entered into the fray with money to fund the building of a new sanctuary elsewhere and funds to preserve the old one. From what I understand, the church would still retain title to the old one and would use it for classes (The church building itself is open to a wide range of community groups, including the local AA). It would no longer be used as a place of worship.

Does that help?

Or at least not an exclusive place of worship. If after restoration every religion that wishes to can in principle use it (in principle, because I would not consider it unfair to charge rent - and one imagines that the "I am awesome" religion of little Tommy (8) may be unable to afford it) , this spending of funds is also fine with me.

Hell no. Separation of Church and State, only in the sense of Disestablishment?

It needs to go further than that. Worship is no different, to the unbeliever, than water-skiing. Worship is no different from masturbation; it's no different from writing in your diary that you want to kill the president. It's a private matter, until it involves property or interpersonal rights, when it becomes a matter of law.

This is a property matter.

Wave the incense over it to protect it from property taxes, then wave the bulldozer over it to protect it from property heritage. Too clever by half.

This of course made a number of people upset to lose such an old, historic building and Carson City entered into the fray with money to fund the building of a new sanctuary elsewhere and funds to preserve the old one. From what I understand, the church would still retain title to the old one and would use it for classes (The church building itself is open to a wide range of community groups, including the local AA). It would no longer be used as a place of worship.


Ah. That's a little trickier.

My previous opinion was written as an archaeologist (and one who worked in the States, albeit on the East Coast, for several years).

This second opinion is written as a Russian Orthodox church-going archaeologist, so can't be construed as anti-religious sentiment (even if you Presbyterians are all schismatic heretics ;) )

While I have no objection to the preservation of a church building that was otherwise going to be torn down anyway, and would be perfectly willing to build a case for the preservation of a still-used historic place of worship on its own historical merits, I think non-Presbyterians - whether atheist or of another denomination/faith - can reasonably object to Carson City funding both the preservation of the old church and the building of a new one, especially when the local Presbyterian church retains both title and use of the old structure.

It's the government funding of the new structure on top of the government-funded preservation of the old one that, to my mind, raises perfectly reasonable questions regarding the violation of church/state separation.

Ah. That's a little trickier.

My previous opinion was written as an archaeologist (and one who worked in the States, albeit on the East Coast, for several years).

This second opinion is written as a Russian Orthodox church-going archaeologist, so can't be construed as anti-religious sentiment (even if you Presbyterians are all schismatic heretics ;) )

While I have no objection to the preservation of a church building that was otherwise going to be torn down anyway, and would be perfectly willing to build a case for the preservation of a still-used historic place of worship on its own historical merits, I think non-Presbyterians - whether atheist or of another denomination/faith - can reasonably object to Carson City funding both the preservation of the old church and the building of a new one, especially when the local Presbyterian church retains both title and use of the old structure.

It's the government funding of the new structure on top of the government-funded preservation of the old one that, to my mind, raises perfectly reasonable questions regarding the violation of church/state separation.
Well, from the way I understand it, the church's choice was pretty much one that they had to either find money to restructure the building, and then expand it, or tear it down. The city of Carson City told the church that it could NOT tear it down NOR expand it, which left the church with a bit of a problem given that it couldn't maintain the old building, and even if funds could be found for maintaining it, it couldn't really use it. The city therefore gave some funds in order to help the church build a new building and save the old one. Kind of the same as other historical trusts were the older building is kept in exchange for help getting a new one to keep the whatever it was in there originally, running.

And who are you calling a heretic, ya icon worshiping weird person. :wink::p

Yes, I am a Christian and it is MY church, as in I was baptized, conformed, and ordained as an Elder there.

Of the Protocols of Zion? :confused:

But seriously, I'm not seeing any First Amendment breaking here. It's for the preservation of a historical building. The fact that said building happens to be a church is irrelevant.

The fact that the church will maintain ownership and use of the property is the issue, even if they won't be using it for prayer. Under the constitution, money can't be given to a church. Now, if Carson City or some other group (a historical society or something) were to buy the church, it is a somewhat different story.

And for the record, I would be against Boston or MA giving money to Old North Church of Paul Revere fame or Trinity Church (ranked as one of America's favorite pieces of architecture).

If they're that interested in preserving the architecture, the city should purchase the building. They should not be paying the current owner to maintain it, regardless of who or what he owner is.

All that said, this Americans United group is clearly bluffing, as they wouldn't have standing to challenge the decision in court.

It's a historic building, it should be preserved.

I understand the church's predicament, but I can also see how the suit might have a leg to stand on. Where I grew up if you had a historic house (properly designated & recognized as historic) the town could stop you from tearing it down or significantly altering it, and the town didn't then give you money to compensate you. Your choice was to suck it up or sell the house and move into a non-historic house which you could then cover with aqua stucco or whatever your plan was.

(Obviously zoning boards and lawyers got involved a lot of the time and it wasn't exactly cut and dry, but that was pretty much the rule. People love moving to Olde Newe Englande until they realize that there's no such thing as a colonial-era jacuzzi.)

I expect that property laws out West let you do a lot more with the structures on your land (and a lot less with the water rights -- not everything's about individual liberty,) and the details of the church's case may make all the difference. I'm not a lawyer. I do think the whole thing could have been avoided if they'd funded the new church completely with private monies. They could even have sold the old church to the city with no real issue.

I read about it this morning.

Given they were prevented from razing the building because of its historical significance, I don't have a problem with the funds to build them another building. You can't interfere and say, "You can't alter your property because it's a landmark" and then leave them with "tough shit, figure it out." It's just not fair.

I read about it this morning.

Given they were prevented from razing the building because of its historical significance, I don't have a problem with the funds to build them another building. You can't interfere and say, "You can't alter your property because it's a landmark" and then leave them with "tough shit, figure it out." It's just not fair.

I agree. Drop that 'historical landmark' bullshit. It's the church's property. let them do what they want.

“Doesn’t the door swing both ways? Wasn’t it a violation when we weren’t allowed to tear down our building?” Kochsmeier asked. “Wasn’t that right of religious expression being squelched?”

Quoted for truth. There's nothing wrong with this action, it's a good agreement where everyone wins.

I don't feel qualified to state my opinion on this subject. I am an art historian, I work at a historically preserved building and I am of the mind that if the structure has a historical significance, including a religious meaning, it should be preserved "llueve, truene o ventee." Perhaps I am too biased on the subject.

Is it a particularly fine example of its kind?

Well, from the way I understand it, the church's choice was pretty much one that they had to either find money to restructure the building, and then expand it, or tear it down. The city of Carson City told the church that it could NOT tear it down NOR expand it, which left the church with a bit of a problem given that it couldn't maintain the old building, and even if funds could be found for maintaining it, it couldn't really use it. The city therefore gave some funds in order to help the church build a new building and save the old one. Kind of the same as other historical trusts were the older building is kept in exchange for help getting a new one to keep the whatever it was in there originally, running.

And who are you calling a heretic, ya icon worshiping weird person. :wink::p


Honestly.... We don't worship them, we venerate them. It's not my fault you crypto-Catholic schismatics can't keep up with your Ecumenical Councils ;)

I don't think the church is at fault here; I recognise that Carson City put your former church in a difficult position by paying for the new building after essentially forcing them to move. But I do think that this opens a can of worms in the Carson City area as the local government has put itself in a position where those minded to argue for a strict separation of church and state in this sort of situation can construct a reasonable objection to the city's actions, or where other faith groups can ask for similar assistance (though I concede there probably aren't a wealth of suitably historic faith-related buildings in the city).

Your former church is essentially blameless. This just looks like one of those situations where things could get much messier than they needed to because, while everyone's acted with the best of intentions, someone at city hall may not have thought the consequences of their actions through to their logical conclusion. Is that fair? Probably not. Could it result in some sort of serious litigation anyway? Potentially. Hopefully any such litigation will remain directed at the city, and not the church.

This must be one issue I am completely neutral on. Historical sites should be preserved, but it is rightfully the property of the church.

This must be one issue I am completely neutral on. Historical sites should be preserved, but it is rightfully the property of the church.

Yes, historical sites must be preserved and, yes, it is the property of the church, however, since government funds were used to support it as an historical site, the government should have certain rights, particularly if it's going to continue funding it. I would say that the government had a right to some limited use of the property and to a say in standards of maintenance at the very least.

Honestly.... We don't worship them, we venerate them. It's not my fault you crypto-Catholic schismatics can't keep up with your Ecumenical Councils ;)

I take offense to this, sir. This is, hoho!, a subtle declaration or religious schismatism war!:mad:


:wink:

Is it a particularly fine example of its kind?

Yes. Almost no molestations occurred on it's premises. *nod*

I take offense to this, sir. This is, hoho!, a subtle declaration or religious schismatism war!:mad:

:wink:

I think you'll find that you Catholics (even you lapsed ones) tried that one on us already.

It was called the Fourth Crusade.

Does that help?

Not really. What I really need to know is how Nevada normally treats tenants of historical landmarks. If I'm squatting on the first legal brothel and decide it has to go in order to build a naked bingo hall and Nevada offers to help me build one next door in order to preserve the landmark, well, then the fact that it's a church doesn't matter. If they say either, "No, you can't and you're on your own with the naked bingo hall," or, "Gosh that's a shame, we wish you wouldn't but we won't stop you," then the church is getting special treatment. (this is of course a non-profit naked bingo hall, for the kids...just so the comparison isn't too far off) Since I don't have a clue about how Nevada does this normally it's hard for me to say.

It was called the Fourth Crusade.

That was more a sort of "LOLOL letz raid Constantinople LOLOLOL" than a crusade against Orthodoxism. (Orthodoxy? Orthodoxness?)

I think you'll find that you Catholics (even you lapsed ones) tried that one on us already.

It was called the Fourth Crusade.

And we failed miserably...
*presses cat ears, flat, to her head and pouts*

if they're that interested in preserving the architecture, the city should purchase the building.
this ^

http://rgj.com/article/20090301/NEWS18/90301014&OAS_sitepage=news.rgj.com%2Fbreakingnews

Ok, just to be fair, I do have a personal stake in the issue, given that particular church is MY church, but even so, this just strikes me as being a bit silly given that the whole reason why funds were given in the first place was for preservation of an historic building.

The fun comments from the Carson City supervisors (And the idiots that populate the paper's forums) aside, I don't see this as a violation of the first, but what says NSG?

But the funds aren't being used to preserve the historic building, but rather to build a spanking new church.

The issue gets a bit complicated when one asks whether the church should be compensated for whatever law, zoning ordinance, etc., prevented them from tearing down the historic building. If the city took over the church property, the church would be due compensation. Here the church is retaining ownership and use of the historic building and getting taxpayer funds to build a new church.

Whatever law that prevented the destruction of the historic building was a neutral law that neither discriminated against nor showed a preference for the church. A neutral law (if any) that compensated any and all owners of historic buildings for not destroying such a building would be OK, but that doesn't seem to be what is going on here.

I note that the church's website says that it plans to use the historic building "for church purposes" in the future.

I'm not 100% sure that Americans United is correct here, but I certainly think they have good grounds to question this transaction.

Not really. What I really need to know is how Nevada normally treats tenants of historical landmarks. If I'm squatting on the first legal brothel and decide it has to go in order to build a naked bingo hall and Nevada offers to help me build one next door in order to preserve the landmark, well, then the fact that it's a church doesn't matter. If they say either, "No, you can't and you're on your own with the naked bingo hall," or, "Gosh that's a shame, we wish you wouldn't but we won't stop you," then the church is getting special treatment. (this is of course a non-profit naked bingo hall, for the kids...just so the comparison isn't too far off) Since I don't have a clue about how Nevada does this normally it's hard for me to say.

You have hit the nail on the head.

If such funds are normal procedure under neutral laws regarding historic buildings, then fine. Otherwise we are looking at preferential treatment for a church.

You have hit the nail on the head.

If such funds are normal procedure under neutral laws regarding historic buildings, then fine. Otherwise we are looking at preferential treatment for a church.

Woo hoo! I got one right, I'm making a t-shirt...

You have hit the nail on the head.

If such funds are normal procedure under neutral laws regarding historic buildings, then fine. Otherwise we are looking at preferential treatment for a church.
Quick answer because I'm busy, AFAIK, Nevada law lets each city/county decide on the best way to preserve historic buildings (and it should be noted that such laws are very, very weak). I have seen, in various parts of Nevada, money given for maintenance, purchase, a new building in lieu of, and just ignoring the issue until the historical building comes crashing to the ground. This has been regardless of being a church or not (Hell, Carson gave money for the restoration of a bar, very Nevadan).

That was more a sort of "LOLOL letz raid Constantinople LOLOLOL" than a crusade against Orthodoxism. (Orthodoxy? Orthodoxness?)

Orthodoxy.

And to be absolutely fair, it was more of a case of a sinister manipulative octogenarian Venetian doge bending the Crusade for his own nefarious ends in order to expand the reach of his commercial empire.

Enrico Dandalo = 13th Century Rupert Murdoch.

By the time they reached Constantinople with the future Alexius IV (son of the deposed, blinded and soon to be partially restored Isaac II) in tow, the crusaders had already been forced to sack the Catholic city of Zara on Venice's behalf (to the dismay of several of the Crusader leaders)

Pope Innocent III did in fact initially excommunicate the Crusaders over the sack of Zara, and when he discovered they were sailing to Constantinople point blank ordered them not to get involved in Byzantine politics (which were, at the time, unusually byzantine even for the Byzantines) and to sail straight to Jerusalem if they wanted the excommunication lifted. Unfortunately, Innocent did rather spoil his initially principled and ethical stance by lifting the excommunications after the sack of Constantinople and accepting that the founding of the Latin Empire was God's will.

A century later, as the Moslem Ottomans began to make significant gains at the expense of a restored but fatally weakened Byzantine Empire, his successors may have had cause to revisit a judgement that, especially since it wasn't issued ex cathedra, was clearly neither infallible theologically nor intellectually.

So yes, the sack was more the result of Venetian manipulation than an anti-Orthodox Catholic conspiracy, and John Paul II did finally get around to apologising a year or two before his death, but why let facts get in the way of a good historical blame game?

Threadjack? Me? I'm sure this is relevant to the historic preservation of a Nevada church somehow....

It is a historic church. I see no reason the city cant preserve its history, assuming this church is open to the public for a decent number of hours a day it seems fine.

State should use a compulsory purchase order (eminent domain) to buy the building. If the Church then uses that money to build a building is that really a breach of the separation of church and state?

Let it rot. Religion is a bourgeois institution and hinders man's development. Most of history isn't worth preserving and contributes nothing to the man of the future.

Mao had the right idea in the Cultural Revolution. If we really dare to believe in the social perfectibility of man and the possibility of establishing a genuinely just society, we shouldn't let sentimentalism impede progress.

Let it rot. Religion is a bourgeois institution and hinders man's development. Most of history isn't worth preserving and contributes nothing to the man of the future.

Mao had the right idea in the Cultural Revolution. If we really dare to believe in the social perfectibility of man and the possibility of establishing a genuinely just society, we shouldn't let sentimentalism impede progress.

You do realise that Mao later referred to the Cultural Revolution as the single greatest mistake he ever made, don't you?

He had the right idea, but it was plagued by certain excesses that ultimately departed from the principles of Marxism-Leninism and led to gross inhumanity. Mao aside, nearly every staunchly socialist or humanist revolution in history has waged war against religious institutions. From principle, it is a first target. It is done to liberate the people.

Even in the French Revolution, there was widespread execution of religious, including whole convents. Relics of saints were burnt, and altars desecrated. During the Spanish Civil War, Republicans killed over 7,000 clerics, and the Second Spanish Republic saw the Catholic Church stripped of its authority and its properties converted to good social use. In Russia, churches were destroyed, anti-revolutionary elements of the clergy were sent to the gulags, and even the Cathedral of St. Isaac in St. Petersburg was converted into a museum of atheism.

These things were built on the backs of the people, who were lorded over from above and told that supporting and obeying the life of men in robes would win them eternal salvation. Religion was the glue of society, and were the people not hypnotized by religious sentiment, they would have long ago won justice. Letting go of delusions is the first step in making an honest assessment of conditions so as to actually work to better them.

Let them all rot.

Consider, for a time, the governments you've pointed to, Balawaristan. In each case, they were, ultimately, cliques of the power-hungry, the vicious, or the fanatical.

These groups did not wage war against religion because religion was objectionable to them, though such was their excuse. They did so because the church represented a power base other than their own; because they saw it as a threat to their assumption of Absolute Power.

Consider, also, the ultimate fate of both clique and church in each case. The church flag flies still from the battlements of the cathedrals; the flag of their despoilers rots on the ashheap of history.

I am not against your goal, of a religion-free world; I am an Atheist of long standing. But when force is unleashed against belief, history tells us that ultimately, it is the users of force who hang.

You do realise that Mao later referred to the Cultural Revolution as the single greatest mistake he ever made, don't you?
And moreover, China had one of the strongest underground churches in the world. and, IIRC, is one of the fastest-growing congregations on the planet.

Even in the French Revolution, there was widespread execution of religious, including whole convents. Relics of saints were burnt, and altars desecrated. During the Spanish Civil War, Republicans killed over 7,000 clerics, and the Second Spanish Republic saw the Catholic Church stripped of its authority and its properties converted to good social use.

I wonder, seriously, if you are well acquianted, historically, about Franco and his regime.

http://rgj.com/article/20090301/NEWS18/90301014&OAS_sitepage=news.rgj.com%2Fbreakingnews

Ok, just to be fair, I do have a personal stake in the issue, given that particular church is MY church, but even so, this just strikes me as being a bit silly given that the whole reason why funds were given in the first place was for preservation of an historic building.

The fun comments from the Carson City supervisors (And the idiots that populate the paper's forums) aside, I don't see this as a violation of the first, but what says NSG?

They are using the money to build a new one. That is a violation.

The fact Mark Twain help build the other one is a ludicrous reason to keep the old one. Read Mark Twain and the Bible and you will see what the man thought about Religion.

American's United is correct on this one.

I wonder, seriously, if you are well acquianted, historically, about Franco and his regime.

I didn't say those things as critical of the Republicans. I praise their enthusiastic use of force. Franco was a fascist pig, and it is no surprise Nixon was so cozy with the bastard.

I didn't say those things as critical of the Republicans. I praise their enthusiastic use of force. Franco was a fascist pig, and it is no surprise Nixon was so cozy with the bastard.

The "enthusiastic use of force" is what made Franco a historical inevitability.

I didn't say those things as critical of the Republicans. I praise their enthusiastic use of force. Franco was a fascist pig, and it is no surprise Nixon was so cozy with the bastard.

Andaras, is that you?

I didn't say those things as critical of the Republicans. I praise their enthusiastic use of force. Franco was a fascist pig, and it is no surprise Nixon was so cozy with the bastard.

Then do not use historical comparisons if you don't have an inkling of them. Franco was a devout Catholic, he even traveled with the mummified hand of Saint Teresa of Ávila with him. To destroy churches, relics of Spain's history or not, was an abomination to him. And I must clarifiy that, even if I wish I could dig him up and kill the Generalísimo myself thousands of times. Those are my 2 cents.

Nixon was a pig, just not as much of a prick pig as Franco was. And do remember that the US never considered Spain an ally, in any way, while Franco was in power. Coziness, perhaps. Equal ground, hell no.

The Cataldo Mission(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Mission_State_Park) might serve as precedent to support preservation.

In 2005, church officials sought city approval to tear down the old church and use the site for the new church. They said the original church was structurally unsound and too small.

City officials rejected the request, citing its location in a historic district and its status as Nevada’s oldest church building.
If the city government won't allow demolition, then it's damn silly to refuse preservation funding.

Never The Twain Shall Meet: Nevada City Should Keep Church And State Separate (http://blog.au.org/2009/03/04/never-the-twain-shall-meet-nevada-city-should-keep-church-and-state-separate/)

The government cannot build or maintain houses of worship. If your church needs a new roof or furnace, the congregation will have to raise the funds to pay for that, or take out a loan. That’s so obvious it should be a no-brainer.

But it’s not to some. Recently, officials in Carson City, Nev., voted to give $78,800 in tax funds to the First Presbyterian Church. As the Nevada Appeal reported (http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20090228/NEWS/902289969&parentprofile=&title=Carson%20City%27s%20payment%20to%20church%20opposed), the money “is intended to pay for work the church did on new sidewalks, landscaping and roofing, and to help build the new building and preserve the old building built in the 1860s.”

The church has some claims to being historic. In fact, it’s so old that it has experienced structural problems. Church leaders wanted to tear down the sanctuary, but the city officials balked. Instead, they proposed this funding arrangement.

Attorneys with Americans United have written to Carson City officials, pointing out that they are in violation of the law. AU’s letter notes that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Nevada, struck down church funding in a similar 2007 case from Idaho; it also cites several Supreme Court rulings.

Local officials argue that aid to the church aid is permissible because it’s a form of redevelopment, and they point to the historic nature of the church.

Mayor Bob Crowell told the Appeal the money is “a benefit to all of Carson City and not just the church.” Supervisor Pete Livermore was even more combative, telling the newspaper, “Just because someone on the East Coast writes you a letter doesn’t mean we’re going to jump through a bunch of goddamn hoops.”

Crowell is misguided. There are no court rulings that say a city can spend public funds to spruce up a house of worship, even as part of a redevelopment plan. In fact, the rulings point the other way.

As for Livermore, I’d like to tell him that the “hoop” we are asking him to jump through is called the U.S. Constitution – and if he proceeds with this unconstitutional action, I suspect he will become intimately familiar with it.

There’s an ironic twist to this story: The Associated Press reported (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iArs7q3eaPnzd-z7tXI1Hj-xP9IgD96LGQI80) that Mark Twain helped raise money to build this church. Twain raised about $200 by charging admission to an event roasting Nevada legislators in Carson City. At the time, 1864, Twain was working as a reporter in nearby Virginia City, and his brother was a member of the church.

It’s interesting history but irrelevant. No court ruling says government can fund a church just because someone famous has a tangential tie to it.

I think it’s also likely that Twain would oppose tax aid to this church. He did, after all, raise private money for the church, not lobby the state legislature for an appropriation.

Twain was well known as a religious skeptic, and his writings are full of clever asides poking fun at those who take their faith too seriously. Twain never begrudged anyone the right to worship, but I doubt he favored forcing others to pay for that right.

Carson City would best honor Twain by canceling this grant.


So far, it seems to me that both sides have some ground to stand on and neither has me wholly convinced. I wish I could find a copy of AU's actual letter to Carson City. I am trying to find some of the relevant caselaw.