Separation of church, state contested

Contra Costa Times ^ | 5/31/5 | Randy Myers

[SmithL]

As worries mount over crumbling walls at California's 21 Spanish-era missions, one man says another historic wall deserves equal preservation.

The Rev. Barry Lynn claims that spending $10 million in taxpayer money to renovate the structures would breach a constitutional barrier against government funding for religion.

The hard-line advocate for church and state separation is locked in a legal battle that tests the constitutionality of federal legislation to fund renovations.

Supporters say the money is a must to save monuments that are priceless windows on the West's past.

Lynn realizes his challenge won't win many fans in the Golden State.

"I've been to California since I filed the lawsuit, and they still let me in," said Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The group is based in Washington.

On behalf of four plaintiffs, Lynn sued the secretary of the Interior Department. They claim the California Missions Act, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Sam Far and signed by President Bush in 2004, violates the Constitution.

Lynn acknowledges missions are historically significant but disagrees that taxpayers should pay to restore buildings in which Catholic worship services are conducted. Almost all state missions hold services.

An interfaith law firm countered in late April with its own call for dismissal, claiming the Constitution allows such activity. In its filing, the Becket Fund notes religious buildings such as the Old North Church in Boston made famous by Paul Revere's midnight ride have received federal funding.

Lynn remains resolute.

"They have a somewhat confused view of the establishment clause," he said, referring to the Constitution's provision: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"I think it means the government can not build churches, and if it can't build them, then (it) can't repair them," Lynn said.

The federal $10 million must be matched with donations raised and distributed by the California Missions Foundation, a nonprofit organization.

The money would pay for repairs, seismic retrofits and preservation of artwork and artifacts. Organizers want to raise $50 million but say costs will be higher.

Lynn also protests spending tax money on religious art and artifacts.

The missions' art collections do feature works of a spiritual nature, said Kristina Foss, the vice president of the California Missions Foundation.

But religious symbols can be found in much of art, including the masterpieces, Foss said.

"Does that mean that in the Louvre, Raphael's Madonna should be allowed to fall apart because it's religious?"

A spokesman for Boxer shrugs off Lynn's claim.

"Sen. Boxer feels the suit doesn't have a leg to stand on," said spokesman David Sandretti.

The legal wrangling typifies how church-state separation issues continue to jam courtrooms. The twist in this latest battle is that some advocates for church-state separation disagree that the mission spending violates the Constitution.

"I'm not quite with Barry on this one," said Charles Haynes, senior scholar for the First Amendment Center. "The First Amendment debate is an important one to have, but in this case I don't think there's a very compelling argument that the establishment clause prohibits this."

Others, like the coordinator of East Bay Atheists, see this as an example of an erosion of church and state issues.

"This is part of a trend that has become very popular these days," Larry Hicok says in an e-mail. "Government gives taxpayer money to promote religion, and with a wink and nudge, pretends that it is for secular purposes."

The buildings, erected between 1769 to 1823, attract 5.5 million visitors annually. Additionally, the state requires fourth-graders to study or visit the missions.

"I think of the missions as California's pyramids," said Knox Mellon, the Foundation's executive director. "They're identified with the history of California and what later became the history of the United States."

The Catholic Church owns 19 missions. Dioceses view the missions as independent parishes, said Kevin Drabinski, the Diocese of Monterey spokesman. That means the upkeep and maintenance falls mostly on the community's shoulders, he said.

That's a hefty responsibility for the Monterey Diocese, with a third of the state's missions. It has the mission most needing repair, San Miguel Arcángel, which closed after the 2003 earthquake in nearby Paso Robles. The small rural community of San Miguel struggles to raise renovation funds through donation drives from restaurants, golf tournaments and nearby wineries. They have a long way to go, Drabinski said.

He estimates Arcángel repairs will cost $24 million.

Inside the damaged church are rare wall frescoes painted by California Indians.

Lynn suggests dioceses consider building cathedrals a bigger priority than fixing the missions.

"It's up to church leaders to make such decisions, and it's not up to the administration to bail out specific religious organizations," he said.

Some missions fare better than others. Mission San Jose in Fremont most needs to replaster its vulnerable adobe walls, and a grant already has paid for seismic retrofitting.

The mission museum displays tools, photographs, artwork and items from California's past.

"It's not just protecting California history but local history," said Dolores Ferenez, Mission San Jose administrator.

For the historical connection alone, these missions should not be shunned based on religious roots, Mellon said.

"We treat the missions and push the missions as historical monuments," he said. "Historic landmarks should not be discriminated against because they have a spiritual heritage."

The photogenic missions make for a popular site for weddings. One couple, however, joined Lynn's suit after being turned away at Mission San Carlos. Lynn said their case illustrates how missions can discriminate.

But more than an idyllic spot for the "I dos," the missions function primarily as museums, said a UC Berkeley geography professor and former chairman of the California Studies Association.

"There is almost no religiosity associated with the missions," Richard Walker said.

Walker strongly supports church-state separation but finds Lynn's argument lacking since these structures are tethered to California's rich history.

"It's really become part of the California identity."

[SmithL]

Cousins Lizette Felix, left, and Xitlali Reyes pray in the church at Mission San Jose, which was rebuilt in 1985. A lawsuit claims federal funding for the renovation of historic Spanish-era missions violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

[Irontank]

The hard-line advocate for church and state separation is locked in a legal battle that tests the constitutionality of federal legislation to fund renovations

Never mind the 1st Amendment...what about the 10th Amendment?...federal tax dollars to renovate a church, a school, a neighborhood...all unconstitutional as beyond the enumerated power of the federal government

[goldstategop]

There's nothing wrong with funding the renovation of building of a historic or cultural character with public funds because they belong to the heritage of the American people. The fact they may have had a religious origin is irrelevant. Our society cannot exclude the religious roots of its history without denying its national character. Perhaps to extreme Leftists like Barry Lynn such politically correct rewriting of history is necessary to satisfy their twisted understanding of the First Amendment. The American people and their elected representatives hold a much broader view of the issue and don't see every government involvement with religious questions as constituting an establishment of religion.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[TexasCajun]

I'll believe in "The Seperation of Church and State" when congress creates a Church of American!

[Kidan]

Liberals can't count to ten, so the tenth amendment doesn't exist.

[rlmorel]

They go to 11!

[Bommer]

I don't understand why no one has the gonads just to challenge the whole lie of a separation of church and state! If you are going to base the whole thing on 1 letter from Thomas Jefferson to validate it, then it truly is unconstitutional to have this bigoted view point against religion that the atheiest groups support!

[Old Professer]

Why don't they just set up a work project and restore them with migrant labor..

[Bommer]

Lynn remains resolute. "They have a somewhat confused view of the establishment clause," he said, referring to the Constitution's provision: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"I think it means the government can not build churches, and if it can't build them, then (it) can't repair them," Lynn said.

I think it means? Filing a lawsuit on what he thinks but does not know? Let me help you Barry. It means that the Government cannot form THE CHURCH OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA just like THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND! Yet you @ssholes interpret it as meaning, we need to be 100% Godless. Barry Lynn - Antichrist!

[anonsquared]

Well Rev Lynn, I think you may be on to something. Let's make sure there is a true separation and have the government stop giving tax exemptions to religion. For now on you need to start paying property taxes under all those places of worship and income taxes on every dime you take in for your "business".

[DarkSavant]

You okay now?

[Steve_Seattle]

It seems Lynn's work has just begun. To be consistent, wouldn't he also have to try to change the names of San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and many other cities? We can't have cities named after Catholic saints can we? (sarcasm)

[Bommer]

long live the fighters.

[Steve_Seattle]

This issue cuts both ways. Here in Seattle, the city has at times used historical preservation laws to tell churches what they can and can't do with their own buildings.

[chimera]

Lynn also protests spending tax money on religious art and artifacts.

I don't remember him being in the news protesting the "Pi$$ Christ" work of "art" that was funded in part with tax dollars. Selective outrage is a hallmark of leftists.

[Sir Gawain]

"They have a somewhat confused view of the establishment clause," he said, referring to the Constitution's provision: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"I think it means the government can not build churches, and if it can't build them, then (it) can't repair them," Lynn said.

You're the one that's confused dumbass.

[savedbygrace]

"I've been to California since I filed the lawsuit, and they still let me in," said Lynn

I used to work with a guy who owned a pitbull. The dog would let anybody and everybody into the house. He just wouldn't let them leave . . .

Note: I'm not advocating violence of any sort . . .

[Steve_Seattle]

"Well Rev Lynn, I think you may be on to something. Let's make sure there is a true separation and have the government stop giving tax exemptions to religion."

Let's do the math. A typical Catholic church/school complex occupies a city block, which in my area would represent about $60,000 in lost property taxes. But that Catholic school of 400 students saves the state $1,400,000 (400 X $3,500 - the cost of educating those students in the public schools). So maybe the church should send the state a bill of $1,340,000 for services rendered.

[Tanniker Smith]

Sadly, the justice that can argue the best (and who has argued the most) against the insanity and inconsistancy of the "separation" movement is Renhquist, who wouldn't likely be around for this case should it make it up the ladder.

TS

[Steve_Seattle]

"the insanity and inconsistancy of the "separation" movement"

The Founders would indeed be shocked to learn that the Supreme Court was using the 1st Amendment to micromanage the content of high school commencement speeches and censor Christmas songs in local schools.