Separation of church, state contested

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

[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.