I agree with your analysis; however, there is a gray area here. Government can give money for the secular purpose of preserving a historical structure.
Isn't fire considered an act of God? Why would you want to go against His divine will?
Maxticket, don't you think it far more likely that some evil atheist torched the church? Don't we get to credit god with all the good things and blame Satan and his minions (atheists) for all the bad?
Is this not the same issue where Rep. Monique Davis said to Rob Sherman that "It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists” in referring to atheism? Had this historic building been at least salvageable, I would say sure, why not (as Ron suggests). But from the looks of it, this building is all but done. Sometimes people just have to let go and move on.
The sad thing is that the people at Pilgrim Baptist Church probably do not see that Mr. Sherman's actions actually benefit them. That wall separating church and state works both ways. In insisting that the church obtain other funds Rob Sherman also ensures that the government has less of a say in the church's affairs. Alas it's easier to write us off merely as cantankerous godless heathens.
What, they didn't have insurance? Maybe they were under the impression that God provides, or if that fails...
Absolutely. Let their congregation raise their own funds. If you're tax exempt, it's not the States responsibility to help you rebuild. Period. Full stop.
Three cheers for Rob.
Churches aren't historic structures worth preserving, they're a nuisance. There's too many of them as it stands, and historic or not, at some point we're going to have to decide to tear most of them down. You can only turn so many of these structures into breweries, restaurants, nightclubs, and condos. They're incredibly inefficient spaces at a time of rising energy costs. Many are located on prime land that could be used to ease the burden on older neighborhoods that are trying to find space for modern amenities.
Right now are bridges are collapsing into rivers. If some congregation can't afford to insure their little historic property, they should move the hell out and pray in someone's basement. I'm pretty sure that if their building is worth preserving, it can be turned into a nice little library or daycare center, or whatever it is that the taxpayers need most. But the last thing these religious groups should be demanding is for taxpayer money to fund religious activities.
Go Rob!
"Right now are" should have been "Right now our" :X
I agree with bbk that churches are nuisances.
Personally, I would like to see every church turned into a shelter for the homeless, and for battered women/men/children.
It's even sadder to me that most Baptists have forgotten that the Baptist church was at the forefront of the church-state separation battle when our nation was young.
It's funny you mention that separation Jen. I am currently having that same battle on my blog against a claim that "atheists" are the ones pushing this separation.
The people who have the most to gain from this separation are the non-mainstream denominations anyways (my battle is ironically with a Mormon). I almost question why I bother helping in the fight! Of course I understand why, but sometimes I just want to say "screw you all," and pull a Church of England on everyone. I think it was Hitchens who mentioned that the state sponsorship of religion in Great Britain has actually help quiet the religious people there...
The Pilgrim Baptist Church is a unique situation as it was designed by the iconic architectural team of Adler & Sullivan – Louis Sullivan, the granddaddy of American Architecture philosophy and practice, to be specific. While I agree with everything said here and support Rob Sherman in his overall efforts I might be inclined to make an exception in this case as I am also a huge fan of historic architecture and this building is worth preserving. But the public discussion of separation is always good as is the reminder that there are principled people who feel strongly that organized mythology no longer gets a free funds pass, especially when they can raise as much as they want with zero scrutiny or accountability and the country needs every dime for so many issues, infrastructure, dept load, healthcare, Social Security, etc.
Jen, it seems to me that your point about the Baptists is evidence that there is more than a little truth to the idea of power corrupting.
Well, if we pay for this church's restoration, how about letting us decide what goes on inside it? If I were an Illinois taxpayer, it would be MY money going in there. Why don't I get to say what goes on in there?
You see, this is the problem with blurring that line separating church and state. It opens up churches to just this sort of argument, if enough people have the courage--and persistence--to make it.
As far as I'm concerned, if the state pays for its restoration, it becomes the property of the state--not the current delusion-riddled occupants. Otherwise, tear it down. I'd rather see it come down than to have tax dollars supporting people too stupid to secure fire insurance. I don't get to hit up the state for money if I'm uninsured and my house burns down (not that I'm that fucking stupid).
I agree with Ron in Houston. The first post.
I'm an atheist but I think under some circumstances, an historical church warrants societal preservation. And I consider my government as the embodiment of my society.
I live in RI where Roger Williams fled Massachusetts because of the Puritans requiring a very specific belief system. Thus, RI was set up as a society based upon freedom of Religion. We thus have some of the oldest churches in America and the oldest synagogue in the USA. If that synagogue were ever damaged, I would be proud of my state if it came up with funds to repair it. It would be the decent thing to do.
Commenting by HaloScan
