The case I've seen cited on this issue is Committee for Public Ed.
& Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 777 (1973) which
says:
"If the State may not erect buildings in which religious activities
are to take place, it may not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they
fall into disrepair." Full text at:
See also Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 678 (1971) available
at:
For a Bush Administration view, see the 2003 DOJ memo titled "AUTHORITY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO PROVIDE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANTS TO
HISTORIC RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES SUCH AS THE OLD NORTH CHURCH," at:
Hope that helps
Allen Asch
In a message dated 1/15/2006 3:56:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I trust
that many members of the list may have heard about the tragic fire
at the
Pilgrim Baptist Church. The church, designed by the firm of Adler
and Sullivan, started life as a major synacoge on the South side of
Chicago
that was eventually taken over by the Pigrim Baptist Congration.
Interestingly, the new congregation did not strip the decorative features
of
the synagogue but instead simply added christian decorative
features.
The church became a leading institution within the Black
community in
Chicago and was the birth place of gospel music. It has
also become a
significant stop on the many archetectural tours that
Chicago is famous for.
The attached link describes the virtues of the
building and the need to
rebuild.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0601150287jan15,1,4394171.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
You
may have also heard about the controversy. As the news reports puts it:
"Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who has stirred the wrath of the American Civil
Liberties Union by pledging $1 million in state funds for the
church."
In order to avoid the first amendment challenge, Blagojevich
stated that the
grant could only be used for reconstruction of the
administrative offices
for the church -- which is arguably associated with
the community service
functions of the church.
While I recognize
that there are some problems in helping to rebuild a
sanctuary, in this
case given the existing public uses of the building as a
part of the
cultural heritage of the city of Chicago, I am not sure that I
can
distinguish rebuilding Pilgram from government support for religious
artworks held in a museum.. Clearly, that is constitutional even
though it
is possible that the religious artwork may be used to create
replicas of the
artwork that might be used in religious ritual -- or that
the artwork may be
loaned to a responsible religious
organization.
I am not sure on what precedent the ACLU is relying in
this case that makes
the case to easy for them to object.
Ideas?
David
|
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
