I am comfortable with the need to offer legitimate secular justification for
this type of effort. That justification could be given by a professional
historical preservation body (if one exists with that particular mandate.)
However, I am not sure that such an institution should be a constitutional
mandate. Here, there has been an outpouring of concern and many accolades
offered by the non-religious historical architectural community (i.e. those
interested in history and in the art of architecture) for the church. For
example, there is a very popular series of architectural tour programs on
the local PBS station (Chicago by Boat, Chicago on the El, etc.). Pilgrim
was one of the featured stops on at least one of these programs. I don't
think there is anyone in Chicago who would question the artistic and
cultural merit or significance of Pilgrim for Chicago. (Here I think the
ACLU is making a particularly bad political decision, regardless of the
merits, in opposing something with such obvious emotional appeal to
believers and non-believers alike in Chicago.)
The idea of losing the Old North Church in Boston, the Trinity Church in New
York or any of the other significant historical icons because of this type
of conflict strikes me as ultimately damaging to everyone now and in the
future.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanford Levinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 10:00 PM
Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church
I think the issue of historical restoration and preservation is a tricky
one, precisely because of the potential for strategic mispresentation. I
would feel much better if the decision had been made by a professional board
of architects (who would no doubt be completely credible in claiming the
importance of the connection with Adler and Sullivan) as against the
governor (unless the governor had consistently made historical preservation
a leitmotif of his administration). Fred Schauer makes some important
arguments about the importance of professionals making such decisions in an
article in the Harvard L. Rev. published after the Arkansas public
television case. (When I've taught these materials, including Fred's
article, a surprising (to me) number of students object to the importance
given "professional" judgment, some from the populist side, some who
mistrust even professionals and who would adopt a bright-line rule against
using public funds to preserve churches that are still being used as
religious venues.)
sandy
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of David E. Guinn
Sent: Sun 1/15/2006 5:55 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Pilgrim Baptist Church
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
