When the news first broke that the National Cathedral in Washington DC was damaged by the famous earthquake that hit the region last summer, I had two thoughts: 1) They are probably including on the list of needed repairs things that were already extant before the quake and 2) They are probably going to ask for government money to fix this.
But then I looked into the current news reports and found out that the National Cathedral has always been privately funded. I did not accept that as, shall we say, gospel, but I stopped worried about it, and then went on with other things.
But then I ran into this:
Yesterday Washington Mayor Vincent Gray indicated that he plans to ask the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for $15 million to repair damage to the cathedral incurred during the Aug. 23 earthquake that struck the East Coast.
As a person interested in historic preservation, I’m not sure I’m opposed to all forms of government money being spent on repair and conservation that happens to be church related. That does not mean that I support THIS request. This seems like a request for special funding, which I would oppose. I would support, rather, the distribution of some competitive grant money to historic preservation of some religious sites if they are “listed” (on the National Register). But this is not that.
What do you think?
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
I prefer France’s model where all churches are government-owned and are at the disposal of congregations for worship purposes (except in Alsace-Lorraine, which was part of Germany in 1905). This way, you have historic buildings preserved and revenue is brought in by tours and other groups. You also don’t have religion dictating how buildings ought to be used and space is at the disposal of the State and not some religious figure. On the surface, it could be argued that France is violating the principle of laity. I would disagree and suggest that it’s no different than renting out a publicly-owned hall to a congregation once a week.
As it stands, church attendance in France is steadily declining. If the congregations were responsible for the upkeep of these buildings, they simply wouldn’t exist anymore or the State would be forced to pick and choose which massive repair projects to fund.
I love churches – as a long confirmed atheist I can spend hours in the glorious architecture and, most importantly, *silence* of a great cathedral.
That said I’m firmly against any government spending money on something that is to be used _only_ for religious reasons.
So, the solution here seems simple. The government pays for the restoration and a cathedral booking committee is put in place that encompasses all the major faiths plus humanism and atheism.
How wonderful would it be to have a Catholic service, muslim daily prayers and a humanist wedding all taking place in different parts of the building at the same time.
Like David, I can thoroughly enjoy a religious building as a piece of architecture, for its beauty or artistic merit, etc., without feeling one bit compromised in my lack of belief whatsoever. And, as a practical matter, I can understand why, as a secular civic culture, we should be reluctant to allow outstanding examples of architecture or public art to decay when their owners no longer have the financial wherewithal to maintain them.
It would be a serious mistake for the government to take over any structure which continues to be used for religious purposes, per the French model. However, I see less objection (but not NO objection) to the government providing emergency repair funds to any privately owned, non-profit organization which owns an officially designated historic or noteworthy structure. Of course, the catch with that, is that the organization has to totally abide by the requirements to preserve the structure as is, non-discriminate, and all the other conditions that come with receiving public funds.
Not aware of too many religions or sects that would be willing to do that.
Couldn’t they just pray for the building to be repaired?
Recently Partners in Preservation had a FB vote to see what Minnesota site would get a very large grant. It was won by the Catholic Basilica in Minneapolis. Apparently it is not important to the very wealthy Vatican to preserve this building, but it got enough votes to divert funds from other needs that don’t have that kind of money behind them.
Couldn’t they just make it a loan, paid back over a few years with respectable interest?
I actually don’t have a problem with this.
It’s a request for FEMA funds to repair a building. The building is a church, but it could equally be a community hall, a private residence or a shopping or office complex. I wouldn’t have a problem with the request if it was such, so why should I have a problem with this?
The constitutional protection isn’t meant to prevent government bodies having anything to do with religious buildings and organizations, but to treat them as any other building or organization. FEMA funds are, as I understand it, supposed to be for facilities damaged by natural disasters, as was the case here.
You know, I might actually have LESS of a problem if the damn thing wasn’t called The National Cathedral. Screw them for calling it that!
I would support public funding to repair our Dark Lord, but nought else:
http://www.nationalcathedral.org/about/darthVader.shtml
hey really nice post ..