Group Warns Nevada Capital Not to Fund Mark Twain Church

[Chris_]

Group Warns Nevada Capital Not to Fund Mark Twain Church

RENO, Nev. —  A group that advocates the separation of church and state is warning a Nevada city that it will sue if the city gives anymore money to a church that Mark Twain helped build in his 20s.

The Americans United for Separation of Church and State decided not to sue over Carson City's two past payments to the First Presbyterian Church, because courts are generally reluctant to force religious institutions to return funds already awarded, attorney Alex Luchenitser said.

In February, supervisors awarded $78,800 to the church for sidewalks, landscaping and roof repairs. In 2006, the city gave $67,700 to help with design costs for a new church, which is adjacent to the original one built in the 1860s.

The Washington-based group maintains the payments violated the First Amendment barring establishment of religion, and that public funds can't be used to support religious activity directly or indirectly.

*snip*

"What we did has been done all over the country," Supervisor Pete Livermore said. "We had it reviewed by our attorney, and we did nothing irregular. We don't need anyone from the East telling us what to do."

They used the money to help preserve an historic building.  Figures some folks got their diapers in a wad over it because it was *gasp* a church.   

MORE

[thundley4]

I don't see a problem with helping to maintain an historic church, but the article does say that money was given to build a new church next to the old one.

[Chris_]

I don't see a problem with helping to maintain an historic church, but the article does say that money was given to build a new church next to the old one.

The money went toward changing the plans to allow the old church to remain.  Otherwise it was to be razed.

[Lord Undies]

I don't see a problem with helping to maintain an historic church, but the article does say that money was given to build a new church next to the old one.

That would be sinful?

[thundley4]

The money went toward changing the plans to allow the old church to remain.  Otherwise it was to be razed.

That part wasn't clear in the article, just that money went to the design plans for the new church. If that is the case, and the state wants to make the old church a landmark, I'd see nothing wrong with it.

That would be sinful?

Not to me, in fact it's little different than colleges that have used taxpayer money to put in foot baths and other amenities that cater to Muslims.

[Lord Undies]

Not to me, in fact it's little different than colleges that have used taxpayer money to put in foot baths and other amenities that cater to Muslims.

Meneeder.  When I think of all the taxpayer support for the Liberal religion, I say it's high time we normal folks got a few churches built. 

[Chris_]

That part wasn't clear in the article, just that money went to the design plans for the new church. If that is the case, and the state wants to make the old church a landmark, I'd see nothing wrong with it.
...

From the article:

The payments covered additional costs stemming from an agreement that paved the way for the congregation to construct a new church in return for backing off its plan to raze the historic brick one, they said.

Bruce Kochsmeier, the church's pastor, has said the city's money is "minimal compensation" for the church having to revise its plans.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The Massachusetts entered the union with a state constitution that specifically called for the public funding of churches and the payment of salaries of ministers. How can that have been constitutional in its day but suddenly a STATE or LOCAL government is suddenly interpreted to be the federal CONGRESS?

[MrsSmith]

The Massachusetts entered the union with a state constitution that specifically called for the public funding of churches and the payment of salaries of ministers. How can that have been constitutional in its day but suddenly a STATE or LOCAL government is suddenly interpreted to be the federal CONGRESS?

There you go, making sense and expecting "geniuses," like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, to understand.   



 

[Rockntractor]

That part wasn't clear in the article, just that money went to the design plans for the new church. If that is the case, and the state wants to make the old church a landmark, I'd see nothing wrong with it.

Not to me, in fact it's little different than colleges that have used taxpayer money to put in foot baths and other amenities that cater to Muslims.

those are foot baths ? you mean they weren't urinals ?  whoops !