November 30, 2004 - The California Missions Preservations Act granting $10 Million in matching funds to the California Missions Foundation has passed Congress and is awaiting the President’s signature. The money would go to refurbish and restore the 21 missions that played a central role in the development of Spanish Colonial California. All of the buildings are in need of restoration and the cost is beyond the local resources available. Three of the 21 missions still see Roman Catholic Mass celebrated on Sundays and therein lies a controversy.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is raising the alarm. If President Bush signs the bill the organization threatens to sue to prevent what it sees as a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. “We think that churches ought to pay for their repairs rather than look to the taxpayers to do it. We recognize that these are historic buildings, but you certainly don't scrap the Constitution to do it. There's a very bad trend under way here asking taxpayers to pay for religion. We think that trend has to stop," Joe Conn, spokesman for American United said.

While the money would not go to any Catholic Church organization but to a private non-profit foundation opponents argue that it would be an indirect subsidy of religion. The foundation acknowledges that part of the funds would be used to restore colonial religious artwork decorating the missions’ walls and ceilings. Most of the money would be used to repair, restore and stabilize the buildings, some built before the American Revolution broke out and many before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted. Showing the signs of age and some bearing the scars of earthquake damage the Mission buildings are in danger of loss if they are not given prompt attention.

This is not an issue of government support for religion. It is an issue of preserving part of our common cultural and architectural heritage. Because there is an element of religious expression in the decorative elements of the architecture does not make the preservation of these historical buildings into government support for religion. Bach, Beethoven, Hayden and Mendelssohn all wrote religious music. Are we to ban performance of their works by orchestras that are supported by public funds? Are we to remove public funds from museums displaying medieval art works with religious themes? We must not sacrifice our cultural heritage on an altar of separation of Church and State.

The bright line that the Constitution draws between Church and State is important and central to our political heritage. When the State intrudes into the sanctuary or the Church invades the halls of government both State and Church are debased. The President’s Faith Based Initiative comes perilously close and indeed threatens to cross that line as it seeks to support the religious expression that attends upon social programs. Preserving historical church buildings does not approach the intrusion that the Constitution seeks to prevent. While when we approach the line between Church and State we must tread carefully, the California Missions Preservation Act is on the right side of that line.