missions, church and state

my pic of St. Francisco de Asis chapel, Ranchos de Taos, NM.


I heard a story on "Morning Edition" last week and was very intrigued. I know that missions are some of my favorite historic buildings to visit. There are a whole lot of them in San Antonio, and all over New Mexico. I never thought of it being a problem/conflict for the state to keep this buildings operable and open to the public. I am amazed that people still attend these aged churches, but I mainly appreciate them for their historic/artistic/architectural value. Sometimes I will be quite moved by some art in an old chapel, but I was also quite disturbed by a stone at the mission we visited near Chimayo. Right by the preacher's office and small chapel, it reads something like "in memory of the aborted babies". It was probably phrased more gently than that, but I was very disturbed by it.

Anyway, the conflict they are having in California is over the division of church and state. Should the state fund restoration for historically relevant missions still operating as churches? Is it the state's responsibility? I am normally an advocate for the separation of church and state, but am on the fence on this issue. These missions cannot survive without the state's help. And yet, I wouldn't want my taxes benefitting an ultra-conservative church. I also would hate to have to visit the T-Mobile Santa Rita mission. Not that one would ever exist, but you get my drift.

Listen to the story and see what you think.

NPR : Church and State Debate Threatens Calif. Mission Repair