+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Sports Bar (/forum-531.html)
+---- Thread: Separation of church and state? (/thread-227090.html)
- JD Heel - 08-05-2002 12:04 PM
Here's a nice little dilemma raised by an article that ran in yesterday's Boston Globe. I thought this might be a good read for some of you on the board.
There's a catch, though -- the writer is my college roommate. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
<a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/216/west/Church_seeks_to_split_water_main_bill+.shtml" target="_blank">Church seeks to split water-main bill</a>
Town officials say they're willing to pay for improvements they'll benefit from
By Matt Viser, Globe Correspondent, 8/4/2002
When members of Pilgrim United Church of Christ began planning in 1999 to renovate their building, they budgeted $25,000 for a new sprinkler system.
Later, when they discovered it would cost nearly twice that, they asked their next-door neighbor to split the cost of updating old water pipes and installing a new water main that feeds into both buildings.
The only problem was that their neighbor happened to be Town House, and the proposal has presented concerns over the Constitutional separation between church and state.
"We've been neighbors for 160 years, and sharing things and the spirit of cooperation have always been part of us being good neighbors," said Stephen Pflug, a member of Pilgrim Church's building and grounds committee. "We'd like to think the cooperation would continue."
The church's renovations are part of a $1.2 million project that adds a new organ, four classrooms, an elevator, and a handicap ramp to the building, which was built in 1804. And to meet fire-code regulations, a sprinkler system must also be added.
But the sprinkler system turned into a larger, more expensive task than church members originally thought.
The project involves installing a larger water main, replacing 400 feet of 70-year-old pipes and putting a new fire hydrant between the church and Town House.
All in all, it will cost $41,500 - or $20,750 apiece if it is split between the two parties.
Town House does not have a sprinkler system either, and upgrading the underground water system now could help in the future, should town officials later decide to install a sprinkler system in the building.
"Someday, they'll want to put in a sprinkler system of their own," said Pflug. "We know they'll use it [the water main] at some point, so why shouldn't they help with some of the funding?"
Town officials agree - although reaching a solution remains complicated.
"If you set aside the church-state issue - and I don't even know if it is an issue - then it makes practical sense," said Janice Conlin, town administrator. "Why should we connect into that pipe and not share the cost?"
Town officials asked their legal counsel, Frederick Busconi, to offer an opinion on the legality of such an agreement.
"The Town may participate with the Pilgrim Church in the acquisition of a new water pipeline accommodating both the Church and the Town Hall," Busconi wrote last week in a letter to town officials. "It is my opinion that there is no violation of the separation of church and state."
That did not solve everything, though. Delicate questions remain as to how the town will get the money to the church.
The church has already started installing the new pipes and water main, in order to stay on schedule with construction, but the town would still have to secure money from Town Meeting, which is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 21.
If the town writes the church a check of reimbursement, officials fear it could look deceptively like a donation.
"It's a touchy issue and voters might have a problem with the town giving the church a check for $20,750," Pflug said.
To circumvent having money actually change hands between the town and the church, church officials have developed a complex system of payments.
The contractor would write two bills for the project, one to the church and one to the town, according to Pflug.
But the church would pay for the entire project right now, giving the town time to appropriate the money at Town Meeting.
Then, the town would write a check to the contractor and the contractor would write a check to the church. It's a complicated system, but "it takes the town away from giving the church a check, which might seem onerous to some," Pflug said.
This isn't the first time Pilgrim Church and Town House have worked together as neighbors.
"Pilgrim Church actually deeded the land for the town to build its town hall," said Dan Leist, the moderator of Pilgrim Church.
In 1906, the church gave the town a portion of land in exchange for the town's agreement to maintain the church's horse sheds.
Later, in 1962, the town gave back a half-acre of land to the church so the church could expand its building.
"We have a long-standing good relationship with the town," said Leist.
This story ran on page W1 of the Boston Globe on 8/4/2002.
<small>[ August 05, 2002, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: JD Heel ]</small>
- SilverSpring_JuniorTerp - 08-05-2002 12:06 PM
hahaha
- TheHumanBullet - 08-05-2002 12:10 PM
sometimes people can get ridiculous with their interperatations of the Constitution. Damn strict constructionists.
- Liquid Karma - 08-05-2002 01:17 PM
Common sense should win out in this one.
- PoohTerp - 08-05-2002 02:22 PM
when will people ever get it through their heads that the purpose of 'seperation of church and state' was so that the government could not dictate what religions were acceptible and not acceptible.. and therefore imposed upon the people. i.e. Church of England
edited to add that people seem to have forgotten that 'laws' used actually be church laws. so, if the church said something was not legal, it was not legal.
it's these scenerios that the Constitution forbade.
me thinks the writers thereof are turning over in their graves today!
<small>[ August 05, 2002, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: PoohTerp ]</small>