2003-10-03 California Missions
Opinion	Government shouldn't raise  funds for California's missions San Diego Jewish Press-Heritage, Oct. 3,  2003

By Donald H. Harrison Gov. Gray Davis and the California State Legislature made a significant mistake recently by enacting SB 12, a bill that, in effect, turns the state of California into a fundraising arm for the Catholic Church. Now, let it be clear, even though I disagree with Gov. Davis and wish he had made another decision, I don't think he should be recalled in next Tuesday's election. I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing, even though in this case he and the Legislature were wrong. Rather than throwing him out of office, it's up to us as citizens to make our voices heard about maintaining the wall between church and state. What SB 12 by State Sen. Jackie Speier (D-San Mateo) does is add the nonprofit California Missions Foundation to a list of nonreligious charities already listed on your state income tax form as worthy of your voluntary contribution. Should you want to pay your taxes and then throw in a little extra money, the state will be more than happy to forward your contribution to the charity. Approximately 14.5 million state income tax forms are filed each year. That's how many times the state of California will be suggesting that the California Missions Foundation is a worthy cause for a charitable donation. Don't think the state can¹t be a persuasive solicitor for charities. So far this year, 116,000 taxpayers decided they'd like to spend just a little bit more than their tax bills to support the 11 already recognized charities. Income tax forms processed by the state so far this year have resulted in $3.9 million being divided among the following charitable causes: two funds for senior citizens; four separate funds to promote research on Alzheimer's disease, asthma and lung diseases, breast cancer, and lupus; a fund to protect children against abuse; a fund to protect rare and endangered species; two separate memorial funds for California firefighters and peace officers, and an emergency food assistance program. Some of these funds are drawing more contributions than others. The California Missions Foundation says it deserves to replace any member of the group of 11 that falls off the list. Under law, only those charities which raise $250,000 annually after their first year on the list can remain on the list for a total of five years. Richard Ameil, who heads the California Missions Foundation, says the 21 California missions need $50 million in renovations. Money raised through  the state income tax checkoff would be used to repair the missions, their art works and their artifacts. Put another way, the California Missions Foundation does the kind of things for the missions that the building and grounds committee might do for your synagogue— with two big differences. Your synagogue doesn't have the State of California as its fundraising partner, nor has your building and grounds committee, for legal reasons, incorporated as a separate corporation from your synagogue. As a student of California history, I¹m a fan of the California missions. When people are interested in our city's early history, I routinely take them to places like Cabrillo National Monument, Presidio Park, Old Town, Mission San Diego and Mission Trails Regional Park. If friends who visit us are Roman Catholics, I routinely shuttle them to Mission San Diego to celebrate Mass. So it's neither the missions nor Roman Catholics with whom I have a quarrel. It's the whole idea that the State of California is showing a preference for one religion over all the others. Like Ameil, spokespersons Hilary McLean of Gov. Davis' office and Erin Ryan of Sen. Speier¹s office point out that the missions played a unique role in California history. They are designated California historical landmarks because around them various California cities, including San Diego, have built up. In recognition of the missions' important role, public schools have been taking children on field trips there for generations. The missions also help the economy by drawing tourists. Furthermore, they note, Jewish institutions also receive funding from the state, including the Museum of Tolerance and the Skirball Museum in Los Angeles. The trouble with the first part of their collective argument is that it fails to recognize that there are more than 1,000 California historic landmarks, both religious and secular, that could benefit from the state making 14.5 million fundraising pitches in their behalf. However, admirers of these historic monuments and places do not have the political clout that the California Missions Foundation has. Rather than giving the people of California the opportunity to support any designated state historical landmark, the State of California is telling us that only one kind of landmark—the missions—deserve its official imprimatur. The second part of their argument also is faulty. The Museum of Tolerance and the Skirball Museum, although Jewish-sponsored, are strictly cultural organizations. Unlike the missions, they are not houses of worship. Mission San Diego and other missions in the chain conduct regular religious services on Sundays and throughout the week. The missions are not just landmarks; they are working churches. So what's the clear message being sent by the State of California to its income taxpayers? "If you want to be a good citizen, support this Roman Catholic cause." As I understand the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, neither Congress nor the states are supposed to prefer one religion over another. That's why the federal courts recently dragged the Ten Commandments monument out of an Alabama state courthouse. Fundraising by the state for a Roman Catholic charity, but for no other religion's charity, clearly is showing a preference for one religion over the others. My feeling is that if the state government wants to play fair with all the people of California, it needs to write a new law eliminating the preference for one religion. California should create a fund for the refurbishment of all its historical landmarks, and permit taxpayers to designate the ones to which they would like to direct their contributions. In that manner, the missions could receive contributions, but so could other places important to our state's history.