Um, wait a minute...

[metawidget]

I will be very disappointed if our otherwise budget-conscious governments decide to help (by ceding land or kicking in funds) build a giant religious structure, as Mr. Jaziri Saïd is suggesting (for the record, any cathedral still acting as a cathedral's upkeep should be the problem of the church using it). Just because all the cool mid-Eastern monarchies' taxpayers are kicking in, doesn't mean we should.

In other news, the donated computer continues to flake out. Gift horses and all, I guess, but I can't pass my old clunker on without a reliable replacement, and this new one isn't it just yet.

Comments

[metawidget]

I suppose upkeep might be OK of an historic site, but one that's actively being used... I think the government shouldn't be building or maintaining active places of worship, particularly where tithes and honoraria are being collected.

[felis-ultharus.livejournal.com]

I think I'd agree to an historic church getting government funding from taxpayers, even if it's still being used. But I'd feel the same way for a bank or a market or any other old building in private hands.

As for building new ones, I'm very uncomfortable with that. What religious groups will get approved? Which will be left out?