Thanks Ron
Yes, both a one-in-all-in or one-out-all-out approach to spending public
money on religious heritage would be consistent and reasonably sensible
public policy.
I'd be interested in whether the group lobbying against the enactment of the
Mission Bill is able to construct an argument that says that all religious
[or still actively used] buildings do not contribute to the general benefit
of having a conserved history, or whether the need to maintain that
constitutional separation over-rides the benefits. Similar arguments are
used by various agencies to justify the maintenance of their core business
as active operations rather than conservation of their past, eg we NEED
modern defence facilities, we only WANT to conserve old and potentially
inoperable defence sites.
Denis Gojak