...as the symbol is absorbed in the common cultural significance of the past.

If they are part of the State Park system, Masses should not be being said on a regular basis in those missions. (Permission to hold private religious services, such as weddings or the occasional Mass, can be given to private petitioners. The public can use all parks in such ways.) As there are regular Masses said for extant congregations, then religion trumps history, because they are active houses of worship. They should be the responsibility of the Catholic Church, which in fact owns 19 of the 21 missions and is hardly a poverty-stricken entity.

If congregations want money to repair and restore their churches, as the buildings have already been declared historical sites, they can appeal to grant-funding agencies that provide limited funds for specific, limited restoration or development projects. I would also be interested to know who benefits from the sales at the gift shops, and how those moneys are spent.

As an example of grant-writing in action, in 2002 Sen. Boxer wrote the California Missions Preservation Act, which authorized matching funds from the US Dept. of the Interior to the tune of $10 million, if the non-profit California Missions Foundation can come up with $10 million to match. So far the California Missions Foundation can only cough up $3 million. Can the Church not contribute money for its own buildings? Yet the President wants to give them the $10 million even though the beneficiaries won't hold up their end. Not right.

The buildings themselves must not be maintained by the government as long as they continue to be used as churches. If the government is to maintain them, crosses and all, it must be as museums or parks, with religious services held only occasionally, with properly licensed permission, just like any other group seeking to use public parkland for a private party.

The ultimate test of whether the missions are primarily religious or secular is whether the missions would allow tours to cancel Mass. I'm guessing no.

The only way the symbols are more historical or artistic is if they are no longer active. If they are inert in a religious sense, if they are not used to practice religion or promote it in the present, then they are only part of an old story.

For government to celebrate religion itself in a multi-religious, free society, the celebration must be of religious freedom, including all religions together. One symbol or symbols of one religion alone won't do that.

So in order to keep the crosses, we have to gut them of their religious significance. Do you still think public religious displays are good for religion?