Rother Shrine

[Plutonic Panda]

With the money being spent on this project; the city will take care of the sidewalks and support infrastructure for a project of this magnitude.

This Basilica & Rother Shine will evolve over time since it will be a National Shine (tourists).

Wouldn't be surprised to see a few new motels & hotels close to this development.

There needs to be enhanced bus service in the mean time once this beauty opens up.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

With the money being spent on this project; the city will take care of the sidewalks and support infrastructure for a project of this magnitude.

This Basilica & Rother Shine will evolve over time since it will be a National Shine (tourists).

Wouldn't be surprised to see a few new motels & hotels close to this development.

With all due respect, that's a non-starter; or it should be.

I understand your strong feelings about this, but the fact is this: The Basilica and the Rother Shrine is a church and religious monument for the Roman Catholic faithful. Whether it's seen as a holy place of God or as an ostentatious display of religiosity, one thing we can all agree on -- these are religious buildings. The government, at no level, should be spending time, at all, on transportation considerations, the tourist appeal, or anything else that is distinctly, and singularly, religious in nature.

[NavySeabee]

I predict many of the properties on the east end facing I-35 will one by one disappear. I expect the church to acquire every property all way up to the Countryside Village. They will either get it through direct purchase or someone in the church purchasing it and donating it to the church. A church that size is going to need access from every direction it can get.

[mugofbeer]

Is this being built on the old pitch and putt golf course?

[catcherinthewry]

Is this being built on the old pitch and putt golf course?

It is being built on the site of the old 9 hole Duffy Martin course, Brookside.

[Martin]

pitch 'n putt was south of earlywine park on sw 119th just west of may. i think it was approximately where hickory creek neighborhood sits today.

[bombermwc]

Sidewalks should be going in for all new construction anyway, but that should be a cost shouldered by the entity developing the land (in this case, the church).

EMBARK will decide if it warrants a bus stop. Chances are, it won't. There are plenty of other large business areas that do not get one, so why would this be given one just because its a church? The church could certainly ask EMBARK about it though.

I agree, this is going to be a pretty big deal and in a way that non-catholic churches are not. People dont come to OKC to look at the sprawling campus of Crossings. But people do travel the WORLD to see large cathedrals, which also happen to mostly be catholic because of when they were built. So we may (it's not a gurantee because there are plenty of them out there that people do not come visit) see traffic coming to visit. But i think the above commentors are over-estimating how much it will attract. We're talking about a fairly obscure and new person to the game and we're not going to see traffic like Notre Dame or the National Cathedral. Especially not at first when there's a LOT that's not finished.

[GoGators]

It is nice to finally see a new church being built in OKC that doesn't borrow its design from a Super Walmart.

[HangryHippo]

It is nice to finally see a new church being built in OKC that doesn't borrow its design from a Super Walmart.

This. It'll be very nice to see something beyond LifeChurch Neighborhood Market for Christ.

[Laramie]

You are not going to see an enhanced bus transit in that area overnight. Edmond, Midwest City and Norman have limited bus service from OKC's Embark. Moore's in a better position IMO than Norman or Midwest City with the growth development south between 74th & 89th streets that streams into Moore.

Now there will be a National Shrine and Basilica here of which there are less than 90 of these in our country. It's not like they are going to suddenly decide that there will be an hourly Basilica bus or something; PluPlan just mentioned better service--nothing new that he hasn't previously advocated for our city. Bus service does extend to 74th Street--89th Street has a similar growth trend. Moore is growing, it will be better served with a future transit plan co-parterned with OKC.

Many of the tourists who will be visiting the shine will have better connections and transit means once this edifice opens; really doubt if they will be taking a bus, again it's not like the city is going to all of a sudden focus solely on the shrine. As bombermwc mentioned the Archdiocese will shoulder the sidewalk infrastructure as it has done with its churches and schools in the city.

[David]

Southside catholics trying to go mass might, though, and if there is enough demand for that let's serve it with a stop.

[TheTravellers]

Southside catholics trying to go mass might, though, and if there is enough demand for that let's serve it with a stop.

Good point, didn't think about that since I'm not really religious.

[Snowman]

Southside catholics trying to go mass might, though, and if there is enough demand for that let's serve it with a stop.

From the location they chose, it seems pretty clear they did not prioritize public transit access.

[Pete]

[Laramie]

What's the difference between a cathedral and a basilica?

[Plutonic Panda]

Wow, Pete. Your drone shots really give perspective on this project. Thank you a million for that.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I understand the need to talk around these issues and talk about how the government is involved in Paris and London with transportation and religious stops. We’re not in the UK or France, this is the United States and we have a separation between church and state.

I get the emotional tug for Catholics. I truly do. The desire to post pictures, videos - even documentaries - about Mr. Rother in this thread. I get it. That is all fine, of course, and is your right exercising freedom of religion. The flip side of that though is that we also have a separation of church and state, and talk about the city paying for infrastructure, landscaping, etc. should not be happening. Some of us feel very strongly that religious entities provide for their own needs and believe it is unconstitutional for the government - at any level - to provide financial assistance to a singularly religious attraction.

By the way, to be clear, I would feel the exact same way if this was a Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Scientology, Mormon, or any other pick-your-religion project. I also understand this can be a touchy subject in a state like Oklahoma. I’m not trying to be argumentative or tone deaf here, only expressing my concerns at what some are proposing our city be involved with.

[Laramie]

You seemed to have taken a special interest in separation of church & state for this project.

Just remember, this country was built on religious freedom.

Great pics Pete, thanks for those drone shots...

[Mr. Blue Sky]

You seemed to have taken a special interest in separation of church & state for this project.

Just remember, this country was built on religious freedom.

Great pics Pete, thanks for those drone shots...

This country was founded by people who had all seen the damage of church and state mingled together. They very much didn’t want a “religious test” for public office, Christianity isn’t mentioned once in the Constitution. In fact, “God” to (almost) all of the founders was a creator who did not believe in any of the Abrahamic religions, or any religion that believed in the supernatural. Their “God” was one of the Deists. Separation of any church or religion from the state was an important position for most of our founders, as found in letters, essays, etc.

I’ve made my point and there’s no use my continuing this here. The transportation being subsidized by the city is probably okay if there is demand, as d-usa noted. But not for providing landscaping or infrastructure. The Catholic Church is not a Costco. I mean no disrespect and I hate that making this point comes across as adversarial. I only responded here because of posters proposing use of city services, and even MAPS money for assistance in servicing a Roman Catholic church and shrine.

While I oppose any use of public money, I offer best wishes for the church and shrine.

[Laramie]

Here's my point...

...how convenient.

Supreme Court rejects case to remove ‘In God We Trust’ from US currency: https://nypost.com/2019/06/11/suprem...m-us-currency/

[Swake]

Here's my point...

...how convenient.

Supreme Court rejects case to remove ‘In God We Trust’ from US currency: https://nypost.com/2019/06/11/suprem...m-us-currency/

Added 1957 during McCarthyism

[Celebrator]

Added 1957 during McCarthyism

For paper currency. It has been on coins since 1864. https://www.treasury.gov/about/educa...-we-trust.aspx

And I think to say that it was just in response to McCarthyism (which was waning by 1957) is too narrow, lawmakers (84th Congress seated at the time was majority Democrat in the House and the Senate, by the way) also wanted to strike a clear distinction at the height of the Cold War with the USSR, a nation where atheism was promoted in the schools.

[okcpulse]

This country was founded by people who had all seen the damage of church and state mingled together. They very much didn’t want a “religious test” for public office, Christianity isn’t mentioned once in the Constitution. In fact, “God” to (almost) all of the founders was a creator who did not believe in any of the Abrahamic religions, or any religion that believed in the supernatural. Their “God” was one of the Deists. Separation of any church or religion from the state was an important position for most of our founders, as found in letters, essays, etc.

We have to be very careful with revisionist history that casts our founding fathers as deists. They were not. This debate is increasingly becoming popular in the secular argument against America's historical Christian heritage. The closest to a deist was Benjamin Franklin, who was raised as a Puritan and whose early commitment to deism didn't last long. John Adams was a devout Unitarian who did not identify with the doctrines with his Congregationalist upbringing. Years after Benjamin Franklin's claim to embrace deism, Franklin believed God required worship, answers prayer and intervenes in history. Franklin even requested a pause for prayer during the Constitutional Convention to seek guidance and reconciliation during one of the most heated debates. Thomas Jefferson also believed in an active God that sustained the world by His providence.

While it is true that separation of church and state was very near to the hearts of our Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, it is very important to remember what it really means. It gives people the legal right to freely live their faith, even in public, without fear of government coercion. The motive was never to build a thick wall between church and state, nor to keep faith out of public institutions, but rather to keep the state from exercising its authority over the church.

[bombermwc]

The motive was never to build a thick wall between church and state, nor to keep faith out of public institutions, but rather to keep the state from exercising its authority over the church.

Or vice versa.....

[Swake]

We have to be very careful with revisionist history that casts our founding fathers as deists. They were not. This debate is increasingly becoming popular in the secular argument against America's historical Christian heritage. The closest to a deist was Benjamin Franklin, who was raised as a Puritan and whose early commitment to deism didn't last long. John Adams was a devout Unitarian who did not identify with the doctrines with his Congregationalist upbringing. Years after Benjamin Franklin's claim to embrace deism, Franklin believed God required worship, answers prayer and intervenes in history. Franklin even requested a pause for prayer during the Constitutional Convention to seek guidance and reconciliation during one of the most heated debates. Thomas Jefferson also believed in an active God that sustained the world by His providence.

While it is true that separation of church and state was very near to the hearts of our Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, it is very important to remember what it really means. It gives people the legal right to freely live their faith, even in public, without fear of government coercion. The motive was never to build a thick wall between church and state, nor to keep faith out of public institutions, but rather to keep the state from exercising its authority over the church.

A note: "Uni"tarian as opposed to Trinitarian. Diest. And that's just the start of what is wrong here.