Reversing a 1995 policy barring the government from giving federal funds to churches, the Bush administration announces the historic Old North Church in Boston will receive $317,000 from the Save America's Treasures Fund to help with repairs. Critics say the move violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Listen to audio:

http://news.npr.org/ The audio runs 3:54 is is WELL worth a listen.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/na...ionalnews-print

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=...storyID=2830410

[/B]Do you believe granting federal tax dollars to restore a church with historic value equates promoting religion?

if it is really historic, no, i would give money to it if it was in danger of caveing in on its patrons also. but i am a firm "guardian" of the seperation of church and state. but not blind to basic needs of structures, or national heritage

While I certainly do feel that the Bush administration is working to erode the "wall" between church and state, I don't feel this case is yet a further example.

Reading the Reuters article, this is the church where Paul Revere concluded his midnight ride with the lanterns to signal that the British were coming. Okay, so it definately has historical value. The thing that kind of gets me is that the church is still used to this day. Why in all this time hasn't it already been maintained?

I'm okay with funding to restore the church as a historical landmark, but I don't want to hear about it being used just to jazz the place up or being used for church functions, as that's not the purpose of the money. And while I'm okay with this, I am still wary. I would think that with continued attendance all this time the parishoners would have already maintained the church and be capable of making any repairs necessary.

I am also wary about this. while it is one thing to pay to restore it if it wasn't being used, it is a little strange it has been used yet not maintained. I think this money should be watched EXTREMELY closely. the first time it is used for ANYTHING aside from repairs, it should be revoked.

or better yet, rather then give them funds for repairs, give them fully paid workers to fix it, all expenses paid. and like ABS said, no jazzing it up with taxpayer money.

As long as the money is used to only repair and maintain the structural integrity of the building, I don't see a problem with it.