GaryP

getting federal dollars for restoration project.



From AANews (American Atheists)
In a sweeping policy change, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton said today that religious groups may obtain federal funding in order to repair "historic" churches and other properties.

The first recipient is the Old North Church in Boston, Mass which is
receiving a $317,000 government grant to repair and restore windows, and make the building more accessible to the public. The church is famous as the site where lanterns were hung to signal Paul Revere that the British were coming. Regular services are still conducted every Sunday in the 280-year-old structure.

Such government aid was, until recently, unthinkable, especially for churches that housed active congregations. In recent years, some religious entities and "preservation" groups have supported the idea.
Lawmakers, from President Bush to Sen. Joseph Lieberman have also called for the use of federal grants to repair and maintain houses of worship.

The idea faces constitutional barriers, however.

In COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION (PEARL) v. NYQUIST (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court examined several N.Y. state laws providing financial aid to nonpublic elementary and secondary schools. Part of the money was for "maintenance and repair" of facilities, and equipment to promote the "health, welfare and safety" of students. Justices noted that whatever the goal and "propriety" of the legislature's purpose in establishing such public assistance, the programs "may not immunize from further scrutiny a law which either has the effect that advances
religion, or which fosters excessive entanglements between Church and State."

For free subsription to

AANews;http://atheists.org/visitors.center/guidelines.html

Beetle

This story has gotten a good bit of play in the Boston area. I have to say that although I'm usually very strident on church/state issues (at least I think I am), this doesn't bother me. The Old North Church played a major role in Boston during the early part of the revolution that I think it's okay for the society to fork over some dough for the upkeep. (of course, the fact that I love history and toured the church a bunch of times has nothing to do with my position on this...)

The reason they need $317,000 for the windows is that they are being restored to 18th century condition. Also, the building is open to the public every day and offers free guided tours when they aren't doing services. So they aren't milking the history for huge amounts of money (though they do have a small gift shop in a seperate building).

Anybody else gets money, and I'll be upset.

Jewel

That's quite a slippery slope. It could be argued that it is a historical site, but it is also a still functioning church with an active congregation. I think the fact that they still hold services there means they should not get tax payors money for a restoration (or any other) project. As soon as one church gets money -- others will follow.

GaryP

Beetle--

I agree that it would be a shame if the Old North Chuch fell into a sad shape of dis-repair.

But as Jewel said, it is a slippery slope and the Bushites have already informed us as to how slippery they would like it to be.

Here in my hometown, there are probably 50 churches which could be argued are "historic" to a greater or lesser degree.

If the community of the Old North Church would make their needs known, I would think that they could easily raise the money. Heck, I would donate to them, because as you stated I love history also.

Grumpy

Are these churches simply declared historic (on a list of landmarks), or are they owned & operated by the National Park Service? That in itself would be tricky, since Old North and other historic churches still hold regular services.

gilly54

I absolutely agree that giving tax money to the Old North Church would set a very bad precedent and many other "historic" churches would quickly get in line for their tax dollar handouts, like the string of Jesuit missions here in California.

Let them do what other churches do...paint a big billboard in the shape of a thermometer calibrated in dollar amounts, then plead for donations to fix the window, roof, floor, pews or whatever. Since the Old North Church is quite historic, I'm sure the dollars will fill the "dollar-mometer "quickly.

I'm curious, what denomination is the Old North Church?

GaryP

Episcopal

http://www.oldnorth.com/

SLD

It would seem to me that if the church were in such bad condition that it would deteriorate, then the government could step in and condemn it and then restore it as an historic landmark, but it could not then operate as a place of worship (I mean people could actually pray in it, but it wouldn't be any organized religious services), until and unless, the church were to purchase it back at it's fair market value (i.e. the cost of the repairs); that way, the state is not funding the restoration of a church - they are merely using their powers of eminent domain to save an historical landmark.

That being said, I doubt if the Old North Church is in that bad of a shape. I wouldn't want to see it deteriorate, but it being such an important historical landmark, I'd bet it wouldn't have any problems raising the money to do the restoration.

SLD

Stephen Maturin

Yep, and that's exactly what the administration has in mind. Federal money for restoring historic landmarks comes from the Save America's Treasures program, run jointly by the federal government (National Park Service) and a private organization called the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Until recently, federal restoration money wasn't available to religious institutions.

As for the Bush administration's motives in reversing that decades-old prohibition, the Washington Post offers this:

The New York Times interviewed a Georgetown U. con law prof who had this to say about the Establishment Clause issue:

One of the many problems here is the fact that federal money invariably comes with buttloads of strings attached. As the Old North Church's vicar said in the Washington Post article:

Sure seems like "an excessive government entanglement with religion"* to me, but there's no room for doubt that the Bushies will keep opening the doors of the federal treasury wider and wider for religious institutions. How they'll avoid giving anything to institutions that aren't part of the One True Church(TM) remains to be seen, but I have no doubt that the avoidance mechanics are firmly in place.

* Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971).

abe smith

At most,( unless "he"-- that is that Group presently in power, arrange to abolish the Federal Constitution and to institute a perpetual self-perpetuating oligarchy : THAT wd constitute a true Revolution, of course)), the Bush regime has only another
5 1/2 years more left, at max, or less, to impose its/their amendations on our citizenry. .... If, then. Bush & Co continue to effect their agendas by Executive fiat, rather than by Constitutional /legal *legislative* processes, their alterations may be held to the short term... altho the effects, in establishing *precedents*, may be (frighteningly) much more persistent .
In former times, The Supremes (e.g. during the early FDR years) acted fairly-swiftly to prevent Executive-Branch's attempts to take-over the Gummint at the Constitution's expense.
For the USSC to protect the USofA, though, that NINE team have to be on the side of at least "classic" Constitutionality.....
(I personally regret that I probably won't live long-enough to see this-all play out. Sheesh, yes: a major reason to stay-alive.))