Refurbish your church--with tax dollars.

FEW PEOPLE WOULD dispute that Boston's Old North Church is a national treasure. In 1775, its steeple was used to signal Paul Revere that British troops were on the move, the famous "one if by land, two if by sea" code that is taught to every schoolchild.

Although steeped in history, the Old North Church isn't a museum. It remains a functioning Episcopal church with a rector, congregation, and regular services. People worship there every week.

As the church's website notes, "In this rare and beautiful building--that is still an active Episcopal church--art, history and faith meet in a special way.... The Old North Church is part of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts." The church has 150 members and offers a choir, a women's group, adult education, and other programs common in churches all over the United States.

Three years ago the Old North Church leadership realized their building needed new windows. The bill for replacements came in at over $300,000, and the congregation turned to an unusual source for help: the U.S. taxpayer.

Gale Norton, then the secretary of the Interior Department, flew to Boston to personally present a check for $317,000 to religious leaders at Old North Church. Not long after that, Touro Synagogue, the first synagogue in the United States, also received a government check for repair work--even though it too has an active congregation.

The administration of George W. Bush moved quickly to find other historic houses of worship to fund, and politicians took notice of this new form of pork barrel. Members of California's congressional delegation demanded $10 million to repair mission churches throughout the state--even though nineteen of those twenty-one churches still have congregations.

At that point, Americans United for Separation of Church and State realized that things were getting out of hand and stepped in with a lawsuit. Acting on behalf of California taxpayers, AU filed suit to block the federal appropriation to the missions. Although Congress approved the money and President Bush signed the act into law, no funds were ever disbursed. The lawsuit is now on hold.

Americans treasure their history, and rightly so. When historic sites are threatened, Americans are usually quick to speak out. In parts of Virginia, Civil War battlefields are threatened by suburban sprawl. Preservationists are fighting back, raising millions from private sources to save historic sites and buildings.

Old North Church, Touro Synagogue, and the California missions should have done the same. From a professional fundraisers' standpoint, $317,000 is pocket change. Even a mediocre fundraiser could have drummed up that sum in an afternoon without breaking a sweat. Americans love the romantic story of the Old North Church and would have gladly chipped in more than enough to buy new windows.

Likewise, advocates of Jewish history and those who appreciate the heritage of the California missions would have contributed millions to keep Touro Synagogue and the missions intact. The problem is, they were never given the opportunity. Instead, the members of these religious institutions chose to allow their buildings to be used as props for the misguided and dangerous "faith-based" initiative.

Again, I must stress that these sites are not museums. They are active houses of worship with congregations that meet regularly. They have staffs and take regular collections from the members. When a church is in financial difficulty, the first place the pastor must look for relief is the congregation. If that fails, the sponsoring denomination may be able to help out. The taxpayer has no obligation to bail out a struggling church or to subsidize its new paint job, windows, or furnace. We need to remember that mandatory taxpayer support for religion was what initiated the drive for the separation of church and state in America in the first place.

Regarding the California missions case, Americans United excluded from its lawsuit the two mission churches that are operated purely as museums. This seems to be the sensible place to draw the line. A historic house of worship that no longer has an active congregation and isn't used for regular worship--a structure that functions as a museum--can reasonably receive tax aid alongside an art or history museum. A functioning church shouldn't.

The Bush administration, through its faith-based approach, deliberately sought to blur this line of demarcation. It started with Old North Church for a reason: the administration knew that most people would get warm and fuzzy feelings over this church. It sought to make advocates of church-state separation look extreme in their opposition to the taxpayer-funded windows (which are clear, not stained glass).

The grant to Old North Church, however, puts the nation on a slippery slope. The church is undeniably historic, but so are lots of others. After Old North Church and Touro Synagogue got their checks, AU heard rumblings that an ornate Roman Catholic cathedral in Baltimore, Maryland, also wanted some federal money. The cathedral is about two hundred years old; does age alone mean that taxpayers should be expected to refurbish a structure owned by one of the wealthiest denominations in the world?

The fact is, with a little creative thinking, nearly any church can claim some historic connection. President James Garfield was a lay minister and undoubtedly preached in many churches before assuming the highest office in the land. Should all of them qualify for rehabs courtesy of the taxpayer?

Furthermore, once the principle of tax funding for "historic" churches is established, any ruse will be used to extend it. Is a church architecturally interesting? Might it present a health hazard if it is not rebuilt? These ostensibly secular reasons could become excuses to funnel millions in tax funds for the erection, refurbishment, and maintenance of houses of worship. It is better to close the door on this trend now--even if it means that sites we all revere have to look elsewhere for money. The bottom line is simple: the building, maintenance, and upkeep of all active churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and so forth should be borne by the members of the congregations that control them.

In its landmark 1947 decision in Everson v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, in defining the meaning of separation of church and state, declared in part, "No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."

That principle is under assault today. The Bush administration is using Americans' fondness for historic places to assail the wall of separation between church and state and usher in an unprecedented era of taxpayer support for religion. This goes against more than two hundred years of law and tradition.

It would be truly ironic if we tore down the church-state wall while building church wails. We need a modern day Paul Revere to sound a new alarm: "Church taxes are coming! Church taxes are coming!"

Rob Boston is assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.