An interesting solution might be for the property to become publicly owned. Taxpayer dollars could then be responsible for the upkeep, and could be augmented by renting the facility to the congregation at a reasonable rate for their use.

america has so little architectural history to it [ because the indians weren't into much bricks and mortat] that you might want to save something that old, church or not

This is a bit of a gray area and I think they're threading the needle okay, if you assume this is in fact a truly historic building (and note merely because it's a church). Presumably given that, the structural work would be done regardless of whether a church happens to occupy the building. Even the stained glass might have been maintained in some scenarios, although it sounds like that was an attempt at a bit of a stretch. I don't see this as part of a nefarious conspiracy to muddy the waters of church-state separation. It is a small congregation doing what it can to survive. While I am not going to weep if the congregation has to fold, I understand that some of those actors might, and can forgive them leaving no stone unturned. But I appreciate the court holding a reasonable line here, too.

Anything that doesn't come down hard in the favor of separation is a fucking step backwards.

It really splits hairs, the church is active and currently housed in an historial building/church. The active church pays no taxes and should not get public money to maintain the building. But the court ruled no money for the stained glass window but might allow for funds for structural support of the building. YIKES!! NO is a complete sentence IMO. The church can do the up keep or get out and turn the biulding over to the state.

A building that is designated a historic landmark can be a church so money can be issued to preserve a historic monument. The issue regarding the stained glass is also correct as it represents a religious icon in use by an active church. No money from the public trust should be granted.

I think if this grant is allowed it will set a dangerous precident and open the flood gates for other religious institutions to side step the Constitution in this way. The churches in general can't be trusted to stay on their side of the wall of separation because whenever we don't hold their feet to the fire they will and do try to go over, around, or under that wall.

It's a bad decision. Committing public funds to repair an active church is a clear violation of the separation of state and church. That's why the FFRF (at least I assume it's them) sued to begin with.

I don't think there should be any connection between church and state. They don't pay taxes and they shouldn't have say in government. I think they are realizing that their numbers are going down and this is their way to try and stay in control.

Building restoration case. Nothing to do with religion.