I read that article yesterday and I can see why people would have some problems with it. After all, if you're going to give out government money to "faith-based" organizations, you'd better be damned clear about where the money is going to be spent. Also, there should be clear access to those sorts of funds no matter what faith the organization happens to follow/promote...otherwise you've got state-sponsored religious organizations, and that's unconstitutional.

Of course, there's the related problem of judges making mandatory sentences for DUI's to serve time in AA. Alcoholics Anonymous is a religious institution. To force someone into it who isn't religious is a violation of their rights. There are plenty of alternative programs out there that aren't based upon reliance on a "higher power" that are just as viable to handle alcohol addiction.

As for the woman who says her organization is being mislabeled, perhaps if they didn't have the word "ministries" in their name they wouldn't have that trouble. I certainly wouldn't call my corporate headquarters a temple if I didn't want people to assume it was a religious building...