I did not say that government money should be used to promote religion. I said that HAVING and PRACTICING religion should not be a bar to recieving money for non-religious purposes.

My misunderstanding, Mmario, we're in agreement. The reason why religious charitable organizations don't uses federal funds to promote religion is because that's the way the law is NOW. They can mention that there are faith-based services available, but they can't require them. Dubya has repeatedly stated he wants to lift that restriction and allow them to prostelitize with government funds, as well as allowing them to use those funds to practice hiring practices which are contrary to federal laws on the uses of federal funds.

Polls of Americans frequently show support for this -- but only, of course, for that particular person's religious preferences. When asked if this should apply to ALL religions, people say no. Which only goes to show that lifting the restriction is stupid and opens up a can of constitutional worms and religious bigotry.

But if a law doesn't provide a mechanism whereby it is applied constitutionally, is the law constitutional?

All laws are required to be applied constitutionally, it does not need to be explicitly stated in each law. There is a review process for any law as stated in our Consitution, so that also does not need to be explicitly stated either. Are we speaking of a hypothetical Wiccan charity group, or one in particular? Because the review process would require a test case going through the courts to show that the law is either unconstitutional or is being *applied* in an unconstitutional manner.