I also think our positions are very close, but the rhetoric we use is important and I understand we may continue to have our differences. I respect your positions, though. And like you, I am adamant about allowing Christianity in our public arena. Christmas, memorial crosses, 10 commandment icons, civic prayer, all of those things should be welcomed. I think it's important to be careful about how we refer to those religious practices, however. I'm clearly more worried about that than most here on FR.
The question at hand has several facets. On a "conservative forum," the interesting ones beyond mere advocacy are where we might learn from our differences. I think rhetoric is important, and I think those who would manipulate the faithful know this.
On the issue of federal, state, county, and city funding for Christian outreaches (e.g. faith based ministries) I haven't made up my mind. I think involving faith in ministry to the poor is a very positive thing, and I think the secular approach of the government is aseptic and unfeeling; it is also easy to corrupt. Maybe what I really want is an option to donate a portion of one's taxes to an approved charity list. But the Islamic outreaches will sneak in and snag their share; they also get into our prison systems this way. So will the Wiccan, and the other non-western belief systems which I find to be superstitious and backward.
That only defers the problem. The feds would be able to determine who gets on and off the list.
Constitutionally (speaking of using language the right way), the federal government has no power to be involved in charity at all, either religious or secular.
I don't think the gov't should be involved in the "charity" business. I refer to gov't "charity" as "coercive philanthropy". I think all charity should be non-gov't, and no one should be forced. However, if gov't is to be involved, religion should not be used as a factor for exclusion from such programs.