Critics would have a point if the bill withheld funding from public universities that permit their facilities to be used by community groups, including student groups that have a religious focus. Public institutions that make facilities available to student groups can't discriminate against groups with a religious viewpoint. Withholding funding from institutions that comply with the law would be problematic, but that doesn't seem to be the bill's intent. Instead, the provision seems to prohibit the use of funds to repair or remodel buildings on a public campus that are primarily used for religious worshship or instruction.

"This provision upholds constitutional standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court and in no way affects student groups that meet on public school campuses," said the Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. ...

"It's almost a restatement of what the Constitution requires so there's nothing novel in what the House did in its restriction," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel to the ACLU. "For 37 years, the law of the land is that the government can't pay for buildings that are used for religious purposes."

While there is some fuzziness in the intersection of the Free Exercise Clause, which forbids government from interfering with the free exercise of religion, and the Establishment Clause, which forbids government from endorsing or advancing religion, the restrictions in the stimulus bill are consistent with Establishment Clause concerns. Explains Professor Mark Tushnet:

Tushnet cited a 2004 Supreme Court case in which a Washington student lost a college scholarship awarded by the state after it was revealed that he planned to pursue a degree in pastoral ministries. Though the student argued that rescinding the money discriminated on the basis of religion, the court ruled in the state's favor -- declaring that the taxpayer-funded scholarship's restriction is constitutional.

Tax money shouldn't fund improvements to facilities that are primarily intended for worship or religious instruction. Since the restrictive language in the bill doesn't appear to apply to facilities (like student unions) that are available to student groups generally, the bill doesn't discriminate against student groups that want to discuss religion in the same way that other groups might want to discuss politics or poker.

In short, as much as religious conservatives like to rile up their membership with visions of atheistic warriors pillaging churches and burning prayer books, there is no War Against Prayer.