My view on this was that it was specific to the playground and daycare portion, where the daycare may be provided in a church it is still required to follow the law of the land in terms of permits and training for daycare workers and that the daycare takes in more than just church members children, it's open to anyone that can afford it and doesn't appear to offer any kind of religious related activity, that seems to indicate that at least during the week and during daycare hours the church is just a property used to run a daycare. Will the playground also benefit children at the church during religious practice? Probably, but doesn't its use during the week as a secular run daycare trump that in terms of use?

If this were about giving a church money so that their religious services for kids could be out in the open I would cry hell no, but in this case, I'm at a loss for why it's wrong. The use of this ruling to give Church-run schools and charters more federal money would be abuse and wrong though as they require religious study, and I can see some trying for it.