I confess I'm conflicted on this one. On the one hand I strongly agree with strict separation between church and state. On the other hand providing infrastructure is one of the functions of government. I suppose if Missouri denied this grant to the church but not to, say, a Jewish or Hindu temple we'd have a good reason to agree that Missouri is out of line. But if they deny grants to all religious organizations or approve grants to all, there's less reason to worry about establishment.

I'm inclined to think that since the primary use for the grant is for a church, that the state was correct in denying the grant, due to the wording in the states constitution. What irks me is the statement that this is hostility against religion. In this age of lawsuits for "religious equality" it was probably the safest call for the state to make.