Even if you set aside the fact that the bill S. 1274 is a gross violation of Separation of Church and State, which it is, it causes a number of problems in terms of theology. The bill in question would require FEMA to help pay for the reconstruction of places of worship that have been damaged by natural disasters.
When you think about it it can be seen as a demonstration of how little religious people themselves think of their "all-mighty." The same group of people who uses phrases like "God's plan", "act of God", and "playing God" now want the rest of us to pay to counter "God's will." Seriously?! They don't see the contradiction and hypocrisy in this type of bullshit. If God does and exist and is all-powerful then that place of worship was meant to be destroyed according to "God's plan". Wouldn't rebuilding it be "playing God"?
By even the most basic interpretation shouldn't this bill be seen as sacrilegious by believers. Attempts to reconcile this type of thing with apologetics also seems to lead to a variety of contradictions. If it is a "test of faith", a favorite excuse for all sorts of nonsense, should the test be answered by the faithful without the aid of others? Does this type of insistence on external help show weak belief? Do they fail the test?
It seems to me that this is a bad bill both in terms of its constitutionality and on theological grounds. It is just another example of unfounded pathetic beliefs needing to be propped up by government assistance.