In the first place, religious organizations receiving federal dollars would do so without regard to their proportionate representation within the populace--it would be impossible to guarantee equality of this access which you always tout, and this would lead to recrimination and resentments.
If that's true then the same is true of racial disparities, and the only cure in both cases is quotas. I disagree with the premise that equal access can only be measured by outcome, and while I don't doubt that some people will always complain about something or the other, that doesn't always mean there is a problem.
In the next, religious organizations always have and always will discriminate in hiring based upon professed religious belief, and that would amount to government participation in unfair labor practice at whatever point such a group received a "secular contract."
I remain unconvinced that this is such a stumbling block. Government contracts often include variances for hiring for other reasons; why not for faith?
In the next, there would ever be a justifiable suspicion that the organization in question had prosletizing as its primary goal rather than the stated purpose of the "secular contract," leading once again to the recrimination and resentments i earlier made mention of.
Suspicions don't matter. Like any government contract there would be oversight. Further, whilst I suspect it is only religious proselytizing that concerns you, secular groups do in fact sometimes push their agenda on the people they serve. Just as a religious university receiving federal dollars does not constitute government funding religious thought, neither (I think) would a faith-based group using government monies to run a soup kitchen, even if they offered a prayer before the meal.
Finally, there is no reason to assume that a religious organization has the necessary expertise to carry out the contract. Quite the contrary, religious organizatons are headed by those who studies are in a field for which the government currently has no applicable use, and the membership who would perform such activties are not assuredly qualified to do so. The government does not contract with persons or organizations to do environmental studies because of their professed good will, but because of their demonstrable expertise--and the same applies to any other area in which the government lets contracts. There is no area in public life in which religious organizations can by their nature be said to possess an expertise which warrants spending government revenues to employ them.
If you assume that religious persons have no other skills or areas of expertise, I suspect I won't be able to change your mind about that, but I will state that nothing could be further from the truth.
Quite apart from all of this, anyone who would claim that the Shrub's plan for "faith-based initiatives" is intended to get the best bang for the taxpayers buck is either playing fast and loose with the truth, or is hopelessly naive.
I wondered whether you could get through this without tossing out an insult.