Absent such protection, the organizations would have to hire their own private police and firefighters. The basic difficulty is that two valid principles collide in funding cases. On the one hand, whenever the government provides an organization with cash or services, in an economic sense, it sponsors all of the organization's activities. On the other hand, every individual and organization takes for granted so much governmental aid that denying such aid in response to a particular activity will often have the effect of penalizing that activity. There are some easy cases.
Most cases are less clear cut, and drawing an appropriate line is a matter of judgment.
To ensure that no one is forced to perform a religious ritual as a condition of receiving needed social services, the government may have to intrude into the operations of religious organizations in a way that threatens the integrity of both the government and the religious organizations. The executive order regarding international aid organizations probably goes too far. By cutting aid to organizations that provide family planning assistance, the administration will likely increase the incidence of abortions in countries where those organizations are active. Whether the government chooses to fund or not to fund, it has still made a choice. Our leaders at least owe us an explanation of the values that go into that choice.