It seems many of the left are sure the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a death blow to the idea that church and state should be separate.
But in truth the court ruled correctly there should be some sense of balance.
On Tuesday, the court sided 6-3 with a former high school football coach in Washington state who was placed on leave after he chose to continue his practice of praying after games, despite warnings from the school district that, as an employee, praying on school property at a school function violated the separation of church and state.
It was an example of the far swing in school (and other government agency) policy since the 1963 court ruling that declared unconstitutional a Pennsylvania law required daily Bible readings in public schools. An associated case filed by activist Madalyn Murray O'Hare challenged compulsory prayer in Baltimore public schools.
The ruling had schools running scared. They didn't want to end up in court and so they overreacted, banishing as much as possible religion -- in particular Christianity, the dominant U.S. faith -- from the campus. It's understandable. There have been many lawsuits over the years charging schools with religious "coercion" of students should a whisper of religion rear its head.
But there is a difference between religion promoted, sponsored or just condoned by government institutions such as public schools and private exercise thereof by individuals -- something that is protected by the First Amendment.
For decades, the drive to eliminate any hint of religious coercion has meant individual religious rights have suffered. And it's gone too far.
Tuesday ruling said the coach was not acting as part of school policy and was not "seeking to convey a government-created message." So his private decision to pray, even on school property, even if students chose on their own to join him, was protected by his First Amendment rights,.
In our view, the ruling seems added some needed balance to the whole matter. Far from dismantling the separation of church and state, the court has protected individual rights and strengthened the wall by clarifying it's limits.