The last 40 years of the United States Supreme Court -- beginning with the 1963 ruling against school prayer -- illustrate the difficulty in defining the relationship between religion and government. These two great arenas of public life, one concerned with eternal values and the other with legal standards, seem at times to be irreconcilable. But two recent rulings by the court show that there might, in fact, some light at the end of the tunnel. A consensus is beginning to emerge that holds promise for religious and non-religious people alike.
In June 2000, in a case involving a school district in Santa Fe, Texas, the Court ruled that student-led prayers at high school football games were unconstitutional. The 6-3 ruling held that the rights of non-Christians were violated when public facilities were used for this kind of religious practice.
Roundly criticized at the time by many conservatives as hostile toward religion, the decision nevertheless was consistent with the Court's over-all direction. The role of religion in the larger society is changing from what it once was because America is changing. In our citizenry as well as in our institutions, the nation is more diverse and pluralistic than at any time in our history. So a prayer before a football game, which a generation ago would have been acceptable to everyone, is today a problem for some. The Santa Fe decision simply recognized that principle.
A second, more recent ruling reveals a broader perspective from the Court.
Earlier this month, in "Good News Club v. Milford Central Schools," the Supreme Court took what appeared to be a position opposite from the Santa Fe ruling.
The Good News Club is a Christian organization for young students. In 1996, the club asked that they be allowed to use a school building for their meetings, which were held after school hours. The school district refused the request, citing the principle of church-state separation.
The Good News Club sued, claiming it should have the same rights as any other extra-curricular club and be free to meet on school property. The club felt the district's refusal was a clear violation of its First Amendment rights, in that a government entity was suppressing the free exercise of religion.
By the same 6-3 majority that ruled against the Santa Fe School District, the Supreme Court found in favor of the Good News Club. It determined that the Good News Club had been discriminated against on the basis of religious views. Further, the court found that in allowing the club to meet, the school system would not be endorsing any particular religion since attendance at the club's meetings was voluntary and not held during regular school hours.
The ruling was a major victory for Christians across the country, who in recent years have felt a growing resistance toward the expression of their religious views.
The reaction from the other side of the fence has been predictably hysterical. ABC News claimed that in its decision, the Supreme Court "lowered the wall of separation between church and state." Other commentators have been similarly breathless.
So what's going on here? How does the Supreme Court, by an identical margin, manage to come to two conclusions that appear, on the surface at least, to be blatantly contradictory? On the one hand, the Court seems to rule against the public expression of religion, and on the other, the Court seems to support it.
The pendulum of public opinion towards the Court's decisions is as volatile as the decisions themselves seem to be. When the court rules against them, Christians take it as an opportunity to cry "persecution" and secularists applaud the nation's movement toward a religion-free state.
And when events swing the other way? Then Christians see an opportunity to boast of their political pull. And the secularists decry what they feel is the growing -- and unhealthy -- influence of Christian right-wing political power.
So the Santa Fe case sent Christian commentators into a tizzy and liberals into fits of happiness. The Good News Club decision exactly reversed the situation.
The two decisions, far from being inconsistent, are in reality cut from the same cloth. Both affirm the two great principles of the First Amendment. On the one hand, the government may not endorse a specific brand of faith. So a local school system may not sanction prayers at a public event.
On the other hand, Christians have the same rights as other groups and may not be discriminated against. So a Christian organization may use public facilities to hold their meetings.
The reality is that the Supreme Court, after years of wandering in the dark on the issue of church-state relations, seems now to be making some headway into resolving it. They are at last reaching a position in keeping with both the Constitution and the great majority of Americans.