June 20, 2001

Justices' sensible approach welcome

Foes of organized religion aren't as smug as they once were, simply because the nation's courts seem to be undergoing a fundamental conversion -- to common sense. An example was provided when the Supreme Court ruled that religious groups must be allowed to meet in public schools after class hours.

By a 6-3 vote, high court justices ruled that a New York school was wrong in banning after-class hours use of the facility by a Christian youth group. In denying members of the group permission to use school facilities &emdash; again, after education activities had concluded -- the court's majority held that the youths had been denied freedom of speech as guaranteed to them by the First Amendment.

Simply allowing the youth group to use a public facility, much in the same way a variety of other organizations were permitted to use it, was not an endorsement of a particular religious creed, the court held.

Such a ruling certainly is a common-sense one -- but for many years, it wasn't the kind of logic anyone could take for granted. Any link, even a casual one, between public facilities and religious activity was frowned upon by the courts. A rigid, no-questions-asked separation of church and state was demanded, even though contradictions to such a policy abounded.

Finally, however, it seems that many in the courts are beginning to realize such an outlook amounts in effect to a government endorsement of atheism -- in effect state support of a religion (or lack of one, if your prefer). Such a policy, of course, clearly goes against separation of church and state.

True, reasonable separation of church and state is something all Americans should desire devoutly. The courts should insist upon it -- but thoughtful observers of all faiths, we're certain, will see more logic in the high court's new path than in the more rigid one that had seemed to dominate the debate.