or supporters of prayer and other religious exercise in public schools, the battle has just begun. Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision which voided a Texas policy establishing "student led" prayer may have been simply the first skirmish in a wider legal and cultural confrontation over what role, if any, religious teachings and symbols are to play in the public square, especially the nation's classrooms.

   In a closely watched 6-3 ruling, the court declared that student-initiated and led religious invocations at high school football games violate the separation of church and state. Justice John Paul Stevens, who authored the majority opinion, declared: "Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pre-game prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship."

   Two families -- one Mormon and one Roman Catholic -- had filed suit against the Santa Fe Independent School District in Texas, saying that the policy constituted an illegal government endorsement of religion. Their identities remain sealed by the court to protect them from harassment.

   Monday's decision, while considered a landmark ruling by the high court, does not resolve all of the questions regarding religious exercise in the public square, and especially the nation's classrooms. Prayer supporters are already signaling that they will now organize "moments of silence," and continue their efforts to find a way to display copies of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols on government property. The ruling in SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE also skirted the equally contentious issue of student-led prayer at high school graduation ceremonies. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that graduation prayers pass constitutional muster as long as they initiated by students, and are "nonproselytizing and nonsectarian."

   Prayer advocates, and state-church separationists, are now likely to focus their efforts on the question of "silent" prayer, disingenuously promoted as a period of quiet "meditation" or contemplation. In the 1985 case WALLACE v. JAFFREE, the court examined an Alabama statute which permitted a moment or silence or voluntary prayer orchestrated by teachers at the beginning of the public school day. The high court justices struck down the law, noting that its purpose was religious in nature, and thus violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

   In the case finding, justices wrote that the sponsor of the bill had inserted into the legislative record a statement indicated that his legislation was an "effort to return voluntary prayer" to public school classrooms. In subsequent statements, he also disavowed having any secular purpose in mind -- such as creating an atmosphere of solemnity or calling to order the school day. That led the Supreme Court to note the "wholly religious character" of the statute.

   Supporters of "moment of silence" legislation have subsequently attempted to secularize their proposals, insisting that the activity has a secular purpose, and does not involve any clear religious agenda. Last week, Virginia Attorney General Mark L. Early told public school officials that a state law mandating a moment of silent meditation will past constitutional muster, and that teachers may mention -- though not necessarily lead -- a prayer as an option. Reacting to the SANTA FE decision, he told the Washington Post, "We see no reason why today's unfortunate decision about student-led prayer at football games will have an effect on Virginia's moment-of-silence legislation..."

   The Virginia statute declares that pupils may "meditate, pray or engage in any other silent activity which does not interfere with ... other pupils."

   This latest decision "doesn't necessarily end the debate" over religion in public schools, notes the Dallas Morning News. In Texas, officials at some school districts have announced that they will abide by the high court's ruling. That may spur other efforts, though, to involve students in "voluntary" religious activities on campus, such as the annual See You At The Pole event which is unaffected by the Santa Fe ruling.

   Already, the court's decision has become a political issue. Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, told media that he was disappointed in the ruling. Campaigning in Vancouver, Wash., Bush declared, "I thought voluntary student-led prayer at extracurricular activities was right and important, and the Supreme Court thought otherwise..." Bush involved Texas in a legal brief with attorneys general of nine other states supporting the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy of student-led prayer.

   Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, who argued in support of the prayer policy last March during the Supreme Court hearing in the case, said he agreed with the statement of Chief Justice William Rhenquist that Monday's ruling represented government "hostility" toward religious faith.

   A spokesman for Vice President Al Gore told reporters that the high court "reached the right decision in the case." He cautioned, however, that Mr. Gore supports "private prayer in school and at school-related events as long as participation is truly voluntary and follows the guidelines (Education) Secretary Riley recently issued detailing what is suitable within the school environment."

   Advocacy groups divided over the merits of yesterday's ruling as well. Kelly Shackelford of the Christian Liberty Legal Institute, and a co-counsel for the Santa Fe school district called the ruling "dangerous."

   "The court is now beginning to censor the religious speech of private citizens. This is wrong," he told reporters.

   Debbie Mason, a mother and spokeswoman for the two anonymous families who had filed suit against the Santa Fe district, told the Austin American Statesman newspaper that in the wake of the court ruling she was "so happy my whole body was shaking."

   Mason identifies herself as an "American Baptist," and said that the families who brought the case had to remain anonymous because they feared retaliation and ostracism from neighbors. It is possible that an incident last May could have been related to the Santa Fe dispute; three high school students were arrested for threatening to hang a 13-year-old Jewish youngster who was in the Santa Fe middle school eighth grade class.

   "This is what we were worried about," Mason said. "The way the school board was going, they were pitting student against student." She added, "The country was founded on the right to pray or not to pray. If you want to be a Baptist or an atheist, no one has the right to stand up ... and tell the kids to bow their heads."

   There are hints of defiance in Santa Fe Independent School District, though. During a press conference yesterday, noted the Statesman newspaper, board member Robin Clayton "warned that the district cannot control what students or others say on their own." Clayton mused, "Spontaneous things happen, don't they?"

   Elected representatives from the area also blasted the high court's ruling. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-San Antonio) told the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram that the decision sent a message that "we must abide by the principles of freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion." Bonilla introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives last November in support of pre-game religious invocations at high school athletic events.

   Rep. Joe Barton (R-Ennis) told reporters that the Supreme Court ruling "was just flat wrong."

[text only]