This article is extremely confused, perhaps reflecting the judicial confusion in this matter. For example: > Chief Justice Warren Burger defined a three-prong

This article is extremely confused, perhaps reflecting the judicial confusion in this matter. For example: > Chief Justice Warren Burger defined a three-prong standard: Any school law had to have a primarily secular purpose, it couldn’t promote or inhibit religion, and, most famously, it had to avoid “excessive government entanglement with religion.” [..] Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that only “discrimination” against religion could explain the attempt to stop a coach from his “brief, quiet, personal religious observance.” He explicitly rejected the Lemon test, invoking instead the vision of public religion held by the Founding Fathers. Why did he have to reject the test? It seems to me that "any school law [..] couldn't promote or inhibit religion" would mean that teachers must be allowed to pray. How can one argue that forbidding their personal prayer (not compelling students to pray) is not "inhibiting religion"? View differently, prayer is just another form of speech, and forbidding it is no different than forbidding teachers from expressing any other opinion, whether it falls under "religion" or not. One could argue the 1st amendment in fact requires that religious speech is treated no different than other speech. Then there is this part: > the Carson decision will result in taxpayers being forced to pay for schools that strive to instill controversial religious ideas into students—a far greater offense to religious liberty than allowing prayer in school. [..] taxpayers will be required to pay for religious ideas they consider abhorrent. Taking a moment to recover from the usually right-wing rhetoric "taxpayers forced to pay for thing they dislike" coming from the Atlantic, how does one get "offense to religious liberty" from parents being able to choose their children's upbringing? Is it then an offense to political liberty if taxpayers are forced to pay for schools instilling political ideas they dislike? It seems schools are free to instill any kind of ideals they like into students, so long as they don't call them "religion". It takes impressive mental gymnastics to not consider that discrimination against religion.