Nonetheless, the liberal community continues to dig in their heels around the idea (as opposed to the law) of an absolute separation between church and state. What they fail to realize is that the founding fathers intended only for the state to remain neutral on religious matters. That means the state ought not get into the business of enforcing religious morals. It does not however mean that the state ought to actively prevent its citizens from deriving religious benefits from their public funds.

Writing for the Jewish Law Commentary, Nathan Diament put it nicely: "… states may not discriminate against religious individuals or institutions in the name of the constitution. If a state wishes to provide scholarships…on the basis of religion-neutral criteria-i.e., their poverty-and leave it in the hands of these…" recipient to make a private choice what course of study to major in, "that is not the establishment of religion."

One of the genuine phenomenons over the past four decades has been the liberal community's steadfast insistence that God should be barred from the public sphere. This is not law. It is religious prejudice. Hopefully Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Stephens will be able to tell the difference this time around.