Our eyes are on the high court as we look for the remediation of past abuses committed by the court. We might more fruitfully broaden the angle of vision, looking to the society that supports the court that hands down the church-state decisions and the politicians who appoint and confirm that court's members, as well as to those who write the books and editorials, compose the music, teach the seminars, make the foundation grants, yes, even preach the sermons in fashionable churches. We generally don't call these folk highly religious; we usually call them secular.

 There's been a social breakdown around here -- not to the advantage of those who believe prayer is a useful addendum to public discourse. We're not totally secular. Didn't Billy Graham wow 'em in New York City last week? It's merely that religion -- such is the backwash of the 60s -- often seems less central to national purpose than it used to seem. Into this environment barges the Supreme Court, engraving our doubts in marble without making at all clear just what we are to aim at -- some God, no God, just enough God? And how much is "enough"?

 Incoherent the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence may be. Incoherent is likewise the way to describe the American people's attitude toward the religious tradition on which their nation was founded.