"reasonable political compromise"... does that happen any more?

Normally I agree with you on the need for judicial restraint. But I think your off the mark here. School vouchers raise a profound church and state issue that the Court is obligated to address. To me, using public money to pay religious school tuition violates the separation of church and state. It is not a "raw exercise of judicial power" for the Court to so hold.

As long as all religions and atheistic institutions have equal access to such vouchers, what is the profound church/state issue?

Churches all qualify for state funding indirectly in the form of tax subsidies for charitable contributions. Church-run colleges get "vouchers" in the form of pell grants for students who attend.

So what is the big leap to K-12 public schools?

"So what is the big leap to K-12 public schools?"

Well, for one thing, some people consider those tax subsidies unconstitutional. (See, e.g., American Atheists.)
This sort of 'what's the big deal? there are already some similar societal stamples' response could equally be used in support of ex-justice Moore's Moses statue. Or, for that matter, posting little God-related notes on the walls of all public buildings. Why? Because we've already got God-acknowledgements on money and in the Pledge. So what's the big leap from money to a wall? The money is more ubiquitous than the wall (or statue, etc.).

I agree with AmAth -- I don't want church tax subsidies, because additional tax burden is levied upon the people, regardless of whether they support any particular church.

"Similarly, that democratic principle is the best one here. Let politics establish the best balance between secularism and religious funding."

The democratic principle can not reign here, because the democratic principle would result in the violation of a fundamental American right (qua Constitution). The majority of the nation is religious, and many wouldn't mind tearing down the wall between church and state. Is it all right to 'democratically' remove what were established and maintained as fundamental human rights? To be free from the imposition of religion, or the imposition to support a religion via a religious government?

Democracy in some areas (Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan?) would result in theocracy, even if a free and unmanipulated vote were to take place. But say, for the sake of argument, that 45% voted against establishing that theocracy. Is it right to take away civil liberties, simply because a majority votes to make it so?

I should hope not.

"As long as all religions and atheistic institutions have equal access to such vouchers, what is the profound church/state issue?

Churches all qualify for state funding indirectly in the form of tax subsidies for charitable contributions. Church-run colleges get "vouchers" in the form of pell grants for students who attend.

So what is the big leap to K-12 public schools?"

There's a big difference between benefiting indirectly from a government program and allowing public money to go for tuition for religious schools. And I believe a lot of the "indirect" laws and decisions violate the separation of church and state as well. With respect to K-12, the Court has already put them in separate box in addressing church and state issues as typified by the "prayer" decisions.

Jeff-- There is a big difference between many different religions (and no religions) receiving equal access to the same pool of public funds-- with no particular state endorsement of any religion since all use it equally-- versus erected a SINGLE set of religious symbols in government space, as Judge Moore did.

The problem was not putting up the Ten Commandments, since as many people point out, there is a picture of Moses in the Supreme Court. THe problem is that the Ten Commandments was the ONLY relgious symbol erected by Judge Moore, while at the Supreme Court, there are pictures of law-makers from a range of religions, and no religions in particular at all, so the message is the endorsement of law generally, not any particular religious source of that law.

And here is the tough problem-- "secular values" are religious in a constitutional sense. The Supreme Court allowed people to gain concientious objector status based on "ethical religious" objections to war, so government support for non-religious secular values could be considered just as much an "establishment" of religion as support for Christianity.

In many ways-- while I don't actually support them-- vouchers can be seen as the least controversial way to deal with the establishment problem, since the government thereby endorses NO religion and privileges NO form of ethical instruction to children. The government funds all equally-- you can educate in your children in pure atheism, while others can educate their in born-again Christian values.

If the government funds an atheist school through a voucher, have they "established" atheism as a state religion. I don't think so, as long as any other belief system can access the same funds.

"If the government funds an atheist school through a voucher, have they 'established' atheism as a state religion. I don't think so, as long as any other belief system can access the same funds."

The problem with this is that atheist schools don't exist, and wouldn't under a voucher system, because atheists aren't numerous enough in any locale for an 'atheist school' to receive proper funding.
The voucher system would result in Christian schools receiving disproportionately better funding than non-Christian schools (even taking into account their predictably larger student bodies). Even now, without a voucher system, Christian private schools are better funded -- I've known atheists and Jews who had to swallowed their pride and their tongue and attend Christian schools, simply because they had no choice if they wanted a decent education.
The voucher system would expand the gap between public and private schools, and would force many more non-Christians to send their children to Christian schools, for lack of viable alternative.

If quality atheist (and Jewish and Muslim and secular, etc.) schools were established, and were a viable alternative for parents/children across the nation, I would agree with your 'let politics work it out' proposal. But the fact is they're not, and it's a pipe dream to presume they will any time soon.

I agree with the distinctions you point out in the Moore case. The analogy was focusing on the argument from "God's on our money and in our Pledge -- so what's the big deal if God's commandments are in the courthouse?", not "God's in the Supreme Court, so why not Alabama's SC?".
My intended point there was that your 'eh, what's the harm' argument, moving from A(*) to B(**) based on similarities between A and B, doesn't work when the current practices cited in A are unfair and unconstitutional, as they are in both the voucher and money/Pledge/Moore scenarios (in my and others' opinions, at least).

(*) "Churches all qualify for state funding indirectly [...] Church-run colleges get vouchers [...]" in your case, and "God's on the money, in the Pledge, is invoked in meetings of Congress, etc." in my Moore analogy.
(**) "More indirect funding for Christian institutions is no big deal" and "another symbol of the Christian God is no big deal", again, in your case and my analogy.

Despite my anti-judicial activism position, I actually think ending the mention of God in school pledge and government functions is a no-brainer. I'm in the quite unusual coalition of those who think the Supreme Court voucher decision and the 9th Circuit pledge decision were both decided correctly.

I actually think a lot of decent atheist schools exist-- most prep schools are pretty non-religious. The problem is most vouchers aren't generous enough to pay to go to a good private school, so church-subsidized religious schools become the best option for poor kids under weak voucher systems.

As a practicality, I would only support a voucher system that paid the full price of an education-- unlikely to happen so I oppose most voucher systems in practice.

But I also recognize the complaints of poor parents about their lousy public schools. And we de facto have vouchers-- it's called middle class families buying expensive homes in the suburbs where they can "buy" better schools for their kids.

"I actually think a lot of decent atheist schools exist-- most prep schools are pretty non-religious."

A lot? I grew up in NYC (your current locale, yes?), and as of the late 90s there were *three* non-religious options for quality education (Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech), and over a hundred of the Christian variety. By this I mean not just in name, but in requiring daily Christian prayer and coursework on Christian apologetics, theology, gen'l Bible studies, etc.

If the ratio is a mere 3 to over a hundred in NYC, one of the most diverse cities in the nation, what should we infer the options look like in Ohio? Alabama? Tennessee?

"As a practicality, I would only support a voucher system that paid the full price of an education-- unlikely to happen so I oppose most voucher systems in practice."

Yet your suggestion to let politics work it out supports the weak voucher system you herein claim to oppose. If 'democracy' were to work it out, we'd have a weak, Christian-school-favoring voucher system in place in the near future.

"But I also recognize the complaints of poor parents about their lousy public schools."

Which is why more money needs to go to public schools -- to lower class size by hiring more teachers, to bring in more supplies, textbooks, course development, etc., and *not* to a voucher system.

"And we de facto have vouchers -- it's called middle class families buying expensive homes in the suburbs where they can "buy" better schools for their kids."

How is a middle class family spending their own money to move to an area with a better school at all like a voucher, the cost of which is placed on all taxpayers? I fail to see how the above constitutes 'de facto vouchers' in any sense meaningful to the discussion.

Also - it's important to distinguish between secular and atheist in regards to types of schools. They are very much not the same thing. An atheist school would actively promote an atheist worldview, much the way a Catholic school teaches Catholicism, afterschool church groups and activism, etc.
Secular schools would not (and do not) favor the atheist worldview, atheist activism, or teach atheist-based classes.