Washington ? It was, perhaps, a little cosmic joke that, within 24 hours of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s ruling banning recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in Western states, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the nod to a Cleveland program offering vouchers to parents who wish to send their children to private, or parochial, schools. On the first day, a breakthrough for establishment clause absolutists; on the second day, a victory for sensible compromise on the separation of church and state. Who will win in the end?

If such matters were settled by popular opinion, the absolutists should be nervous about the future. The American people, it may fairly be said, are outraged at the notion that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional and cannot be recited in school. No sooner had the 9th Circuit spoken than Congress swung into action: While legislators from both parties lined up to denounce the decision as everything from “stupid” to “nuts,” the Senate voted unanimously to condemn the ruling. Legal commentators elbowed one another out of camera range to predict that the Supreme Court would overturn the 9th Circuit’s decision.

Maybe it will, and maybe it won’t. For the fact is that the 9th Circuit’s ruling, obtuse as it is, did not materialize out of thin air. There is a body of opinion that holds that any references whatsoever to any religious belief in any form in public life violate the First Amendment. These include teaching the history of religion in schools, printing “In God We Trust” on the currency, permitting religious-oriented clubs to meet on school property after hours. The Sacramento plaintiff who petitioned the 9th Circuit is a case in point: He had recently filed a lawsuit against President Bush for permitting prayers to be spoken at his inauguration.

For years, the Supreme Court has wrestled with the question of religion in public life, and has issued a series of contradictory rulings. The court has held that nonsectarian prayer at school graduation ceremonies is unconstitutional, but has sanctioned the display of “secular” religious displays on government property. It has permitted using public funds to transport parochial schoolchildren to classrooms, but not on field trips. It has allowed government funding for books in religious schools, but not maps. It had steadfastly refused to revisit the 1963 ruling banning prayer in public classrooms. It is by no means ordained that the court will conclude that the addition of “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 didn’t constitute an establishment of religion.

But the Cleveland voucher case suggests that clarity is on the way. One of the principal arguments against the program was that taxpayer funds would go to parochial schools in effect, a government subsidy, or endorsement, of religion. The court decided otherwise. Recognizing that taxpayer funds have long underwritten research and scholarships at religious-oriented institutions, for example, the court declared that the primary purpose of vouchers is not to sanction religion but to provide a decent education for children trapped in failing schools. Parents are not compelled to use vouchers, nor are they required to direct them to parochial schools. This is a turning point in the court’s thinking, and might presage the fate of the Pledge of Allegiance.

At the beginning of the 21st century, most Americans recognize that it is constitutionally inappropriate to promote sectarian belief in public life: We do not expect public schools to spread the Gospel, or welcome tax subsidies for bar mitzvahs. But the other extreme the eradication of any and all religious elements in our civic existence is equally problematic. Not all Americans are believers, of course; but it is difficult to avoid the fact that religion plays a significant role in American life. The Founders invoked the Creator in declaring American independence. Churches are exempt from property taxes. Presidents pledge to uphold the Constitution “so help me God.” Christmas is both a religious and secular holiday. Witnesses in court swear an oath on the Bible. The Supreme Court itself begins its deliberations with a plea that “God save this honorable court.”

The question is not whether these rituals offend the sensibilities of certain people: Nearly any public action is likely to disturb someone. Nor is it a question of whether repeated invocations to God have reduced Him from a Supreme Being to a “ceremonial deity,” devoid of religious significance. The question is whether a modest acknowledgment of spiritual reverence, or conviction that religious belief is generally healthy, constitutes an official establishment of religion. To a lawyer examining the entrails of precedent, the question may never be answered; but as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, the life of the law has not been logic but experience. And, let us hope, some common sense as well.