Bookmark
The Supreme Court used to devise standards for how to apply the constitution. For example, we’ve all heard the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” First Amendment standard (that no longer exists BTW). A major problem with recent rulings is they lack any consistent, easily understood standard. Each case now seems to be arbitrarily decided based on who can convince a majority of justices. A ruling today can (and often does) completely contradict a ruling yesterday or tomorrow.
I really only see two possible standards in regards to religious expression. We seem to be moving toward the first which is a complete ban on all religion in government. That’s difficult to justify as it directly contradicts the plain text of the US Constitution as well as the historical record of free exercise of religion by government. The second standard is one where anyone—even a government official—is free to express themselves (religious speech notwithstanding) so long as religious speech or participation isn’t mandated.
Some people will no doubt be offended by the latter standard, but I think it’s consistent with American ideals of liberty, equal treatment under the law, and respect for others.