Texas cheerleaders win in court again over Bible banners (Page 3)

Regarding your question about "doesn't this go against keeping religion out of schools and such?" it's not a bad question and I'm sure it's one that many people have based upon their understanding of the state and meaning of the 1st Amendment. 

My guess is your basis for asking this question is your assumption, like many if not most peoples assumption, that the Constitution requires "the separation of church and State."  This phrase of course is not contained in the Constitution, nor is it the "test" used by the Supreme Court to determine the validity of religious entanglements on the public level.

The portion of the protections in the U.S. Constitution regarding religion and religious freedom are two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

The notion of the separation of Church and State came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson as president to a church after the church made an inquiry regarding the Federal governments potential involvement into a day of thanksgiving.  There is a strong argument to be made upon reading the letter from the Church to Jefferson and then Jeffersons reply that our modern use of the phrase separation of church and state is historically inaccurate and being used out of context.

The history of the Religion clauses of the Constitution is also interesting and may give insight into what the founders/framers believed the Religion clauses of the 1st amendment meant.  In Madison's first draft of the Religion clause of the 1st Amendment it read: "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship;nor shall any national religion be established,nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience, in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."  After committee meetings the proposed language was altered to read: "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

ON the debates on the Religion clauses Madsion said, as evidenced in the minutes of the committee debates "apprehended the meanings of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."

Ultimately the language we now know as the religion clauses of the 1st amendment were agreed upon.

The above is simply an attempt to demonstrate that the notion of "separation of church and state." does not come from the Constitution, nor does it come from the primary author of the Bill of Rights, and arguably its modern interpretation of the phrase may be contextually inaccurate.

All that being said, there is a danger in replacing the actual language of the constitution with the idea contained in a private letter authored several years after the passage of the Bill of Rights.  First even if our modern interpretation of the term is correct, the term itself represents the personal opinion of one person.  Second, when referring to Constitutional Rights we should at all times actually use the language of the Constitution.  Third, I believe the term "separation of church and state" imposes a higher or stricter requirement not envisioned by the actual constitution.  Forth, I am of the opinion that there is an actual effort, by some, to actively use this language in place of the actual language in the constitution in order to mis-lead people as to the actual rights contained in the Constitution.  That is, if you control language you control thought.  Most people now talk about "the separation of church and state." rather than the establishment clause.  While the difference may be subtle the effect isn't.  The simple fact is that one is contained in the Constitution, while the other does not.

So I think given the general confusion on the issue of the term "separation of church and state" and the confusion as to what that term even means, your question is one that many people would have.

I went to a public high school.  In the locker room before games, the coach would huddle us up and lead us in a prayer.  I think it was the Our Father.  I thought it was b.s. then, and I think it's b.s. now.  I'm disappointed I didn't have the brass ones to stand up and point out how wrong it was at that time.  I honestly don't think the coach in my case, or the cheerleaders in to a lesser extent in this case, understood my (and others' I'm sure) point of view.