Tangential to the post below, the current issue of First Things has a nice discussion of the debate over public religion between two friends and arguers, Jefferson and Adams. Read it if you stop by a Borders- or wait til their next issue and find it online.
It is, though, a tangent- not meant to lead away from the Locke discussion. The relation has more to do with the Establishment Clause prong of the 1st Amend, that really was not disturbed by Rehnquist's ruling. As the article discusses, Jeffererson, and his Virginia constitution strove for a separationalist principle, while Adams, and his Massachusetts constitution incorporated a general public religion while maintaining free exercise. A really great read, despite my disagreeing with the author's thesis.
More on said thesis when I can link to the article.

If I didn't have to study legal ethics, I would be working on a post in response to Mike's (see comments) suggestion of the oppresed Christian in our country. While the discussion will be rich, my thoughts going into it tend toward our Christian president, the several Christian channels on my cable TV, the predominence of Christian churches listed in my newspaper, the predominence of Christian churches in my community, the seeming fact that, if one is running for high office, not being religious is a "problem" (read, Howard Dean got flogged for this in TNR), the continued use of prayer to open up meetings frmo town hall to the US Senate, the Congressional prayer breakfast I watched on CSPAN last week, and the list goes on. I think the discussion is more complex than my little list, and Mike's pointing to the supposedly secular academy and culture. But both those sides ought to be considered before assumptions are made.