Yes, the law was upheld, because it has provisions to assure that the no establishment clause is not violated, in which case, the free exercise clause allows people to engage in religious pursuits without government interference. If you really understood the constitution, if you had really understand the meaning of the ruling you posted, and if you had really understood the text of the law you posted, you'd not need to be told these things. There certainly is one big asshole in this thread.
See if you can absorb this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
So long as there is no cause to believe that government is establishing religion, government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. This is from your post on the Supremes decision:
The Court found there was no Establishment Clause violation because the Equal Access Act does not promote or endorse religion, but protects student-initiated and student-led meetings. The Court noted the "crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses protect.
Furthermore, this is from the text of the Act which you posted:
(1) the meeting is voluntary and student-initiated;
(2) there is no sponsorship of the meeting by the school, the government, or its agents or employees;
(3) employees or agents of the school or government are present at religious meetings only in a nonparticipatory capacity;
(4) the meeting does not materially and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of educational activities within the school; and
(5) nonschool persons may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups.
It is on the basis of this text that the Court upheld the Act.
You display, as usual, not simply your irrational prejudice, but a shallow understanding of the issues involved. Earlier, i made the comment that one might argue that there is a violation, and that is because Snood says that a teacher is involved who is leading the group, and not just monitoring the group. I advise him to be careful about this though, because it could cause him problems, and the teacher would likely just say she was on her own time, and she was not leading the group. He'd be left with his problem, and nothing would have been accomplished.
Yeah, there's at least one huge asshole in this thread, and it's you, Bill.