Let’s say that, in the state of Maine, there are two very different “Lutheran” schools. You could, in this hypothetical case, also say “Episcopal,” or “Presbyterian” or “Congregational.”

Leaders at one of these schools insist that their school is in “the Lutheran tradition,” and it may retain ties to a doctrinally liberal flock. The school has a chapel, but attendance is optional since its students (it may be an elite boarding school) come from all kinds of religious faiths or have no stated faith at all. Classes on hot-button moral issues — sexuality, for example — stress this church’s progressive doctrines.

Academic life is very different at the other Lutheran school, which draws most of its students and financial support from a conservative Lutheran body. Chapel attendance is required and classes linked to moral theology are quite countercultural — defending 2,000 years of Christian tradition.

The question, in the latest church-state case at the U.S. Supreme Court, is whether the state of Maine has the power to say that the first school is eligible for tuition support — using tax dollars — because it’s policies do not clash with those in public schools. Students at the conservative school are not eligible, because its beliefs are “sectarian.”

This is tricky territory and church-state experts on the Religious Right would certainly disagree with experts from the Religious Left and secular think tanks. The question discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) is whether journalists covering this case allowed readers a chance to understand the views of activists on both sides.

Let me state, right up front, that my dueling Lutherans illustration is based on “equal access” church-state principles that emerged from a left-right coalition during the Bill Clinton administration. The big idea: If state officials create policies that affect nonprofits, they cannot back secular groups while discriminating against religious organizations. States could, however, deny aid to both. In other words, religious faith is not a uniquely dangerous form of speech or activity.

Let me state this another way. Under the separation of church and state, officials are not supposed to use tax dollars to back state-approved forms of religion. Ah! But what if some religious groups have doctrines that are consistent with state policies, while others clash with the doctrines of the state?