When a court rules that a particular area is outside of elected officials' power to legislate, in a sense they are disenfranchising those who would vote for officials to make such laws. Leaving aside whether it is right or wrong, the underlying issue is that someone's set of values has been elevated outside of the democratic process. This has always been happening since the beginning, but in recent years we've experienced a significant lack of agreement over those values such that one side feels disenfranchised.

The question misinterprets the dynamic. Point is, people disenfranchised ("left behind") by secular administrators are turning to religion for community and identity. That's the undercurrent in the context of the thread. It's not about the legal separation, it's about a change in the upstream culture as a reaction to the politics. The official principle of agnosticism that the separation of church and state represents is not official atheism either. In fact, it's the opposite. The US system was famously said to be vulnerable by it's founders, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." While it can tolerate almost every kind of minority belief, it doesn't survive a shift to complete atheism and nihilism. The American system is predicated on the universalist idea that, "people here are free to have both kinds of beliefs, theistic AND deistic," and the trend I was pointing out is religion is becoming a reactionary tendency.