It's tricky. My intial reaction is to say that, yes, it is a lawsuit too far. It plays into the hands of religionists because it can look, even to atheists, as petty and trivial. Also, I love a few carols at Christmas and enjoy a lot of religious music, such as "Jerusalem".

However, in this case a (presumably atheist) parent is concerned about their child and has asked for help so should not be abandoned. I would like to see the full music curriculum to place the religious songs into context. Do they also sing Puff the Magic Dragon? Yellow Submarine? If the religious songs are greatly outweighed by secular ones then I don't see much harm. But if every music lesson is peppered with songs praising god then its another matter.

What struck me most about the article was this phrase:

"Gaylor dismissed the argument, saying the songs don't have to be part of a prayer to violate the First Amendment's establishment clause, WHICH HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS requiring a separation of church and state."

Sounds like the religious right are gearing up for a RE-interpretation, unless it's already well under way and I'm behind the times.