In a majority Christian town, in a majority Christian state, the fact that a Christian was in the path of the storm and later said she prayed is rather mundane and expected.  The implication that she was violating some prohibition on prayer is false and based on her own ignorance of the law.

Mrs. Crosswhite said she did something teachers are not suppose to do, however teachers are in no way prohibited from praying.  Her act was perfectly within her rights to do whenever she wants.  Some Christians pretend that their god is being forced out of the schools when no such thing has ever happened.  What was challenged and stopped by Engel v. Vitale was the usurpation of government power by Christians to impose their religion on a captive audience of children.

Rhonda Crosswhite seemingly believes in the existence of a god which is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present, possessing a benevolent/caring nature.  She also appears to think that her prayer somehow effected her survival.  The question arises that, if she were spared death because she prayed, why were the other 24 people who likely prayed up to the end not spared as well?  If the god to whom Crosswhite was praying was going to allow her to live regardless of her prayers then what was the point of praying?

What is implied if we hold the god hypothesis to be true?  It implies that Crosswhite’s god is actually not benevolent or caring but rather malevolent and capricious.

If her god was willing to save everyone but unable then he is not all-powerful.
If her god was able to save everyone but unwilling then he is malevolent.
If her god was able and willing to save everyone then nobody should have died.
If her god is neither able nor willing to save everyone then there is no reason to call that being a god.