Ah, I see. So your pet subject (apparently the phrase "separation of church and state") must be the context whereby we discuss this subject. Anyone who interprets the argument in some other context must be dense....
I, and apparently most of the posters on this thread, seem to be comfortable with the CONCEPT of separation of church and state as a driving principal behind modern jurisprudence, even though it originates in case law, and is not specifically stated in so many words in the constitution. The argument that I thought was transpiring here was whether Intelligent Design constitutes a religious belief, or a competing theory to Evolution. Although, I must admit, there are several posters who seem to be advocating the teaching of religion in public schools.
There are multiple arguments on this thread but the one that concerns me is the topic of the thread. That being the intervention of the fedguv in a local issue, his holding that the disclaimer violates the establishment clause and his use of a term to support that view that appears nowhere in the Constitution of the United States.
Nobody is forcing you to reply to me. I won't feel especially saddened if you decide you don't want to discuss the merits of the holding.