the issue here is whether the statement by the Dover Schhol Board is an unconstitutional establishment of a religion. I am arguing the constitutional principles involved in the case and all you "evos" out there are arguing the motives of the school board. The intentions and motives of the school board are irrelevant (or at least they should be) to a determination of whether or not the first amendment has been violated.
If it was my intention to impose a few of the ten commandments on the population and I managed to get a law passed that made it illegal to steal or murder, then under the "Lemon Test Clause" of the First Amendment, those laws would have to be struck down as an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
I'm just glad the "Lemon Test Clause" was not inserted into the Constitution back when the penal codes were being developed.
So, if I'm a city councilman, and I'm pleased that we have a creche in the Christmas display this year because it aligns with my religion, then I've just established a religion?
Just because a school board member is happy about a disclaimer because it has some personally felt alignment with his religion does not mean that there has been an establishment of a religion.
England had an established religion in the days of the Revolution and the writing of the Constitution. So did Virginia. They were the same -- the Anglican Church.
They had to pay taxes that went to that church, and they were required to be a part of that church to hold public office, and there were other perks for being a member and penalties for not being a member.
What denomination are they now required to be a part of in Dover, PA?