When the state's actions infringe upon the free exercise of religion of the citizens, then the state is crossing the line into an establishement of religion.
In this particular case the teaching of evolution is mandated despite the fact that many people have a religious opposition to that curriculum. I would say that forcing a student to learn something that conflicts with his religious beliefs is far closer to an establishment of religion than merely advising everyone that the theory that they are required to learn which conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs may not be factual and that there are alternative theories.
In this case the Dover students who do not believe in evolution are being forced to reject their deeply held religious views or leave the school. That looks pretty close to an infringment of the free exercise of their religion. They are forced to go to school (by compulsory deducation laws) and then forced to confront their deeply held religious views with a theory that conflicts with those beliefs and then they are prohibited (by this court) from challenging it or calling that theory into question.
The Dover school district did nothing more than accomodate those students by reassuring them that the theory in question is not set in stone and that there are alternative theories.
Amazingly, it is the secular humanists who are attempting to force their religious views on the fundamentalists. What the Dover school district did was reasonable and did not in any way begin to approach an establishment of religion. What the court has done here, however, looks suspiciously like an infringment of the free exercise clause.
When the state's actions infringe upon the free exercise of religion of the citizens, then the state is crossing the line into an establishement of religion.
So if I understand you correctly, you think it's okay for the state to condone proselytizing one religious belief over all others in publicly funded schools.
The first two are sites with a religious orientation. Their definitions are:
The last three are non-religious sites. Their definitions are:a religious worldview where "man is the measure;" man, in himself, is the ultimate norm by which values are to be determined; all reality and life center upon man; man is god.
A form of religion that believes in humanistic values. Placing man before God. The thought that man is practically a god.
Who is it that is defining secular humanism as a religion?An outlook or a philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.
humanism: the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural
Secular humanism is an active lifestance that holds a naturalisic worldview and advocates the use of reason, compassion, scientific inquiry, ethics, justice and equality.
(Oh, and one court decision did as well. I read it and it is extremely narrow and possibly unique, so don't bother citing that to me.)
In this case the Dover students who do not believe in evolution are being forced to reject their deeply held religious views or leave the school. That looks pretty close to an infringment of the free exercise of their religion
And even if they do leave, they're forced to still pay taxes to the school teaching what they reject, AND they have to pay for the new school their child attends.
The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion. I do not see how this is NOT closer to an establishment of religion than Dover's saying that there are alternative understandings of origins and change.
A teacher of an empirical science ought to continually remind her students that what they're being taught is (ideally) the current best account of the phenomena they're studying...not that it's the final word or the gospel truth.