[justtryingtopassapenglish]

Yes, intelligent design is the mainstream belief among most Christians...so therefore we should keep it from being taught in public schools? There is absolutely no logic in that stance. Could it not be argued that we ARE limiting someone's right to freedom of religion by forcing one set of beliefs/theories on them? In this case, these beliefs do form a sort of religion, and this religion is being forced upon students as the one and only religion.
Intelligent Design goes beyond the church. Much of the evidence used to support these evolution theories (which is exactly what they are, theories, not facts) can, conversely, be used to support Intelligent Design.
Take the bat wing. For quite some time, evolutionists have chosen to compare the similar framework between the bat's wing and the human's arm and call it yet another case of evolution. But could it not be that an almighty being used a design that works in two different species? Doesn't an architect use similar designs in more than one building?

[Ace of Spades]

But could it not be that an almighty being used a design that works in two different species? Doesn't an architect use similar designs in more than one building?

Of course it's possible. I can talk to an architect concerning his designs and intentions. Has anyone had an interview with the Designer?

[saganite]

so therefore we should keep it from being taught in public schools?

That is correct. Teach it in church where such teaching belongs. Don't try to force your religious beliefs on my children using the schools as you venue.

[Thatcherite]

Doesn't an architect use similar designs in more than one building?

Hmmm, you are postulating an architect who designs everything in a nested hierarchy that changes over time, and looks just like evolution. Tell me, what is the difference between an infinitely powerful Designer who makes it look as if evolution is true, and evolution being true? A difference which makes no difference, is no difference.

[aNYCguy]

Yes, intelligent design is the mainstream belief among most Christians...so therefore we should keep it from being taught in public schools? There is absolutely no logic in that stance.

You've obviously misunderstood the situation entirely. The ruling does not hold that ID cannot be taught simply because it's a "mainstream belief" among any particular religious group. The ruling holds that ID cannot be taught because it is inherently religious. This should not be difficult to understand.