You suggest a false, even farcical, reading of the First Amendment. It doesn't prohibit only the establishment of a full and functioning religion complete with churches. It prohibits any law (and by extension of the 14th Amendment, any formal government policy) "respecting," an establishment of religion. "Respecting" is not a throwaway word. It means that anything like an establishment, or anything touching upon an establishment, is prohibited.
IOW it doesn't merely say you can't go all the way toward establishing religion, it says you can't go part of the way either.
It's also worth bearing in mind, which is frequently forgotten today, that "establishment of religion" had a much broader connotation in the American colonial and early republican context than it did in the European context.
The Europeans did typically, and in some cases still do, establish a particular church or denomination as the official state religion. This was almost never done in the colonies or the early American states. Virtually all "establishments of religion" in America were either multiple (more than one denomination was recognized as official and supported by the state or by taxes) or general (for instance the citizen might be able to specify without restriction which denomination his otherwise mandatory religion tax would go to).
In consequence of these uniquely American patterns of religious establishment the writers of the constitution would have, and in fact did, recognized the term as including general measures respecting the advancement, or inhibition, of religion, not just specific favors toward a chosen sect or denomination.
I think it's pretty clear that government policies tending to validate the existence of an "intelligent designer" advance religion.
Now if there are independent reasons for such policies (for instance that ID really is, on objective examination, a part of science) then there's no problem with that. This same issue came up concerning evolution back in the 70's, when some creationists were still trying to ban it outright. They argued in court that evolution either inhibited religion, or that it advanced the "religion of secular humanism," and therefore that it was illegal to teach it. Judges refused to consider this argument because, they noted, evolution clearly was a part of science, and therefore there was a valid secular purpose in teaching it in a science class. IOW it didn't matter if it incidentally advanced or inhibited religon, so long as that wasn't the purpose of principal effect of the policy.
In short it seems to me that the defendants will have to show a valid secular purpose, and that this purpose was the intent of the school board, and will be the principal effect of the policy, or they will lose.
I think they will lose, and rightly so.
If that is so, then how do you explain the fact that the same people who authored that ammendment promoted the Bible as the best school textbook, and as the only acceptable standard for government?
You'll understand if I disagree with you. You'll understand why when I'm done correcting your misunderstanding of the 1A establishment clause, American history and establishment clause jurisprudence.
It doesn't prohibit only the establishment of a full and functioning religion complete with churches. It prohibits any law (and by extension of the 14th Amendment, any formal government policy) "respecting," an establishment of religion. "Respecting" is not a throwaway word. It means that anything like an establishment, or anything touching upon an establishment, is prohibited.
Like a lot of people on the left you see the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but you read "No public entity shall mention anything respecting religion." The fellow who penned those words, one Fisher Ames, would probably know a bit more of the original intent of same than you and I. In his words:
Kinda blows your liberal reading of the establishment clause right out of the water Stultis. Taken to its logical conclusion your reading of the establishment clause would ban anything respecting religion from the public square. Your reading is simply wrong. Respecting religion and respecting an establishment of religion are two entirely different notions and you'd do well to understand that.
IOW it doesn't merely say you can't go all the way toward establishing religion, it says you can't go part of the way either.
It says no such thing. What the 1A say, in simple English, is that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, ie no Church of England, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The free exercise clause makes your respecting argument null and void as does American history.
It's also worth bearing in mind, which is frequently forgotten today, that "establishment of religion" had a much broader connotation in the American colonial and early republican context than it did in the European context.
Historically incorrect, the establishment clause was narrowly written prohibiting Congress from establishing one religion as favored over another. Since several of the states had established religions prior to, during, and after the ratification the evidence for that is quite clear. They didn't want their choice of establishments overridden by the federal government.
The Europeans did typically, and in some cases still do, establish a particular church or denomination as the official state religion. This was almost never done in the colonies or the early American states. Virtually all "establishments of religion" in America were either multiple (more than one denomination was recognized as official and supported by the state or by taxes) or general (for instance the citizen might be able to specify without restriction which denomination his otherwise mandatory religion tax would go to).
Historically inaccurate once again and a big surprise to those states who disestablished without the help of the 14th Amendment.
In consequence of these uniquely American patterns of religious establishment the writers of the constitution would have, and in fact did, recognized the term as including general measures respecting the advancement, or inhibition, of religion, not just specific favors toward a chosen sect or denomination.
Hardly, the establishment clause was a proscription on Congress. The free exercise clause on the other hand is an individual right. You see the difference?
I think it's pretty clear that government policies tending to validate the existence of an "intelligent designer" advance religion.
What religion? What religion has been established in Dover?
Now if there are independent reasons for such policies (for instance that ID really is, on objective examination, a part of science) then there's no problem with that. This same issue came up concerning evolution back in the 70's, when some creationists were still trying to ban it outright. They argued in court that evolution either inhibited religion, or that it advanced the "religion of secular humanism," and therefore that it was illegal to teach it. Judges refused to consider this argument because, they noted, evolution clearly was a part of science, and therefore there was a valid secular purpose in teaching it in a science class. IOW it didn't matter if it incidentally advanced or inhibited religon, so long as that wasn't the purpose of principal effect of the policy.
Evolution is not a religion., evolution is a fact. ID is not a religion, id is a fact. Using the establishment clause in a federal case to ban either is a joke, that's a fact as well.
In short it seems to me that the defendants will have to show a valid secular purpose, and that this purpose was the intent of the school board, and will be the principal effect of the policy, or they will lose.
Valid secular purpose for what? For stating that ToE has gaps? You must be joking. Of course the federal courts may well agree with the strong central government types and rule that they are the final arbiter of what gets taught in local schools but the holding will in no way be consistent with the first amendments original intent or conservatism.
I think they will lose, and rightly so.
Your hopes are based on a flawed understanding of the the Constitution. I hope you lose.