Jones is merely quoting from, and basing his opinion on Freiler in the section you cite. Insofar as Freiler was denied cert a mere four years ago, I do not think that Jones is overly presumptuous in considering Freiler to be reflective of the status quo. That being said, Judge Jones is not empowered to overturn the Fifth Circuit, nor is he empowered to visit (or revisit) cases in lieu of SCOTUS.
Your ire is a bit misplaced, my friend - Jones followed the law as it exists for the moment. He did nothing wrong in looking to Freiler to guide his decision - to do otherwise would have made him precisely the sort of lone-wolf activist we rightly decry. We may, of course, object to Freiler in and of itself, but it is not a decision Jones is empowered to make.
Now on to Frieler and Judge Jones. Judge Jones goes out of his way to misinterpret Freiler. Here is what the appeals court had to say about Frieler in denial of rehearing en banc:
"In denying rehearing, we emphasize that we do not decide that a state-mandated statement violates the Constitution simply because it disclaims any intent to communicate to students that the theory of evolution is the only accepted explanation of the origin of life, informs students of their right to follow their religious principles, and encourages students to evaluate all explanations of life's origins, including those taught outside the classroom. We decide only that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the statement of the Tangipahoa Parish School Board is not sufficiently neutral to prevent it from violating the Establishment Clause."
The simple fact of the matter is the decision was upheld because the Freiler disclaimer mentioned the Bible. So Jones was activist in expanding on the courts holding since the Dover disclaimer never mentioned the Bible and in adding his stifling language.
Now on to my assertion that anybody conservative supporting Freiler and Judge Jones holding that reminding school children that they can not maintain parental taught beliefs becuase they stifle critical thinking is a faux conservative.
Le's hear from the conservatives on the court on Freiler.
"Even assuming, however, that the Fifth Circuit correctly chose to apply the Lemon test, I believe the manner of its application so erroneous as independently to merit the granting of certiorari, if not summary reversal." Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist
And now a question for you Senator. Is Freiler constitutional law?