[Ichneumon]

Wow, all the creationists are quoting that same one passage from the 139-page decision, and bolding the same wrong phrase. Which creationist website are you all parroting from?

Here's the key phrase you should really be bolding:

to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat

The "remind schoolchildren" part isn't a problem, and the judge (and Constitution)) wouldn't have any problem with it if that had been all the "disclaimer" was. However, what you're "forgetting" is the rest of the testimony and decision, which overwhelmingly demonstrates that the clear intent and result of the "disclaimer" and "ID textbook" was, and I quote, "to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat". *That* is the part you should boldface when you quote that passage, because it's the key phrase, the one that makes the "disclaimer" unconstitutional. Read the whole decision (instead of the creationist websites and their spin) if you're still unclear.

[BenLurkin]

Look, I understand the decision and have made note of the court's stated reasoning. That is not my concern.

This particular quote demonstrates the court's underlying anti-Christian and un-American bias.

Promoting "critical thinking" -- which in its modern essence is the deconstruction of family values in favor of the Marxist dialectic -- is NOT the proper role of our schools or government.

It is shameful that so many conservatives are crowing over this victory of the national education mafia against local control of the schools.