Garbage. The poster I responded to claimed "science is a religion". That is easily refuted by the fact that Congress was delegated the power to promote science, whereas it was forbidden to promote religion. An assertion was made, the assertion was rebutted.
As it was, you would seem to be perfectly content to leave the impression that Congress has virtually unlimited powers to promote science and the useful arts could you have gotten away with that misperception.
You have no basis for saying that I was trying to leave such a misperception. The Constitution is not an obscure reference, and it makes no sense to think I would attempt to get away with such a thing when it is so easily refuted.
You're just being flat out dishonest, IMO.
Hogwash
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, altogether deals with the right to intellectual property, and in no manner touches upon the establishment of religion. Its authority is confined strictly to patents and copyrights (ironically enough, including the copyrighting of religious materials). The continuing controversy over what constitutes an establishment of religion stems from the conflicting interpretations of portions of the First Amendment. The ultimate outcome of that controversy can have no influence on a constitutional clause enabling the issuance of patents and copyrights
You claim that you can’t possibly be arguing that Clause 8 grants to Congress virtually unlimited powers to promote science, yet you continue to refer back to the clause with the fascination of a mouse transfixed by a snake. Likewise you admit that the Feds have no power to fund or regulate education, yet you suggest that I am ducking the “challenge” of an issue you have already conceded. You switch arguments more frequently than the costume changes in a one-man show.