Actually, you were the one making argument pro exclusion. I was trying to make clear that exclusion of Religion is not in keeping with American tradition and Law. You wish to play word games and such. In the mean time, what evidence for your position have you given? Why should the Theory of Evolutionary Philosophy have exclusive rights in the classrooms of the LOCAL citizens who wish to have some input in what to teach THEIR children? Should the Amish be forced to wear plaid suits? Should the Mennonites be forbidden to drive black Chevys?
You set up straw men and have played your silly semantic games with them, as well. The definition of is is still is.
You appear not interested in serious discussion. You just want the attention, and controversy. You think know you have the real, absolute truth and everyone else needs to accept your version. In my version, we call that proselytizing. Others may refer to it as stifling debate. I clearly admit my bias.
Arguing, sure, I'm arguing. If we are in a debate, that is usually what it is called. But, once again, you try to deflect from the matter in discussion and cram your Rubric's Cube of Theory.
Life is real. I think we agree. It is preposterous to think you hold the truth, just because a chimpanzee can tie his shoe laces. Of course, he will take the shoes off as quickly as he can. He knows his place!
I guess yours is just a rung above!
Here's a pic of my Pet Rocks grandson...!