“The caselaw involving the Establishment Clause is much more complex than your simplistic retort suggests.”
I don’t think I was suggesting anything very simplistic. In fact, what I said is a fair interpretation of the Constitution, which as you know is much more complex than your simplistic original statement suggests.
But thanks for posting those interesting links.
About atheism being regarded as a religion for the purposes of interpreting the first amendment, I found this part of the decision particularly interesting:
“Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of ‘ultimate concern’ that for her occupy a ‘place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,’ those beliefs represent her religion.”
Frankly, I’m not persuaded by that reasoning. I don’t think that definition of “religion” is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. And the court’s unwillingness to deal with the philosophical issues here is a little embarrassing. If the court is going to allow such an unconventional definition of “religion” into the law, they should at least try to back up that action with some philosophical argument.
But in any case, as flawed as that decision may be, I do not think it will lead to much popcorn eating for you. The ruling does not suggest that science itself is a religion. Any education about origins in the classroom should be done on scientific grounds, and not explicitly atheistic grounds. (The fact that science and atheism are closely connected for many people is not reflected in the law books, so far as I know.)
Perhaps what you are hoping for is a day when we will no longer be able to distinguish between science and religion, and so the science classroom will be indistinguishable from a theological discussion group. Is that the case?
At the root, the intelligent design movement had as its objective the elimination of methodological naturalism as a presupposition in scientific investigations. Or to put it another way, it wanted to bring all disciplines of science to be more like physics where postulates apply to the specific investigation at hand.
In that regard, the intelligent design movement was a frontal assault to metaphysical naturalists (Dawkins, Singer, Pinker, Lewontin et al) who do "theology" or "philosophy" under the color of science (methodological naturalism.) Therefore we see the mantra that intelligent design is religion under the color of science and that mantra's success so far in the courtroom.
But thanks to Kaufman, the legal argument now cuts both ways. So, we'll see. At the very least, it will be entertaining.