“I brought the original meaning and subsequent caselaw to the table.”
I know that. And from what I see, my original statement was neither inaccurate nor overly simplistic. I think yours was, however.
But we don’t need to bicker about that, do we?
“I do find the Kaufman decision to be particularly relevant for such cases in the future.”
I have my doubts, as I said. But I guess we’ll see how it plays out. Intelligent Design just isn’t science, as you well know. That has nothing to do with whether or not we interpret the first amendment’s establishment clause as applying to atheism.
But we’re getting pretty far off-topic, I think. The issue here is about this lawsuit against the National Prayer Day, right?
In any case, it’s getting late here on a Sunday night. I’ve got a very full week ahead of me, and I doubt I’ll be able to keep up with this discussion very much. So, to everyone who’s engaged me in this discussion, don’t be surprised if you don’t hear back from me for a while. Sorry if that’s a disappointment for any of you.
And at this point, atheism is a "religion" under the Establishment Clause according to "controlling legal precedent."