I believe the decision can work in the favor of Christians since disallowing the teaching of theistic explanations in publicly funded venues can now be said to be establishing atheism as the official religion in those venues.
I didn't know that. Bummer. I disagree with the ruling on ground of contradictory definitions. It's one thing to uphold freedom of speech about religion, it's another thing to define the rejection of religion as a religion. The first is protected speech, the second is an oxymoron applicable solely to the incorporation of religions. If you want to make a corporation that stands for an attitude towards God, and if you define a religion as a corporation that has an attitude towards God, then I suppose you could allow a corporation that has an attitude towards God of rejecting God. But even for the Twilight Zone world of corporate defintions, this still breaks the logic bank, IMHO.