Replies

If the Supreme Court doesn't mutilate the Lemon test, I can't imagine a case that is more in violation of the First Amendment. Taking the Lemon test one prong at a time:

(1) The statute [or state action, so let's substitute "the "school board's mandatory ID statement"] must have a secular legislative purpose:

They've blown this one completely. The school board is very much on record as having a religious purpose.

(2) The school board's mandatory ID statement's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion:

Same remarks as above. Plus, the clear evidence that ID isn't science pretty much leaves any ID presentation in the religion category.

(3) The school board's mandatory ID statement must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion":

This is the fuzziest prong of the Lemon test, but I can see it shaping up as an endless involvement deciding which creation accounts get presented in science class.

So, this case seems to flunk all three prongs of the Lemon test. And flunking only one will suffice to sink the school board. It seems that no matter what the Supreme Court thinks of Lemon, they won't want to mess with this case.

Notice, once again, when a post that is very bad news for the anti-Evo's appears on FR, a designated disruptor troll shows up to change the subject.

They wouldn't want the lurkers to focus on the fact that the defenders of this insane ID policy have been shown to be bold-faced liars, and that ID itself has been reduced, under oath, to a cartoonish imitation of science that maintains that while it posits no mechanism for ID, it's practitioners can none the less "detect" design in the "purposeful arrangement of parts."

The clowns who want to jam ID into public school science classes are getting utterly demolished in court, so the disruptor trolls are going to have to be very busy indeed deflecting attention.