[PatrickHenry]

I'm with the creationists in hoping the Lemon test gets scrapped.

If you undo the Lemon test, you're still stuck with the cases that Lemon attempted to summarize in that three-pronged test. It's difficult to see how a state action that has no secular purpose could survive a First Amendment attack. That's prong one. Prong two says that the principal or primary effect of the state action must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Will the Supreme Court strike that down?

I suppose that in some ways the Lemon test is too strict. If a state gives its employees a day off for Christmas, that would technically be a problem under Lemon, and it shouldn't be. I definitely see some wiggle room in the future. But not in this Dover case. ID has no secular purpose (except fund-raising, book sales, legal fees, etc.).

[curiosity]

It's difficult to see how a state action that has no secular purpose could survive a First Amendment attack.

Easy. The purpose of the 1st Amendment is NOT to stop government from doing anything with a religious purpose, but rather to stop actions that have sectarian religious purposes, that is, actions that favor one sect over others.

Taken literally, the Lemon test would ban the pledge of allegance, the motto printed on our currency, and would even demand acts like closing the national Cathdral, stopping the daily congressional invocation, and firing of the congressional chaplain. Given that the founders had all these things, it's pretty hard to argue that the founders had the Lemon Test in mind when drafting the 1st Amendment.

Prong two says that the principal or primary effect of the state action must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

It's hard to argue any of the above things don't have the primary effect of advancing religion.

Will the Supreme Court strike that down?

Yes, because to uphold it would have absurd legal implications for which the public would not stand.

I definitely see some wiggle room in the future. But not in this Dover case. ID has no secular purpose (except fund-raising, book sales, legal fees, etc

I think a better argument against ID is that it's sectarian.

[curiosity]

Clarification. The founders did not put into place all the religious government actions I mentioned. However, they clearly had no problem with non-sectarian religious actions by the government, like the motto "In God we Trust," like the congressional invocation, like having a congressional chaplain on the payroll, etc. The cathedral and the "under God" phrase in the pledge of allegiance came later, I realize.

[js1138]

If a state gives its employees a day off for Christmas, that would technically be a problem under Lemon

More and more employers are offering a monthly day off, the exact date to be decided by the employee. Purely national hollidays like the Fourth and Thanksgiving are the exception.