I know the David Bradleys of the world claim that the First Amendment is intended to protect religion from government, and not our democratic government from the doctrinaire teachings of any particular religion. That’s backwards, of course. The SBOE’s actions prove the wisdom of the Founders. Left to their own devices, religious zealots will seek to impose their views on the rest of us. The First Amendment is intended to prohibit exactly that.

I think this is a bit of a false choice. The bar against establishment is for protecting both democracy and belief. Government (or politicians) should be denied the opportunity to use religion for political purposes – including designated some people second class persons on the basis of their religious beliefs. Religion is supposed to be a matter of faith – not coercion. Therefore, religious persons should be denied the opportunity to use government to impose their views.

Of course, the idea that the Constitution creates some religious test, or rests on religious authority, or allows people to use government to impose religious orthodoxy is unmitigated nonsense. In addition to the First Amendment, the Test Oath clause, the Preamble, and Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment all make that clear.

You are right to confront such claims with a quote. In the words of Frank the Tank – this is how you do it, this is how you debate. The words of the Constitution will not settle all disputes, but they do show how many particular claims are untenable.