[spilk]

I like how this basically enshrines in law that religion is factually incorrect

[gowld]

No, it enshrines in law that religion is an axiom system independent of the state's axiom system, like the parallel postulate. Unprovable things are not to be [edit: assumed] false.

[mattigames]

False, a giant teapot behind the moon is bot unprovable and safely can be said to be false by anyone without further evidence needed.

[diffeomorphism]

Which is obviously nonsense if applied to mundane things. For example, your religion might say that insects have 4 legs. That is not "unprovable" just plain wrong.