comments

1. Michael Smith on March 11th, 2010 at 4:59 pm

   I love the photo caption: AP – File – In this June 14, 2004 file photo, Michael Newdow looks down at the fax copy of the Supreme Court’s …

2. Sheila Ryan on March 11th, 2010 at 5:07 pm

   “The phrase [In God We Trust] is ceremonial and patriotic, not religious.”

   Ah. Okay. Like Allāhu Akbar.

   Glad we got that straightened out.

3. Deron Bauman on March 11th, 2010 at 5:09 pm

   idiots and assholes.

4. Michael Smith on March 11th, 2010 at 5:18 pm

   Newdow is a bit of villian out here.

   Do people in other parts of the country drive around in minivans with “IN GOD WE TRUST” plastered across the back window?

5. Deron Bauman on March 11th, 2010 at 5:20 pm

   regardless of the characters involved, the illogic of the court’s argument is juvenile.

   but to answer your question: yep.

6. Michael Smith on March 11th, 2010 at 5:20 pm

   The pledge of alligance always seemed unamerican to me anyway. There, I said it. I’m probably going to hell now.

7. Deron Bauman on March 11th, 2010 at 5:22 pm

   mindless nationalism is unamerican.

8. Michael Smith on March 11th, 2010 at 5:22 pm

   No. Sorry, I think Newdow has been villainized because of this whole thing.

9. Deron Bauman on March 11th, 2010 at 5:23 pm

   ah, got it.

10. Sheila Ryan on March 11th, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Were this a case to be decided on the basis of the law or the Constitution, the outcome would be clear. Under no sound legal analysis adhering to binding Supreme Court precedent could this court uphold state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation of the “under God” version of the Pledge of Allegiance by children in public schools. It is not the recitation of the Pledge as it long endured that is at issue here, but its recitation with the congressionally added two words, “under God” — words added in 1954 for the specific religious purpose, among others, of indoctrinating public schoolchildren with a religious belief. (From: Justice Stephen Reinhardt’s dissent.)

    (You can link to a PDF of the entire opinion, including Justice Reinhardt’s dissent, from this news report.)

11. Michael Smith on March 11th, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    I told a friend once to imagine what might happen were the pledge to say, “under satan,” and he told me that was totally different.

    Oh, really?

12. Sheila Ryan on March 11th, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    See you in hell, Michael Smith.

13. Sheila Ryan on March 11th, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    That the court majority defended the use of the phrase In God We Trust as “ceremonial and patriotic” (not religious) gives the show away. It’s true: Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.

14. Cindy Scroggins on March 11th, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    This makes me want to cry.

15. Brachinus on March 12th, 2010 at 10:01 am

    So basically, they’ve declared that “Under God” and “In God We Trust” are not evidence of America being a Christian nation. Remember that the next time some fundy tries to use those purely “ceremonial” phrases as evidence that it is.

Leave a Reply