Justice Scalia to Stay Out of Pledge Case

[Democrats unite]

Justice Scalia to Stay Out of Pledge Case

3 hours ago

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Antonin Scalia will just be a spectator when the Supreme Court tackles the emotional Pledge of Allegiance case next year, sidelined apparently by one man's questions about the justice's impartiality.

The court, minus Scalia, said Tuesday it will decide if the regular morning classroom salute to the American flag is unconstitutional because of the reference to God.

http://www.comcast.net/News/POLITICS//XML/1154_Supreme_Court/9d37fdf6-0c47-4cdf-a1ec-6c42821892a4.html

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Best news I've heard all year

Ever since Bush came into power, good news is hard to find. Thanks for the update.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Scalia should recuse from all First Amendment religion cases --

He's a purported member of the secret society Opus Dei, and makes clear in public discourse his beliefs re. separation of church and state.

[Skittles]

12. Scalia should recuse himself from the Supreme Court

he is a f***ing DISGRACE.

[DeepModem Mom]

13. An even better idea, Skittles! n/t

[truthisfreedom]

3. so there's a possibility of a tie... and then cheney gets to decide?

i don't get it.

[Dookus]

4. lol...

no.. Cheney gets to vote only on ties in the Senate.

If the Supreme Court is tied (as is quite possible in this case), then the lower court's ruling stands. In other words, if it's a 4-4 decision, "under God" will be removed from the pledge - at least as far as it's required by schools.

[onebigbadwulf]

5. I think...

I think the responses to the case will make God illegal on currency as well.

[piece sine]

7. and the reaction to your proposition in fly-over country will be...

...certainly not one which advances the political goals of most DU posters. If fact, I daresay, if "god" takes it on the chin, the GOP rallies with a roar and Dems. end-up polling about even with the Greens, nationally. I don't care if the word "god" is on my money -- and I'm not a believer -- but I know who's going to take the rap from this god-fearing nation if it happens as you predict...we are!

[iam]

8. You ARE a believer.

Every word counts! To say you aren't a believer makes you lesser, that you have no foundation. Don't go for the labeling conservatives try to force on everyone who doesn't believe just like them. You ARE a believer, you simply believe in something different, the truth for example. Start calling religionists non-believers and watch them pop.

[ablbodyed]

6. God is in....

my heart and mind. I DON'T need to be reminded by money, and kids don't need to be reminded in school.

[MojoKrunch]

11. Ya know... that argument was made many years ago

by devout believers that putting god on our money like that or in our pledge was actually profane.

I really can't help but agree.

I guess what I mean is, what makes the idea of such spiritual belief *special/holy* when it becomes so completely ubiquitous and common place?

As an atheist, I simply find it intrusive and as far as I'm concerned it would be just as intrusive if it were "Gaia" or "Zeus".

But as an actual believer, doesn't it seem to... I dunno, cheapen, or at least make it less special, the object of your spiritual belief?

In one sense it is an interesting example of Protestantism interacting with the workings of our society, but is it still appropriate given that the US is no longer the WASP male dominated country we once were?

Mojo

[prolesunited]

9. The best way to combat this is with the truth

and a few history lessons. Most people do not know that many of these phrasings were added in the 1950s during the height of the Cold War. So many people argue that the founding fathers set the U.S. up to be a Christian nation, but that is far from the truth.

The original motto of the United States was secular. "E Pluribus Unum" is Latin for "One from many" or "One from many parts." It refers to the welding of a single federal state from a group of individual political units -- originally colonies and now states.

The original U.S. seal, first used in 1782, included an eagle with a heart-shaped shield, holding arrows and an olive branch in its claws. The motto "E Pluribus Unum" appeared on a scroll held in its beak. It was first used on some federal coins in 1795.

Change in currency occurred almost a century and a half ago, 11 Protestant denominations mounted a campaign to add references to God to the U.S. Constitution and other federal documents. The phrase was only added to coins, however.

For paper currency, the change occurred in 1956, the nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution to replace the existing motto with "In God we Trust." ... The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and "un-American" as is communism. 

During the 1950's the federal government's references to God multiplied:
The phrase "under God" was added to the otherwise secular Pledge of Allegiance. 
"So help me God" was added as a suffix to the oaths of office for federal justices and judges.

This information was paraphrased from here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm

This site is an excellent source of information regarding this debate.

[JackSwift]

10. This is going to be interesting

An official prayer to a flag where if you opt out of saying it, you are ostracized. I don't see how "the pledge" isn't establishment of religion. What happens if the court agrees with me? Do we amend the constitution to establish religion?

[AndyTiedye]

14. Very Likely

> Do we amend the constitution to establish religion?

That is what they will do sooner or later, yes. Few would dare to vote against it.
Likely to be brought up after the next major "incident" (being LIHOP'ed now).

Unless we can find some way to stop them. We have to get them out of power
while it is still (at least theoretically) possible.


A Supreme Court ruling keeping "God" in the pledge and the money only
further legitimizes their goals. It is sad that we are so weak that some of
us hope the USSC rules against us to avoid riling the fundies.:wtf:

[fujiyama]

15. This bastard doesn't recuse himself...

when the case is significant and when he should definetely have recused himself (like Bush v. Gore...if I remember correctly a family member was close to the admin)...but he will now?!

What the hell? Frankly, I agree with those that believe that this mentioning of God is overboard, and it was nothing more than an anti communist message at the time, but frankly, this case isn't nearly as important as any other Scalia rules on. Since when did Scalia care about morality/ ethics?

He should just recuse himself from all cases, since everything will offend his religious sensibilities, and warped sense of morality.