<$BlogRSDUrl$>

arcana imperii :: the book of j

24.3.04

out with the deity!

it finally seems possible that we will return to the original 1892 pledge of allegiance which does not include the offensive and riduculous words "under god" as the US supreme court agrees to examine whether the current, 1954 version of the oath violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

i find hilarious that those outside the court, praying, protesting and claiming that questioning the current version of the oath goes against the founding principles of our nation are indeed ignorant of the vile opinion our founding "brothers" held of religion and indeed god.

update: perhaps my hopes were not founded in reality. the court is made up of believers who really don't find anything wrong nor offensive and made it clear today they're finding it very difficult to understand newdow's objections. they don't even sound impartial and their objectivity seems compromised. i wouldn't be surprised if they even dismiss the case without settling the dispute.

highlight: rehnquist asked what the vote was when the US congress in 1954 added "under god" to the pledge as an effort to distinguish america's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic. newdow replied the vote was unanimous and rehnquist said that did not sound divisive to him. «that's only because no atheist can get elected to public office,» newdow answered, triggering applause, a rare event in the high court. rehnquist sternly said, «the courtroom will be cleared if there is any more clapping».

note that the ruling could be the most important in years involving what role religion can play in schools and public life, which in my opinion should be NONE.

hear npr's nina totenberg.