I know I am in a tiny minority on this one (now apparently made up of those foolish enough to have mistaken the reference to god in the pledge as being a reference to “the” god (I had no idea it could just as easily refer to the god of Abraham and Isaac as allah, ganesha or a box of generic detergent). We know which way the pledge case is going to go. All I ask for is at least a hint of honesty when it comes to the debate.
Take a look at these quotes from Wednesday’s pledge case arguments and the post-court interviews. Forget which way you’re leaning. Who makes the most sense?
Michael Newdow, Plaintiff:
“I want government to stay out of the religion business so that every religious opinion in this nation gets respected equally by this government.”
Terence Cassidy, School District’s Lawyer:
God in the non-religious sense.
“The Supreme Court in several of its opinions have distinguished between our ability to reference god as an acknowledgement of religion and the role of religion in American life and it’s not an endorsement of religion and it’s not favoring one religion over another or religion over non-religion.”
Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court Justice:
God as Switzerland.
“God is so generic in this context as to be a neutral.”
A neutral god? What’s the point? I don’t think George Bush’s god has dropped it out of fifth gear for a least a few years…