Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, in which Michael Newdow is suing the government for its practice of requiring teachers to lead students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Some analysts think the court will cop out. They do have an easy out:

Should the justices wish to sidestep the church-and-state issues, the custody quarrel between the former lovers presents them with an easy out. They may just decide that Newdow, because he did not have custody at the time, could not sue without the mother's consent, and dismiss the case outright.

If they actually do hear the case, and rule on it, it's likely to go against the school district. Scalia has recused himself, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas are the only ones who would clearly rule to overturn the 9th Circuit's decision.

The decision should be upheld, because it's a good ruling. But of course, red herring's abound in the coverage of this case, so let's have a look at a few.

Here's the story from the MSNBC website, entitled, absurdly, "Will court purge ‘God’ in Pledge?"

They go on to say this in the story:

If the court does agree to erase the words “under God” from the Pledge, it will fulfill the prediction of Justice Antonin Scalia made in the 1992 Providence case, Lee vs. Weisman, when he dissented, rejecting the coercion theory of the majority of justices.

Now folks, this is just plain shitty journalism. The writers at MSNBC know this case isn't about "erasing the words 'under God' from the Pledge". This is what's at issue:

1. Whether respondent has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause.

The Supreme Court won't be striking the words out of the Pledge, or keeping people from reciting it in the privacy of their homes, or burning bibles, or denouncing Jesus publicly. They'll be ruling on whether or not school districts should require teacher-led recitations of the Pledge.

Get it straight, people.

And then there's this editorial from David Brooks, in which he talk about how Martin Luther King was religious (no shit), then goes on to say:

If you believe that the separation of church and state means that people should not bring their religious values into politics, then, if Chappell is right, you have to say goodbye to the civil rights movement. It would not have succeeded as a secular force.

Let's take this stupidity in two parts:

Firstly, nobody believes that "the separation of church and state means that people should not bring their religious values into politics". The separation of church and state simply means that when it comes to religion, the government shouldn't take sides...and that means favoring one religion over another or religion over no religion.

People can have any old opinion they want regarding the existence of supernatural beings. But the government can't, and shouldn't, have an opinion on such matters. Pretty clear, I'd think.

And as to Brooks' assertion that the civil rights movement would never have happened without a religious influence...well, yeah, we all know that you have to believe in god to have morals, right? And we also know that secular people never fight for human rights...sheesh.

Anyway, stay tuned...I'll probably be blogging my head off about this one.