The previously-mentioned Summums want to place their own monument in a park which contains the Ten Commandments, making the Supreme Court's heads explode in a a hilariously weird oral argument^[pdf]: "Scalia: I don't know what that means. You keep saying it, and I don't know what it means. [...] Breyer: Suppose that there certain messages that private people had like "eat vitamins"—and then somebody comes along with a totally different content, "ride the roller coaster," and they say this part of the park is designed to get healthy children, not put children at risk." [more inside]
posted by Non Prosequitur on Nov 13, 2008 - 116 comments

What America Can Learn From Its Atheists -- by Leon Wieseltier. Taking the Supreme Court case being decided on the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, he wonders what happens to God and religion when it's pressed into service and has all meaning bleached away. For the argument that a reference to God is not a reference to God is a sign that American religion is forgetting its reasons. The need of so many American believers to have government endorse their belief is thoroughly abject. How strong, and how wise, is a faith that needs to see God's name wherever it looks?
posted by amberglow on Apr 6, 2004 - 155 comments

SCOTUS rules for seperation of church and state for once. The court's 7-2 ruling held that the state of Washington was within its rights to deny a taxpayer-funded scholarship to a college student who was studying to be a minister. That holding applies even when money is available to students studying anything else. "Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court majority. "Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit."
posted by skallas on Feb 25, 2004 - 42 comments

Scalia gives divinity school students a peek at what his activism is really about. I can't say it any better than he does so I'll quote: "The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible." Of course we knew Scalia detested democracy on 12/12/2000 with his decision that infamous day but now he admits favoritism to theocracy.
posted by nofundy on Jul 10, 2002 - 42 comments

In a small Ohio town, a fight over the right to knock on doors You are a Supreme Court Justice. How would you rule on this case?
posted by Postroad on Feb 26, 2002 - 36 comments

We're glad too, Justice Scalia. A New York State public school has prohibited an evangelical group from offering Bible study and prayer in its classrooms, and the case is now before the US Supreme Court:

"This is divisive in the community?" Justice Scalia exclaimed. "I don't understand. What would the community get upset about? I don't understand." He continued: "You must have a very divisive community down there. I'm glad I don't live in New York anymore."
posted by nicwolff on Mar 1, 2001 - 17 comments

Stenberg v. Carhart Interesting points (no pun intended): "consider a law that violates the principle of separation of church and state by mandating that each public school day begin with a sectarian prayer. The primary purpose of that law would be to advance [a] religion. ...In contrast, consider a law with the proper and constitutional purpose of promoting good citizenship, for example, a law requiring students to recite the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of the public school day. Unlike the school prayer law, this law would not be invalid ... However, it would be unconstitutional ... Forcing those students to recite the pledge would violate their First Amendment rights because the right to speak includes the right not to speak."
posted by greyscale on Apr 27, 2000 - 6 comments