First! Muahahhahaha!

So, a theocracy ye shall go?

If Demos would just use their brains or maybe they're stupid? All this means is "order in the court". If you all need Civility 101, then no wonder americans see right through you morons. The courts are not for entertaining which is what this idiot was doing, Grandstanding! He showed no respect for the Chief Justice.

Ezra Klein-"This clears the way for the Court's next case deciding whether or not clapping is protected under the First Amendment.

* C'mon, grow up and stop being a jerk!*

Clapping will be permitted, although those who wish to golf clap to show disapproval will be removed to special 'First Amendment Clapping' zones several miles away.

Independent Thinker:
...no wonder americans see right through you morons.

Uh, you meant ......no wonder americans see right through you morans, right?

Great Irony Handle, btw.

Your karma's comin' ta gitcha, Bill! Comin' ta gitcha!

While we're on the subject, can anyone answer my factual question: *Are* there any atheists in public office? In the USA?

Of course, Newdow was technically wrong; atheists are *allowed* to be elected. In most states.

Well, we do know that candidates, at least on a national level, have to play up the religion thing. Even if it's not de jure, it's de facto. Pretty disgusting to have to play to people's supersticions like that . . .

ID, "If Demos would just use their brains or maybe they're stupid? . . . If you all need Civility 101, then no wonder americans see right through you morons."

So, I've learned:

a) you can't write a grammatical sentence;
b) I'm not an "American" because Americans have x-ray vision;
c) Some mouth breather with Tourette's is giving me civility lessons.

At any rate, while Rehnquist's Office might deserve respect, the man himself does not:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/120200-101.htm

Ezra--One nit. That first sentence should read "Seems like our Chief Justice can give it out..."

The direct quote is "... no atheist can get elected to public office" ... when I see that, my mind doesn't jump to any kind of de jure interpretation. He's stating it as a fact of life: all that's required for his point to be essentially correct is that atheists did not, as a matter of fact, have representation in Congress in the form of a member who was an atheist at the time of the vote.

FWIW, I know of a former state legislator in these parts who frequently associates with the head of a local atheist group, though he may not be a non-believer himself, and may not have been when he served in the legislature.

As an aside, in 1876, "The Great Agnostic" Robert G. Ingersoll gave the nominating speech for James G. Blaine at the Republican convention. Didn't work, of course; Rutherford Hayes was nominated (and won, sort of).

If I'm understanding what Erza and the rest of the commenters are saying, I think you're misreading what happened in the court. The people clapped because they were GLAD that atheists have a hard time getting elected to public office. At least, that's my reading.

Yeah, I heard it as a de facto thing too.

Bryon, interesting point . . .

and of course Rehnquist's idea that if Congress agrees unanimously on something then it isn't divisive . . . well, the phrase ". . . hole big enough to could drive a truck through . . ." springs to mind.

*Are* there any atheists in public office? In the USA? / Grumpy / March 29, 2004 / 08:47 AM

Can't think of any current examples off the top of my head, but wasn't Jesse Ventura pretty up front about his atheism?

Then again, perhaps that's the exception that demonstrates the rule, since JV broke the mold in several ways all at once.