Not promoting religion is the same as slavery?

Newt Gingrich,  once again failed Republican presidential nominee stated at a so called Values Voters Summit (ie. anti-gay summit):

"One of the major reasons that I am running for president of the United States is the 9th Circuit Court decision in 2002 that ‘one nation under God,’ in the Pledge of Allegiance, was unconstitutional. That decision to me had the same effect that the Dred Scott decision extending slavery to the whole country had on Abraham Lincoln."

　Gingrich also condemned a 9-0 Supreme Court decision in 1958 that mandated that the state of Arkansas must abide by the 1954 Brown decision, which desegreated public schools. So on one hand Gingrich is aghast (correctly) at a pro-slavery decision by the Supreme Court, and on the other hand he is opposing a desegreation decision a century later. How he does not seen the contradiction between these two opinions of his, I have no idea. Anyway, let's explore the mind of the supposed intellectual of the GOP field. He believes that a decision which affirmed the belief that slaves had no rights, and were inferior in every way, to not having a deity in the Pledge.

Um, this might be the most absurd thing I have ever heard someone on the religious right state. Human beings were kept as slaves. Not getting your way in having the government promote your religious beliefs aren't equal to a decision on human bondage. At all. The only similiarity is that he states he doesn't like either decision.

Fine, I don't agree with every decision of the Court, but when I believe the court is wrong (such as allowing the police to break down the doors of people they accuse of smoking marijuana), I don't compare that to slavery! The reason we have courts is to protect us ( in part) from theocrats such as Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Hermain Cain, Michelle Bachmann who want the government to be the bedroom sex police. We don't want contraceptives taken from us, or gay men locked up, once again, for consensual sex.