Every so often, a court issues a ruling that shocks the nation, sometimes pleasing half of the people and irritating the other half. Most often, that court is the Supreme Court. Consider its rulings in Roe v. Wade (legalizing abortion) and in Brown v. Board of Education (ending racial segregation).
Last June, it was an appeals court’s ruling that shocked the nation, and it seemed to irritate just about everyone except Michael Newdow, the atheist who went to court and got the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to rule that – because it referred to ours as one nation under God – the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional.
Just hours after the court’s ruling was issued, the Senate and the House passed resolutions condemning it. That afternoon, members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before the TV cameras.
Tom Daschle, then Senate Majority leader, called the ruling “nuts.” Trent Lott, then Senate Republican leader, said the ruling was “bizarre.” President Bush was quoted as saying the ruling was “ridiculous.” Senator Robert Byrd, who was a member of the Senate when under God was added to the Pledge in 1954, said the judge who came up with the ruling was “stupid.”
For several days, constitutional scholars appeared on TV shows and assured the public that the Supreme Court would overturn such a silly ruling from such a liberal court. The nation’s high court is expected to hear the case in its next term, which begins this Fall.
Questions have been raised as to whether Newdow had any right to bring the case to court. When he first brought the case to district court, he claimed he had custody of his daughter. When the case reached the appeals court, that court said that Newdow had standing because, “Parents have a right to direct the religious upbringing of their children and, on that basis, have standing to protect their right.”
The picture got murky last August when Sandra Banning, the girl’s mother, filed a motion to intervene in the case. In her motion, she said, “I do not wish for my daughter, for the rest of her life, to be known as the atheist child who hated the Pledge.” Attached to her motion was a copy of a court order awarding her sole custody of the child. The order also gave her the right to make decisions regarding the girl’s education.
Banning and Newdow were never married. Banning is a Sunday school teacher, and she claims that her daughter believes in God and has no objections to saying the Pledge.
The appeals court dismissed Banning’s motion. It upheld Newdow’s right to bring the case since, “noncustodial parents maintain the right to expose and educate their children to their individual religious views, even if those religious views contradict those of the custodial parent.”
The court added that Newdow, “can expect to be free from the government’s endorsing a particular view of religion and unconstitutionally indoctrinating his impressionable young daughter on a daily basis in that official view.”
The appeals court reaffirmed its ruling this past February, turning down an appeal by the U.S. Senate to reconsider. It also revised the ruling. While the intitial ruling said the Pledge itself was unconstitutional, the revised ruling only says that it’s unconstitutional to have public school students recite it.
Several of the appeals court’s justices added their objections to the revised ruling. They said the case should have been reconsidered since the initial ruling, “was wrong, very wrong.” And they said, “the Constitution itself explicitly mentions God.” In fact, God isn’t mentioned in the document at all.
The appeals court justices who objected to the ruling also said it gave “Michael Newdow the right to impose his views on others” and that it gave him a right to be “fastidiously intolerant and self-indulgent.” They concluded by saying the ruling “confers a favored status on atheism in our public life,” suggesting, perhaps, that before under God was added to it in 1954, the Pledge favored atheism.
Let’s see what happens. This past March, John Ashcroft, the U.S. Attorney General, promised to “spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag.”
Ted Olson, the U.S. Solicitor General, filed a petition on behalf of the United States asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Attorneys General of all 50 states also asked the court to hear the case.
The petition filed by Olson claims that the phrase under God in the Pledge merely acknowledges the undeniable fact that “the Nation was founded by individuals who believed in God.” The petition also claims that Newdow lacks standing in the matter. If it agrees, the Supreme Court could reverse the appeals court’s ruling without hearing the case.
In a recent phone interview, Newdow dismissed the idea that the Supreme Court might reverse the appeals court’s ruling just because he doesn’t have custody of his daughter. He’s the girl’s father, and, he says, “I have standing in my own right.”
Reacting to reports that suggested he misled the court about whether his child objected to the Pledge, Newdow said, “I never said once that my daughter is complaining.” He added, “I am a parent. I have the right to send my child to public school without the public school teachers inculcating a religious belief, period.”
Does Newdow want a favored status for atheism? “I’m not asking for one nation under no god; I’m asking for one nation in which the government stays out of the religion business,” says Newdow.
Is Newdow simply trying to exercise his rights as a parent? No, his goal is much bigger. “Get government out of the religion business: that’s my goal.”
Newdow’s not going to stop with the Pledge of Allegiance. Last August, he filed a suit to bring an end to congressional chaplains. And he’s likely to get back to his goal of getting the national motto removed from U.S. currency.
People ask him, “do you want to bring an end to In God We Trust? Do you want to bring an end to all official references to God?” Newdow has a ready response: “Yes!”
He mentioned the case of Brown v. Board of Education in which the Supreme Court found racial segregation unconstitutional. He noted that the Brown decision didn’t just end segregation in public education, it ended all segregation. “You’re going to give them equality in the schools? What are you going to do next, give them equality in the theaters? Yes! You’re going to give them equality in the cafeterias? Yes!”
That’s Newdow’s goal: to get government out of the religion business – completely.
Click here for other essays by Mister Thorne.
Click here for his series, Religion in the News.
About the Author: Mister Thorne is a mathematics editor living in San Francisco. For information about him, visit www.misterthorne.org. To contact him, send e-mail to lyricalreckoner@yahoo.com.