http://foi.missouri.edu/firstamendment/atheistcase.html
The Freedom of Information Center The Journalism and Freedom of the
Press Commemorative Stamp issued in 1958
Atheist Presents Case For Taking God From Pledge
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
The New York Times
March 25, 2004
Michael A. Newdow stood before the justices of the Supreme Court on
Wednesday, pointed to one of the courtroom's two American flags and
declared: "I am an atheist. I don't believe in God."
With passion and precision, he then proceeded to argue his own case for why
the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in his daughter's public
school classroom violates the Constitution as long as the pledge contains
the words "under God." Excerpts, Page A22.
Dr. Newdow, a nonpracticing lawyer who makes his living as an emergency
room doctor, may not win his case. In fact, justices across the ideological
spectrum appeared to be searching for reasons he should lose, either on
jurisdictional grounds or on the merits. But no one who managed to get a
seat in the courtroom is likely ever to forget his spell-binding
performance.
That includes the justices, whom Dr. Newdow engaged in repartee that, while
never disrespectful, bore a closer resemblance to dinner-table
one-upmanship than to formal courtroom discourse. For example, when Dr.
Newdow described "under God" as a divisive addition to the pledge, Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist asked him what the vote in Congress had been
50 years ago when the phrase was inserted.
The vote was unanimous, Dr. Newdow said.
"Well, that doesn't sound divisive," the chief justice observed.
Dr. Newdow shot back, "That's only because no atheist can get elected to
public office."
The courtroom audience broke into applause, an exceedingly rare event that
left the chief justice temporarily nonplussed. He appeared to collect
himself for a moment, and then sternly warned the audience that the
courtroom would be cleared "if there's any more clapping."
Earlier, Dr. Newdow responded to Justice Stephen G. Breyer's suggestion
that "under God" had acquired such a broad meaning and "civic context" that
"it's meant to include virtually everybody, and the few whom it doesn't
include don't have to take the pledge."
"I don't think that I can include 'under God' to mean 'no God,' " Dr.
Newdow replied. "I deny the existence of God." He added, "Government needs
to stay out of this business altogether."
The current Pledge of Allegiance was defended by Solicitor General Theodore
B. Olson and by Terence J. Cassidy, the lawyer for the Elk Grove school
district in California where Dr. Newdow's daughter attends elementary
school.
Both lawyers were appealing a decision won by Dr. Newdow in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. That court
ruled last year that the addition of "under God" turned the pledge into a
"profession of religious belief" and made it constitutionally unsuitable
for daily recitation in the public schools. Congress added the phrase at
the height of the cold war in an effort to distinguish the American system
from "Godless Communism."
One justice, Antonin Scalia, was sharply critical of the appeals court's
ruling in a speech he gave before the case reached the Supreme Court. As a
result, Dr. Newdow asked Justice Scalia to recuse himself, and the justice
complied, without comment, when the court accepted the case in October. His
absence raises the possibility of a 4-to-4 tie, which would automatically
affirm the Ninth Circuit's ruling without setting a binding precedent
elsewhere.
Solicitor General Olson told the justices that the appeals court
misunderstood the pledge. The phrase "under God" did not place the pledge
in the category of religious expressions that the Supreme Court has found
unconstitutional, he said, for example "state-sponsored prayers, religious
rituals or ceremonies, or the requirement of teaching or not teaching a
religious doctrine."
Rather, Mr. Olson said, "under God" was one of various "civic and
ceremonial acknowledgments of the indisputable historical fact that caused
the framers of our Constitution and the signers of the Declaration of
Independence to say that they had the right to revolt and start a new
country." He said the framers believed "that God gave them the right to
declare their independence when the king has not been living up to the
unalienable principles given to them by God."
That description of the pledge appeared to gain little traction as the
argument proceeded. "I do assume that if you read the pledge carefully, the
reference to 'under God' means something more than a mere description of
how somebody else once thought," Justice David H. Souter said to Dr. Newdow
moments later.
Justice Souter's question for Dr. Newdow was whether, even assuming that
schoolchildren were being asked "as a technical matter" to make a personal
religious affirmation, the recitation had become in practice "so tepid, so
diluted, so far, let's say, from a compulsory prayer that in fact it should
be, in effect, beneath the constitutional radar." Was it the case, Justice
Souter asked, that by "the way we live and think and work in schools and in
civic society in which the pledge is made, that whatever is distinctively
religious as an affirmation is simply lost?"
Dr. Newdow replied: "That is a view that you may choose to take and the
majority of Americans may choose to take. But it's not the view I take, and
when I see the flag and I think of pledging allegiance, it's like I'm
getting slapped in the face every time, bam, you know, 'this is a nation
under God, your religious belief system is wrong.' "
Before the justices can decide the merits of the case, Elk Grove Unified
School District v. Newdow, No. 02-1624, they must resolve doubts about
whether Dr. Newdow had standing to bring his lawsuit, either on his own
behalf or on behalf of his daughter, who is now 9 years old. A court does
not have jurisdiction in the absence of a plaintiff with standing.
Dr. Newdow was never married to the child's mother, Sandra Banning, who has
custody and has told the court in a brief filed by Kenneth W. Starr, the
former independent counsel, that she is giving her daughter a religious
upbringing and wants her to say the pledge with "under God." The justices
spent about half of the one-hour argument posing questions about standing
and sparring with Dr. Newdow on the subject.
It remained unclear whether Dr. Newdow persuaded them, but he was obviously
prepared for the argument. He told the justices, "I am saying I as her
father have a right to know that when she goes into the public schools
she's not going to be told every morning to stand up, put her hand over her
heart, and say your father is wrong, which is what she's told every
morning."
"Well, she does have a right not to participate," Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor observed.
In 1943, 11 years before Congress added "under God," the court ruled that
no one could be compelled to say the Pledge of Allegiance. That case was
brought by Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religion forbids saluting the flag.
Dr. Newdow said opting out was a "huge imposition to put on a small child."
He continued: "Government is doing this to my child. They're putting her in
a milieu where she says, 'Hey, the government is saying that there is a God
and my dad says no,' and that's an injury to me."
Dr. Newdow, 50, often spoke very rapidly but never appeared to lose his
footing during the 30 minutes the court gave him. He managed a trick that
far more experienced lawyers rarely accomplish: to bring the argument to a
symmetrical and seemingly unhurried ending just as the red light comes on.
"There's a principle here," he told the justices in his closing moments,
"and I'm hoping the court will uphold this principle so that we can finally
go back and have every American want to stand up, face the flag, place
their hand over their heart and pledge to one nation, indivisible, not
divided by religion, with liberty and justice for all."
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
