Section
Pepperdine Links
Online Publications
Emergency room doctor-turned-lawyer Michael Newdow battled the Supreme Court last week and accomplished the unthinkable — he riled up applause and caused eight justices to wriggle in their high chairs.
Newdow, an outright atheist, demands the removal of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance for its divisive religious implications. He does not want his 9-year-old daughter to recite a pledge in school that contradicts his beliefs and teachings.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist asked Newdow what the vote in Congress had been when the phrase was inserted 50 years ago.
Newdow’s response — the vote was unanimous.
“Well, that doesn’t sound divisive,” Rehnquist said.
“That’s only because no atheist can get elected to public office,” Newdow rebutted to an outbreak of courtroom support. Rehnquist threatened to clear the courtroom if any more clapping occurred.
Newdow’s words have struck true and clear on a chord that the American political system and public often choose to ignore — that American leaders ignore minority opinions, no matter how substantiated they may be, and they opt for comfort zones over confronting challenging views.
Who knew the debate over two words could cause Supreme Court justices such a headache?
Arguments to keep “under God” intact have included that the reference simply affirms a common belief that the nation’s founders believed in God. This may be true, but the founders firmly established a secular government, separating church and state. Why then does the pledge need to recognize religious facets the founders sought to separate?
In fact, the original Pledge of Allegiance did not include the controversial “under God” until President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized the change based on religious reasons in 1954. Eisenhower said, “We are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future.”
Justice Stephen G. Breyer suggested to Newdow that “under God” may just refer to a supreme being, not necessarily a particular God. However, in the context of the pledge, such a suggestion is ridiculous. In the American tradition and understanding of the pledge, God is God, not Vishnu, not Ra and not Zeus.
When morning bells ring across the country everyday, children scurry into classrooms to mindlessly recite their allegiance to our flag. Republic? God? Indivisible? Liberty? Justice? These words have become ingrained in young minds for generations, minds that have yet to process the meanings.
Stating “under God” has become so routine that the semantics often escape notice. The U.S. Solicitor Gen. Theodore B. Olson, leading the defense of the pledge, labels the recital of the pledge as simply “a ceremonial, patriotic exercise.”
Although Newdow holds a justifiable case that the pledge endorses God, Elk Grove Unified District v. Newdow is an uphill battle that he won’t come away from waving a victory flag.
The general public won’t approve of changing the pledge, and the justices won’t risk undermining religious values that so many view as the basis of our nation. After all, if the Supreme Court rules to remove “under God” from the pledge, what will be next to go? “In God We Trust?” Will “God bless you” after a sneeze become politically incorrect as well?
The justices and defense have already scrambled to find ways of dismissing Newdow’s case and controlling its potential effects.
Before even deciding on the merits of Newdow’s case, the justices must rule on whether Newdow had legitimate standing to bring his lawsuit on his own behalf or on behalf of his daughter, and whether he has suffered real consequences from the phrase.
The justices could also avoid a true ruling if their votes split 4 to 4. This will affirm the decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the unconstitutionality of “under God,” but only affect school districts in California and eight other western states. The rest of the country will be free to recite the two words.
Newdow, atheist and father of one, has become every school, district and courtroom’s nightmare. He’s the pink bunny that keeps going and going, challenging the status quo. Perhaps what worries the public and court even more is that Newdow has a real point they don’t want to hear. If Newdow’s cinematic courtroom performance proves ineffective this time around, his case will only serve as the beginning of future cases to determine the fate of this nation “under God.”
Submitted April 1, 2004
MALIBU, CA
