'Under God Stays . . . For Now

June 16, 2004

You would think now that atheist Michael Newdow has been skunked by the Supreme Court in his effort to strip “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, he'd quietly give up and go home. But no. Even after the high court ruled 8-0, (Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself after making a speech in favor of keeping God in the Pledge) Newdow has vowed to return. How can he do that once the Supreme Court has ruled, you ask? Let me explain.

 

The court didn't rule directly on the constitutionality of “under God” remaining in the Pledge. They ruled that since Newdow doesn't have custody of his little girl, he can't speak for her. That didn't stop feisty Chief Justice William Rehnquist from taking the opportunity to voice his opinion on the Constitution question. “The phrase 'under God' in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the nation's leaders.” Exactly. I know I've flogged this dead mule a hundred times but I must make the point once more. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Rehnquist knows this. Most any serious student of the Constitution knows this.

 

So, why does he persist in this frivolity? I think the answer is two-fold. First, he loves the attention. Second, he loves sticking his finger in the eye of religion. He hates religion and his fragile psyche feels threatened by it. However, he is seriously out to lunch in regard to the Constitution. In an interview with CNN after the Supreme Court decision, Newdow stated, “The establishment clause, unlike any other clause in the Bill of Rights, talks only about government. Government is not allowed to take a position with regard to religion. ... It's not allowed to do that.” Uh, Mr. Newdow. The First Amendment says, “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It doesn't say the government is not allowed to take a position. If that were the case, George Washington would never have issued a presidential proclamation starting Thanksgiving. Who does Mr. Newdow think we're giving thanks to? The Great Pumpkin?

 

Note Washington's words in that 1789 proclamation. “ Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits ,” and so on and so forth. He refers to God thirteen times in that short document! Government is not only allowed to take a position with regard to religion, the founders felt vehemently that we should insist on taking a position as a nation of believers and “ beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions .”

 

Mr. Newdow and his godless comrades also conveniently ignore the second part of the First Amendment that says Congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If he's going to substitute “Government” for “Congress” then the government has no right to prevent anyone from reciting the Pledge in school with “under God” included in it.

 

He claimed that his 8-year-old daughter's recitation of the Pledge amounted to daily “indoctrination of religious dogma.” For the life of me, I can't understand why he would even remotely care. If he's an atheist and doesn't believe there is a God, what difference does it make to him if she pledged allegiance to one nation under God or under the Tooth Fairy?

 

Seeing as how Mr. Newdow's marriage has disintegrated and he's lost joint custody of his child, he may want to reassess his priorities. Perhaps he should've spent less time saving his daughter from “indoctrination” and more time saving his marriage.