Atheist Presents Case for Taking God From Pledge – 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.
The item I find most interesting about this case is that the father both does not have custody his daughter (he was never married to the mother who has sole custody) and the mother in fact feels exactly opposite, that her child should say the pledge with the phrase “under God.”
Dr. Newdow wants to remove the phrase “under God” from the pledge, or halt the practice of the recitation of the pledge under the grounds that it violates the seperation of church and state.
bq. 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.
What about the mother’s legal right to raise her daughter as she sees fit (and has been entrusted to under the law) and tell her daughter that her father is wrong?
The current law allows people who object to refrain from reciting the pledge, prompting Dr. Newdow to respond that opting out was a huge imposition to put on a small child.
Preventing peer pressure and inconvenience seems to be a grossly broad standard to apply to any doctrine espousing rights. Taking a stance contrary to the majority is always going to be a difficult act. I think it’s hard to justify that natural difficulty as being grounds for discrimination.
I guess in the end, I believe Dr. Dewdow is an idealogue. While his willingness to stand up for his principles is admirable, as in anything the effect of basing our rules upon the least tolerent or most extreme aspects of society is to limit the freedoms of everyone else. Clearly some differing views are too extreme to codify into law. The question becomes where to draw the line. While I’m honestly uncertain about that item, I believe that this case crosses it.
I just wrote a brief essay on this topic for a class I’m taking and I agree that the father’s standing in this matter is weak. If the issue was really the well-being of his daughters ‘tender psyche’ then why not go after the mother for taking the child to church?
I my essay I said that there is a razor thin line between being overly sensitive and unconstitutional. I think that Dr Newdow is being overly sensitive however, I also believe that the offending phrase *is* very likely unconstitutional.
The phrase “One nation under God” was not in the orginal pledge (which, incidently, was written by a clergyman, I think Methodist). It was added in 1954 during the Eisenhower administration as a knee jerk reation to the cold war. Specifically it was added to the 1954 to differentiate the “Pious Americans” from the “Godless Communists”.
It is in the semantics of the words that I see the unconstitutionality. To refer to us as a nation under God assumes that we as a nation, every one of us, is under God. It is safe to assume that today, as in the Eisenhower era, God meant the Christian uni-deity. Although this covered (and still covers, despite the image sometimes portrayed by the media) an overwhelming majority of Americans, it does not cover all of us. It is a false statement in what‘s supposed to be a simple, respectful affirmation of our unity as a nation.
Declaring us a nation under god directly violates the First Amendment by declaring us all subject to “God”, hence possibly creating a de facto state religion and forcing us to state what many of us consider to be a falsehood.
I see this as contrary to the spirit as well as the letter of the First amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…) as well as Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he coined the phrase “A wall of separation between Church and State.”
That is why I believe the questionable clause should come out, not because of some hypothetical injury when on multiple occasions, the higher courts have declared that a person can opt out of reciting the pledge.
WHEW! You think I said enough??
Patti,
While I firmly agree with the idea of the United States as a secular country, I support the current wording of the pledge for the same reason that I support the original language of the Declaration of Independence. …endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The framers of that document wanted to be specific in their belief that these rights were unalienable as they derived from a higher power. The Government has no right to infringe upon those rights for any circumstance, because they were endowed by the creater.
In an age where the Patriot act, fears of sabotage, and critics of the FBI’s past inaction seem to be erroding our rights to privacy, due process, and freedom of speech, I strongly believe the nation’s youth need a reminder that their rights are not something “Congress giveth, congress taketh away” but rights given exclusively by their creator.
Besides, I still maintain that “strong imposition” is a very dangerous precedent to cross. The “reasonable individual” threshhold in legal matters already seems to have fallen by the wayside, and more court ordered looking after my best interests I can do without.