by Daniel Mencher | Uphold freedom of religion in America’s schools.
Not long ago, atheist activist Michael Newdow sued his California school district because he believed that his daughter was required to stand up every morning and affirm God’s existence while reciting “one nation, under God,” a part of the Pledge of Allegiance. Astoundingly enough, Newdow initially won his case—until the United States Supreme Court dismissed it because he did not have legal custody of his daughter and so could not sue on her behalf. Though it appears that this was a victory for the traditionalists, the technical nature of the ruling failed to address the core issue at hand. The Supreme Court did nothing but postpone the inevitable: a similar case brought by a party that does have legal custody of a child in public school.
Such a case has now been brought. Newdow, working on behalf of three un-named families deemed by the courts to be in good standing to sue, is once again pressing the Pledge issue. On September 15, California US District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in favor of Newdow. In his ruling, Karlton said that the Pledge’s reference to “one nation, under God” violates schoolchildren’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.” Newdow himself expressed the sentiment more passionately: “Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, ‘We are one nation that denies God exists.’ I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, ‘Oh, what harm is that?’ They’d be furious. And that’s exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn’t.”
The flaw in Newdow’s argument, of course, is that the Pledge includes no such phrase as “We are one nation that affirms God exists.” Notably, regional law provides that children may remain silent while the Pledge is being recited, and certainly have the option of omitting the “under God” part from their own version. There is really nothing about leading the students in reciting the Pledge every morning that forms a “coercive requirement to affirm God”—and Newdow, a doctor and lawyer, is certainly intelligent enough to see this. His real problem with the Pledge is that it acknowledges the concept of God. Newdow’s own Utopia would involve such concepts as God and religion being kept secret from society. Unfortunately for him, over ninety percent of Americans believe in God, and in a republic the majority rules.
It is true that there are important safeguards in the Constitution that protect certain individual liberties from what James Madison called the “tyranny of the majority.” In other words, the Constitution recognizes that some things simply should not be regulated by government, regardless of popular opinion. However, Newdow’s views on religion’s role in society is not covered by this. The Founders made very clear the law’s perspective on the place of religion in society via the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Moreover, the phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution or any of its Amendments. By no means were the Founders intent upon creating a society in which God and religion were to be kept obscured from public view.
The Establishment Clause was only meant to prevent the federal government from establishing a single religion or denomination as some sort of official state religion. In other words, the Founders did not want to have any American equivalent of Anglicanism as it existed in England in their time. They believed in limited government, and the greatest danger that religion posed to that notion at the time was a government that had ties to an official state religion. But in the United States today, the greatest danger posed to the notion of limited government, at least as far as religion is concerned, is the idea that government should have an active role in secularizing society against the ideals and wishes of the vast majority of the population.
Fortunately, not all California officials side with Michael Newdow and Judge Karlton. In a bold move for an official whose constituency is generally very liberal, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has urged the affected school districts to appeal the decision. California State Superintendent Jack O’Connell has said, “Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the school day is one of our country’s great traditions and is an appropriate expression of patriotism to our country for students to learn and practice.” O’Connell is absolutely right. Now, conservatives can only hope and—to Newdow’s great chagrin—pray that the school districts follow Schwarzenegger’s advice and appeal to a judge who sees things in the same light.
Mr. Mencher is a junior majoring in Spanish.
Comments