"I realized the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It's a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it." - Michael Newdow
On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court decided to hear arguments on whether schoolchildren should be allowed to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance in their classrooms.
At the center of the case is Michael Newdow, an Atheist. He filed suit against the Sacramento County, California, school district where his 9 year-old daughter attends classes. Mr. Newdow claims that his daughter's religious liberty is being violated by the teacher-led recitation in her classroom. While I don't necessarily agree with him, he may very well have a valid point.
In 1954, a mere forty-nine years ago, the words "under God" were inserted in the Pledge by act of Congress at the behest of religious leaders and then President Dwight D. Eisenhower. With that change, Mr. Newdow contends that the government is endorsing religion in our society where they have no business doing so. While it's true that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, that technically should also mean that it won't promote it either. Mr. Newdow may be arguing on behalf of Atheists, they are clearly not the only group affected. Agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, and even Jehovah's Witnesses have grappled with the same problem for years. While they may have chosen to remain silent during the classroom recitations, Mr. Newdow is exercising his legal right to defend and preserve his beliefs. It is more than likely that Michael Newdow's appeal to have the Pledge deemed unconstitutional will not succeed, though.
On two separate occasions, the Supreme Court has declared that the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional and struck down opinions from the lower courts stating otherwise. It's safe to think that the same decision will occur again this time, which I believe is the right one. If burning the American flag is defended under the first amendment, than this should be as well.
If Michael Newdow really wants to have to have the Pledge changed so that God is not mentioned, he should go about it the same way that religious leaders did almost fifty years ago and do it through legislative means. The last thing he should do is invoke his daughter's "religious liberty," especially when she's not even being raised as an Atheist herself. That brings us to the twist in this story.
Part of this particular case coming before the highest court in the land is a custody battle for Mr. Newdow's daughter. Sandra Banning is raising her daughter in a Christian home with Christian values. She says that her daughter has no problems saying the Pledge of Allegiance and that it's a "patriotic expression." (Mr. Newdow has partial custody of his daughter, which was restored two weeks ago after being revoked in February, 2002.)
It would appear that perhaps we have found the real reason behind his quest.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America is not the place for a custody battle or to decide who gets "even-numbered weekends." There are other remedies available to solve Mr. Newdow's problem. Open communication. Mediation. Family court. Any of these would be a better remedy than dragging his daughter into a fight over the Constitution for all the world to see.
If he wants to change the Pledge of Allegiance, that's fine. Let him take his chances and talk to his Senator or Congressman. If he wants custody of his daughter, that's fine, too. He should pursue the same legal avenues that every other parent in America would pursue and abide by that decision.
However, if Michael Newdow wants to change his daughter's life for the better, he should ask her what she wants and not user her as a pawn in his legal chess game.
William Smith
ConservativeBlogger.com
