LET'S GET one thing straight: Michael Newdow, the father of a grade schooler in California who recently brought a lawsuit against the state of California for forcing his daughter to recite the pledge of allegiance, is probably a kook. He claims the title of minister in what he calls the "First Amendment Church of True Science," and he's been sued by his estranged wife for bringing a lawsuit in his daughter's name even though he lacked legal custody of her at the time. Clearly, he's a weird fellow. But that doesn't make him wrong.
Newdow is challenging the constitutionality of requiring students in public schools to recite the pledge of allegiance, which includes the phrase "one nation, under God." The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with him that forcing students to participate in such a religious affirmation is a violation of the First Amendment, and last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case. As a matter of principle and faithfulness to the Constitution, Newdow is correct -- the pledge does violate the First Amendment. Whether the Court will stick to the principle in this case is another story altogether.
For anyone who's unaware, the pledge of allegiance to the United States of America did not always include a reference to God. In 1954, about the time some Southern states were considering adding the Confederate symbol to their state flags as a show of defiance against desegregation, Congress decided to add "under God" to the pledge as a display of American Christian values in face of the anti-Communist frenzy. Communism, like today's al Qaeda, was the favorite scare tactic of demagogic zealots like Joseph McCarthy, who like today's John Ashcroft and Dick Cheney, became famous for popularizing the Red delirium. Fears that evil, scary communists were everywhere -- in your closet, maybe next door -- just waiting to corrupt America's impressionable youth with their godless, socialist ideologies prompted the conservative Congress to add "under God" as an affirmation of America's solidarity behind the Christian Lord.
The historical record aside, the implications of "under God" are clear. No one is under any misconception that it's meant to refer to Allah, Buddha, Brahma or even Yahweh -- and even if one cares to privately substitute their own religious figure in "God's" name, the endorsement of the state behind the Christian version is obviously implicit. After all, the American government sponsors other supposedly neutral but tacitly Christian endorsements of religion -- "In God we trust" is on our currency, for example, although millions of Americans emphatically do not "trust" in the Christian god, and millions more don't even believe in him!
It's interesting to note that those groups most vehemently opposed to the 9th Circuit's ruling are usually those that also adhere to what's called the "founder's intent" school of legal thinking. This philosophy, closely associated with the anti-abortion code word "strict construction," is based on the idea that we moderns should not innovate in our interpretations of the Constitution and that we should stick closely to whatever textual meanings the original writers intended. In other words, they believe the Constitution is a static entity whose meanings and powers can never budge over the passage of centuries. Abortion foes champion this ideology, largely because it would prohibit abortion rights (there really is no "right to privacy" explicitly stated in the Constitution) and radically circumscribe the powers of the federal government.
Curiously, this same camp simultaneously grieves the loss of prayer in public schools in the 1960s, and today bemoans the prospect of also losing that Christian artifact of last resort, the pledge of allegiance. Apparently, the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means something different to conservatives than it does to anyone with a Webster's Dictionary. Institutionalized recitation of a pledge that invokes the Christian God's name is quite clearly a violation of the rights of non-Christian or unwilling Christian students involved.
Nonetheless, this issue has quickly become so politicized that few legal scholars expect the conservative-packed Supreme Court to expend much of its political capital upholding the ruling.
However, one glimmer of hope remains that the Constitution will come through intact: Antonin Scalia, arch-conservative and stalwart defender of the founder's intent school, recused himself from the case based on public comments he made about the 9th Circuit ruling a few months back. That leaves the ultra conservative wing one vote short -- and one small step closer to constitutional integrity.
(Blair Reeves's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at breeves@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 16 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
