THE FIRST line in the Bill of Rights states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, yet in 1954, Congress inserted the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, in order to distinguish the United States from the atheist nations of the communist bloc.
It's difficult to see how the addition of a deity to America's traditional oath of loyalty is anything other than an establishment of religion, but such was the matter before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, as Dr. Michael Newdow argued that the recitation of the pledge in public schools is unconstitutional so long as it contains the reference to God. At the heart of the case is Newdow's nine-year-old daughter, a student in California's Elk Grove Unified School District, whose daily recitation of the pledge Newdow regards as an insult to his own atheistic beliefs.
The proper place of religion in American life is an important question, and Newdow's case is a good one, but his arguments last week make one wonder if an injured father and self-proclaimed atheist is the right person to make the case for secularism. For, whatever his eloquence and conviction, Newdow seems motivated less by constitutional concerns than by perceived insults to his own intellect.
As he told the court, "Every morning in the Elk Grove Unified School District's public schools, government agents, teachers, funded with tax dollars, have their students stand up, including my daughter, face the flag of the United States of America, place their hands over their hearts and affirm that ours is a nation under some particular religious entity, the appreciation of which is not accepted by numerous people, such as myself... I am an atheist. I don't believe in God. And every school morning my child is asked to stand up, face that flag, put her had over her heart and say that her father is wrong."
Such is a compelling tale of parental woe, and indeed, Newdow may be required to frame his case in such terms, in order to claim standing to sue. But to cast the debate in terms of family relations and personal slights is to miss the bigger reasons for removing God from the pledge.
In the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that God created the mind free, and that all attempts to influence it by legal means were departures from his will, tending only to "hypocrisy and meanness." Therefore, he argued, people must be free to proclaim whatever religious beliefs they choose, without any interference from the government.
Like Jefferson, many of America's early leaders were men of religious faith who nonetheless understood the importance of secularism in a free society. The natural right of human beings to think and live as they please is granted by God, and the task of government is to protect that right. But no government can do justice to God's will that people should live in freedom if it demands that its citizens proclaim a particular religious belief as part of their proclamation of national loyalty. The addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance is just such a demand, and it is entirely inconsistent with the right of Americans to worship -- or not worship -- as they see fit.
Unfortunately, these issues went largely unmentioned by Newdow, who built his case on the lame argument that his parental authority is being undermined by a Pledge of Allegiance that promotes the beliefs of his daughter's mother, a born-again Christian whom he has never married. Of course, Newdow must demonstrate some personal injury in order to sue, but by confining his arguments to claims of parental injustice and personal indignation, Newdow has neglected the fundamental conflict between constitutional secularism and the state-sponsored profession of religious belief.
Whatever the court's ruling, Newdow's case will likely be seen as the personal crusade of a liberal intellectual motivated by a juvenile desire to thumb his nose at religion on the biggest stage possible. And whatever the popular opinion of Newdow, such an outcome would be regrettable, for his fundamental contention is a good one. It doesn't take a slighted father to be concerned for Newdow's daughter, and it doesn't take an atheist to want God out of government.
Alec Solotorovsky's column appears Tuesdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at asolotorovsky@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead 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 | 2 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.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
