RATIONALIST INTERNATIONAL

Bulletin # 99 (8 July 2002)

http://www.rationalistinternational.net

USA: A courageous atheist strikes back In a time when America is getting used to the increasing presence of God in public life, a courageous atheist has decided to strike back. Michael Newdow, practicing physician and studied lawyer from California, is determined to re-enforce the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees separation of church and state. His case against the Pledge of Allegiance sparked national fury.

Every morning, millions of school children in the USA are looking at Stars & Stripes, clutching their hearts with their right hands and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which refers to America as “one nation under God”. Michael Newtow, who did not want his eight-year-old daughter to be forced to participate in any religious ceremony, filed a case against the school authorities. Representing himself in court, he argued that the pledge violated the Constitution. He won – at least for one day. The Ninth Circuit court of appeals in San Francisco ruled 2:1 that the phrase “one nation under God” implies a government endorsement of religion. It amounted to “a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism,” wrote Circuit-Judge Alfred Theodore Goodwin on behalf of the panel of three judges. “Invoking God’s name is not religiously neutral.”

Following this decision, a wave of criticism and controversy swept the United States, including a resolution of the US Senate and a demonstration by House Republican members. A blitz poll of Newsweek showed that 87 per cent of the Americans want God to remain in the pledge. 54 per cent feel the government should promote religion, 60 per cent welcome politicians who publicly express their faith. President George W Bush, while attending the Group of Eight Summit in Canada, announced within hours that he would see to it that this “ridiculous judgment” was overturned.

“A declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t violate rights. As a matter of fact, it’s a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence,” Bush said. “We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God,” “Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.”

Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that the Department of Justice would defend the ability of the nation’s children to pledge allegiance to the flag. He called the decision “directly contrary to centuries of American tradition”, forgetting that it was only 48 years back that under President Eisenhower God was inserted into the patriotic pledge by Act of Congress. Composed by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy in 1892 for the 400 anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of America, the pledge first became famous without God.

Such pious storm blowing cold on his face, 79-years-old judge Goodwin stayed his own ruling the very next day, to let fellow members of the court decide whether to reconsider the case. The Justice Department has meantime demanded a review by the full 11-member circuit court. It is expected that Goodwin’s ruling will not survive. But even otherwise, it would still have to take the hurdle of the Supreme Court.

Though for the time being, American school children will continue to think of God under Stars & Stripes, Michael Newdow’s case has shaken foregone conclusions and unleashed an all-out discussion about the relation of church and state in media and public. And Newdow, despite receiving abuses and serious death threats, is not going to stop here. Calling himself “founding minister” of the “First Amendment Church of True Science (FACT)”, he is full of ideas and plans, how to curb the influence of religion on public life, and full of energy and confidence. He has already some other interesting cases running. With one, he tries to stop the Congress from making religious references in official resolutions. With another, he wants to stop President Bush from including Christian prayers in his inauguration ceremonies. He also wants the inscription “In God We Trust” to vanish from the Dollar.

Besides all, he is fighting a child-support battle for his daughter with his former wife. He thinks of practicing as an attorney in family law, which he considers – besides religion – the “most arcane, counterproductive, harmful system in our society”.