I am obviously one of the more staunch advocates of church/state separation one is ever likely to encounter, as volumes of my writing can easily attest. But let me say this: it's time for Michael Newdow to go away. He is the father who filed the lawsuit to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, a lawsuit he won on the merits at the appeals court level only to have the Supreme Court overturn that decision due to a lack of standing. He has since refiled that suit on behalf of other parents and the whole process has begun anew. I think he's correct on the Pledge case, though I think it was argued pretty badly, and overall I just don't think it's a big deal.
His latest case, however, takes nitpicking to a whole new level. He has now filed suit in Federal court claiming that the fact that Bush (and all other presidents, as far as I know) will have a minister say a prayer at his inauguration constitutes an illegal "establishment of religion". Now, it's one thing to say that the government cannot force school children to pray, as the courts did in 1963. It's quite another to say that a President cannot choose to have a prayer spoken at his own inauguration ceremony. The government is forbidden from taking official positions on religious matters, but that doesn't mean that government officials cannot offer their opinions or participate in religious ceremonies or, for that matter, spend 12 hours a day praying if they want to. They just can't give those things the force of law, demand that the government endorse their beliefs, or force others to participate in them.
Michael, it's time for you to go away. This is no longer about taking a principled stand for the establishment clause, it's now about your ego and your desire to stay in the public eye. Your 15 minutes are up.
- Log in to post comments
I disagree with you on this one. I think this is an illegal establishment. The president can do whatever he wants on his own time, but his inauguration is him accepting a job for everyone in the country, it's an official ceremony, not his own personal celebration. He can have a private ceremony afterwards and pray all he wants, drink jesus brand wine, handle snakes, or whatever else, but in my opinion it's not appropriate to do so at the presidential inauguration. This is the same as the judge wearing the ten commandments on his robe.
I disagree with you on this one. I think this is an illegal establishment. The president can do whatever he wants on his own time, but his inauguration is him accepting a job for everyone in the country, it's an official ceremony, not his own personal celebration. He can have a private ceremony afterwards and pray all he wants, drink jesus brand wine, handle snakes, or whatever else, but in my opinion it's not appropriate to do so at the presidential inauguration. This is the same as the judge wearing the ten commandments on his robe.
I don't think it is at all the same as the judge wearing the Ten Commandments on his robe. The Ten Commandments are explicit statements of law, most of which are entirely unconstitutional. The only actual official government duty carried out at the inauguration is the swearing of the oath of office. Beyond that, it IS a private party, it just happens to be televised. It's even paid for with private money. There is no point at which it begins or ceases to be an official government act except for the swearing of the oath itself. The President could as easily choose not to have a prayer (or for that matter, not to have a band play, not to do it in public, not to have an audience for it, etc). He could choose to stand on his head if he wanted to, or to be introduced by Jojo the Dog-Faced Boy. The only thing he is required to do is take the oath; everything outside of that is entirely a question of his personal tastes and choices (though obviously most will feel bound by various traditions).
You state in referring to Newdow: "I think he's correct on the Pledge case, though I think it was argued pretty badly, and overall I just don't think it's a big deal."
I'm not so sure about the "big deal" part. I have two reasons.
First: Students who object to saying the Pledge are put into a very difficult position. They must either choose to go against the schools (e.g., sit quietly while others stand and recite the pledge) and accept the social consequences (from other students, primarily) or the administrative consequences that may be imposed (legally or not) by the teacher or administration.
Second: There are teachers who themselves object to the Pledge or object to being required to lead the pledge. Here the public school teachers can be fired for "insubordination" or, if they do not yet have "tenure" in a particular state, can simply be put in the position of not having their teaching contract renewed---no reason required to be stated. In many if not all states, teachers have very little recourse to objecting to non-renewal of contract while they are in a "probationary" period, which can last 1 to 3 years, depending on the state. The Principal can simply decline to renew the contract of the probationary teacher without giving the real reason a teacher was let go. During the probationary period, it is always possible to say, "We let him/her go because he/she couldn't control the kids" (or whatever excuses seem useful), while not stating that the real, or hidden reason was that the teacher refused to lead the pledge. The same problem arises for biology teachers who teach in districts where teaching evolution to any great degree could cause problems. Many teachers choose to shy away from controversial topics in the classroom during their probationary period.
I think I read someplace that he's also refiled the Pledge case, this time enlisting the aid of several custodial parents in the school district.
I'm not so sure about the "big deal" part. I have two reasons.
Well, I think those reasons are legitimate. It's just not something I get all fired up about. Perhaps if I had children it would mean more to me. I merely meant it as a personal statement; I can understand why others find it more important than I do.
I think I read someplace that he's also refiled the Pledge case, this time enlisting the aid of several custodial parents in the school district.
Really insightful, considering you said it already. And this, after lecturing our 12 year old about reading his textbook more carefully. Sorry; I'm brain-impaired this afternoon.
I think Newdow has moved from a reasonable case to excessive self-aggrandizement. I know that if I were elected president (hah!) I'd tell that preacher to take a flying leap, and there would be no crappy prayer at my inauguration. That all of the presidents so far have been sufficiently religious that they want it there is no problem for me.
George Washington had the good taste to separate the government ceremony from the religious homage, by time and place. It was a good example to set -- too bad more have not followed it.
I agree with you regarding Newdow, but please don't mischaracterize his earlier suit. You say
let me say this: it's time for Michael Newdow to go away. He is the father who filed the lawsuit to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, a lawsuit he won on the merits at the appeals court level only to have the Supreme Court overturn that decision due to a lack of standing
I don't know what Newdow's complaint alleged, but the original 9th Circuit panel characterized the issues as (i) whether the Congress's 1954 addition of "under god" to the PoA was constitutional, and (ii) whether the school board's requirement relating to the recitation of te PoA was constitutional. The 9th circuit panel correctly decided both questions in the negative. Quite frankly, one--a strict constructionist one--might seriously wonder, what power in the Constitution gives the Congress to declare what amounts to a loyalty oath--which is little more than the PoA is.
First: Students who object to saying the Pledge are put into a very difficult position.
I'm not sure whether "under God" changes that fact of life any or changes the legal analysis any. It gives students one more reason why they might wish to opt out but not the fact that they have that right but need to have the gumption to use it.