Once More Unto The Breach, Dear Friends...

Today, an old spectre raised it’s ugly head. Of course I’m referring to Michael Newdow. Everyone remember this nut? This is the guy who brought up the first Pledge challenge that was taken to the high court, and subsequently thrown out on a technicality. See, Newdow brought suit in his daughter’s name, but at the time, he and his wife were divorced, and his wife had sole custody. Sorry Mr. Newdow, you can’t bring a suit in your daughter’s name as you are not the custodial parent. Thanks, have a nice day.

I knew this guy wouldn’t stay down for long. Today, Federal District Court Judge Lawrence Carlton ruled that the phrase, "under God," in the Pledge made the oath unconstitutional. What did the jurist base his decision on? The precedent set by the 9th "Circus" Court of Appeals when they affirmed he was correct, originally. Their thinking, of course, was based upon a gross and egregious misinterpretation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, cited below:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Now, for those missing the point of this piece of fundamental law, the point is that the government may not have any influence in a religion, nor may religion have any influence in the government in which there is a state sponsored religion, or a theocracy. These two forms of government are wholly inadequate with such a document as the Constitution. The Framers understood the undue influence that both had shared in England, and knew how oppressive both could be. That is why this provision was placed in the First Amendment; further, it was so important that it is the first provision within the amendment.

The phrase, "under God," was placed in the Pledge during the Truman administration. It was not injected to convey a precise religion recognized by the government, but rather an acknowledgment that this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics and beliefs, and it recognized God within it. It’s not uncommon to see God invoked in several different ways in not only the nation’s founding documents, but also each state’s. California has an acknowledgment to God within it’s own Constitution, as does Virginia, New York, and many other states. We acknowledged God for the wisdom, guidance, patience, and perseverance that the Founding Fathers had when they created this great nation.

In the 1980s, it was deemed by the NEA that the Pledge was voluntary, so as not to offend the children reciting it. It has been a voluntary act for this long. Mr. Newdow’s daughter wasn’t being forced to recite. She chose to recite it. It was stated in affidavits that she and her mother recited it, and that did believe in God. Mr. Newdow is an atheist, and virulent one at that. He dislikes the very existence of "In God We Trust" on our money, and has admitted considering a suit to force the government to remove it.

This will never happen, and when he gets to the high court with this asinine lawsuit, he will face the same fate again. Ridiculed. He will be laughed out of the Supreme Court chambers, or at least he would if I were on the bench. The phrase, "under God," does not establish a religion. It does not prohibit it’s free exercise. God is not a religion. God is a deity, for those polytheistic people out there. Or, to quite a few, God is a singular deity—the Alpha and the Omega—for us Catholics. Regardless, the mere invocation of God does not convey a breach in the mythical wall between "church and state," which was created out of whole cloth by one judge—Hugo Black—reading a letter written by Thomas Jefferson; a letter, I might add, that has no jurisprudential bearing in the question whatsoever.

We recognize our roots. Those roots lie with the Founding Fathers who did believe in God, and used God’s commandments to form the very basis of our laws. This country was not founded on a lack of morality, but rather quite the opposite. A society built upon, and ultimately answerable to, the laws is a society in order, rather than the chaos abroad. We chose, in the 1950s, to recognize this important piece of our history, and the traditions that have arisen because of it. See, that is one thing that Mr. Newdow—who is a lawyer—seems to have forgotten. We, as a society, are not pushing any religion on him. He can choose to be an atheist if he wants, but we as a society will not hide our religion from public view because he is offended by it. Over 70% of this nation, and well over 80% of the world, still believes in some higher deity whether it is God, Buddha, Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh, or what have you. The Left chooses to embrace humanism, which is fast becoming a religion unto itself.

In my humble opinion—as a scholar of the court and the law—this decision was a screw-up. It is not different in its activist thinking than the 9th "Circus" Court’s thinking just a few years ago. If I were the judge, I’d do some serious studying. If I had been the jurist, this decision would not have been reached in this manner. I have no pre-set determinations on this. I do love this nation, and I do recite the Pledge proudly. But those who know me that I an answerable to the law. And despite my knowledge, I’m not arbiter of it. However, a reasoned judgment can be gauged from the evidence. That evidence shows me that Mr. Newdow still has no case, and that this was another rogue decision by a "runaway" jurist.

Publius II