At first, I thought it was absurd. I'm an atheist, but I've said the Pledge of Allegiance many times with pride. And yes, I mean the current version of the Pledge containing the word "God".
But today, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional, due to its reference to "God".
Unconstitutional?
Upon hearing the verdict, I thought, "Another stupid atheist devoting his life to fighting something he doesn't believe exists." And I thought, "Republicans are going to excrete a proverbial brick over this one."
I was only half right.
A man by the name of Michael Newdow changed my mind. I learned today that Mr. Newdow was the man who brought the case to court. He sued because he didn't want his six-year-old daughter listening to her classmates reciting the Pledge in school. Mr. Newdow argued that "the government indoctrinates every schoolchild - every school day of the year - with a belief in God, and a belief that our Nation, as an entity, is one 'under God.' What of those parents who choose not to inculcate their children with such a belief?"
Mr. Newdow challenged those of all political viewpoints to take sides: religion - or individual rights?
Today, the US Senate gave us their answer. The Senate passed a resolution, unanimously, denouncing the verdict. Our Senators thought that declaring their willingness to force kids to say "God" was even more pressing a matter than the defense bill they had been debating. Osama bin Laden would thank them. And agree with them.
In his ruling, Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote that requiring public school children to say "one nation under God" is no better than requiring them to say "we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."
It couldn't be said in clearer terms. But Republicans and Democrats aren't interested in clarity. Or rights. Not if they have to hold their belief in rights higher than their faith in God. Just like the debate over cloning, there is no debate. To politicians, it's as if the issue were self-evident, as if "Who wouldn't want to say the word 'God'?", as if... as if it's just plain blasphemous not to want to say the word "God".
Politicians, get it through your heads. It's constitutional to be blasphemous. It's unconstitutional to force your religion on a bunch of second-grade kids:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
And yes, we are talking about force. Mr. Newdow's daughter was forced to listen to other students espousing a belief in God. Since Mr. Newdow doesn't have a choice of public schools to which he may send his daughter, the public school system forces him to subject his daughter to whatever indoctrination the school system seeks to impose.
Note that Mr. Newdow's lawsuit could not have even been brought to court if public schools, which require money to be expropriated from parents without their consent, did not exist. If parents could instead use their expropriated money towards a school of their own choice, they could choose a school in which people say, pray, sing, or chant the word "God", "Allah", "Buddha", or whatever. Or, Heaven forbid, they could even send their child to an atheistic school.
So, most fundamentally, this issue isn't about speech. It's about the theft of parents' wealth which hinders or prevents them from educating their children as they see fit.
Mr. Newdow, however, didn't sue to dismantle the entire public school system. He sued for the basic right to choose the ideas to which his daughter is exposed. And as long as a public school system exists, Mr. Newdow should not be forced to allow his daughter to listen to the version of the Pledge of Allegiance preferred by the 1954 Congress (who added the words "under God"). After all:
Whose daughter is she, anyway?
I have no doubt that the 9th Court's verdict will be overturned by the Supreme Court. It will be overturned by gutless, religious judges and/or activist judges in bed with Republican politicians. The judges, like the politicians are already doing, will appeal to precedent, to authority, to "what this country is all about", or some other vague, emotional argument which helps religious people defend God against those annoying constraints of the Constitution. But when the ruling is overturned, I'd like to ask the Supreme Court justices one question:
What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't you understand?
Visit Michael Newdow's website:
www.restorethepledge.com
