Michael Newdow became famous this summer when he challenged the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, was brought on behalf of his daughter, who was made to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school. The source of “under God’s constitutionality is the “establishment clause,” which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In a lecture Wednesday evening, Newdow said the Pledge of Allegiance “fails every test.” The Supreme Court ultimately refused to rule on the case, on the basis of a technicality, judging that Newdow did not have standing, because he did not have custody of his daughter.
What motivated you to file a suit against the Pledge of Allegiance?
Well, it’s a violation of the Constitution.
How long did you have the idea?
One day it just hit me that “In God We Trust” is on all of the coins and currency, and I said, “Well, I don’t trust in God, why is that on my coins and currency?” As I did the research, I realized that the Pledge was a stronger case.
How did you feel about the Supreme Court’s decision not to rule?
I think it was pretty bogus. It was written by Justice Stevens, who was on a case called Lewis, where he dissented against exactly what he did in my case. I think it was pretty clearly political.
The fact is, I’m an amazingly wonderful father whose daughter loves him beyond belief and continually asks for more time with him. It’s incredibly unjust.
How do you feel about some of the public’s almost violent reaction to your case and to its success right up to the U.S. Supreme Court?
They didn’t understand the issues. There’s absolutely no question that I’m correct, and I think that if people were asked if the government should take sides in religious debates, the overwhelming majority would say “no.” This is not atheism vs. theism. This is belief in the “establishment clause”vs. disbelief in it.
Do you think the national re-election will effect future cases like yours?
The issue is who president Bush appoints to the Supreme Court. It looks like he’ll get at least one and probably a couple appointments. You never know what the judges who are appointed will do.
If they adhere to the principles underlined in the clause, there’s absolutely no question that “under God” in the middle of the nation’s pledge is unconstitutional. It’s no different from “under Jesus” or anything else “under.”
How did your daughter feel about the case?
Well, if you read my complaint, this case was always about me. It got turned into her case by the religious right and by the ninth circuit to some degree, but I always said it was my case. I don’t discuss her, except that she got her fourth goal in four games on Saturday.
Do you have any advice for Georgetown students?
Recognize that this document that we live under is absolutely phenomenal and that the people who put it together were incredible geniuses.
