The Man Who Declared War on God
Vol: 11 Issue: 31 Saturday, August 31, 2002
Michael Newdow was the Sacramento atheist who sued his daughter’s school because he claimed she was made to feel uncomfortable hearing other kids recite ‘one nation, under God’ during the Pledge of Allegiance.
He won his suit. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concurred, and the rights of 9 million Americans were ruled secondary to the rights of Newdow’s daughter NOT to hear the Name of God.
Newdow filed his lawsuit on behalf of his daughter, alleging the Pledge did her irreparable harm. After the Court ruled in his favor, it was revealed that the daughter had nothing to do with it.
Not only does Newdow not even have custody of his daughter, but both his daughter and her mother are Christians.
Newdow, having admitted he used his daughter to gain standing before the court, protested about the attention his suit focused on her.
Probably because the mother and daughter then sued to have the little girl’s name removed from the Pledge suit. In any case, Newdow’s ‘standing before the court’ amounted to being the non-custodial, biological father of a little Christian girl, and on the strength of that, defeated God in open court.
Like Deja Vu All Over Again
Having gained the sympathy of the 9th Circuit Court [the court that ruled in favor of legalizing marijuana use for Rastafarians on religious grounds] by pretending to represent his daughter, now Newdow is going back to court to challenge God, pretending to represent you.
He filed suit this week in federal district court in Washington contending that it is unconstitutional for taxpayer-funded chaplains to pray in Congress and minister to lawmakers.
He wants the court to prohibit the House and Senate from employing spiritual chaplains, who are paid by Congress to lead prayers, counsel members and perform other religious tasks.
“If congressmen want to go to church, (then) walk down the block like other Americans do and go to church,” Newdow said in an interview Thursday. “Don’t get my government engaged in it. There are some people who don’t love God almighty. That’s why we have an Establishment Clause.”
In truth, the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
No matter how many times I’ve tried to see it the way the courts do, I just can’t get there from here. The logic doesn’t work.
If Congress is forbidden from making laws respecting the establishment of a religion, but is also conjoined from prohibiting the free exercise thereof, then it would appear that the Court cannot rule in favor of Newdow on part A without being in violation of part B, since forcibly constraining anyone from worship, even members of Congress, consitutes prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The courts began in the mid 50’s to take the position the Founders were not necessarily Christians (?) and therefore, when they referred to ‘religion’ (except in the Constitution) they were speaking of religion as a philosophy — they meant all religion.
But when the courts examine the Establishment Clause, ‘religion’ is always interpreted as Judeo-Christianity — making the practice of religion a Constitutionally protected guarantee, but the worship of God unconstitutional.
Perpetrating this fraud required a concerted effort a juriprudential double-speak and historical revisionism on a scale that should take our breath away, but doesn’t.
To interpret the Establishment Clause as permitting religion but prohibiting God meant ignoring historical legal precedents going back to the foundation of America.
The courts therefore take the position on the Constitution that it means what it says when that suits the worldview of the justices involved, and it means what the jurists think the Founders wanted when interrpeting it literally runs counter to their worldview. (Sounds like a ‘religion’ of its own)
If, for example a particular judge didn’t believe in God, for example, ‘God’ becomes the prohibited part of religion, but the practice of it apart from God is legal, since, in their view, religion is meaningless anyway.
Rulings of this kind have a cumulative effect of separating God from religion as a legal precedent. Protected religions are those that worship Allah, Buddha, Zoroaster and Vishnu. Prohibited religions are Biblically-based.
Reality is not an issue. Need proof? Newdow’s suit demands the removal of paid Congressional chaplains as being unconstitutional. He argues that such was never the intent of the Founding Fathers. And a court accepted the suit as having sufficient merit to warrant a hearing.
The Congress has had paid chaplains since 1789. So, as I said earlier, you can’t get there from here.
In trying to sort out social trends for the last days, I often refer to Paul’s second letter to Timothy — since it is so relevant to the time in which we live.
Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:1, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” Paul lists some of the characteristics of society at the end, just before the judgements of God overtake the planet during the Tribulation. Things like being ‘without natural affection’ ‘trucebreakers’ ‘unthankful’ and ‘unholy’.
In reading Newdow’s latest effort and the willingness of the courts to turn a blind eye to whatever it takes in order to legislate God out of existence while protecting religion, my mind immediately skipped to 2 Timothy 3:5.
“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:”