Liberator 3.4
Under God
words: Brian Kasoro
 

It's not going anywhere for now. Michael Newdow, the man who was trying to take "under god" out of the pledge of allegiance, has lost his suit against Elk Grove School District in California. After the lower courts ruled in favor of Newdow's desire to revert the pledge back to its original version (the one without "under god" in it) the U.S. Supreme Court then dismissed the case saying that Newdow didn’t have the right to bring the case to court in the first place.

Newdow claims he originally brought the case on behalf of his daughter as a "next friend," as it's called in the courts. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case because under California law, Newdow doesn’t really have the right to be his daughter's "next friend"--he doesn’t live with her, nor does he have custody of her.

So, Newdow, an atheist brings a suit to court on behalf of his daughter because he believes her first amendment rights are being violated by being forced to say the words "under god" while the class recites the pledge of allegiance. It's possible for a person to leave during the pledge. That’s one solution that would keep the girl from having to say those words her father might perceive as "dreaded." But that may be an exaggeration (both the dreaded reference and the suggestion that a young girl will have the self awareness and the will power to leave, or to even develop the thought to want to leave the classroom because she feels she's been violated). It's an option that many see as valid, nevertheless.

Are atheists offended by someone else's belief in the existence of God? I never thought of that. I always thought an atheist was okay with other people believing in God, just chose not to themselves. I've never really met a real extremist, illogical atheist. Isn't an atheist's belief system based on logic, or what they see as a lack of logic in the world's God theories? Huh, always seemed like the perfect candidate for that cliché slogan "live and let live."

But does Newdow's fight defy all that logic (there's that word again)? He just felt that his daughter was being forced to make a claim she may not have been ready to make (right?)--that there is a God. So why the controversy?

Newdow took his case to the Supreme Court, when he may have had some other options. He could have talked with his daughter and figured out the whole "is there a God thing" that way, one on one. But maybe that didn’t work. Then again, he allegedly wasn’t a big part of his daughter's life either. What can the one who is not there teach, or even learn for that matter?

Another strong argument that Newdow made during the case was that, by recognizing a god, any god, in a law, the Congress had violated the first amendment which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Newdow argued that the belief in a god is a religious belief and that when Congress added the words "under god" they did two things; they "respected" or recognized a religion and they violated the constitution. The fact is that the case scared people (and still does) because the argument was such a strong one.

In the end, the court chose to temporarily avoid the question of whether or not "under god" belongs in the pledge of allegiance, which isn’t a dumb move in today's overzealous world. Instead, they'll leave the question to be answered in the near or far future.
But what about the inevitable future when someone is going to have to whittle down even further the true meaning of the U.S. constitution in regards to the separation of church and state. When does living and letting live become harmful to everyone else's general welfare? Where are the lines drawn? That's the true essence of the problem--no one agrees. Freedom is a subjective spirit of which this country is fortunately and unfortunately built upon. Everyone loves it when it's allowing them and encouraging them to do what they want to do. But when it's encouraging others to do those things that they disagree with, then we tend to want to choke it and restrain it (i.e. Gay Marriage). This is the nature of the land we live in.

So does the apparent majority of America live and let Michael Newdow live? I smell some ego--a desire to set an agenda into stone--on the part of both the pro and the anti-god people. After all, Newdow wasn’t content with that himself. What is right and moral? What is right and moral for him? If he has a conviction he must feel it wrong not to voice it and strive to see that conviction manifested, especially in a country he calls his own. But wisdom dictates that sometimes its just not that serious, especially when there are easier solutions--be a father to your daughter first, before trying to protect her first amendment rights.

We seem to be going in circles with the cold, technical, legal, logical route. It seems to be more of a cultural battle, the law merely being manipulated and used by each side for good and for bad. In our modern day society, if you want us all to worship your God should you evangelize us all? Few seem willing or able to challenge themselves to try and formulate a realistic solution for a society in which we must live with each other's differences.

It's regrettable that Mr. Newdow feels his daughters and his own first amendment rights are being trampled on. But we can't deny that it's also regrettable that people feel they are contributing to the coming of Babylon if they don’t fight to keep what's left of God in the fabric of this country. What a pickle. Although Newdow's case has been thrown out, there really doesn’t seem to be a real solution in the near future. Paper governs this country and it has its inevitable flaws--those flaws are being tested and challenged daily; either they will be torn open or they will be patched up.

This whole ship is based on push-and-pull politics and economics--a never ending tightrope with tightrope walkers that never tire. It's not necessarily designed for answers, just to keep going as long as it can.

The challenge when attempting to figure out where you stand in all this? Think harder, for real, universal solutions; everyone's been cutting corners, manipulating, to get what they want, thinking a little too "smarter" lately.