Dr. Michael Newdow, an attorney, physician, and atheist best known for his attempts to strike “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, discussed the relationship between the US government and religion at the recent Political Theory Colloquium.
Dr. Newdow focused his lecture on an article he wrote, entitled, “Question to Justice Scalia: Does the Establishment Clause Permit the Disregard of Devout Catholics?” He wrote the article in response to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who claimed that the Constitution permits the government to disregard atheists. Scalia is a Catholic.
“As an atheist, I found that rather insulting that a justice on the Supreme Court would say the constitution permits the disregard of religious minorities,” Dr. Newdow said. “If the same was said about any other minority, it would be front-page news.”
In his article, Dr. Newdow tries to turn the question around and ask whether today it is considered acceptable for the government to discriminate against Catholics.
“Catholics were the atheists of the founding,” Dr. Newdow said. “They were despised as much as atheists are today.” He encouraged religious citizens to consider a scenario in which they are the group of people that faces discrimination.
“You’re always protesting when you’re the outsider,” Dr. Newdow asserted, “but once you’re the insider you don’t look at things in terms of equality, because you think, ‘Well, I’m taken care of.’”
Dr. Newdow also argued that any institutional pronouncement of God by government is unconstitutional. If, for example, a public school gives students time for silent reflection, it could be violating the Constitution. Dr. Newdow said the pause for reflection would be unconstitutional if its purpose was to “to get people to pray to and think about God,” but if it was intended “to have people to think about whatever they want,” it would be permissible.
Dr. Newdow challenged the tradition of having the president-elect repeat the words “so help me God” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the presidential oath of office. But Dr. Newdow also argued at the same time that if a president or an elected public official wants to say “so help me God” at the end of the oath, he or she may do so under freedom of expression.
Dr. Newdow asserted that the Constitution treats freedom of religion as freedom of conscience. This means one has the right to believe or not to believe in a superior being. He paralleled this comparison to the distinction between the protected freedom of speech and the implied freedom of expression.
“They say freedom of speech, but they mean freedom of expression, which is much broader. It’s the same thing here,” he said. The Framers, he explained, did not want the federal government to define religion or judge personal conscience.
“In terms of religion, we don’t want a truth. Look at history and see what happened,” Dr. Newdow said. “When the government starts taking sides, people get angry and fight.”
In the open discussion with attendees that followed Dr. Newdow’s lecture, he continued to focus on the principle of equality in the U.S. Constitution. “There are certain things that the Constitution realize[s] must be equal; race is one of them, and religion is one of them,” Dr. Newdow claimed.
Constitutional amendments and legislation forbid discrimination on the basis of race. He said the Constitution forbids religious discrimination as well, but some institutional barriers still exist that violate the Constitution, including the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and the printing of “In God We Trust” on US currency.
Dr. Newdow said he has heard the argument that taking “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance would be promoting atheism. “That’s ridiculous,” he responded. He argued that to replace “one nation under God” with “one nation that thinks God is a myth” would favor atheism, but simply removing “under God” does not endorse atheism.
Dr. Newdow said he and other atheists face discrimination and marginalization in the current system. He believes he has lost jobs because of the lawsuits he has filed against the government. He said atheists are discriminated against in the marketplace of ideas and face obstacles when running for office.
When government favors a set of religious ideas, said Dr. Newdow, “It says those people aren’t as good as us.”
How did you like this article? Tell Mickey all about it at mgardell@nd.edu.