Atheist Michael Newdow is Right: Courts Open With “Religious” Prayer
7 Comments Published by Ben DuPré December 10th, 2009 in First Amendment, Law, Religion
MICHAEL NEWDOW
We mentioned back in January that outspoken atheist Michael Newdow, who has never met an acknowledgment of God he liked, sued to stop the President’s Inaugural Oath from including “So help me God.” The lower court rejected Newdow’s argument that “So help me God” violated the Constitution and so he is now appealing.
But wherever he turns, even in these increasingly “secular” times, Newdow keeps getting reminders of God. In the United States Supreme Court and in most federal courts (including the D.C. Circuit he is now before), court comes to session with the opening cry of “God save the United States and this honorable court.” Next Tuesday Newdow will argue before a 3-judge appeals court panel, so, true to his atheist principles, he filed a motion in advance to stop the court from beginning with its “religious opening cry,” as he calls it.
Naturally, the man who is offended by the President swearing “so help me God” is not going to want to see the court hearing his case give an appeal of its own to God immediately before he offers his appeal!
Newdow argued to the appeals court that it had “no power to make supplications to God,” and that doing so violated the “neutrality” required of “Establishment Clause jurisprudence.” He quotes, with obvious disdain for the “fastidious” adjective, from the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952), where Justice William O. Douglas lists many “references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies” and then adds:
A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the
supplication with which the Court opens each session:
“God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”
Newdow gets the Court’s point—and he doesn’t like it. (He probably doesn’t like this line a little farther down in Zorach either: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”)
No court has overruled Zorach‘s assumption that the court cry is perfectly constitutional, and Newdow is wrong in his long-shot arguments on that point. But Newdow’s premise that the cry is “religious” is correct. The Court in Zorach used the word “supplication,” or prayer, to describe it among other references to “the Almighty.”
What the federal courts have done today, however, is backtrack and denigrate the court cry and similar references to God as mere “ceremonial deism” whose repetition has robbed it of any religious connotation. You can mention God so long as you don’t really mean it, especially if you have been doing so for decades. (That is why the 40+ year old Ten Commandments monument in Texas was allowed (Van Orden v. Perry) but the more recent displays in Kentucky and Alabama were not.)
You can count this spin on the court’s prayer as yet another thing Newdow does not believe. Newdow opposes it precisely because it is a “religious” cry, or a supplication to God. And he is right.
COURTHOUSE TRYLON
The court rejected Newdow’s motion without an explanation, and it would have been interesting to see its reasoning. Indeed, outside the court’s building at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse at 333 Constitution Ave in D.C., stands a granite trylon (left) that includes a cross near the top of one of the 3 sides (not visible at left, unfortunately). Will that symbol be next in Newdow’s anti-God crusade?
At least he’s a principled atheist: Newdow continues to call the courts’ bluff on any acknowledgments of God, making them clearly recognize that either references to the Almighty violate the Constitution or they do not; there is no legal limbo for old, well-worn, “ceremonial” prayers and divine petitions.
We will continue to oppose Newdow’s efforts to secularize every corner of our government events and schools because he is twisting the Constitution to suit his own unbelief. But he is correct in calling out the court cry as a “religious” prayer. Would that the courts would be as principled as atheists like Newdow! And they need not twist the Constitution to continue this historic and important practice.
God save the United States from Newdow and our honorable courts!
Neat article. Thanks for writing. Isn’t Newdow arguably being consistent with a strict reading of the Lemon v. Kurtzman test? Of course, a strict reading of the neutrality prong in Lemon v. Kurtzman would probably be inconsistent with Marsh v. Chambers and the whole idea of “ceremonial deism,” let alone the actions of the First Congress and our founding fathers.
The founding fathers would have rightly perceived Mr.Newdow as a traitor and no lawyer within the colonies would have been insane enough to mention such a thing as being offended at ” So help me God” .
The constitution is to be interpreted as original intent not engineered to be so pluralistic that atheist feel they have been championed and Christianity disdained by it.
Is Roy Moore the only jurist willing to risk his life and fortune for the oath taken in open public ceremonies?
Don’t we the people need to cry “foul play” to all officials not upholding our constitution?
Thomas Jefferson’s Second Ingagural Address dated March 4, 1805 states, “In matters of religion, I have considered that its free excercise is placed by the constitution Independent of the Powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken. on No occassion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it; (religion) but have left them, AS THE CONSTITUTION FOUND THEM, under the Direction and Discipline of the state or church authorities Acknowledged by the several religious societies.
Our federal government is a general government for all people living in the United States of America. “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof”. WHY? Because as Thomas Jefferson explained back in 1805 religion is Independent of the Powers of general government. Religion has its own Powers. Our Constitution depends and relies on religions Independent Godly powers for governing and controlling all human behaviors, attitudes, actions, ways etc.
Our Constitution depends on the Independent powers of God that is hidden behind this word called “religion” to control the actions and ways of mankind in order to live in Divine Providence.
Here is the correct intrepretation of the 1st Amendment respecting an establishment of religion. Religion stands Independent–free from influence, control, or determination of another or others; specifically, a) Free from the rule of another; controlling or governing oneself; self governing. Religion stands alone with nothing governing it except God. He then states that he left religious exercise suited to religon just like the Constitution found them to be. Religions are to be under the Direction and the Displine of the state or church authorities ACKNOWLEDGED BY the several religious societies.
Looks like the “Lemon Test” or the establishment clause concerning the separation of church and state is really— concerning the general government— a lemon. This atheist is standing on sinking sand.
The general government has No Power period respecting or trying to control an establishment of religion or its free exercise. The Constitution found religion to be Independent and an establishment of religion and it’s Free exercise was to be under the direction and discipline of the state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
Religion stands Independent from the Powers of our Constitution. Our Constitution did not put religion or the free exercise thereof in chains and bondage. It did not separate the Independent Powers of religion from its body. Instead, our Constitution acknowledges the Independent Power of religion or God by ending the oath of Presidency with the words, “So HELP me God”.
No one can now stand on the grounds of the Constitution to support their cause to remove Gods Name out of our country. Our Constitution is Holy Ground.
Our Federal or general government Supreme Court Justices can not make any judgements concerning religions Independence. They can not even judge to take “So help me God” out of the oath of Presidency because the Constitution itself orders all Presidents to forever take the oath of office ending with “So HELP me GOD”. You see–even our Constitution believes in Gods Divine Guidence in order to form a Divine Providence for the general good. Our Constitution says that there are no religious tests to become President of the United States. One just has to ask for help from God –Guess an atheist is out of luck to become the President of the United States of America–They say there is no God! But you see, even our Constitution acknowledges that there is a God who can help clean up our general government.
Linda is correct and I believe Mr. Newdow would have been in danger of being tar and feathered had he tried to waste the time and patience of a legal court of the early Judiciary body of the founding fathers.
My disdain is not personally a focus against Mr. Newdow but rather a critical look at the current Judicial system.
The moral high-ground of what truth “is”, has been given away because of confused church-members appointed to the “Supreme Court Of The United States.
The plain truth of our republic’s existence rest on the covenant, that Judges interpret original intent of the Law (constitution).
It is time to hold accountable those Judges and their opinions which rule from the bench instead of interpreting the founding fathers intent.
No wonder the “Health Care Bill” gets all the attention, there are no Judges willing to stand for the rule of real law of a republic “The Constitution.”
All lawyers today are being taught that “It’s time has come” a statement commending forced arbitration upon the citizenry although every judge knows better.
Is economic advance more important to our republic, or has it come this far because of our republic?
This atheist just opened up a can of worms that is going to forever eat up his wants to an atheisim form of government that says ‘There is no god’ to govern the people or the laws of our land.
Had it not been for this article I would never have realized how well our forefathers forever set up a Christian Nation for all future generations of people through its oaths of faithfullness ending in ‘So HELP ME God’. There are no religious tests involved. One must only reliaze that God is the Supreme Governor, Ruler of the Universe, or Supreme Judge over all matters of government.
The Judicial Oath, for all Federal Judges and Justices:
I,______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So HELP ME God.
Oath for all Federal Employees:
I,_______do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegience to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of envasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties fo the office on which I am about to enter. So HELP ME God.
Oath for the Armed Services–SAME AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES—SO HELP ME GOD.
Looks like we are indeed a Christian Nation and also a form of government who faithfully trusts and believes in God helpin every aspect of this government.
Our Federal government is Holy Ground? Every person runing or working in this government has to say—SO HELP ME GOD!!!!
Should prayer be taken out of school—If our SUPREME COURT JUSTICES have to say SO HELP ME God why can’t our kids?????? Taking prayer out of schools is unconstitutional. So HELP ME GOD–put prayer back in our schools. So HELP ME God to put Judge Moores Ten Commandment Monument back where it belongs–back at the courthouse. These Judges has to swear So HELP ME God–God didn’t remove that monument —You SUPREME JUDGES DID who swore when you took the oath–SO HELP ME GOD. Did they pray before they voted to remove Gods Word from the courthouse?Did these Supreme Judges let God help them with that decision to remove His words from the publics eyes? Did they judge Righteously for our country?
I think I am on to something here—-There is no place for Atheism here in America because according to all these oaths of office–God is real–and we know that all we have to do is say so HELP ME GOD and He will!!
Can Obama under justice with the advisors who have directed this show; “Must the show go on?”
If we don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. READ THIS BOOK!!
Anno Domini 2000 – A Woman’s Destiny (1889) is usually regarded as New Zealand’s first science fiction novel. It was written by former Prime Minister of New Zealand Sir Julius Vogel.