The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest
 

Vol: 33 Issue: 15 - Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Supremes Hand God a Pyrrhic Victory
by Jack Kinsella

California atheist Michael Newdow had his case against God thrown out by
the United States Supreme Court. But it was at best a Pyrrhic victory (one
not worth winning) for the Constitutionality of God, since the case was
never decided on its merits, but was instead thrown out on a technicality.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to
hear Newdow's case in the first place. Newdow and Sandra Banning (never
married) had a child together. Then Banning became a Christian and the
relationship ended.

Banning was awarded custody of their child. From his public statements and
court records, it is pretty obvious that it was this custody issue that
was really behind Newdow's lawsuit to have the Pledge amended to remove
references to God.

Newdow claimed that such references were 'poisoning his daughter's mind'
and, incredibly, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. I say
'incredibly' because the child in question was being raised a Christian.

It isn't like the kid was a Muslim, or an atheist or a Buddhist or
something. Logic would dictate that she hears a lot more about God at home
and in church than the single, generic, reference to God in the Pledge.

So the 'poisoning her mind' argument is so transparently obvious that it
boggles the mind. But the 9th Circuit Court heard the case anyway. Let's
summarize the case as those justices understood it.

Michael Newdow is the child's biological father. The child's mother has
full custody. According to the custody order, Banning has the final say
over their daughter's education. Banning filed a brief with the court
saying she was being educated according to her wishes and that she wanted
her daughter to recite the Pledge without amendment. Banning teaches her
daughter every day that America is a nation under God.

Newdow claims that the reference to God was forcing religion on his
biological daughter, over whom he admitted he had no custodial standing.
Newdow admitted that his daughter was being raised by a Christian as a
Christian, in accordance with the custody order.

Knowing that Newdow had no legal standing to bring the lawsuit, having
heard that the child was being raised in accordance with the custody
order, and hearing that the child was a Christian, the 9th Circuit Court
not only heard the case, but decided in favor of Newdow.

The effect of the 9th Circuit's decision was to make it illegal to say the
Pledge of Allegiance in its district, which covers most of the Western
United States.

So, when the case reached the Supreme Court, they threw it out because it
never should have been heard in the first place.

Assessment:

A US Newswire release describes the Supreme Court's decision as, "Supreme
Court Upholds 'Under God' in Pledge of Allegiance".

The New York Daily News' headline hopefully proclaimed, "The Pledge is
Safe".

The San Francisco Chronicle came the closest to getting it right in its
headline; "High Court Rules Dad Can't Sue -- Under God Stays".

Despite all the cheering, there really is no victory to be found here. The
Supreme Court didn't hear the case, so that means that the issue is still
unresolved.

While Newdow's own case is dead, Newdow told CNN yesterday, "There's no
problem in bringing the case right back. I have numerous people who have
expressed a willingness to be plaintiffs, so it's just going to go right
back."

To get it right, the Chronicle's headline should have read "High Court
Rules Dad Can't Sue" and then left it at that. This is a much wider issue
than kids pledging allegiance. You'd think somebody would comment on THAT.

The United States Constitution makes America a Constitutional Republic.
What that means is that certain inalienable rights are endowed by the
Creator and not the government.

And what the Creator has given, the government cannot take away. That is
the most basic American fundamental. It was deliberately thought out as a
measure to limit the government's authority.

The Constitutional guarantees formed the basis for Newdow's challenge in
the first place. One of those 'unalienable rights' is the right to seek
justice. So, under the Constitution, Newdow challenged the existence of
God, which brought him to the steps of the Supreme Court, who refused to
hear it.

Had the Court heard this case, they would have been ruling specifically on
the Constitutionality of God. Not on the Constitutionality of
Christianity, or Judaism, but on whether or not it is Constitutional to
acknowledge America a nation under God.

What if Newdow HAD been heard, and worse, what if he had won? If it is
ruled unconstitutional to acknowledge God as the Author of our liberties,
then our liberties HAVE no Author, and the Constitution itself is
vulnerable to legal challenge.

One can't very well have a Constitution that guarantees basic individual
liberty based on the authority granted by a legally-defined myth, can one?

God is not merely a part of American life, He is its Guarantor -- the
Constitution crumbles without His Hand on it. Remove the Guarantor, and
who is left to guarantee? The government?

That's EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers constructed the Constitution under
the Authority of God. To keep our freedoms outside the review of
government.

To this point, the courts have whittled God down to where it is a crime to
identify Him via the Bible, but it is not yet a crime to acknowledge His
protection over America.

The President closes almost every speech with 'God bless America' -- the
Supreme Court itself opens its sessions with the invocation, "God save
this honorable Court and God Bless the United States".

But should Newdow and his gang be successful in having God declared
unconstitutional and that 'pledging one nation under God' is illegal, it
is only a matter of time before somebody challenges the Constitutionality
of the Constitution itself.

The Bible makes no mention of America in Bible prophecy. Maybe because
without God, there's no America to mention.

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
convenient; Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such
things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in
them that do them." (Romans 1:28,32)