Tyranny
of the Minority: Newdows Methods Threaten Far More than the
Pledge of Allegiance
By
Erin Murphy
The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit drew criticism from both
ends of the spectrum last year when it ruled that the words "under
God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional. Even
Congress managed to unite on the issue, and most Americans anxiously
anticipate an overruling next year when the case is decided by the
Supreme Court. But more troubling than the possibility of the High
Court declaring us a Godless nation is the legitimacy such a ruling
would grant to the Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow, who brought the case.
Attorney,
former emergency room doctor and founder of the atheist First Amendmist
Church of True Science, Newdow has pledged to pursue his cause until
every mention of religion is removed from every nook and cranny
of government. Even this will not satisfy the ambitions of Newdow,
though, who has also adopted a personal crusade to redefine family
law to favor parents rights over childrens interests.
As disturbing as Newdows goals may be, they are no match for
the insult embodied in his idiosyncratic disregard for the culture,
traditions and rights of his fellow citizens.
Throughout
proceedings for custody of his daughter, Newdow maintained that
her mother (his girlfriend at the time) date raped him on the camping
trip during which the child was conceived apparently she
knew he didnt love her but "forced" him to have
sex with her anyway. Notwithstanding the obvious legal miscalculation
Newdow demonstrated in thinking such a bizarre argument would help
him gain custody, his conceit demonstrates his utter inability to
think beyond himself.
Aside
from denigrating his child and her mother, Newdows casual
representation of date rape is an affront to those who have experienced
the true meaning of the term. He is willing to take a dehumanizing
and often violent crime that women fought for decades to legitimize
and cavalierly affix it to his own inability to say no. But his
incapacity to understand that law has implications beyond his own
life allows him to conveniently ignore the harm that watering down
date rape law would cause to those in society whom it truly secures.
Newdow
demonstrates the same lack of respect in his crusade against the
family courts authority to declare custodial rights. He ardently
asserts that he has always had full custody of his daughter merely
by virtue of being her father; stirring, but unconvincing to a family
law judge. Newdows answer? The family law system is not only
unconstitutional, but also misguided in its overemphasis on the
childs best interests. Its not about the child; its
about his "constitutional right" to be with his
child, regardless of the courts and mothers insistence
that other arrangements are now in his daughters best interests.
He doesnt stop there. Family court is also somehow to blame
for the deterioration of his relationship with the childs
mother (surely accusing her of date rape and noting "under
protest" on all his child support checks played no part in
that).
Newdow
is unable to see the utility of the custody system since he advocates
its destruction based on the very root of its existence: to protect
children from that minority of parents who are incapable of placing
their childrens interests before their own. True, Newdow may
not be physically endangering his child; he undoubtedly believes
he is not endangering her at all. But the system exists to protect
against the dangers such self-centeredness poses, and his crusade
to destroy that system is a threat to the children whom it exists
to protect.
This
is precisely why the judges refusal to grant Newdow fully
equal custody rights gives so little pause, and further, why so
many are disturbed by his use of his daughter to gain standing in
his Pledge lawsuit. Newdow maintains that the suit has nothing to
do with his daughter and that he wanted to keep her anonymous
though filing on her behalf (the only real way he could achieve
standing) and repeatedly requesting that she witness his oral arguments
suggest otherwise. Yet when those opposed to Newdow argue that his
daughter is Christian and has no problem with the Pledge including
God, Newdow accuses them of using her to further their own cause
something he admits outright to doing himself.
Newdows
lawsuit has caused such turmoil because he represents the selfishness
of those who constantly expect law to conform to their own needs.
Protecting the rights of the minority is an important and legitimate
aim in our legal system because minority rights are as important
as not more important than majority rights. Newdow
maintains that his daughter is harmed by hearing other children
say "under God" every day, giving the impression that
her fathers beliefs are outside the mainstream. We can remove
God from every classroom, coin and courthouse in America and that
will not change the fact that, in this society, Newdows views
are outside the mainstream. Yet rather than face reality
and take responsibility for explaining this to his daughter, Newdow
turns to the law and demands that it hide this truth from her instead.
Newdows
litigious bug seems to know no limits, especially where religion
is concerned. Current lawsuits include efforts to ban congressional
chaplains (paid or unpaid) and prayers at the presidential inauguration
ceremony. Future targets include removal of the motto "In God
We Trust" from our money and patriotic songs such as "God
Bless America" from government property or government-sponsored
events. On his atheist rap album "Establi-Rap," Newdow
professes, "You know that its illegal from a governmental
perch; If you need your religion get your booty into church."
Thus, he sees no constitutional haven for a voter who considers
belief in God an important quality for a leader to possess or, for
that matter, the right of our nations leaders to seek Gods
assistance in the duties they must perform. Apparently the threat
posed to Newdows atheist sensitivities in the knowledge that
our leaders believe in a higher power far outweighs whatever small
comfort such knowledge may provide for the majority of the country.
Newdows
crusade against religion begs the question whether his true aim
is upholding the Constitution or rather redefining the Constitution
according to Newdow. Can the Constitution sustain such an attack
should Newdow succeed? After all, Americas very foundation
rests upon our founding fathers belief that all men are "endowed
by their Creator" with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. Once the "Creator" is out of the picture,
examining our roots cant help but leave Americans wondering
what exactly we have left.
Erin
Murphy is a student at Georgetown University Law Center and an intern
at the Center for Individual Freedom.
[Posted
December 18, 2003]
Return
to Current Events Index
|