Post by Maverick on Mar 29, 2004 22:17:32 GMT -5
Atheist's speech at UT is delayed by bomb threat
Man wants 'God' out of Pledge
Click here to read the article on the original site
"BY DALE EMCH
BLADE STAFF WRITER
A bomb threat yesterday at the University of Toledo delayed a speech by a California man who argued Wednesday in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to have school children say "under God" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The incident was the latest controversy involving Dr. Michael Newdow since he ignited nationwide religious debate two years ago when he won his case in a California-based federal appeals court. Though he's received many caustic messages on his home answering machine, the bomb threat at UT's law school was a first.
"I'm not sure [the bomb threat] was in my honor, but I assume it was," Dr. Newdow, an atheist, said after his speech. The talk was part of a lecture series that brings attorneys to the UT law school within a day or two of appearing before the nation's high court.
After UT police brought in bomb-sniffing dogs to sweep the auditorium and pronounced it clear, Dr. Newdow told an audience of about 350 people about what it was like to argue to the most powerful judges in the country.
The emergency-room physician with a law degree shared his views about why a policy of having school children pledge allegiance to a nation "under God" violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
"This Constitution was made for everyone, and I'm one of those people," said Dr. Newdow, who brought the suit on behalf of himself and his 9-year-old daughter against the Elk Grove Unified School District in Sacramento County. In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California sided with him, ruling that having children espouse America as a nation under God coerces them to participate in a religious statement.
"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation under Jesus, a nation under Vishnu, a nation under Zeus, or a nation under no God, because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," its opinion stated.
The 9th Circuit's ruling, which it placed on hold pending appeal, affects nine western states. The Supreme Court could overturn that decision or find that it is unconstitutional to include "under God" in the Pledge when it is recited in schools.
In relatively recent Establishment Clause cases, the high court has said it's unconstitutional to recite prayers at school graduations, even if they're nondenominational. Student-led prayers over loudspeakers at football games and the display of certain religious symbols at a public building such as a nativity scene, were also deemed unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court, which opens its sessions with a court employee proclaiming "God save this honorable court," has upheld the opening of the Nebraska state legislature with a prayer because, in part, it was a historical practice.
Dr. Newdow told his audience of students and the public, that he thinks the law is on his side and he'll "be astounded if they don't rule in my favor."
Not everyone in the audience shared his sentiments. Sherry Bowling of Swanton told him he was trying to impose his views on people of faith.
"If you don't love [America], leave it, " she said in a brief exchange.
Kimberly Mossoney, a UT law student and a member of the Christian Legal Society, said she thought it was interesting to have him share his views at the school even if she doesn't agree.
"For me, it's more of a tradition that I've known since I've been young," Ms. Mossoney said before Dr. Newdow spoke.
The words "under God" were added by Congress in 1954 to help distinguish America from communist countries during the Cold War. Dr. Newdow told the audience that the Pledge served the country well for decades before "under God" was inserted and he's just asking for a return to the original version.
Though he's taken heat in the emotional fight, he's committed to church-state separation.
"If you think you're right and you think you're doing something that's good, you take solace in that," Dr. Newdow told The Blade. "It doesn't matter how many people tell you otherwise."
Contact Dale Emch at:
daleemch@theblade.com
or 419-724-6061."
Man wants 'God' out of Pledge
Click here to read the article on the original site
"BY DALE EMCH
BLADE STAFF WRITER
A bomb threat yesterday at the University of Toledo delayed a speech by a California man who argued Wednesday in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to have school children say "under God" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The incident was the latest controversy involving Dr. Michael Newdow since he ignited nationwide religious debate two years ago when he won his case in a California-based federal appeals court. Though he's received many caustic messages on his home answering machine, the bomb threat at UT's law school was a first.
"I'm not sure [the bomb threat] was in my honor, but I assume it was," Dr. Newdow, an atheist, said after his speech. The talk was part of a lecture series that brings attorneys to the UT law school within a day or two of appearing before the nation's high court.
After UT police brought in bomb-sniffing dogs to sweep the auditorium and pronounced it clear, Dr. Newdow told an audience of about 350 people about what it was like to argue to the most powerful judges in the country.
The emergency-room physician with a law degree shared his views about why a policy of having school children pledge allegiance to a nation "under God" violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
"This Constitution was made for everyone, and I'm one of those people," said Dr. Newdow, who brought the suit on behalf of himself and his 9-year-old daughter against the Elk Grove Unified School District in Sacramento County. In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California sided with him, ruling that having children espouse America as a nation under God coerces them to participate in a religious statement.
"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation under Jesus, a nation under Vishnu, a nation under Zeus, or a nation under no God, because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," its opinion stated.
The 9th Circuit's ruling, which it placed on hold pending appeal, affects nine western states. The Supreme Court could overturn that decision or find that it is unconstitutional to include "under God" in the Pledge when it is recited in schools.
In relatively recent Establishment Clause cases, the high court has said it's unconstitutional to recite prayers at school graduations, even if they're nondenominational. Student-led prayers over loudspeakers at football games and the display of certain religious symbols at a public building such as a nativity scene, were also deemed unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court, which opens its sessions with a court employee proclaiming "God save this honorable court," has upheld the opening of the Nebraska state legislature with a prayer because, in part, it was a historical practice.
Dr. Newdow told his audience of students and the public, that he thinks the law is on his side and he'll "be astounded if they don't rule in my favor."
Not everyone in the audience shared his sentiments. Sherry Bowling of Swanton told him he was trying to impose his views on people of faith.
"If you don't love [America], leave it, " she said in a brief exchange.
Kimberly Mossoney, a UT law student and a member of the Christian Legal Society, said she thought it was interesting to have him share his views at the school even if she doesn't agree.
"For me, it's more of a tradition that I've known since I've been young," Ms. Mossoney said before Dr. Newdow spoke.
The words "under God" were added by Congress in 1954 to help distinguish America from communist countries during the Cold War. Dr. Newdow told the audience that the Pledge served the country well for decades before "under God" was inserted and he's just asking for a return to the original version.
Though he's taken heat in the emotional fight, he's committed to church-state separation.
"If you think you're right and you think you're doing something that's good, you take solace in that," Dr. Newdow told The Blade. "It doesn't matter how many people tell you otherwise."
Contact Dale Emch at:
daleemch@theblade.com
or 419-724-6061."