If I were a Supreme Court Justice

The following italicized questions are being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

1) Whether the policy of Petitioner ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words “under God,” violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?

If I were a justice on the high court, this is how I’d reply: There are two important parts to this question. First, should the teachers lead willing students. The Court already agreed in 1935 that unwilling students couldn’t be forced to recite the pledge. No one was forcing Michael Newdow’s daughter to recite the pledge at Elk Grove School.

Second, the First amendment prohibits the establishment of religion, in modern language, they didn’t want to endorse any one Christian denomination. Government is prevented from establishing religion, not from recognizing that there is an unnamed, undefined supreme being of some sort.

That’s why the ACLU helped the Lutheran single mother from Minnesota who sued a public school in Mississippi that required her children to participate in prayers and religion classes led by Southern Baptists. Mormons would lead prayers in Utah, Unitarians in Vermont, Catholics in Boston, Jews or Moslems in New York, perhaps Branch Dividians in Idaho. Faith is something that should be handled in the home or the Church, not by government agencies like public schools.

The Pledge is a public creed. It reminds us what our flag represents, freedom, justice, and unity. Even Michael Newdow seems to agree with the rest of the values and sentiments it contains, otherwise why would he call the movement to have the words “under God,” removed an effort to “restore” the pledge?

2) Whether a non-custodial parent of a minor child has standing in federal court to challenge the policies of a public school district … when the non- custodial parent does not have legal authority to direct either the education or the religious education of the child?

In my opinion, No. Michael Newdow does not have custody of his daughter. As a matter of fact, she is not an atheist like her father. What’s more, her mother, Sandra Banning and Newdow aren’t divorced, they were never even married.

A petition to disbar Michael Newdow was filed in Northern California for “misusing his authority as a member of the State Bar of California by filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits, violating the rules of professional conduct and lying to the courts under oath”.

Oddly enough, Dr. Rev. Michael Newdow is actually an “ordained minister.” In 1977, he received “ordination” by the Universal Life Church, whose sole teaching is “Do what’s right.” You can be ordained too. If you go to their web site, fill out the ordination form, a pop-up ad instantly presents a credential for you to print out and begin using to conduct weddings and funerals for whoever will pay you.

In 1997, he started his own religion, the First Amendmist Church of True Science (FACTS). This “religion” claims that there is no god, and it’s sole purpose is advocating the separation of Church and State.

How sad if 265 million Americans have to forfeit two words from our Pledge of Allegiance because one man is bitter that he can’t control the child he sired outside of marriage.

3) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing
students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words “under
God,” violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as
applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment.
I assume this refers to the due process clause:

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

I assume Newdow thinks that the state or school district can’t require teachers to lead Pledge recital if, in his mind, the Federal Constitution prohibits it as a form of respecting or establishing a religion. Which religion? Agnostics concede the possible existence of a god, but don’t worship on as members of a religion. What if as a public school teacher, I wanted to hang up “Passion of the Christ” movie posters or listen to Christian rock CDs in my classroom?

Shouldn’t I be allowed to do that since the First Amendment also says that the government can not have any laws or policies that prohibit the free exercise of religion? Student’s wouldn’t have to pay attention to it any more than I have to notice the things they wear and listen to even if they’re Satanic, occult, sexually suggestive, or promoting drugs or alcohol?

The great comedian Red Skelton had no idea what a prophet he was when he said “Wouldn’t it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?”