the boisi center interviews no. 3: October 18, 2006

michael newdow is a lawyer, physician and First Amendment activist whose legal challenge to the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance reached the Supreme Court in 2004. He spoke with Boisi Center associate director Erik Owens before participating in a panel on religious freedom and the pledge of allegiance.

owens: What do you think is the owens: Do you think it’s appropriate to say what is a correct religious view. That’s function of a pledge of allegiance—not use the pledge in naturalization cere- my objection to the words “under God” just the American version, but a pledge of monies or VFW meetings or other such appearing in the pledge. allegiance as such? gatherings? owens: Was your legal challenge to the newdow: The function of a pledge, I school policy of the pledge or was it to the think, is to get people to respect their pledge as such? form of government. Now, I’m not a big newdow: The challenge was to the pledger; I’m not into group-speak. But I pledge as such—to the idea that the accept the fact that we have a pledge, and government of the United States essen- I have no objections to it except for the tially says there is a God. If you say we two words “under God.” are “under God,” it implies there’s a God. owens: It seems to me that this pledge Because I’m an atheist, that turns me is a form of civic education to conform into a second-class citizen, and it perpet- people’s ideas of what America ought uates the animus against atheists that I to be or what we are as citizens. Beyond think is pretty pervasive. And it needs to the words that are there, does the pledge change. I’m a citizen of this state and of point to a certain mode of citizenship in this country, and I go to civic gatherings your mind—a particular vision of Amer- where they say the pledge—for instance, ica— or is this nation so diverse that you school board meetings. If I want to run can’t say that? for public office, I can’t win, because the government is essentially telling people newdow: I think the words stand newdow: In any private meeting, not to vote for me. And I have a daughter for noble ideas that few people would there’s no problem whatsoever, because in school, and I want to know she’s not be against. The pledge’s purpose was individuals can do whatever they want. being indoctrinated with religion there. to unify us, to make us think that this There are two questions here. One is my nation has some especially noble and personal view on pledging, and the other owens: So your arguments against the good qualities that we defend. What I is the constitutional issue. The latter is words “under God” don’t only rest on the don’t like about this is that it implies that all I’m trying to argue. Constitutionally, I coercion test? other countries aren’t as good as ours. I think the government can ask its citizens newdow: There are several establish- think our form of government may well to affirm any values that the majority ment clause tests, and as far as I’m con- be the best, but it doesn’t follow that we chooses, except those that are prohibited cerned, no matter which one you apply, as Americans are superior to citizens of by the Constitution. There’s really one the words would have to be removed other nations. that matters more than any and that’s re- from the pledge. The argument that is ligion. The government is not allowed to used regarding public schools is usually

1 the boisi center interview: michael newdow the coercion test, which is actually an are either the people who want it there cases are clear violations of the principles extreme test. Coercion is about the free because it’s religious or the people who I’m emphasizing. exercise realm of the religion clauses, and don’t want it there because it’s religious. owens: In your opinion, are there any the Supreme Court has stated clearly that Either way, it sounds religious to me. So tolerable examples of government speech this is an establishment clause violation. get it out of there. or action that mention God—for exam- I think it is coercive, especially with little owens: You’ve filed a lawsuit trying to ple, military chaplains, prison chaplains, kids. There’s no question; by that test, it strike the national motto—In God We holiday displays on public properties? fails. But it also fails by any other test. Trust—from our currency for the same newdow: I don’t want the govern- owens: There is no question that the reason, that it violates the establishment ment to be forbidden from talking about phrase “under God” is religious. But a lot clause. Can you differentiate that case religion, or anything like that. But I’m of people have argued that this is cere- from the pledge case? against religious holiday displays on monial deism and therefore, because it’s public properties, because when this ceremonial, it’s not religious beliefs, let happens, the government is taking a side alone a requirement to affirm religious in the biggest controversy of religious beliefs. Can you comment on this idea dogma: whether or not God exists. It’s and on the argumentative posture reli- “It’s an issue of saying, yes, God does exist. gious people assume when they say this? equality. No one I have no problem with supplying chap- newdow: Why do religious people lains in the military, because I don’t have make this argument? It’s an issue of is asking for a problem with giving military members equality. No one is asking for special the option to have spiritual assistance. favors for atheists; we’re simply asking special favors for However, the fact that Congress has to be treated equally. That’s why we have atheists; we’re official chaplains seems a little bizarre to an establishment clause, and this claim me. about ceremonial deism shows that we simply asking need it. If you look at what Congress said owens: Would teaching about religion in 1954, there was nothing about it being to be treated in schools be acceptable to you? ceremonial. They were talking about newdow: Absolutely. But only if it’s believing in the Christian God. Maybe equally. That’s from a neutral standpoint, to explain you could stretch it to the Judeo-Chris- why we have an what the different religions are. Teachers tian God, but it certainly was a particular shouldn’t be claiming that Jesus is good view of God. The appeal to the founding establishment or Buddhism is wonderful. fathers and their dedication to the Al- mighty is not historically accurate. This clause.” owens: Do you think we have the tools isn’t ceremonial; it is religious belief in a we need to deal with church-state rela- supreme being, and that’s what every- tions in the United States today? body had in mind until it got challenged. newdow: I think we need to read the Then all of sudden, they come up with newdow: One difference is that reli- Constitution. The public can talk about these bogus excuses. gious people ought to be against having anything it chooses in terms of religion. the motto on currency. A minister of a owens: One of the other arguments is That’s a free exercise question. But the church might say, “I can’t collect money that perhaps “under God” was religious government is not the public square; gov- in my church because we refuse to take in that context, but no one believes it ernment is forbidden to take a position. money that says In God we Trust. It’s anymore. So it doesn’t really matter; That needs to be crystal-clear. sacrilege.” But the biggest difference is there’s no harm given by this “religious” that there is no context in which you are owens: A common reaction to your expression. How do you respond to that? required to read money out loud, whereas pledge lawsuit is that you are trying to newdow: I think Justice Souter made you actually stand up and affirmatively take away the right of a majority of Amer- that argument, and I’m not sure even he voice the pledge, which includes the icans to express their religious beliefs. believed it. He may have just been posing statement that we are a nation under newdow: If you can find a single the question. The fact is, the phrase God. You can opt out of doing this, but sentence where I’ve suggested that any “under God” bothers some people. The that’s not the issue. In the end, both individual or group is forbidden from ex- people for whom it is not meaningless

2 the boisi center interview: michael newdow ercising its religious beliefs, I hope you’ll point it out. And I don’t want the pledge to deny that God exists. That would be just as wrong as saying “one nation, under God.” I’m asking for “one nation, indivisible,” which is what we had before. owens: This issue exemplifies the challenge of protecting minority rights against the wishes of a majority. This has been a constant challenge in American history. Do you think any other country provides a model we could follow? newdow: Well, I’m not an authority on other nations, though I know about France and Canada and England. But I actually think ours is a perfect model—it owens: What was it like to argue for just needs to be adhered to. If you ask your religious freedom before the Su- Americans whether they want “under preme Court? God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, 90% may say yes, but if you ask whether peo- newdow: I did 11 moot courts to ple think the government should treat all practice before I argued the case before religious views equally, I think you’d get the Supreme Court, and I had only had close to 100%. And when we point that one oral argument before that in my life. out that we’re not treating people equally So the Supreme Court actually felt like when government takes a position, lots of another moot court, just with bigger people say oh, I see it now, I’m with you. chairs and older judges. For a moment it Some Christian and Jewish clergy are was intimidating, but then I got into my on my side in this because they under- argument, into the issue, and I quickly stand that it’s not about belief or disbelief forgot who I was talking to. in God. It’s about belief or disbelief in [end] equality. owens: My last two questions are more personal. How do your own religious The Boisi Center for beliefs, or non-religious beliefs, influence Religion and American your arguments? Public Life newdow: Politically and legally, my Boston College beliefs don’t influence my arguments 24 Quincy Road at all. I argue not as an atheist, but as a Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 citizen. But once it gets out that I’m an atheist...well, let’s just say there’s preju- tel 617-552-1860 dice against atheists in this society. And in terms of voting, half the population fax 617-552-1863 still refuses to vote for an atheist. I think [email protected] that is a reflection of the fact that the Visit bc.edu/boisi-resources government keeps reinforcing religion for a complete set of the boisicenter with things like the national motto and Boisi Center Interviews and the pledge. audio, video, photographs, @boisi_center and transcripts from our events.

3 the boisi center interview: michael newdow