must silence pledge uncertainty
has standing to bring case to high court
week, a California atheist argued to the Supreme Court
that the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance
in his daughters public school classroom is unconstitutional.
In question is one of the biggest church-state issues
the high court will face this year.
This editorial board is split on the constitutionality
of the pledge, but it firmly believes the Supreme Court
should not sidestep the issue by ruling that Michael
Newdow, the plaintiff, does not have standing to bring
the lawsuit in his behalf or his daughters. This
excuse not only allows an important social issue to
allude confrontation, it is also false.
Newdow may not have complete custody of his daughter,
but he is still her father. He, like any other parent
would be, is upset that every morning at school his
daughter, by being encouraged to recite the words under
God in the pledge, is told her father is wrong.
To bring the lawsuit, Newdow must prove he is personally
affected by the law. We believe that meets that standard.
Newdows argument is not just about his religious
beliefs but about societal beliefs as well. From definitions
of what God is to the logistics of prayer,
these religious issues require government finality.
We are a nation with liberty and justice for all, but
not all of us want to be under God.
This is an important issue, and the line between church
and state must be distinguishable so it is clear what
exactly is constitutional. Avoiding the issue only invites
further confusion. The nine justices of the high court
must rule on this issue.
the Supreme Court were to dismiss the case because Newdow
doesnt have standing, it would only invite a similar
case to the court, under a new name.