Search
Share & Follow Religion News Blog
Remember These Stories?
Atheist Seeks End to Hill Chaplaincies
Plaintiff Who Oppposed ‘Under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance Files New Suit
Washington Post, Aug. 30, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
By Jim VandeHei
The California atheist who sued to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to kick the House and Senate chaplains out of Congress.
Michael A. Newdow, a lawyer and emergency room doctor, this week filed suit in federal district court in Washington contending that it is unconstitutional for taxpayer-funded chaplains to pray in Congress and minister to lawmakers. He wants the court to prohibit the House and Senate from employing spiritual chaplains, who are paid by Congress to lead prayers, counsel members and perform other religious tasks. Chaplains make as much as $147,000 per year.
“If congressmen want to go to church, [then] walk down the block like other Americans do and go to church,” Newdow said in an interview yesterday. “Don’t get my government engaged in it. There are some people who don’t love God Almighty. That’s why we have an Establishment Clause,” the constitutional ban on government establishment of an official religion .
Newdow named the entire Congress and James M. Eagen III, chief administrator of Congress, as defendants.
“The Supreme Court has thoroughly examined the history of the congressional chaplaincies and determined they are completely consistent with the Constitution,” said Morgan Frankel, deputy Senate legal counsel. “We anticipate the same result in this case.”
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) lambasted the case as another attack on religious liberty.
“The Capitol is the people’s house,” Lott said, “and I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans who send their senators and members of Congress to Washington to represent them, are comforted by the fact that our chaplains lead us in seeking guidance from a superior power, as we are called upon to make decisions. We should not look upon this as a frivolous case but as another attack on religious liberty.”
While Senate lawyers expressed confidence the court will rule against him, Newdow has beaten the odds before. He successfully argued that the phrase “one nation, under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the separation church and state clause. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier this year ruled the phrase unconstitutional, although the Justice Department and others have appealed the decision. Many legal experts predict the ruling will be overturned, perhaps by the Supreme Court sometime next year.
Either way, Newdow is on a crusade to take God out of government. He wants the words “In God We Trust” off money, presidents to quit talking about God at their inaugurations, and members of Congress to be prohibited from offering resolutions in the House and Senate talking about God.
In his case against Congress, Newdow faces a huge obstacle, lawyers say. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 in Marsh v. Chambers that it is not a violation of the Establishment Clause to have paid legislative chaplains. Congress has had paid chaplains since 1789.
Newdow contends the Marsh ruling was flawed and that many subsequent court rulings support his claim. In his filing, he says the “Court has {ndash} since 1983 {ndash} provided statements that directly conflict with the holding in Marsh,” including one in 2000 concluding that “the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer.”
Newdow, who says he “absolutely denies the existence of any Supreme Being,” claims he applied for the jobs of House and Senate chaplains, and was passed over.
Bookmark, Share, or Email This Page
Read Another Article
|
Related News Articles
Topic(s): 
Subscribe to Religion News Blog updates
Find Related Information
Find Related 
Possibly related... or Most Popular Religion News Articles
Search Religion News Blog