Alternatives to Incarceration, Religion v Politics - Coursework Example

Religion v. Politics The war between religion and politics started the moment the U.S. legally accepted various kinds of religious groups as a way of promoting democracy. There are several cases in courts associated with this kind of war and this discourse is about the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. The daughter of Michael Newdow (an atheist) was a student in one of the public schools where reciting the Allegiance pledge was a must. The elementary school requires that students should began their day by voluntarily say Pledge of Allegiance, which comprise the words, “under God” which was an addition of the 1954 congressional act. Newdow decided to sue the federal district court in California, accusing the later of putting students in a situation of listening to the words “under God” hence violating the children’s right as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. However, the district court overlooked Newdow’s case based on the fact that Newdow and the mother of his daughter were divorced and he never had the custody. Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge made the verdict that the pledge was constitutional, this was backed by the district court and the complaint was dismissed. Newdow however, claimed that he was in a right position to sue the school both on behalf of her daughter and his own behalf as “next friend”. Later, The Ninth Circuit reversed the court’s verdict, lamenting that Newdow has a standing to challenge any practice interfering or compromising his childs’s religious education. Sandra Banning, Newdow’s former wife and the mother of the child in question filed a motion to interfere with Newdow’s allegation claiming that she was awarded exclusive legal custody by the State court order. Hence she felt Newdow should not take any interest of her daughter. U.S. Court of Appeals A panel of three judges unanimously agreed that Newdow had standing being a parent to challenge any practice that he felt compromised his daughter’s rights. The court thus reversed by the decision that was made on 26, June 2002 after 2-to-1 vote. The opinion of the majority was prepared by Judge Alfred Goodwin while the partial dissent was made by Judge Ferdinand Fernandez. The court applied some legal tests to ascertain whether in deed the inclusion of the words “under God” are constitutional. The test applied were the Lemon test, Endorsement Test as well as the Coercion test. Their findings were that the words violated the Establishment Clause. However, the findings never pleased the Public and the congress. They displayed their negative reaction when about 150 congress members stood in front of the court and recited the pledge shouting the words “under God”. The senate later confirmed a unanimous vote for the conflicting words to remain in the pledge. Following June’s opinion, Sandra Banning claimed that following their divorce with the daughter’s father, Michael Newdow, she was a warded exclusive custody of her daughter and the father should not take any interest of her daughter’s life. She also complained of her daughter being put in the middle of a public debate (Bishop, 2007). Banning also made it clear that her daughter was a Christian who had a very strong belief in God. She further claimed that her daughter was comfortable speaking or hearing the words,” Under God”. Banning also claimed that the court’s decision to exclude the words from the pledge would compromise the way her daughter will be perceived by other students. Claiming that it would tarnish her image as an atheist, just like the father. Banning, in writing declared that as the sole legal custodian of her daughter, it was in the daughter’s interest to be part of the father’s religious belief. The court later made an opinion baring Newdow from making any legal representation of her daughter. However, the judges, in unison concluded that the fact that Banning was the sole legal custodian of the daughter, this could not deprive Newdow being a noncustodial parent, according to article III of the California law, which allows Newdow to challenge any unconstitutional practice compromising the well being of her daughter. Furthermore, the article allows Newdow to expose any acceptable religious belief to his daughter despite the fact that it is against the mother’s. The judges concluded that Newdow had the right to challenge anything injuring her daughter. On the 28th day of February, 2003, the defendants sought for the case review. However, this was denied and an amended opinion offered instead. The amended opinion did not include the prior discussions with regard to Newdow’s standing to object the 1954 Act. The corrected opinion declined to prove whether the accuser was entitled to challenge the constitutional matters in the Act. On the 11th day of September, 2003, the Court awarded Newdow partial custody of the daughter in question, joint legal custody included. Some of the important quotations and legal statements important to the case include the fact that president Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the act to include the words ‘under God” in the pledge. The president further announced that from the day he signed the act, millions of school children in all corners of the nation will recite the pledge and this will show the nation’s and people’s dedication to the Supreme God. The Ninth Circuit also appreciates the words,” under God” to be a way of the U.S (Armstrong, 2011). to show their respect and appreciation to the Almighty God. And the idea came when the nation was publicly advocating against atheism and embracing Christianity. And as a matter fact, the federal government never challenged the act. The Supreme Court’s verdict. On the 24th day of March, 2004, The U.S. Supreme Court was ready to hear the case and consider two main issues regarding the case. First the court was to ascertain whether Newdow had a standing to represent legal matters concerning his daughter. On the 14th day of June, 2004, the Supreme Court, through five of the sitting justices ruled that Michael Newdow was a noncustodial and could not file the case regarding her child. o The court ruled that Newdow could not be his daughter’s “a next friend” now that Sandra Banning was awarded sole legal custody and that included the exclusive authority of her daughter’s education. The court also dismissed Newdow representing himself due to the previous custody verdicts by the state court. This means that the Ninth Circuit decision was reversed by the Supreme Court as the requirements of the procedural law. However, the three remaining judges challenged the reversing of the Ninth Circit verdict and they went further to study the case and later found that Newdow had a standing to challenge any injury to his daughter. The chief justice later wrote his opinion which was partly supported by the other two justices, however, each wrote his different opinion. The chief justice claimed that the words in the pledge appreciate the nation’s religious stands as the beliefs of the founding fathers. Justice Thomas on the other hand found the words unconstitutional. The court decision must have caused different reactions to different groups of citizens. U.S. is a democratic nation where freedom of religion is to everyone. The country has different religious groups and the words, “under God” must be unpleasant to some. The likes of Newdow (atheists) never appreciated the verdict but people like Sandra Banning (Christians) celebrated the verdict. However, the law that applies to all the religious groups was used to make the final verdict in the Supreme Court. Some judges did not accept the verdict, more so the three judges who lamented that the words were unconstitutional. Due to the above reactions, I believe some parents transferred their children to private schools where they do not have to recite the pledge. T The verdict must have compromised the working relationships of various politicians and even the judiciary members. Religion is a human factor that cuts on everyone, whether a judge or a senate member. For instance, some atheist judges and politicians must have distanced themselves from the Christian counterparts among other effects. The verdict must have also compromised the social unity among students and teachers among other individuals. Christian students seemed superior to other children from other religions and this must have compromised the social relationships among them. The verdict must have also compromised the child to parent relationship, for instance, Newdow must have distanced himself from the daughter, now that the daughter embraced the other religion. I think the law was right when the Supreme Court found it constitutionally right to recite the words, “under God” in the pledge. U.S. has a strong Christian root as claimed by the founding fathers. It will be a huge let down to those who found the nations if the current generation would decide to violate their beliefs. United States of America has a strong foundation in God and this can be seen in the national anthem, the loyalty pledge and the prayers recited in national function among others. I support the verdict fully and find it right for children to be allowed to recite the pledge before they begin their daily activities. However, I also consider the non-Christian children and suggest that they could join private schools where they do not have to recite the pledge (Weiler-Harwell, 2008). Furthermore, I find nothing wrong by just listening to the words, since the constitution is clear that the recite is voluntary. No one is forced to say the words. Children are to be brought up in upright ways and that include knowing God among other important norms. U.S. has a strong Christian foundation and this should never be violated just because of a few citizens who refuse to accept the existence of God in their lives. The atheist can conduct their activities in various worship avenues but they should never challenge the few Christian values in he national constitution. The fact is supported further by the fact that President Dwight acknowledged the words in the pledge and even praised the founding fathers for their beliefs in God. The federal courts never challenged the act; hence the current generation should learn to live with that. However, nobody should compromise anyone’s religious belief, since the law protects everyone in the country. To conclude, the war between religion and politics is tricky more so in the countries like the United States of America where democracy is the pillar of any constitutional affair. The law was used to make the verdict and I believe the complaint, Newdow must have accepted it and respect the words in the pledge. However, everyone should demonstrate his or her religious belief without compromising the next party but above all, the Americans must embrace the national unity despite any dividing factor. References Armstrong, T. (2011). Its OK To Say "God". New York: WestBow press. Bishop, R. (2007). Taking on the Pledge of Allegiance. New York: ProQuest press. Weiler-Harwell, N. (2008). Attacking Atheists: Doing Ones Duty to God and Country in 21st Century America. New York: ProQuest. Read More