Atheist Newdow gave a memorable performance

[BeyondGeography]

Atheist Presents Case for Taking God From Pledge

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
NEW YORK TIMES
Published: March 25, 2004

ASHINGTON, March 24 — Michael A. Newdow stood before the justices of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, pointed to one of the courtroom's two American flags and declared: "I am an atheist. I don't believe in God."

With passion and precision, he then proceeded to argue his own case for why the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in his daughter's public school classroom violates the Constitution as long as the pledge contains the words "under God."

Dr. Newdow, a nonpracticing lawyer who makes his living as an emergency room doctor, may not win his case. In fact, justices across the ideological spectrum appeared to be searching for reasons he should lose, either on jurisdictional grounds or on the merits. But no one who managed to get a seat in the courtroom is likely ever to forget his spell-binding performance.

That includes the justices, whom Dr. Newdow engaged in repartee that, while never disrespectful, bore a closer resemblance to dinner-table one-upmanship than to formal courtroom discourse. For example, when Dr. Newdow described "under God" as a divisive addition to the pledge, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist asked him what the vote in Congress had been 50 years ago when the phrase was inserted.

The vote was unanimous, Dr. Newdow said.

"Well, that doesn't sound divisive," the chief justice observed.

Dr. Newdow shot back, "That's only because no atheist can get elected to public office."

The courtroom audience broke into applause, an exceedingly rare event that left the chief justice temporarily nonplussed. He appeared to collect himself for a moment, and then sternly warned the audience that the courtroom would be cleared "if there's any more clapping."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/politics/25SCOT.html?pagewanted=1&hp

[TahitiNut]

1. On at least one point, Newdow blew it, imho.

The Court focused on the notion that students can choose not to recite the Pledge. Yet, in Lee v. Wiseman, the Court had ruled that students were coerced at a graduation ceremony where a prayer was included. When Newdow cited Lee v. Wiseman, O'Connor (and Kennedy) kept emphasizing the notion that case was about a prayer and that the Pledge isn't a prayer.

That's where Newdow blew it, imho.

His immediate response should have been that, to an atheist, there's no such thing as a prayer. Thus, if it makes such a distinction, the Court itself is employing a faith-based test. In effect, the Court commits the fallacy of an assumed conclusion in making any such distinction. They stacked the deck. (It's an error in fact.)


(The NYTimes has published some transcript excerpts here.)