Michael Neudow is at it again. As you may recall, last year, the California man went to court objecting to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance each morning in his son’s school, specifically because the Pledge includes the words “under God.” He asserted that the acknowledgment of God in public schools was unconstitutional, as violating the “separation of church and state.” His claim went all the way up to the Supreme Court; however, the Court declined to rule on the issue, saying instead that because it was Neudow’s ex-wife, and not Neudow, who had primary custody of his son, Neudow did not have the authority (standing, in lawyer-speak) to sue on behalf of him or his interests.
Neudow recently filed, and lost, another lawsuit in federal court, also involving religion. This time, he was asking the courts to block the planned recitation of a prayer at the opening of President Bush’s inauguration ceremony. Neudow, an atheist, again cites the requirement of the “separation of church and state” as the basis for his objections, and says the reading of the prayer forces other people’s religious beliefs upon him.
Though I do not generally like discussing my personal values when trying to logically argue a point, I think it is necessary in this context. Though I am extremely politically conservative, my views on religion cannot be attacked as a rant from the religious right. In fact, though I was raised Lutheran, I have concluded, in my adulthood, that I am agnostic. I am not an atheist – they assert that God does not exist – but rather I believe that the existence of a God cannot be proven nor disproven. I do not participate in organized religion at this time in my life. Therefore, I am not simply a Limbaugh-like Republican who is indignant that the country is moving more and more towards secularlism.
That disclaimer out of the way, I begin by pointing out that the term “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution, a fact obvious to law students but probably not apparent to some other Americans. Rather, the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These provisions, called the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, have been lumped into the lay term “separation of church and state,” but the Constitution does not require nor even consider that the two institutions never coincide. In fact, James Madison, who authored the Bill of Rights, brought the first chaplain into Congress; a chaplain opens Congress each morning with a prayer to this day.
With that background, I contend that the reading of a prayer at President Bush’s inauguration violates neither Constitutional clause. No law has been passed stating that all Americans must be Evangelical Christians, or that anyone must demonstrate their agreement with any particular religion, or that anyone is even required to watch the inauguration, or support the President’s choice of program. In fact, my understanding is that many protests are planned for the day of the event. Similarly, the reading of a prayer at the inauguration does not impede another American’s ability to exercise any religion of his choice. Mr. Neudow, on the other hand, went out of his way to gain himself a ticket to the inauguration, just so he would be able to assert that his rights were being violated by being subjected to the prayer.
If anything, Neudow’s proposed solution – that the prayer be banned from the inauguration – causes more Constitutional problems than it solves. President Bush is a government official, true, but he is, first and foremost, and American citizen, and his Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion cannot be taken away any more than anyone else’s. If a court were to rule that the minister could not open the inaugural ceremony with a prayer, could they stop President Bush from concluding all of his speeches, as he does, with “God Bless America?” No! A prohibition on regulating the content of speech is at the very heart of the Constitution, and cannot be abridged simply to ensure that everyone walks around with warm fuzzies.
Neudow is an atheist, and therefore, he argues that he is being discriminated against by the reading of a prayer at the inauguration of a United States government official. The irony of a claim of discrimination by a wealthy white male aside, Neudow has contended in interviews that he feels is being disenfranchised as an atheist just as black people were discriminated before the Supreme Court’s landmark Brown v. Board of Education case. I am baffled at how Mr. Neudow has the audacity to compare his lawsuit to the plight of a group of people who were denied access to restrooms, schools, jobs, voting rights, and certain seats on buses, just to name a few.
I will concede that it is possible that Neudow is genuinely offended at the sight of a Christmas tree on the White House lawn or a public school teacher wearing a necklace bearing the Star of David. Neudow’s legal problem, though, is that no one has a constitutional right not to be offended. I am offended by government employees every day, namely my professors, one of whom has professed aloud his view that “all Republicans are mentally deficient.” The answer, however, is not a federal lawsuit. The answer is to ignore it. And I would venture a guess that it is easier for Mr. Neudow to not watch Bush’s inauguration than for me to not hear my professors’ assertions while I am sitting in their class. However, I have decided to accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree all the time, and I go on with my life. The current hyper-sensitivity with not offending anyone and the out-of-control obsession with outward displays of political correctness, despite what we are thinking inside, is ridiculous.
Another problem with Neudow’s stated desire to remove any mention of God or religious values from any governmental functions is that his plight looks suspiciously like a campaign to establish atheism as a national “religion.” I have no more problem with atheists than I do with fundamentalist Christians – I know both – but I do note that the two groups have one thing in common – their fervent and genuine belief in the existence or nonexistence of God and a set of clearly established and deeply held values. If the federal courts or Congress were to dictate that God could not be mentioned in any government forum or by any government figure in his official capacity, this would be just as much of an endorsement of atheism as a similar law requiring an acknowledgment of God would be an endorsement of Christianity or Judaism.
Finally, as a practical matter, an absolute separation of church and state is impossible. Think of all of the accepted practices in our society that would have to be changed. The very fact that we do not work on Saturday or Sunday is a creature of the traditional Sabbath. Does Neudow object to not working on the weekend? (Ignore my doubts that Neudow works at all, given his seemingly limitless time to litigate these ridiculous cases). Think of all the names of cities that would have to be changed in regime Neudow. Los Angeles, California. Corpus Christi, Texas. Dare I say Chapel Hill, North Carolina? What about cities simply named after religious figures?
I have heard Michael Neudow give numerous interviews, and besides my overwhelming opinion that he is crazy and/or narcissistic, he is clearly a very intelligent man. And I don’t for a second doubt the sincerity of his beliefs. But rather than suing to ensure that he is never again subjected to being offended, I wish Neudow could use his intelligence and excess funds to aid humanitarian causes and allow the court fights to be reserved for people who are subjected to true discriminatory practices.