One of the themes of this program has been the growing arrogance and autonomy of the American judiciary.  I am greatly concerned about this matter and indeed believe that major parts of the judiciary are in fact institutionalizing a doctrine of “freedom from religion” within this nation.  Few would argue that this is a good development.  Let’s examine this point more fully.

• First is the agreement by the US Supreme Court to hear the case dealing with the “under God” phrase in the nation’s Pledge of Allegiance.  As you might remember, the case was brought by Michael Newdow, the California atheist, who does not want his daughter in a school where the phrase, “under God,” is used during the saying of the pledge.  (More about him later.)  In agreeing to hear the case early next year, the Court also agreed to allow Newdow to represent himself.  Justice Antonin Scalia has also recused himself from the case.  The Court’s decision to hear the case will raise profoundly important issues regarding our history and what it means to be an American.  Whether people want to recognize it or not, the very freedoms we enjoy derive from religious ideals.  In 2003, this truth may be repugnant and offensive, but that does not diminish the truth.  There are four references to God in the Declaration of Independence and our currency, coins and national songs all bear evidence of this indebtedness.  As Mary Pitman Kitch has questioned, “Should children be protected from a patriotic ritual that contains a single echo of a faith so formative of our nation’s character?”  She continues, “Religious belief shapes our calendar, ceremonially frames our legislative sessions, influences our tax policy, infuses our politics, historically undergirded the integrity of our court system (‘so help me God’) and to this day, is instrumental in our military.  We taxpayers directly subsidize military chaplains’ spread of religious comfort and ideals.”  The Supreme Court has not been helpful in the past, refusing to clearly define where the boundaries of church and state are in this culture.  The pledge challenge by Newdow suggests that only one option is permissible, atheism—zero tolerance of God in the public square—and this is unacceptable.  I do not believe we can enshrine Protestant evangelicalism at the center of American civilization.  But I also do not believe we must enshrine atheism as the only acceptable alternative.  The Supreme Court must give guidance on this issue.  The Supreme Court must find a legal balance that preserves freedom of religion, including in the public square, but does not establish freedom from religion, which has been its course over the last several decades.  The decision they hand down on the pledge case will resonate for decades.  We need their guidance and wisdom, not judicial tyranny and autonomy.  “A Nation under God” is a simple statement of our heritage, our dependence and our ethos.  In this pluralistic world, the Court must find a way to keep it in the Pledge.

• Second, a word about Michael Newdow.  The Rev. Dr. Michael A. Newdow, Esq. is a physician, lawyer and founder of the First Amendment Church of True Science.  He has a restless and uncompromising mind.  But he also epitomizes the Postmodern trend to enshrine self-indulgence and autonomy as the centerpiece of American civilization.  Federal Appeals judge, Diatmuid O’Scannlain, has written that Newdow is seeking “a right to be fastidiously self-indulgent and intolerant,” and she is correct.   Newdow is currently involved in a custody battle with his ex-girlfriend, Sandra Banning, over their 9-year old child.  Newdow argues that the child was conceived when Banning forced him to have sex during a Yosemite National Park trip.  In fact, he charges her with “date rape.”  Therefore, Newdow has joined a movement against “forced fatherhood” led by the little-known National Center for Men.  Newdow spent little time with the child during her first four years as he maintained legal residence in Florida and pursued his career as an itinerant emergency room physician, practicing medicine on a contract basis in LA and elsewhere across the country.  Newdow provided houses for Banning and their daughter, first in Winston-Salem, N.C., and later in Sacramento, though in 1999 he evicted them on 30 days’ notice from the Sacramento house after he and Banning quarreled.  Banning obtained a court order giving her custody of the child pending mandatory mediation.  On 6 February 2002, she was awarded permanent legal custody.  Newdow was given legal visitation rights and the right to consult on the child’s “health, education and welfare,” but Banning’s decisions were final.  On 11 September 2003, that order was modified, giving Newdow nominal legal custody and some additional visitation time but leaving Banning veto authority over major decisions.  Each month, Newdow sends his child-support checks, with the notation “under protest” attached.  Throughout the custody battle, Newdow has maintained that the entire family law system is wrongly premised on the “best interests of the child,” when what should really count is what he says is the parents’ constitutional right to equal time.  The Pledge case began when Banning enrolled her daughter in a public school in the Sacramento suburb of Elk Grove.  Newdow named himself and his daughter as plaintiffs and argued the case personally before the radically liberal 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Banning does not object to the Pledge of Allegiance as currently worded and does not support Newdow’s suit.  I am sharing all of this to demonstrate that an arguably dysfunctional man in an arguably dysfunctional relationship that produced a child can affect a huge change in constitutional law when it comes to the Pledge of Allegiance.  You and I must pray that he will not succeed.  You and I must pray that his oral argument before the Supreme Court later in 2004 will be confused.  In many ways the Newdow case demonstrates how perverse our judicial system has become.  He does not represent even a large minority, let alone the nation’s majority in this case.  The issue in the United States is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

• Finally, a comment about a case emanating from the state of Washington that the Supreme Court just heard last nearly two weeks ago.  The case involves Joshua Davey, from the state of Washington, who had qualified for Washington’s admirable Promise Scholarship program, designed to help low-income students attend college in the state.  Davey chose Northwest College, an evangelical institution where he pursued a double major in pastoral ministries and business management and administration.  The state government read the Washington constitution, which states, “No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment,” as prohibiting applying the scholarship to his pastoral ministries education.  The Washington constitution reflects the language of the 37 other states who have so-called “Blaine amendments,” which in the 19th century were directed at the Catholic Church and its many institutions.  This could be a momentous ruling that would overturn all such “Blaine” amendments throughout the nation.  In doing so, such a decision would establish the right of all Americans to get government help to attend religious schools.  There is a long history of the government allowing people who receive public money to pursue their own path in higher education.  College students who get government help should be free to study anything they wish, without the scrutiny of government.  The Court should rule in Davey’s favor, and in doing so, will probably overturn the so-called “Blaine” amendments throughout the nation.  The Court must clarify that we are a nation that believes in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

See E.J. Dionne, Jr., “Just Case, Bad Trend,” Washington Post (4 December 2003), Charles Lane, “An Allegiance of Dissent,” Washington Post (2 December 2003) and Mary Pittman Kitch, “Erasing God at Our Peril,” The Sunday Oregonian (16 November 2003).

Back to top

CAN WE HAVE BOTH GUNS AND BUTTER?

Currently, the United States is at war—an international conflict against organized terrorism; and that war is very expensive.  Yet, the United States is also facing major domestic challenges, all the way from a recovering economy to a serious medical health insurance crisis.  Can the United States government afford to fund both?  Normally, governments make the choice of either building up military capability to wield power abroad or intentionally seeking to increase its citizens’ living standards.  It is somewhat uncommon for a nation to do both.  President Bush has apparently decided that the United States can fund both.  Let’s think about this.

• First, a series of laws passed by Congress right before Thanksgiving illustrate the Bush administration’s conviction that the nation can have both guns and butter:  The first was approval of a $401 billion military appropriations package for next year, the biggest ever.  The second was the Medicare reform law, which increases the spiraling costs of the system by adding a drug prescription benefit.  In addition, consider the $87 billion package Congress recently passed to reconstruct Iraq.  Finally, this is the same administration that pushed three tax cuts through Congress.  The point?  President Bush has increased military spending and the cost of domestic programs without reducing consumer demand by financing the higher spending through borrowing rather than taxation.

• Second, it is very important to remember that President Bush inherited an economy on the brink of a deflationary crisis.  The bursting of the market bubble of the late 1990s posed a threat to the American economy comparable to the 1929 crash.  The President did not respond as Herbert Hoover did—spending cuts and tax increases.  Instead, he cut taxes and embarked on major government initiatives.  Further, the Federal Reserve responded with swift cuts in the interest rates.  The result was a shallow and short downturn.  Finally, falling interest rates have drastically cut the cost of servicing the federal debt.  In 1995, for example, interest on the national debt accounted for $232 billion a year (more than 3% of the GDP).  Last year that figure was $178 billion, just 1.7% of GDP.  In the short run, the national debt is manageable.  For that reason, the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the federal debt will actually decline relative to GDP from 2005-2013. 

• Finally, a word about the major US liability, namely Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  The issue in each of these entitlements is the growing gap between anticipated costs and the anticipated revenue.  One recent estimate put this fiscal imbalance by the 2030s as high as $45 trillion—seven times the size of the national debt.  The drug prescription addition to Medicare that the President just signed will add to this astronomical figure.  The matter of this gap must be solved, but currently Congress and the President lack the moral and political will to do so.  The next generation will face a near financial catastrophe if it is not soon solved.

So, can the United States afford both guns and butter?  In one sense yes.  The unique economic circumstances of the US right now make this possible and not terribly serious.  However, over the next two decades that luxury will be genuinely impossible.  It will be our children and especially our grandchildren who will pay for the looming catastrophe of funding the three entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

See the most helpful article by Niall Ferguson in the “Week in Review” section of the New York Times (7 December 2003).

Back to top