Buying soap may seem to be among the more mundane of human activities. But for Dr. Michael Newdow, it was a moment of epiphany that inspired him to challenge the constitutionality of what many know as American patriotism, claiming the government's acceptance of prolific references to God infringe on his beliefs.
"I see on the $20 bill, 'In God We Trust,'" Newdow, an atheist, told an audience of more than 50 at the School of Law Wednesday. "And I'm thinking, 'I don't trust in God. What is this?'"
The practicing emergency room doctor with a law degree from the University of Michigan has been the target of national applause, ridicule and threat since last summer, when California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his plea deeming the phrase "under God," added into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, unconstitutional.
Because a "state-employed" teacher in a "state-run" school forced his eight-year old daughter to recognize the existence of God by saying the pledge every day, Newdow said he felt he had more standing to argue against this rather than the motto written on currency.
"[By including the phrase 'under God'] the government tells people there is no reason to give credence to an atheist in our society," Newdow said.
Despite losing in district court, Newdow continued representing himself, appealing and successfully winning his case in appeals court in June 2002. While the court of appeals placed a hold on its decision and will decide whether or not to rehear the case, Newdow said he has the advantage in any subsequent trial. "I feel like Goliath because the case law is on our side," he said.
His main strategy attacks the inconsistency between references to God - like those in the pledge or on currency - and the Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Newdow also cited tests used in previous court cases that upheld the separation of church and state. The coercion test, for example, derives from the 1991 Lee v. Weisman case, in which the Supreme Court declared prayer at a middle school graduation unconstitutional. Newdow said if a one-time occurrence like graduation was considered coercion, then daily recitation of the pledge by younger, more vulnerable children is certainly coercion as well.
If the case goes to another trial, he expects the defense to claim the "under God" phrase is acceptable because of the many references to God on currency and in many national songs.
"I'm sure in Brown v. the Board of Education [the defendants] said, 'We have segregation at the ballpark,... we have segregation in the theater. It must be okay to have segregation in school,'" Newdow said, highlighting the weakness of this tactic.
"[Newdow's strategy] is frighteningly intelligent. He definitely goes about things differently than a professional attorney," said Chris Mills, a second-year law student and member of the Duke branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which sponsored the speech.
Legal strategy aside, students had differing opinions on Newdow's case. First-year law student Matt Durham said the phrase "under God" should remain a part of the Pledge of Allegiance.
"The way I understand the establishment clause is to mean no state-sponsored religion. The founders did not intend it to mean no religion in government. They were known to be religious men," Durham said.
Others added that removing "under God" from the pledge will lead to trials on every national song or motto containing the word God. However, first-year law student Jay Barasch said the pledge is an exception.
"The reason we can say it's unconstitutional to say you can't have God in the pledge but not on currency or as a motto is because the pledge is said in school where children are very impressionable," Barasch said. "We are encouraging [children that] they should believe in God to be a good American."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.