Max Weber

Supreme Court Justice Opinion

In my opinion, Newdow does not have legal standing to sue. He is a “noncustodial parent.”  According to this, he does not have a legal right to challenge what is said or done in the school.

Newdow complains unconstitutionality of the Pledge of Allegance.  He says that California statute contradicts the First Amendment.  California law requires the public schools to begin the day with “appropriate patriotic exercises” and adds that saying the Pledge of Allegiance will satisfy this requirement. 

Last year, however, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the reference to God violated the 1st Amendment’s ban on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.”  Its judges cited earlier Supreme Court rulings saying the government must “pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.”  The pledge, by contrast, amounts to a “profession of a religious belief,” the 9th Circuit judges said.

Part of the First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  The courts have interpreted this to mean that government and religion should be separate.  However, the case Newdow v. U.S. Congress presents a disagreement on how to maintain this separation without interfering with a person’s right to practice religion.  Custom written essays on law.

Some Americans are separationists and believe that to protect religious liberty, the line between religion and government should not be crossed.  Others are accommodationists and believe that government should make allowances for the long religious traditions in U.S. society.  So the government should find a decision to satisfy both sides.  That is to stay neutral.  There separation of state and religion does not mean that government should prohibit every reference to God or religion in any public ceremony.

Newdow cannot use the 1st Amendment in his support, because it forbids only the official establishment of a single state church.  I need to refer to Thomas Jefferson’s notion of a “wall of separation between church and state” as a “misleading metaphor based on bad history.”   In the past, the Supreme Court voted to uphold a city’s Christmas season display of the birth of Jesus in the courthouse, a cleric’s invocation at a school graduation and the display of the Ten Commandments outside a city hall.  They also voted with the majority to allow some tax money to flow to religious schools.  And al this law goes with the accordance with the first amendment. But the court voted against school-sponsored religious activities, such as a Texas school’s policy of choosing a student to deliver a prayer over a public address system. 

The Supreme Court has heard many cases involving the freedom of religion, ruling on both sides of this issue.  In a 1989 case, the Court said that a local government could display a Christmas tree and a Hanukkah menorah as part of a salute to liberty because they were not endorsing either religion but rather representing cultural diversity.  Opening state and federal legislative sessions with a prayer has also been upheld.  However, the Court has outlawed many religious practices in public schools, such as official prayers during the beginning of the school day or at graduation ceremonies.

Visit our site to find more essays on law.

Article Tags: Supreme Court, Government Should

Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR