California atheist Michael Newdow, who challenged the constitutionality of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, offered his view on the church versus state debate Wednesday night in Reiss.

Newdow brought his suit against the government in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002. He argued that his daughter, then a third-grade student at a California public school, should not have to say the phrase “one nation, under God” when her class recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

The case reached the Supreme Court in June, which ruled that Newdow did not have legal standing to challenge the pledge on behalf of his daughter, because he was involved in an ongoing dispute over her custody with his estranged wife.

The ruling did not address the constitutionality of the phrase “one nation, under God,” but preserved it nonetheless.

“It’s not my burden to show you why my religion fits in your government, but it is my burden to show you why no religion belongs in the government,” Newdow said.

Retelling the story of how he became involved in the case, he spoke of waiting in the line of a drugstore one day, and noticing how each form of U.S. currency was marked with the phrase, “In God we trust.”

“In God I don’t trust,” Newdow said. “I thought to myself that this couldn’t be constitutional. This is my government, and what was this phrase doing here?”

After looking into the matter further, Newdow said he realized that some states had laws denying office to anyone rejecting the presence of a supreme being.

Newdow said he began to pursue his lawsuit after realizing that he didn’t like a concept of God being central to his government.

“The problem was that I knew nothing about bringing a lawsuit,” he said. “At the time I was a practicing physician with a law degree . but I was going to challenge [the phrase] and get it off [the currency].”

Before filing a complaint with a district court, Newdow began extensive research and found that it would be easier to bring suit against the constitutionality of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

“The Pledge was started in 1892, but the words `under God’ were not added until 1954 in the midst of cCarthyism,” he said, alluding to an effort by the U.S. to distinguish itself from atheist communism. “What conceivable purpose was this used for except for religious purposes?”

Newdow noted the U.S. Constitution frequently during his address, noting how the Bill of Rights says that the U.S. Congress can never enact any “law respecting any establishment of religion.”

“The entire document of the Constitution has no mention of God, which is incredible, considering all documents before it were religious in nature,” he said.

Newdow also mentioned that the Framers had the intention of accommodating every religious view, taking “so help me God” out of certain parts of the Constitution.

“When George W. Bush closes his speeches with `God bless America,’ you must ask yourself if he is standing there as an individual or if he is standing there as the president representing the people,” Newdow said.

In response to the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Newdow’s case based on a procedural issue, Newdow vowed that he would be filing the case once again in the Ninth Circuit Court.

“All we have are excuses to justify violating the Constitution. The Supreme Court needs to confront this issue and do its job,” he said. “People need to understand that government needs to stay out of religion’s business.”

According to the Supreme Court’s June 2004 ruling in Newdow’s case, five of the eight voting Supreme Court justices sided against the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling favoring Newdow on the basis of legal standing.

The three other justices, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas, argued that the words “under God” in the pledge do not violate the Constitution.

Greg Pope (COL’07) agreed that Newdow brings forth an issue that has merit. “It’s an issue that should be discussed, whether it’s violating the Constitution or not,” he said. “It seems bogus that the Supreme Court skirted the issue.”

Newdow’s speech was sponsored by On the Docket and the Lecture Fund.