Say It Ain't So, Ray!

Michael Arthur Newdow (born June 24, 1953) is an American attorney and emergency medicine physician. He is best known for his efforts to have recitations of the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in the United States declared unconstitutional because of its inclusion of the phrase "under God". He also filed and lost a law suit to stop the invocation prayer at President Bush's second inauguration and, most recently, he filed a lawsuit to prevent references to God and religion from being part of President Obama's inauguration.

Newdow is an

atheist and an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church. In 1997, he started an organization called FACTS (First Amendment Church of True Science), which advocates strong separation of church and state in public institutions.

Personal background:

Newdow grew up in the

Bronx and Teaneck, New Jersey, from where his nominally Jewish family moved in 1960. He graduated from Teaneck High School. He told Brown Alumni Magazine that he can’t remember ever believing in God, saying, "I was born an atheist."

After graduating from high school, Newdow attended Brown University, where he received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology in 1974. He then attended the UCLA medical school, earning his M.D. in 1978. He has worked as an emergency room physician at numerous hospitals, and holds medical licenses in California and five other states.

Newdow later enrolled in the University of Michigan law school, earning a law degree in 1988. He took and passed the bar exam in 2002.

Litigation:

Pledge of Allegiance:

Main article: Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
Newdow is best known for the lawsuit filed on behalf of his daughter against inclusion of the words "under God" in public schools' recitals of the United States' Pledge of Allegiance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the decision was later overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf, nor did he meet the Court's prudential standing requirements to bring the suit on behalf of himself.

Newdow filed suit again regarding the same issue, but this time on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Citing the

precedent set by the Supreme Court in the course of Newdow's previous suit, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that Newdow did not have standing to bring his lawsuit, but the other plaintiffs did have standing. Based on the previous ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judge ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

After the 9th circuit decision, Newdow received numerous death threats and other abusive messages on his phone answering machine. His daughter, then eight years old, was living elsewhere for her own safety.

In God We Trust:

In November 2005, Newdow announced he wants to have "In God We Trust" removed from U.S. coins and banknotes. In a November 14, 2005 interview with Fox News's Neil Cavuto, Newdow compared "In God We Trust" appearing on United States currency with racial segregation (specifically separate drinking fountains), saying, "How can you not compare those? What is the difference there? Both of them [whites and blacks] got equal water. They both had access. It was government saying that it's okay to separate out these two people on the basis of race. Here we're saying it's okay to separate two people on the basis of their religious beliefs."

In June 2006, a federal judge rejected this lawsuit, on the grounds that the minted words amount to a secular national slogan, and they do not dictate anyone's beliefs. Newdow stated that he would appeal the ruling.

Although, it should be noted that Aronow v. United States was decided on the same grounds in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the lower court was required to return the same ruling, likewise the Ninth Circuit does not traditionally overrule previous Ninth Circuit rulings.

On December 4, 2007, Mr. Newdow argued before a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit to remove both "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (Roe v. Rio Linda Union School District), and "In God We Trust" from US currency.

In a 2006 interview on the day that the United States House of Representatives passed the Pledge Protection Act, Newdow told WERS-FM's David Goodman,[citation needed] "A few hours ago, the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America voted 260 to 167 to completely gut the U.S. Constitution of its separation of powers and violate numerous other clauses because they thought it was important enough to keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't think people would've done that for our political heritage or anything else. They did it because they want God in their government because it stands for a religious view that they adhere to, and they want to see that religious view espoused by government, which is exactly what the Establishment Clause forbids."

Newdow also filed a lawsuit in

federal court after Franklin Graham gave the invocation at George W. Bush's 2001 inauguration. The lawsuit claimed that inaugural prayer was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. It also was unsuccessful.

California textbook case:

Newdow also represents California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM), a group that has filed a lawsuit against the officials of California Department of Education and the California State Board of Education. The lawsuit challenges the teaching of biblical events as historical facts and was brought upon by CAPEEM which was formed by Hindu parents in California.

Obama inauguration:

On December 31, 2008, Newdow and 17 other people, plus 10 groups representing atheists, sued Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts and others involved in the inauguration ceremony of Barack Obama. The first count of the suit sought to prevent the Chief Justice from saying "so help me God." The Constitution specifically defines only this single oath of office of 35 words, that do not include these four words.

The Associated Press ran several reports including one picked up by the Washington Post, Yahoo News and many other affiliates that inaccurately stated that the suit was an attempt by atheists to prevent the President from saying "so help me God", while the suit specifically states that the president is not a subject of the injunction, rather it is the Chief Justice.

In addition, in other counts was the demand to end all religious prayer at the inauguration based on the establishment clause of the first amendment, which he had sued to prevent in the two previous inaugurations unsuccessfully.
Federal District Judge Reggie Walton refused to grant Newdow's motion for a preliminary injunction on the basis that he, as a United States District Court Judge, did not feel he had the authority to issue such an order against the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He also reasoned that the inclusion of such words is an exercise of the incoming President's right of free speech, although the president's right to express his private prayer in words of his choosing was specifically not challenged in the law suit.

Newdow later reported that he would not challenge the denial of his preliminary injunction motion, but will appeal the case through the appellate court.

Well, it seems that no one is willing to confirm that we have the real Dr. Newdow, but he certainly fits the profile. Ray would hire a three-legged dog if it would help him keep his dynasty alive... even if it goes against all of his bible-thumping beliefs!

But...let's not be to hasty to dismiss Newdow as a qualified ER doc. After all, we do support the separation of church and state and during my most recent visit to an ER, the last thing I was thinking about was the Pledge of Allegiance.

Whether your ER Doc is lesbian, Hindu or Atheist, if you are in crisis, you need a skilled physician to keep you alive, so personal belifes quickly becomes a "non-issue". We are in the 21st century and we need to be more tolerant of political and religious views.

When my heart stops beating, I will forego the interview of the person trying to revive me... in hopes that he/she won't ask me the same questions! At the end of the day we are all mortal beings, subject to the same rules of life and death... and we need to remember that!

Forthright