Newdow's at it again

Michael Newdow, the guy who sued to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, has commenced legal action to prevent George W. Bush from swearing the oath of office on the Bible:

The California lawyer who tried to have the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to legally prevent President Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn in at his inauguration.

Michael Newdow, an atheist doctor and lawyer from Sacramento, has filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to remove prayer and all "Christian religious acts" from the Jan. 20 inauguration.

Mr. Newdow, 50, asserts that the presence of Christian ministers who pray publicly at the inauguration, Christian songs and the swearing of the oath of office while a president places a hand on the Bible violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Such practices turn people "into second-class citizens and create division on the basis of religion," he said yesterday.

"It is an offense of the highest magnitude that the leader of our nation — while swearing to uphold the Constitution — publicly violates that very document upon taking his oath of office," Mr. Newdow wrote in his Dec. 17 filing. "The demands of strict scrutiny have not been met, and defendants must be enjoined from their planned religious activities."

The Constitution does not require the new president to place his hand on a Bible while repeating the oath. The tradition has been kept since George Washington — with the exception of Theodore Roosevelt, who did not use a Bible when he took the oath after President William McKinley's 1901 assassination.

It is presumed that a religious person is going to tell the truth if he swears on his faith, and that's why we allow people to swear on the Bible (or another holy book) before they testify in court. I'd expect nothing less at a Presidential inauguration - no one should be forced to swear an oath on a book in which he does not believe, but an oath means that much less if a religious believer is not promising to live up to the tenets of his faith. If the President-elect believes in the Bible, the Koran or Dianetics, it should be used for the oath of office.

Newdow may have a point about the overt Christian symbolism used in the inauguration festivities, but I doubt even most atheists are so hypersensitive that they can't handle an oath on the Bible. At least, I hope not.

Posted by damian at January 8, 2005 11:26 AM