Voices: Two Words, Under Democracy

Until Wednesday morning, I had only skimmed reports about the historic Supreme Court fight against Dr. Michael Newdow's victory to have the words "under god" removed from the pledge.

That's when I heard National Public Radio report that before the trial even began, the Bush Administration (yes, it was Ashcroft who directed the case to the Supreme Court when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider) will argue that Newdow had no right to sue on behalf of his daughter, a nine-year-old student in the Elk Grove school district outside Sacramento. They've posed that the child's mother, a born-again Christian, currently has sole legal guardianship.

Ignore Newdow's other court case - a lengthy and expensive battle to win shared (50-50) custody of the girl - if you must. But can you deny the irony of the supposedly pro-family Bush administration discouraging Newdow's involvement in his daughter's life?

Mildly concerned about Newdow's intentions after hearing a cut from his folk music CD, I was relieved to discover a general consensus. He may be taking advantage of the attention, but the impassioned doctor appears as genuinely earnest about his daughter as he is about standing up for his rights as an American. He's spent more time working in the courtroom than the emergency room that employs him and is perilously close to bankruptcy; yet Newdow hasn't asked for damages.

He's asked only that two words be removed from this daily patriotic ritual. A government endorsement of monotheism, Newdow claims, not only violates the constitution, but also communicates the message to his daughter that his conviction in atheism is improper, perhaps immoral, and decidedly anti-American.

I was cynical upon first hearing Newdow's position that the pledge's disapproval of atheism had personally injured him. How easy it must have been for Bush to dismiss the 9th Circuit Court's ruling as ridiculous!

Then I recalled the day when, perhaps 11-years-old, I begged my mother to believe in God for the sake of her soul.

I had learned of the danger from my day care teacher. She was kind to me during those awful and awkward years when I was ostracized for being geekishly smart, mature beyond my years and poor to boot. I adored her. A minister's daughter, she gave me a copy of the New Testament when she took me under her wing. Then, she invited me to church. I was grateful for the attention (unlike Newdow, my father was not in a position to fight so vehemently for involvement in my life) and desperate for solace. I swallowed the Christian dogma like sweet elixir. But in the eighteen months or so that followed, I became distraught. I had grown preoccupied with concern that my mother, a self-proclaimed atheist, was going to hell.

I can't imagine what mom must have made of my tearful pleading. But I'm grateful that, rather than prohibit me from this religious exploration, she allowed me to see the fad out. Eventually I reached a conclusion that continues to influence my spiritual stance today. My mother was a good and moral person. A single, working mother, she had sacrificed many of her most personal desires in order to independently care for my sister and me. Any god worth worshipping, I decided, would not condemn her for her disillusionment.

I've already gone on record in support of removing "under god" from the pledge. That's not the point of this column. Nine out of ten Americans supposedly disagree with me on the matter. Congress voted 99-0 to retain the phrasing. The words were added by Congress in 1954, as a cold war strategy to deter America's youth away from communism, and that's all I need to know to remain confident in my conviction. But then, I've learned to be comfortable with being in the minority. Just like I'm learning to be comfortable with the fact that my ex-husband will inevitably influence my children toward values at odds with my own.

The reality of life in a democratic state is that your children will be exposed to a full spectrum of diverse beliefs (or one should only hope). They will reach their own conclusions. All you can do is teach them to think critically and give them the tools to make wise decisions in their own best interests. And fight -- if you have to -- to make sure they know how much you love them.

--alicia grega-pikul, 25 March 2004