It seems inevitable that when someone writes about the recent Supreme Court decision on the Pledge of Allegiance in order to disagree with Michael Newdow they will engage in some sort of distortion of the facts and law. Sometimes they manage numerous distortions.

Phil Valentine writes for MidSouth News:

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Rehnquist knows this. Most any serious student of the Constitution knows this.

If by “serious” Phil Valentine means “people who are very serious in their beliefs even though they don’t actually know what they are talking about,” then he may be right. If we are talking about people who actually take the time to study the matter, then it would only be true to say that some of them believe that there is no constitutional separation of church and state. That, however, would contradict the writings of people like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. It is true that the phrase “separation of church and state” doesn’t appear in the text of the Constitution, but then again neither does the phrase “right to a fair trial.” How many people would seriously argue that they don’t have a constitutional right to a fair trial? That might even be too far for Phil Valentine to go.

The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It doesn’t say the government is not allowed to take a position. If that were the case, George Washington would never have issued a presidential proclamation starting Thanksgiving.

If we are going to talk about what was originally meant by the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it would make more sense to consult the author James Madison rather then the first president. Madison, as it so happens, disapproved of issuing religious proclamations for days of prayer. He also opposed the practice of having official chaplains in Congress and other things that people assume should be acceptable. James Madison was a strict separationist and argued that the First Amendment created a separation of church and state.

Mr. Newdow and his godless comrades also conveniently ignore the second part of the First Amendment that says Congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If he’s going to substitute “government” for “Congress,” then the government has no right to prevent anyone from reciting the Pledge in school with “under God” included in it.

Of course the government has no authority to prevent anyone from voluntarily inserting “under God” when they recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow has never suggested otherwise. I’ve never seen anyone suggest otherwise. Newdow’s case wasn’t about that and, had he won, that wouldn’t have been the outcome. It doesn’t take much to figure that out. Had Newdow won, the phrase “under God” would have simply been removed from the official version of the Pledge. Anyone and everyone would still be able to insert any phrase when reciting it — just as they do now. To depict the issue as Phil Valentine does above is... well... isn’t not exactly honest, is it?

Seeing as how Mr. Newdow’s marriage has disintegrated and he’s lost joint custody of his child, he may want to reassess his priorities. Perhaps he should’ve spent less time saving his daughter from “indoctrination” and more time saving his marriage.

Anyone who has been paying much attention to this case will know that Newdow never married the child’s mother. That bit of information is carried in just about every news story that mentions their relationship. Mr. Valentine may want to reassess his priorities. Perhaps he should spend less time saving America from the godless hordes and more time checking up on his facts — if he did, he would write more intelligible editorials.

Read More:

• Secularism 101
• Separation of Church and State 101