This Supreme Court will no doubt face a review of that decision in the 9th and (IMHO) a related decision made in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Kaufman v. McCaughtry
In that case, the court held that atheism is a religion. This puts an entirely new spin on a lot of things.
Concerning Newdow, the removing of the “under God” is to establish atheism as a state religion under the First Amendment. Likewise, the inability to speak of God – pray to God – refer to God – in a publicly funded environment is to establish atheism as a state religion. This will no doubt reach to the Intelligent Design litigation as well.
From the opinion:
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by … God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion, Fleishfresser v. Dirs. Of Sch Dist. (7th Cir. 1994); see also Welsh v.United States … (1970); United States v. Seeger … (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos…. (7th,cir 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”) Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky. … (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of the Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”
Indeed. I believe that it was Goethe who said
The God to whom a man proves devoutSome people do not worship God; some people “worship themselves,” believing that they alone are “the captains of their souls, the masters of their fates.” They “give law” unto themselves, and resent the idea that there is a God to whom they owe any duty. Clearly, this is a religious view, specifically the religious view of the atheist. It seems to me the First Amendment protects this view just as assuredly as it protects the views of theism.
That is his own soul, turned inside out.
In short, the First Amendment says that what a man does with his own spirituality is none of the federal government’s business. Whether he opens his soul to God, or shuts it down to Him and “Katy bar the door!” is a matter of private conscience. (In thinking of some of my friends here at FR who shall be nameless, I sometimes conjure up an fanciful image of them slamming shut the “door of the soul,” activating seven deadbolts and innumerable other types of locks, then piling up all the household moveables against an already “hermetically sealed” door, just to make sure no “thief” can break in, in the dead of night… offering grace and light….)
I’m so sorry to have been so scarce lately. I am just buried in work lately. Sigh…. Will try to catch up asap.
Thanks so very much for your informative essay on SCOTUS’ current view of atheism as a form of religious expression, and its view that the Establishment Clause "mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."