CantonRep.com - Atheist & Christian Attorney Debate Religion in Public Square at Malone College in Canton, OH

May 23, 2011

3 min read

ACLJ

A

A

March 22, 2006
By Charita M. Goshay, Staff Writer, CantonRep.com

You have to look at the founding fathers intent. It goes to history and the unique founding of this country ... . Its part of who we are. Its the tapestry of the American experience. 
Jay Sekulow

CANTON - Two men who have squared off in court on the issue of religion in the public square engaged in yet another debate at Malone Colleges Worldview Forum.

Physician and attorney Dr. Michael Newdow gained national attention in 2002 when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his lawsuit claiming that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because the phrase one nation under God constitutes prayer.

My point is, government should treat all religious views equally, he said.

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision. In 2005, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton agreed with the original ruling, saying that he was bound by the precedent of the 2002 ruling.

Jay Sekulow, an Evangelical Christian and chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, argues that acknowledging God is part of Americas history and heritage, and does not violate the First Amendments Establishment Clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Its what makes us distinct from the rest of the world, he said. My view is, there is room in the public square for the government to acknowledge God.

Founders intent

The public square is the public square, not the government square, Newdow, an atheist, replied. No one can seriously deny that one nation under God does not suggest establishment of religion.

You have to look at the founding fathers intent, Sekulow said. It goes to history and the unique founding of this country ... . Its part of who we are. Its the tapestry of the American experience.

A tapestry which has no atheists, Newdow replied.

It does, because it doesnt compel you to believe, Sekulow said.

Noting that the Constitution makes no mention of God, Newdow said government acknowledgment of God sends a message that atheists are not real Americans.

Sekulow argued that acknowledging God does not establish a specific religion, and cited the opening used by the Supreme Court since 1781: God save us and this honorable court.

Sekulow and Newdow do agree on some issues, such as not compelling students to recite the Pledge and supporting student-initiated free speech, including prayer.

People think Im against God, Newdow said. Im not against God in the public square. Im against government taking a position in the public square. I dont think its a good idea. Look at Iraq, Kosovo, Sudan, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, all the stuff going on because of religion. Were the most religious nation in the world. We dont need the governments help.