Interview with Jordan Lorence
Michael Newdow, the famed atheist, is challenging the President through the justice system for allowing the inaugural prayer to be said. Newdow filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia arguing the invocation is unconstitutional and is seeking an expedited hearing of his case, which is scheduled for January 14 on the basis that the prayers violate the separation of church and state. This is the second time Michael Newdow made headlines in the past two weeks. Last time, he sued over the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, which he had done last year, but lost because his daughter, for whom he was filing, was not under his custody and the custodial parent objected to the suit. He is now filing the same suit on behalf of eight other parents who do have custody of their children.
The following is the text from an interview with Jordan Lorence, Senior Vice-President of the Alliance Defense Fund, who has been actively involved in supporting the constitutionality of cases such as these.
I understand that ADF is not directly involved in the case, but what position does ADF take?
Get Our Latest News for FREE
ADF was deeply involved in the pledge of allegiance case last year. ADF helped the justice department prepare for the argument. This particular case, we are not directly involved, but we want to heighten the publicity for the case, so that people know what is happening.
Can you give us some background of the inaugural prayer case?
The law suit is Michael Newdow versus The President, who is being represented by government lawyers in the justice department. Michael Newdow has the right to go into court and ask the president not to have anyone praying for the inaugural like the President did four years ago when Pastor Franklin Graham from a church in Houston prayed. It was not a well-known church, but just a pastor from his home town. Michael Newdow claims that it violates the first amendment of the establishment clause for the government to have someone pray at the court. The case will be decided by a federal district court in DC and Michael Newdow wants to see if he can block the prayer before the President's inauguration which is set by the constitution to be at noon on January 20th.
What do you think of ADLF, which filed an amicus brief stating support for the government's position last Friday.
They're great. I'm sure that it's an excellent brief. I've known them for a while, and they've been involved for a long time.
What do you believe the Courts may decide?
I think that the Supreme Court has given him a foothold for some of the arguments that he's giving. Michael Newdow is taking what the Supreme Court has said in previous cases and pushing them as far as he can.
What has the Supreme Court said in previous cases?
They got rid of school prayer and the ten commandments in schools and some of the surrounding wording just gives Michael Newdow some grounds to make this case.
How do you think the Supreme Court would rule in this case?
I think that the judges will not agree with him, but some of the past courts have given him grounds for making such a case feasible now. I think the Supreme Court needs to remove some of the wording that allows Michael Newdow such grounds. They're going to say historically, prayer and religious activity are a central part of the inauguration and never intended to be outlawed by the first amendment. Before we had a first amendment and after the first amendment, President George Washington had the practice. It was not the founders' intention that the first amendment outlaw the inaugural prayer. The Supreme court might use history as a basis to uphold the practice. The Supreme Court could say that there are a few things they've struck down that they should uphold. Ten commandments in the public schools - that was a wrong thing for example. Supreme Court has got to take its legal test so that it's more in line with the constitution and with history.
Michael Newdow filed a similar case earlier last week opposing the pledge of allegiance in schools. How do you think that relates to this case?
Michael actually filed the pledge of allegiance case last year. The Supreme Court said he has no grounds to come into court because he did not have custody of his daughter, who he was filing for. Now that he is filing court papers on the behalf of other parents, who do have custody of their children. He has sort of taken care of the legalities obstructing the case, and has taken it up again. This case against the inaugural prayer is his more immediate effort.
Jordan Lorence is an attorney of Alliance Defense Fund based in Phoenix, AZ. He has fought for religious liberty and free speech in courts across the nation since 1984. Jordan has worked for the Home School Legal Defense Association, Concerned Women for America and the American Center for Law and Justice. Currently, Jordan is the Senior Vice-President and directs the Office of Strategic Initiatives for the Alliance Defense Fund.
