Newdow – Leland Debate

by Marsha Abelman

A formal debate on the subject of church-state separation between an atheist and an evangelical was unprecedented in the Springs until April 23, 2008. The willingness of both Focus on the Family and the Freethinkers to cooperate in sponsoring the debate was commendable. A reviewer on Focus’ website called it “historic” for Focus, and it is equally historic for the Freethinkers and for the city. It’s rare in this era for such opposing views to be aired in the same arena, so that citizens can listen to a well-moderated and civilized discussion of the facts.

Michael Newdow is carrying a banner. It’s a banner for the separation of church and state, and for freedom’s sake, we should all hope he is able to make the reasons clear in his upcoming court cases.

Newdow’s relaxed yet persuasive manner as he opened the debate at Focus on the Family on April 23 was impressive. Using no notes, he presented a multitude of facts about the founders and our country’s history. His calm demeanor belied the great passion that Newdow feels about the vital issue of the separation of church and state. A local reviewer wrote, “Newdow has no lack of confidence.”

His great understanding of the law and our country’s history gives him that justified confidence. Fellow debater Chris Leland is a senior fellow for Christian Worldview Studies at the Focus on the Family Institute. Leland also carries a banner – the banner of Christian soldiers everywhere who earnestly believe there is “one way” in life, and that others should be persuaded to believe in that one way. He said the “sacred and the secular” cannot be separated, and that the issue “isn’t about the letter of the law” but about whether you believe in God or not.

However, the issue to atheists and to Newdow isn’t about belief in God. (Newdow surprised many when he fiercely defended the right of valedictorians to speak about Jesus, saying it’s their first amendment right.) He also gently refused to be drawn into a “do you believe in God?” discussion by a question submitted from the audience; he instead brought the subject back to whether or not governmental endorsement of God is Constitutional. He emphatically made the point that any governmental endorsement of the Christian God is truly about the letter of the law and how each and every citizen should be equally represented under that law.

Leland once used the “slippery slope” analogy: if God is “removed” from the Pledge and from our money, soon euthanasia, sex and drugs will be encouraged. (One wondered if the slippery slope doesn’t work both ways: when government and religion mix, doesn’t that often produce dangerous power?)

In answer to the written question, “How does leaving ‘under God’ in the Pledge allow for equality?” Leland said, “the question assumes there can be equality – it’s a myth that there can be absolute equality.” However, he also stated that there is absolute truth, saying the word as if capitalized: “…[without using Christianity as a standard] how do we come to a consensus of The Truth?” It appears that absolutism is sometimes relative.

The debate was well-attended and was well worth the time spent listening to the discussion. Open dialogue is the only way to shed light on such vital issues as equality.

Marsha Abelman    May 2008