I received this from a church-state forum.

You might not like Mr Nedow's aversion to God, but you have to admire his clarity regarding the appropriate use of taxpayers' money, and the total separation of religion and state issues.

Atheist Seeks End to Hill Chaplaincies
Plaintiff Who Oppposed 'Under God' in Pledge of Allegiance Files New
Suit

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 30, 2002; Page A05

The California atheist who sued to remove "under God" from the Pledge
of Allegiance now wants to kick the House and Senate chaplains out of
Congress.

Michael A. Newdow, a lawyer and emergency room doctor, this week filed
suit in federal district court in Washington contending that it is
unconstitutional for taxpayer-funded chaplains to pray in Congress and
minister to lawmakers. He wants the court to prohibit the House and Senate
from employing spiritual chaplains, who are paid by Congress to lead
prayers, counsel members and perform other religious tasks. Chaplains
make as much as $147,000 per year.

"If congressmen want to go to church, [then] walk down the block like
other Americans do and go to church,'' Newdow said in an interview
yesterday. "Don't get my government engaged in it. There are some people who
don't love God Almighty. That's why we have an Establishment Clause,"
the constitutional ban on government establishment of an official
religion .

Newdow named the entire Congress and James M. Eagen III, chief
administrator of Congress, as defendants.

"The Supreme Court has thoroughly examined the history of the
congressional chaplaincies and determined they are completely consistent with
the Constitution," said Morgan Frankel, deputy Senate legal counsel. "We
anticipate the same result in this case."

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) lambasted the case as
another attack on religious liberty.

"The Capitol is the people's house,'' Lott said, "and I believe the
overwhelming majority of Americans who send their senators and members of
Congress to Washington to represent them, are comforted by the fact
that our chaplains lead us in seeking guidance from a superior power, as
we are called upon to make decisions. We should not look upon this as a
frivolous case but as another attack on religious liberty."

While Senate lawyers expressed confidence the court will rule against
him, Newdow has beaten the odds before. He successfully argued that the
phrase "one nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the
separation church and state clause. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
in San Francisco earlier this year ruled the phrase unconstitutional,
although the Justice Department and others have appealed the decision.
Many legal experts predict the ruling will be overturned, perhaps by the
Supreme Court sometime next year.

Either way, Newdow is on a crusade to take God out of government. He
wants the words "In God We Trust" off money, presidents to quit talking
about God at their inaugurations, and members of Congress to be
prohibited from offering resolutions in the House and Senate talking about God.

In his case against Congress, Newdow faces a huge obstacle, lawyers
say. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 in Marsh v. Chambers that it is not a
violation of the Establishment Clause to have paid legislative
chaplains. Congress has had paid chaplains since 1789.

Newdow contends the Marsh ruling was flawed and that many subsequent
court rulings support his claim. In his filing, he says the "Court has
{ndash} since 1983 {ndash} provided statements that directly conflict
with the holding in Marsh," including one in 2000 concluding that "the
religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State
affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer."

Newdow, who says he "absolutely denies the existence of any Supreme
Being," claims he applied for the jobs of House and Senate chaplains, and
was passed over.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company