SACRAMENTO "” Atheist Michael Newdow wants the U.S. Supreme Court to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, which millions of schoolchildren recite each day.
Newdow, a doctor and lawyer, says the words violate the First Amendment's ban on government-endorsed religion. He's worried that his 9-year-old daughter thinks less of him when she and her classmates "endorse a supreme being."
On March 24, Newdow will argue his own case before the Supreme Court in a dispute that could further define the limits of religion's role in government. He will try to persuade the justices to uphold his surprising victory before a U.S. appeals panel in California in June 2002. That decision ignited a passionate defense of the Pledge from citizens and officials across the nation "” including President Bush, who called the ruling "ridiculous."
But even as his big moment before the nation's highest court approaches, Newdow has another dispute on his mind: his ongoing custody battle with the mother of his daughter. Newdow, 50, denounces the "ethically, morally and legally bankrupt" family courts that have restricted his visits with the girl to two weekends a month.
Custody battle
Newdow's remarks aren't just the rantings of an angry single father. His custody fight with the girl's mother, Sandra Banning, is at the heart of the Pledge case "” and could prevent a definitive ruling on whether the "under God" clause is constitutional.
Banning, the girl's custodial parent, is challenging Newdow's right to include their daughter in his suit about the Pledge. If the justices decide that Newdow isn't entitled to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the girl, they could dismiss the case without ruling whether the Pledge is constitutional.
Banning, 44, and Newdow never married. Banning says she became a "committed Christian" after bearing their child. She says that she and the girl, who has not been named in court papers, attend church regularly. Banning says the girl, a student in the Elk Grove school system about 15 miles south of Sacramento, likes to lead her fourth-grade class in reciting the Pledge. (The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down the Pledge, which would have affected public school students in the fourth grade and younger in nine Western states, has been put on hold until the Supreme Court decides the case.)
The custody dispute has increased the tension in a case that already was wrapped in emotional, coast-to-coast debates over patriotism, tradition and how far the government can go in recognizing its religious roots without running afoul of the First Amendment.
A few days after the California appeals court struck down the Pledge, the U.S. Senate held a symbolic, 99-0 vote in support of the "under God" language. Six members of the 9th Circuit Court who did not take part in the decision took the unusual step of publicly criticizing it as "very wrong."
Meanwhile, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the lower court's ruling against the Pledge. It is rare for justices to comment publicly on a case that is headed to them. Newdow asked Scalia to recuse himself from the Pledge case, and Scalia, who probably would have voted against Newdow, did so. The other eight justices will decide it.
'Under God' added in 1954
The Pledge was first written in 1892 "” without the phrase "under God" "” and was endorsed by Congress in 1942, soon after the United States entered World War II. A year later, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require public school children to recite it.
In 1954, Congress added "under God" between the words "one nation" and "indivisible." Legislators wanted to underscore the difference between American democracy, founded on "inalienable" God-given rights, and communist governments in which rights came from the state.
In 1993, the Supreme Court declined to examine a lower court decision in Illinois that said including "under God" in the Pledge did not violate the First Amendment. An earlier decision allowed chaplains to lead prayers before state legislative sessions. Another Supreme Court ruling suggested that mottoes such as "In God We Trust," which is on U.S. currency, are "ceremonial" and do not endorse religion.
But the 9th Circuit panel, in ruling for Newdow, said reciting the phrase "under God" is "identical ... to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation "under no god.' None of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."
Atheists' rights
Newdow grew up in Teaneck, N.J., the son of Jews who he says encouraged him to "think for myself" on religious matters. He became an atheist in his teens.
A graduate of Brown University, UCLA medical school and the University of Michigan law school, Newdow says he is bothered by what he calls the indignities atheists face in this country, from the Pledge to "In God We Trust" on currency. He challenged the Pledge in court in 2000. By then, he was a father.
At first, he did not embrace the role of parent. During a family court hearing, Newdow claimed he had been the victim of "date rape." The judge called that absurd.
Banning is reluctant to discuss the custody battle. But, she says, "I'm no rapist, and Mike Newdow's no victim."
Newdow has provided child support, and initially the girl lived only with Banning. Five years ago, he went to family court to seek more time with the girl and more say in decisions concerning her.
The result so far: Newdow, who lives a 20-minute drive from Banning's house, gets his daughter two weekends a month and some holidays. He gets input into decisions concerning her, but Banning has the last word. Newdow says he plans to keep pressing for more access to his daughter.
Banning gives him a passing grade as a father. "She loves her father," Banning says of the girl, "and I think he loves her."
Banning says she wants the girl to be "exposed to her father's views." But Banning maintains that the phrase "under God" is part of our "patriotic and cultural heritage."
Newdow's supporters believe his chances of winning his case are fair, especially with Scalia sitting out. If the justices' vote is 4-4, the lower court opinion will stand.
But some supporters worry that family issues could undermine Newdow's case. He says he'll discuss the custody fight if the justices ask about it "because it's hugely important. ... I'd drop the Pledge (case) in a minute if I could have my daughter."
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Remove all religious references from government buildings and documents. If you want to worship God, go to church.
Location: The place that Harry Henderson calls home....
Posts: 1,672
RE: "Under God" in Court
As my 3 1/2 year old daughter likes to start discussions...
"Actually..."
Actually, this is a very interesting view and case. The courts are having a hard time with the Pledge, mainly for 2 reasons: 1) the original Pledge of Allegiance did not have the words "under God" 2) the enforcement of having students recite the pledge.
Number 1 is quite obvious, but number 2 is more dicey. The pledge was first designed to unite the American people under the symbol of the United States, the flag, and everything that the flag represents. Hence, if you don't recite the pledge you are in essence denouncing the history and the symbol of American freedom. However, by throwing in the words "under God", now the pledge not only pronounces America and your freedoms, but those freedoms and rights as recognized "under God".
If you don't believe in a God, as Newdow states, the words are not only meaningless but an insult.
I personally feel that the words should be removed, not because I'm siding with his stance, but just because they were not in the original draft.
Instead of having our children recite the Pledge every morning, perhaps they should recite individual Amendments from the Bill of Rights, so they understand the beliefs and rights our founding fathers fought to uphold and died for...
__________________
"The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight." Theodore Roosevelt
I'm not one for taking God out of anything. I believe God created everything and we are a great nation because of the blessings of God. The leaders of this country wanted to acknowledge that we are a nation "under God" because we simply are.
Now on the other side of this coin, if you don't believe in God or do believe in God but would rather see it out of the pledge for whatever reason, I ask you this: Does repeating words make you believe in what you are repeating, against your will?
Again, only my opnion, but this nation is falling apart morally because we are taking God out of everything.
__________________
We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be.
If you don't believe in a God, as Newdow states, the words are not only meaningless but an insult.
I personally feel that the words should be removed, not because I'm siding with his stance, but just because they were not in the original draft.
Instead of having our children recite the Pledge every morning, perhaps they should recite individual Amendments from the Bill of Rights, so they understand the beliefs and rights our founding fathers fought to uphold and died for...
The Pledge wasn't meaningless to me as a student until I got to the "under God". I would politely stand during the morning recital, but I could not say it without feeling like a hypocrite and a liar. I love being an American, but I'm not religious. I do want show my love and support for our nation. But God has nothing to do with it. It's simply my love of freedom.
I agree that school children do need to invest more study into the documents that really shaped our country's foundation. Pledges are nice if want to say so, but the DoI and the BoR are the two most important writings in American history.
"Under God" in Court
