Posted on 07/11/2002 6:32:36 PM PDT by knak
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The 8-year-old girl whose father successfully sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional has no problem with reciting the pledge at school, her mother said Thursday.
"I was concerned that the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist or that she has been harmed by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words 'one nation under God,'" Sandra Banning said in a statement. "We are practicing Christians and are active in our church."
Banning never married Michael Newdow, the third-grader's father and the atheist behind the pledge lawsuit. She has full custody of the girl, which Newdow is challenging in court.
It was Banning's first public comment since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Newdow that the words "under God," inserted by Congress in 1954, make the pledge an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The ruling has been put on hold pending appeals.
Banning, who has hired lawyers in part to explore intervening in the case, said she hopes her efforts will lead to a reversal of the ruling. She also said her daughter "expressed sadness" after the ruling.
In his lawsuit, Newdow argued that his daughter was "injured" by being forced to listen to others recite the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified School District.
He said Thursday that he has the right to determine how she is raised.
"I have a right to send my child to a public school without the government inculcating any religious beliefs," he said.
Newdow also said that taking an 8-year-old to church doesn't mean the girl is choosing to be religious - and at any rate, it doesn't matter what the child believes.
"The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me," he said.
Some legal experts said the mother's revelation that the girl herself willingly recites the pledge in class could cast doubts on the legitimacy of the case.
Courts can only hear cases in which there is an injured party, and if there is no injury there is no grounds for a case, said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor who follows the 9th Circuit.
"The federal courts can't address anything unless it's a case of controversy," Little said. "You have to have injury."
I'll stand by what I said; he has no frame of reference to condemn this woman as some type of irredeemable trollup........
I would have no problem having this woman teach my child in a Sunday school class if she had repented and was not defending or justifying motherhood outside of marriage.
......and you gleaned this from where in the article?.......Tell me please.
You tell me where it indicates that this woman is comfortable in her sin.......this woman had a child out of wedlock, and you make the assumption that nothing has changed in her life.
It would be a rock to you. But I see that it is just a poorly framed retort.
Harmless. Heave away.
I'm heaving all right.
Yes. This has been an expression of evil, to be sure. May God influence Man to set things right.
.....and again, I CHALLENGE you to show where she has made any statement that is justifying or defending what you imply she is.
I ask you again, where do you infer that this woman is indicating that bearing a child out of wedlock is a good thing? That's three times now.
yep.
Isn't it possible she converted after she had her child?
Only to some. Others think Christ was a liar, and couldn't possibly effect that sort of change.
yep.
One would think that somebody like Mr Curry would have been smart enough to figure that one out. Very disappointing.
Mr Curry stupidly falls for AP propaganda trying to portray Ms Banning as the unprincipled hypocrit, Mr Newdow as the principled atheist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.