[I_Love_My_Husband]

I think you're mixing apples with oranges. He is involved in his daughter's life but this lawsuit has nothing to do with his daughter. He's using his daughter to further his own agenda. The lawsuit, as stated by Newdow, is just for his own purposes. Fathers should have rights with their children. This case has no bearing on Fathers Rights.

[Tired of Taxes]

Newdow wants to raise his daughter with an atheistic viewpoint. He said he doesn't want the gov't taking his tax money then using it to promote a religious view to his child in a "pledge" in public schools.

Whether or not his view or atheism itself appeals to anyone else isn't the point. The point is that Newdow is trying to have some say in his daughter's upbringing.

Here's what I read in an article yesterday that I can't find now:

The mother moved away with the daughter, and Newdow moved, too, so that he could be closer to his child.

In addition to constitutional law, he has also been studying family law which he says is unfair. In seeking custody for his daughter, he has been ordered to pay the mother's legal fees, too.

Though the mother is an "active Christian", that hasn't stopped her from accepting child care payments from atheist Newdow.