[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.

[azhenfud]

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

Why should it stop her? His money still says "In God We Trust"....

[EggsAckley]

Your reasoning is simply not logical. I think what we have here is a freeper looking for a fight, and I won't do it.

[He Rides A White Horse]

In its opinion, the 9th Circuit panel noted that Newdow asserted his daughter is injured when compelled to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God."

That doesn't appear to be the case. What say you?

[twigs]

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

Why should her Christianity stop her from accepting payment? This guy sired the child. He should be paying! Mom is raising her. Sire is trying to use her. Hope Mom is successful in protecting daughter from the junk this man is spewing her way.

[He Rides A White Horse]

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.

Mom: The California schoolgirl whose atheist father successfully sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional has no problem with reciting the pledge, her mother said Thursday.

He says lots of things: The San Francisco court based its June 26 ruling in part on Newdow's claim that the girl was "injured" by being forced to listen to others recite the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified School District.

"This is MY issue. I have a right to send my child to a public school without the government inculcating any religious beliefs. I'm saying I'M injured," he said.

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.

He gets busted on the fact that his daughter hasn't been injured by anyone other than himself; now it's time to backpedal and claim that he is the injured party.

Newdow 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.

.....and now it's, "So what if she really never was injured? It's always been about me".

In its opinion, the 9th Circuit panel noted that Newdow asserted perjured that his daughter is injured when compelled to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God."

She hasn't been injured.

[homeschool mama]

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

Why should she refuse child support payments for a child HE fathered? Are you unaware of law and need? Or are you just plain hateful of Christians and child support in general?

I know this woman. She's a kind and decent woman.

[Marysecretary]

Even active Christians deserve to get money from deadbeats who father children. She may not have been a Christian at the time she got pregnant but even if she was, she deserves the money. She was good enough to father his child but she shouldn't be supported by him? Nonsense. He should have a part in the girl's life, for sure, but not this way. Her good should be his agenda, not big bucks for himself.