Dad regards pledge case as his 'duty'

The Sacramento Bee ^ | 7/16/2002 | Jennifer Garza

[Utah Girl]

Of all the names he's been called in the past few weeks -- and there have been plenty -- Mike Newdow can't quite understand how someone could call him a bad father. Or a traitor.

Newdow is the Sacramento man who challenged the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- and won.

[Charles Martel]

The fact of the matter is that Newdow has gone the extra mile to stay in his little girl's life and provide for her well-being. That is commendable.

Yes, how very commendable of him, the way he dragged a child - his *own* child, into the middle of such a controversial issue. A loving, caring father protects his children from such exploitation and never, ever uses one of his children to advance some personal agenda, be it some twisted desire to poke the religious faithful in the eye or just a scheme to "get even" with the child's mother.

You make valid points in some of your posts regarding the increasing bias against fathers in situations where couples separate. However, this particular man (and I use that term very loosely) is hardly an appropriate "poster boy" for that topic. In fact, you do many other fathers a great disservice by counting Newdow among them.

[flyervet]

So you think that when I operate under the assumption that HSM is telling the truth, I am forcing you to make the same assumption? Is that really what you think?

[Wondervixen]

>>Moreover, it seems the perfect hobby for someone who is not working many hours per week and wants to spend as much time with his child as possible.

No, the perfect hobby in the first place (assuming he had never acted like an atheism-obsessed nutburger & given the mother reason to want to shield her daughter from him) would have been to be a daddy. He couldn't do that. He had to go about his arrogant obsession of trying to obliterate God from society...Something that the mother (and a vast majority in society, as atheists are most definately a minority group) did not agree with.

You see flyervet, I don't dislike you or anything, I just disagree with your devils advocacy on this subject. MOST of us have strong feelings about pulling on the boxing gloves and challenging the Omnipotent Creator of our Universe...Mr. Newdow obviously has a screw loose to be doing so. No, he may not get struck by lightning as Hollyweird would have done, but in the court of public opinion, he has been judged to be very unstable minded...NOT someone who would make a good parent or guardian, and when the day comes where we will all see if there is a Creator (as most of us have faith there IS), Mr. Newdow will find himself with a far worse problem than child support, activism, or even being struck by lightning.

[flyervet]

I rate Michael Newdow in the same column as any other politically active parent with school-aged kids who chooses to be active in school or children's issues. That's a whole bunch of parents and certainly they all have their own motives for their political action and certainly that political action has a whole range of affects on their children. However, I refuse to believe that being a parent means that you give up your right to free expression.

While Michael Newdow's daughter gave him political standing to challenge the POA I don't know that I would go so far as to say he is using his child. In every interview I've read with him, he has done his best to make it clear that the case was about his preferences as a parent and his desire to have a religiously neutral education for her. We haven't seen her picture, we don't even know her name. I contrast this behavior with some other activist parents who are never in front of a camera without their child in tow.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if pro-fatherhood people wait for a perfect father who just happens to have custody issues, we'll never do anything about fathers' rights at all.

[flyervet]

How do you know he's not being a daddy to his daughter? Certainly he has gone to great lengths to be physically near her, the first requirement to being a daddy (you can't be a daddy from 3,000 miles away). He's also paying all of his salary and a good portion of his savings to support his child, another basic requirement of daddyhood. Beyond that, we're back in the realm of supposition; you suppose he is a bad daddy because you don't like the person you see in news interviews or the fact that he won his case before the Ninth.

Quite frankly, I think this whole issue is a silly little tempest-in-a-teacup, and I am certain that an atheist of Newdow's obvious intellectual and legal capabilities could find a more important battle to wage. Be that as it may, I don't believe popular opinion is an accurate barometer of good and bad laws, or people for that matter.

BTW, God was not named as a defendant in Michael Newdow's suit. If God is as omnipotent, eternal, and omniscient as they say two then little words in the POA aren't going to bother Him on whit.

[Wondervixen]

What do you not understand? You tell us to "Assume" the truth (if we want to) about someone else, but are we to do any more than assume the truth with YOUR posts? No, you appear to want your opinions ACCEPTED without question.

[Wondervixen]

>>(you can't be a daddy from 3,000 miles away)

You can't effectively box with the Creator in a nutburger friendly court from 3,000 miles away either, can you.

The only disagreements we seem to be having here, flyervet, is "What is Michael Newdow's obsession?"...What is his core?

If it was his little girl (who goes to a Christian Church & believes in God, I might add), you'd think his time would be spent OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE TRYING TO FURTHER HIS ATHEISTIC PURSUITS.

No interview with him has yet to center on how he wants to take her to McDonalds, push her on a playground swing, buy her ice cream, and do Daddy things...No, they center around Newdow wanting to do NEWDOW THINGS...Busting up God from the Inaugural Address, Banning the Pledge of Allegiance, Removing "In God We Trust" from federal currency...The list goes on & on.

Yea, every good father puts his obsessions ahead of the children. "Come on, Honey, Daddy's taking you to a God Bashing! Wheeeeeeeeee"

[flyervet]

Wow. Your reading skills need a littel work, don't they?

I was, personally, operating under the assumption that HSM was telling the truth. That's why I said, "Assuming you are telling the truth,". I wasn't telling anyone to "assume" anything, otherwise, I would have said, "You all must assume..."

You can accept, or not accept my opinions with whatever questions you care to ask, no matter how silly those questions may be. It's no skin off my back in any event.

[flyervet]

You can't effectively box with the Creator in a nutburger friendly court from 3,000 miles away either, can you.

Oh, I doubt God is so small He is totally encapsulated in the words "under God" in the POA. You, however, seem to think otherwise. Isn't that rather blasphemous?

If it was his little girl (who goes to a Christian Church & believes in God, I might add), you'd think his time would be spent OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE TRYING TO FURTHER HIS ATHEISTIC PURSUITS.

Unless he honestly believes he is making the world a better place for his daughter. Then I would think he would spend as much time as possible on that pursuit. Of course, it's a silly assumption to make, because up until this month, he has been out of the public eye.

No interview with him has yet to center on how he wants to take her to McDonalds, push her on a playground swing, buy her ice cream, and do Daddy things...

Gee, I guess you missed the article at the start of this thread then. The main thrust is that he wants to have more time with his daughter. However, I must appluad the way he has shielded his daughter from public scrutiny. Other people have paraded their minor children all over the press.

No, they center around Newdow wanting to do NEWDOW THINGS...Busting up God from the Inaugural Address, Banning the Pledge of Allegiance, Removing "In God We Trust" from federal currency...The list goes on & on.

Actually, the POA isn't banned, it's just that the amended, 1954 version with the words "under God" has been found to be unconstitutional. Go back to the pre-54 version and you'll have no problem. Heck, it was good enough to get us through WWI, the Spanish American War, WWII, and Korea.

[Wondervixen]

>> Oh, I doubt God is so small He is totally encapsulated in the words "under God" in the POA. You, however, seem to think otherwise. Isn't that rather blasphemous?

For us to accept a ban on the POA based on "under God" and justify accepting it by reasoning "Ehhhhhhhhh, it probably don't seem like that big a thing to God, what should I care?"

Assuming to know God's attitude as not giving a damn one way or the other as an excuse to do nothing about it IS Blasphemy!!!

[flyervet]

For us to accept a ban on the POA based on "under God" and justify accepting it by reasoning "Ehhhhhhhhh, it probably don't seem like that big a thing to God, what should I care?"

Well, number one, the POA hasn't been banned. The 1954 amendment has been found in violation of the Separation clause when it is mandated to be used in public schools. There's a simple, elegant solution available at our fingertips; all we need to do is go back to using the "classic", pre-1954 pledgein public schools Think of it as a retro movement!

I really don't believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal god cares a hoot about what school children mindlessly mumble at the start of each day (and it is a mindless mumble). I doubt that such a being would be that insecure. It's silly to think otherwise. However, the wailing and nashing of teeth that has followed the wake of this ruling is playing right into the hands of liberals who want to make the argument that the use of the words "under God" is an invocation of diety. Claiming the omission of the words "under God" is an affront to a diety is surrendering the argument.

[RGSpincich]

which is quite far from Sacramento

According to the article, he still works in LA at the UCLA Medical Center a couple of days a week. Quite a commute.

[flyervet]

Check it again. He works there a couple of days a month. That's a heck of a long way from Sacramento, but is not impossible. My guess is he works one weekend a month. Considering that UCLA Med Center is a first-rate hospital, my guess would be that this is the only way he can work for such a prestigious hospital while being near his daughter.

[RGSpincich]

He works there a couple of days a month.

Gotta get my eyes checked.

[rkrtgw]

He is my final comments on this subject? You may have the last word.
Newdow is a busy body who has a problem with God and Religion. He is part of the minority that has the gall to think he is going to dictate what the majority may or may not say. This is not a Religious issue with me. My Children will recite the POA as I teach them.
Newdow has used his Daughter to advance HIS political agenda. If he were truly a caring father that wanted what was best (for a child that HE IS NOT a Major player in his life I might add through his choices and actions) for her he would not have used her in such a way.
We Are talking about a person that is trying to tell the president of the united states and the rest of us how the president may swear the oath of office just because he has a problem with the words "so help me God." When Newdow is elected President he may swear the oath of Office any way he pleases for all I care.
I think we in the majority have just about reached our boiling point over those who insist on telling us what is acceptable speech and what is not.

[proudwoman]

Poor little girl. I saw an interview on Crossfire with Newdow. The man is a nutcase. He obviously doesn't care for his daughter, he just wants publicity.

[Doc On The Bay]

Irrespective of His "POV," --the GUY is a TOTAL SOCIOPATH!!

He has NO "Legal Standing" in the Court,--& his "CASE" attempts to repudiate the "Philosophical Underpinnings" of Western Civilization!!

This Jerk needs "A Few Months" in a "Totalitarian Prison;" THEN let him Criticise "Democracy," or try to "Make His Case" in ANY OTHER SOCIETY Than OURS!

Doc

[homeschool mama]

**You made the brash "deadbeat" assumption without knowing anything more.... **

Ahhhh...that's where you're wrong.

[syriacus]

but there is a possible set up of precedent

Interesting insight.

Here is another interesting outcome of Newdow's suit.Pledge provides delicate moment {Pledge recited in 9th Circuit appeals court, July 15th]

[flyervet]

I think Michael Newdow is probably an abrasive, obnoxious individual who combines some of the worst characteristics of lawyers and doctors. However, that doesn't make him a bad father and that doesn't mean his daughter deserves to be robbed of one of her parents.

Parents can and frequently do have political causes involving their children. Where is the line between honestly trying to improve the lives of your children and "using them to further a political agenda"? In other words, why is Michael Newdow accused of using his children while the parents in the Ohio school voucher case are not? I think a good part of the answer lies in the fact that Michael Newdow is an out-spoken atheist who has won an unpopular decision. While we may never be 100% certain of the private thoughts and motives of other people, I believe, looking at the actions of Michael Newdow, that he has actually sought to shield his daughter from publicity compared to many other politically active parents, and that this is indicative of sincerity rather than hubris.