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.

[homeschool mama]

I agree completely.

[knak]

Someone sent me this in an email, I didn't want to make it a "vanity" post and this is the story it belongs with. Sorry if it doesn't fit in with the arguement on the thread. I think it fits in well with the pleadge being taken from schools. Just wanted to post it.

In light of the shooting in Michigan:

Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained she didn't want any prayer in our schools. And we said OK..

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible that says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself.
And we said OK..

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave be-cause their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem.
And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about so we won't spank them anymore..

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued.
And we accepted their reasoning...

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents.
And we said, that's a grand idea...

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school.
And we said, that's another great idea...

Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs.
And agreeing with them, we said it doesn't matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in private as long as I have a job and the economy is good...

And then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude women and call it wholesome down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body.
And we said we have no problem with that...

And someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of children and then stepped further still by making them available on the internet.
And we said they're entitled to their free speech...

And the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. And let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes...
And we said it's just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, and nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead...

Therefore, now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with..."WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Pass it on if you think it has merit! If not then just discard.....but if you discard this thought process, then don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in... VOICE YOUR OPINION HOWEVER YOU CAN!

Dear God,
Why didn't you save the little girl in Michigan?
Sincerely,
Concerned Student.

AND THE REPLY...
Dear Concerned Student:
I am not allowed in schools.
Sincerely,
God.

[flyervet]

I don't think either of the parents have much moral high ground when it comes to the treatment of their child. However, I do wish to point out yet again that the daughter was present at the oral arguments in San Francisco.

[tet68]

Newdow and his daughter when he presented oral arguments about the Pledge of Allegiance to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Newdow took his daughter for the experience

I'd say he took her as a prop.

[homeschool mama]

Well...I know the mother and child (in case you didn't catch that earlier). The mother is a kind and decent woman.

The father used the child as court bait.

[Khepera]

His early demise will truly take him from his daughter. Fairly selfish on his part and I believe the mother probably has good reason for keeping him at bay. I bet he is an anal retentive individual unable to nurture a healthy relationship.

A masters degree in psychology is not needed for a diagnosis here. Where is that DSM III handbook when you need it?

[homeschool mama]

You would be correct.

[homeschool mama]

**I bet he is an anal retentive individual unable to nurture a healthy relationship. **

That's about the jest of it, K.

[flyervet]

How could I miss it, you've been banging that drum all over FR.com for the last month or so. I don't know whether it's true or not and frankly I don't care. 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.

[homeschool mama]

You don't care because you prefer to not invest the time in the truth.

btw...it's true.

See ya toots.

[Khepera]

It doesn't sound to me like he is doing anything to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to reconciliation between himself and his family. To rally against the core beliefs of his daughter and spouse is no way to draw them closer. Sounds like he is making his own bed here and it has hospital corners.

[savedbygrace]

Michael Newdow is meeting his requirements for child support despite the fact that the mother of his child tried to remove him from his child's life by moving 3,000 miles away and despite the fact that child support is almost double his income.

He only made $15K last year because he chose to only work two days a week. By all appearances, he's obsessed. That's not a positive characteristic for a father.

IF he really wanted to see his daughter more often, he would start by moving closer to her. No, this man's a self-centered sperm donor.

[flyervet]

Actually, I prefer not to read anymore "evil man" BS, especially through the lens of someone with such an obviously hateful, anti-fatherhood agenda.

Whether you actually know the woman or not, you'll keep beating that dead horse 'til the USSC hears the case, and beyond, never once even dreaming of the fact that there are two sides to every story.

[Khepera]

Hit that nail. There may be two sides to this story. One is right and one is wrong. The right side is the one that stands with God. There is only one other side to stand on after that.

[flyervet]

He only made $15K last year because he chose to only work two days a week.

Yes and his child support is $24,000 a year. The fact that he's willing to sacrifice his future financial well-being to care for his child speaks very highly of him.

By all appearances, he's obsessed. That's not a positive characteristic for a father.

The man is far from perfect. But if every man who weren't perfect were cut out of their children's lives, well, we wouldn't have fathers at all.

IF he really wanted to see his daughter more often, he would start by moving closer to her.

The man moved 3,000 miles from Florida to California to be closer to his child. Granted, that's what Homeschool Mama says, so take it with a grain of salt, but the man uprooted his whole life to be near his child, and for an MD, that's a big deal. Getting licensed to practice in another state can take months. He's made a massive commitment of time, energy, and resources to be near his child. What more can you or anyone else ask of him?

[garybob]

However, I do wish to point out yet again that the daughter was present at the oral arguments in San Francisco.

For which action he should be charged with child abuse.

[savedbygrace]

Yes and his child support is $24,000 a year. The fact that he's willing to sacrifice his future financial well-being to care for his child speaks very highly of him.

You've got it backwards. Knowing what his child support requirements are, he has purposely reduced the number of hours he works, not to better care for the girl, but to devote more time to those atheistic causes that are so important to him.

By all appearances, the causes are more important to him than the little girl. Particularly considering that he was willing to lie to the court, and to the American people. (I heard the representations this glory hound has made in many of his media appearances. He has lied.)

[flyervet]

You have an odd notion of the meaning of child abuse.

[flyervet]

He's paying nearly double his income, sacrificing his financial well-being to pay that child support. The fact that he's paying such an onerous child support burden speaks very well of him.

Can you document where he lied to the court? Thanks.