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.

[Tired of Taxes]

As an atheist, I can tell you that there's no such animal as an "atheist church". Even American Atheists, though they're supportive of his case, pokes fun at people who start-up "atheist churches" and so on because such people miss the point entirely. "Atheism" means literally "without theism" or "without religion" or "without a belief in a god or gods".

However, he's not forcing his beliefs onto anyone UNLESS he wanted to change the Pledge to "one godless nation" or "one nation without a god"; then THAT would be forcing his views onto others. By leaving religious references out altogether, we simply restore the Pledge to its original version pre-1954.

[Utah Girl]

I have a friend whose ex-husband is gay. A couple of years ago when their daughter was eight, she came home all excited. Her father shares custody, so she is with her father a couple of days a week. Anyway, she came home from the weekend all thrilled because she was going to be in a parade, ride in a float, and be able to wave at everyone. She didn't know what kind of parade it was, but she did know when it was. Conveniently, when my friend called her ex to find out the details, he was out of town, and wouldn't be back until the morning of the parade. As it turned out, it was the Gay Pride parade in SLC. The father was technically truthful, his organization had a float in a parade and his daughter could be in the float and wave at the people. He just didn't tell the WHOLE story. And I suspect the same was true with Nednow.

I will grant you, that if I'd had the past history of Nednow filing all those lawsuits in Florida, I would be quite suspicious if he wanted to take my daughter to the Supreme Court in Sacramento. But do we know that is what he told the child's mother???

[baseballfanjm]

Couldn't be more right. Anyway, I wonder what the judges who handed down this ruling have been doing since.

[Wondervixen]

>> The article makes it clear he's living off savings. Every penny he makes, and the money he saved, is going to support his child.

If you consider his "baby" is a series of lawsuits against God...Seems to me that if you want to get at someone, you sure don't go picking on the biggest Kahuna to get attention. He had no business going after God in the first place if he truly were trying to stick it to his wife over his daughter. He's a nutburger of the highest magnitude and just from his loon performances of late, he should stand no chance of having a minute with his daughter again, if in fact, that IS his motivation.

[savedbygrace]

Now you're acting just plain daft. The child support was exstablished when his income was much higher. Then Mr. 15 Minutes of Fame decided, all on his own, to reduce his own income so he could work on his atheistic causes. No matter how many times you blather about the nobility of his paying so much child support, it doesn't change the facts.

Since the trial transcipts aren't available, I'll have to assume the Appeals Court judge knew what he was talking about when he wrote that Mr. 15 Minutes of Fame claimed the child was injured by the pledge.

Do you have any evidence to prove the judge was lying?

[syriacus]

As an atheist, I can tell you that there's no such animal as an "atheist church".

You mean you don't trust Newdow's own opinion of himself, his church, and his cause?

from One Nation, Under ... Who?

His passion is his legal work. He signs legal pleadings “The Rev. Doctor Michael A. Newdow.” In 1977 he was ordained minister in the Universal Life Church. Its adherents believe that rational thought, not God, is the guiding light of life on earth. Most Americans wouldn’t consider that church a church, or Newdow a reverend. But hey, it’s a free country.

Yes. It's a free country and Newdow is getting to define atheism the way he wants in the federal courts.

His atheism includes churches and (he hopes) plenty of followers of ministers like him. Too bad his daughter doesn't attend his church. I wonder how many disciples he has?

[flyervet]

She said it came as a complete surprise. How big a surprise could it have been if their child described a trip to San Francisco, a big marble building with metal detectors and all sorts or policemen and security guards, and a long, boring speech her daddy presented in front of three men in big, black robes?

At the very least, the mother is being disingenuous here. I guess you can't blame her for seeing a chance to get back at Michael Newdow for not simply rolling over and playing dead when she wanted him out of their daughter's life.

[flyervet]

So you think that children should be deprived of their fathers if those fathers have different religious and political views than you?

[Tired of Taxes]

I already heard about Newdow referring to himself as "Reverend". I visited his website and read all that. I think most atheists would cringe at his referring to atheism as his "religion" because most are adament that atheism is NOT a religion. But, in the end, that doesn't matter. Just like the religious, he has the right to form an organization, and he can call it a "church" if he wants to. It doesn't change his case.

I don't know why he started a "church"... unless he wants to qualify for tax-exemption status? Actually, that's pretty bright. Atheists have been complaining about tax-exemption given to religious organizations for a long time. Me thinks I've just predicted his next move... lol.

[flyervet]

No matter how many times you blather about the nobility of his paying so much child support, it doesn't change the facts.

And the facts are that he is paying nearly double his income in child support after having moved 3,000 miles to be near his daughter.

Since the trial transcipts aren't available, I'll have to assume the Appeals Court judge knew what he was talking about when he wrote that Mr. 15 Minutes of Fame claimed the child was injured by the pledge.

Just as I thought. You have no proof Mr. Newdow lied to the court.

[syriacus]

However, he's not forcing his beliefs onto anyone

If he weren't trying to force his beliefs on others, he wouldn't have lied to try to win a case. He's lied in order to try to force others to accept his view of things on his schedule. He originally brought the case up when his daughter was not old enough to have any problems with the pledge in school (according to the Judge who dismissed the case in Florida in 1998 or 1999).

Aren't you concerned that the atheist who is bringing the lawsuit is perverting the meaning of intellectual honesty? Most atheists seem concerned about being true to themselves and to others and are proud about shunning half-truths and myths.

But Newdow is an atheist who is now an infamous myth-promoter (aka liar). He has said he wants his daughter to get to be true to herself and not have to speak the words "Under God." But he was not being truthful when he said his daughter would be harmed when she refused to recite the pledge.

People with weak arguments try to force their opinions on others by lying when they give testimony. I don't like financial officers who lie in company reports, and I don't like folks who lie when bringing lawsuits. They wreck society by promoting distrust.

But, let's get beyond personalities and down to basics.

• If Newdow had such a wonderful cause why did he feel he had to lie?
• Why hasn't a more honest atheist won a federal lawsuit to remove the words?

No wonder the ACLU has distanced itself from him. Could be that many more ethical atheists will soon be running the other way from the"ethically challenged" Rev. Dr. Newdow, Esq..

[Tired of Taxes]

Where did he "lie", Syriacus? I cannot find the brief anymore. It does not come up at the Ninth Circuit Court site anymore. Maybe someone here can find it and post a link.

What was the "lie", Syriacus? Be specific.

[dsutah]

Ok, ok, maybe you're right and wrong about him. I certainly don't know him or the girlfriend. But why are you so willing to jump to his defense, and trashing her? Does she appear to be a feminazi? She doesn't fit the description of one. Not of the ones I've read about!

She seems to be a lady who may not have been particularly religious before when she met him, but when she had the child, she decided to go back to church, and became more conservative in her faith. Who knows what happened, that's my guess. I've known some women, and men to have done that.

Perhaps like you say, he is contributing to the care of the child, but how do you know? We can only take his word for it now. Don't you think maybe she is working too, and taking care of the child. But this is going to hurt her relationship (the child)with her dad, if he goes on antagonizing people. He may have a valid fight with the family courts, but why is he lying about the child being hurt, when she obviously isn't? Isn't that teaching her to hide behind people, and lie, and get what you want at the expense of other people?

I have a uneasy feeling that there is someone, or a group of people behind him, putting him up to do this. He may have money and means, but enough to live on, contribute to his child's upkeep, and go around from courtroom to courtroom antagonizing people?

One day he's liable to push someone too far, and they'll hurt him, or wind up in prison with his courtroom antics. How is he going to see his daughter grow up then? She's either going to grow up being afraid of him, or angry with him for ruining her childhood. He appears to be an angry, bitter man, always looking for a fight.

[Wondervixen]

You just don't read anything do you? Newdow is only her father BIOLOGICALLY from a ONE NIGHT STAND with her mother...They never hooked up again in any way as a "family".

I think the old saying goes "Anyone can be a Father but it takes a special man to be a DADDY"!

[syriacus]

Where did he "lie", Syriacus? I cannot find the brief anymore. It does not come up at the Ninth Circuit Court site anymore. Maybe someone here can find it and post a link. What was the "lie", Syriacus? Be specific

You mean you haven't ever read the brief?

For your sake, I did a search and found pretty much the same thing that almost all the news outlets have been reporting all along. The most annoying part for me was having to retype it here, so everyone could view the same thing they've been hearing over and over and over and over.

You can click the link at C-SPAN and read the PDF that's provided. (just in case I've made some typos)

Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge. Rather, he claims that his daughter is injured when she is compelled to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her class mates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's [sic] is 'one nation under God.'"

(I won't charge you a fee for the search results I've provided you.)

[syriacus]

PS. Newdow lied about his own daughter....in court.

[Wondervixen]

Funny how this move 3000 miles just so coincidentally placed him right in the lap of the 9th Circuit, huh? He was all too willing to make that move...Had her mother moved to a conservative minded Circuit, I doubt he'd have been within 500 miles of them.

[Tired of Taxes]

I've only been able to locate the text for Newdow's "original complaint" filed in 2000. You can read it yourself at:
http://www.restorethepledge.com/

Just go to "Litigation" and click on "Original Complaint".

Throughout the text, he refers to HIMSELF as the Plaintiff and claims that his rights as a PARENT have been violated. This seemed to be the crux of his argument, and I assume that is the crux of his argument in 2002, too:

"Due to the inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, Rule AR 6115 results in the daily indoctrination of the Elk Grove Unified School District’s students – including Plaintiff’s daughter – with religious dogma, as is expressly forbidden by the Constitution of the United States of America."

"78. Plaintiff, under the Free Exercise Clause, has an unrestricted right to inculcate in his daughter – free from governmental interference – the atheistic beliefs he finds persuasive. The government’s use of the words “under God” in the Nation’s Pledge of Allegiance infringes upon this right....

"79. Plaintiff’s daughter has been, currently is, and will in the future be subjected to the teacher-led recitation of the now-sectarian Pledge of Allegiance every day she attends the public schools. In other words, every school morning – under the aegis of the State – this child “of tender years” is compelled to watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her and her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that ours is “one Nation under God.” For the State to ever subject Plaintiff’s daughter to such dogma – expressing and inculcating purely religious beliefs that are directly contrary to the religious beliefs of PLAINTIFF and the religious ideals he wishes to instill in his child – would be of questionable constitutionality. For it to do this every single school day for thirteen years – using Plaintiff’s tax dollars, no less, to accomplish the affront – is an outrageous and manifest abuse of power in direct violation of the Religion Clauses of the constitutions of both the United States and the State of California."


Thus, it appears that he simply claimed that HIS rights as a parent to raise her in his beliefs (or nonbeliefs) were denied. Does anyone have the text for his 2002 brief?

Again, where was the "lie"?

[syriacus]

Had her mother moved to a conservative minded Circuit, I doubt he'd have been within 500 miles of them.

If his daughter didn't live in an area he felt would welcome his suit, he could always lie and say he had another daughter. He's pretty good at lying.

As a matter of fact, lying to get his way on his own schedule seems to be his strongest suit.

Then again, maybe he could have adopted a child to help his cause.

But...
I worry that he can't seem to keep his own identity separate from his daughter's identity. In one interview he fights the pledge for his daughter. In another interview he fights the pledge for his own sake. He can't seem to keep their identities straight.

He's told us how very vulnerable young children are. Maybe he shouldn't be allowed to adopt a child until he grows up.

[Tired of Taxes]

Well, you and I must've been posting at the same time. I've attempted to view the actual text through that link earlier tonight, as well as through other links, too, and I still cannot view it, though I was able to view it in the past. Perhaps I'm just having computer problems.

If Newdow's position is that his daughter is "injured", that still doesn't qualify as a "lie". If he were a Christian who believed that his daughter was injured by pro-abortion teachings, and the mother who had primary custody insisted that the daughter wasn't injured by those teachings, and the daughter said she didn't mind those teachings, whose side would you take then? As a PARENT, he doesn't want his daughter indoctrinated by the gov't, and he filed the complaint based on his rights as a parent.

Again, I don't see a "lie" there.