An interesting twist to the Pledge of Allegiance controversy

[najaboy]

DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO ---- The California schoolgirl whose atheist father sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional has no problem with reciting the pledge, her mother said Thursday.

"I was concerned that the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist or that she has been harmed by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words 'one nation under God,' " said the mother, Sandra Banning, in a statement. "In our home we are practicing Christians and are active in our church."


Banning, of Elk Grove, has never been married to Michael Newdow, the third-grader's father, a Sacramento physician and attorney who is representing himself.

It was her first public comment since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Newdow that the words "under God," inserted by Congress in 1954, make the pledge an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

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.

Banning, who declined through her attorney to be interviewed, has full custody of the child, which Newdow also is challenging in court.

But Newdow said in an interview Thursday that he also has the right to determine how she's brought up.

"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.

Some legal experts said the mother's revelation that the girl herself willingly recites the pledge in class could cast doubts on the legitimacy of the case, giving the court grounds to dismiss it or send it to a lower court to weigh the allegations.

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.

"The federal courts can't address anything unless it's a case of controversy," Little said. "You have to have injury."

Legal precedents also allow for cases to be reopened, even at the appellate level, if the legal standing of the plaintiff suddenly becomes an issue.

Banning, who has hired lawyers in part to explore intervening in the case, said she hopes her efforts will lead to a reversal of the appellate ruling.

She said her daughter "expressed sadness" after the ruling.

"Because of her response and the potential impact of this case on her life, I have the responsibility as her mother to speak out, to set the record straight or clear up any misrepresentations," she said.

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. A parent of a child has a right to send a child to a public school without the government introducing religious dogma, period."

Newdow said the girl is also injured because the pledge interferes with her right to freely express her beliefs "without the government intruding religious beliefs upon her."

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."

The court has put its decision on hold to allow for appeals. Paul Sullivan, the wife's attorney, planned to file papers saying Newdow misled the judges.
[addsig]

[XzyluM]

When will people ever learn? It was his decision to place his daughter in a public school. If he felt any harm to his daughter or felt she was being injured by what he considered "religious dogma," why did he even place her in a public school. This is pure ridiculous.
[addsig]

[RevMojo]

see those matches over there that say "controversy" on the cover..hand em to me

You'd think that I would have a definite opinion on this one, and I do, but it's probably not the one you think. A minister I am, but what I'm not is one of those who believes my religion is the right and only. So here's the brief synopsis of my opinion:

Two words have got to come out. Take your pick: "under God" OR "for all"

what do you mean the fire extinguisher is empty?

[Dr.Oviparous]

I have always felt that it is a hypocracy to say that church and state are seperate, yet our money, and pledge CLEARLY mentions a god. I know I'm vastly outnumbered on this one here, but I belive the words should be removed from our money, and pledge. religion should have absolutly NOTHING to do with state, not even as much as to mention any god in an official document. -Juggalo

_________________
"Well, it didn't look like a one horse town, but try finding a decent hair jelly!" -Eulisses E McGill

[Ritchie]

don't even get me started....

the same people who say it is unconstitutional to say the pledge.....

they are the same people voting my gun rights away..........

go figure.

that is all I will say for now.........because I am about to offend a great many people I have never even met.


also
if we take out the words under god and for all....what we are left with is

indivisible with liberty and justice (for the select few who can afford it)
[addsig]

[CelticWench]

deposits two cents..

I agree, Jug.. seperation of church & state is an absulote neccessity if we want to guarantee everyone freedom of speech, religion, etc... which is why I will never move to Utah... did you know that if any holiday falls on a Sunday in Utah they will clebrate it on a different day? And it's not just a few people or groups, it's the whole state that does this! To me, that's way too much power for the church to have...
[addsig]

[Shadrach]

Amen Ritchie! I agree with you 100%! Nuff Said!
[addsig]

[zero_point_one]

I think this case has gone beyond the whole separation of church and state and is now a matter of he said/she said between two parents.
[addsig]

[wb]

While this country was founded on religous freedom, it was founded with religion in mind. The foundation was based on religion, just the religion of ur choice, hence god on our money and sprinkled throughout our government. So while religious freedom was taken into consideration when founding this great nation, a lack of any religion at all was not. Our "forefathers" assumed that everyone believed in at least A god.

Now for my opinion........I dont think the foundation of this great nation should be changed because it didnt cover those who believe there is no god. Of course they have a right to voice there opinion and i will listen and play the devils advocate, but they also have the choice to live somewhere else if they dont like there situation here. I just feel that living in this great country is a priviledge not a right. If u dont like church not being seperated completely from state, leave. No one will stop u.

Ok im done

_________________
How u get caught stealing boxes on ur day off.........what u tryin to do, build a clubhouse?

[wb]

and if u make ppl quit saying the pledge of alliegance, dont get mad when ppl stop pledging their alliegance

ok im done for real
[addsig]

[RevMojo]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE> If he felt any harm to his daughter or felt she was being injured by what he considered &quot;religious dogma,&quot; why did he even place her in a public school </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

They don't say the pledge in private schools?



<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE> if we take out the words under god and for all....what we are left with is

indivisible with liberty and justice (for the select few who can afford it </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

OR, Ritchie, OR

But I'm right there with you on the Gun thing...

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE> So while religious freedom was taken into consideration when founding this great nation, a lack of any religion at all was no. Our &quot;forefathers&quot; assumed that everyone believed in at least A god. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

You know what happens when you assume...besides, it's a different world today. Christian mythology doesnt hold quite the sway it used to...



<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>they also have the right to live somewhere else if they dont like there situation here </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

How open minded of you. The right we actually have is the right to attempt to correct faults in our government. This country's founders came up with one heck of a plan for a country, but plenty has been changed since they did. Any of y'all remember the 3/5 rule from your American History class?

I saw an interview with the mother on the Today show this AM. She bragged about what a good Christian family they have and that her daughter led the pledge of allegience on the first day of class. She made a point of emphasizing that her daughter enjoys saying the pledge of allegience, and that it is only the father's contention that she was being harmed by doing so. Who's to say they can't both be right? I enjoy plenty of things that are harmful to me

[kirkje]

well i would like to point out that it said the mother has full custody of the child so in my opion the mother is the one putting the child into the school public or private not the father. to me he is exploiting his child to make some kind of name for his self or to get his thoughts and beliefs. and anouther thing how are you injured listening to things. she would not have to participate in the pledge. I have to listen to stuff in the cars next to me that i may not like am i injured? do i have any rights? It is funny that it only pertains to things about God. This kind of stuff is crazy and a waste of tax dollars. just my 2 cents
[addsig]