Pastor: Girl in Pledge Case Is Christian

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,217
Reaction score
2
Pastor: Girl in Pledge Case Is Christian
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 12, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - The eight-year-old daughter of Michael Newdow, the atheist who sued a California school district over the Pledge of Allegiance on her behalf, is a Christian and wasn't troubled by the words "under God," a pastor acquainted with the family said.

"The little girl, over whom the suit was filed, happens to attend Calvary Chapel in Elk Grove," Pastor Chuck Smith told his congregation at Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, Calif., as apparently first reported by Conservative Press International News.

"She is Christian, her mother is a Christian ... This whole suit was filed on a totally false premise," Smith said.

Rev. Rich Chaffin, pastor of Calvary Chapel of Laguna Creek, which is located in Elk Grove, Calif., told CNSNews.com that the girl in fact was a member of his congregation.

"I can confirm that both the girl and her mother attend our church and are involved in our church," Chaffin said.

Newdow, a medical doctor who also holds a law degree, argued that the pledge violated his daughter's First Amendment rights because she had 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, and that ours is 'one nation under God.'"

Based on Newdow's complaint, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2 - 1 that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is unconstitutional. In his ruling, Judge Alfred Goodwin, an appointee of President Nixon, declared that the Constitution guarantees people in public places protection from state-sponsored religious declarations.

The ruling, however, was put on hold due to the vast amount of opposition it generated across the United States.

Newdow, who filed the complaint, told CNSNews.com that his daughter had not been part of the case.

"This is my case," he said. "I have the right to send my child to school without religious dogma inculcated.

"My main complaint is that I as a parent have the right to send my child to school without government thrusting religious dogma down her throat, be it dogma that she agrees with or disagrees with or I disagree with or I agree with. The government's not supposed to be in the religion business, period," Newdow said.

But by identifying herself as a Christian, the girl presumably didn't become uncomfortable when reciting the pledge, a fact that directly challenges the essence of the lawsuit, legal analysts said.

While some legal experts applauded the intent of Newdow's suit, no one seemed to think the ruling would survive very long.

Among others, legal scholars doubted whether Newdow had sufficient standing to file the suit. This development could mean that the full 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court wouldn't have to decide whether "under God" violated the First Amendment's prohibition on establishing religion. It could just say that Newdow didn't have the right to file the suit.
 

Welby

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2001
Messages
3,341
Reaction score
2
Newdow admitted himself on Fox News the morning after the historic ruling that his daughter preferred to use the phrase "Under God" when she recited the pledge.

This guy is just a jerk.  Plain and simple.  He wanted simply to make his mark by stirring up trouble and revoking a right and privilege of the majority.  The fact that his case was based on a total lie just adds insult to injury.

If memory serves me correctly, the Roe vs. Wade case was built on similar false circumstances.  Right?  (If I am wrong, do correct me...I don't want to be the source of false information.)
 

RIFLEMAN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
32
Regardless of what and how the Court decides, Neadow's case MUST, under the law, be thrown out because a case must have an injured party.  As Neadow'ws daughter is both Christian and happy to recite the Pledge as is, he cannot present a case on her behalf because she clearly is not the injured party.  
 
Top Bottom