It Doesn’t Matter What the Child Believes
July 13, 2002
It may look like a headline, but it’s really a quote from Michael Newdow, the atheist whose appeal in the 9th circuit made the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in schools.
You see, the ironic twist to this whole case is that Newdow’s daughter doesn’t feel damaged. She participates in the pledge at school, and even goes to church! She was unhappy about the decision.
Her mother, it seems, was concerned that the public might get the impression her and Newdow’s daughter is an atheist or somehow supported the suit. She decided to go public with the information! She says her daughter has not been harmed by saying "under God" in the pledge. That’s important.
The reason it’s important is that Newdow has no cause to bring the suit on her behalf unless there was injury.
Newdow told CNN "the main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it’s me." When he argued that the words violated "his right to teach his daughter his faith," he failed to tell the court that "his faith" and "his daughter’s faith" are not one in the same. In other words, he was claiming to have more right to force his faith on her than she has freedom to pursue her faith, and fooled the court into agreeing with him.
This case was bad enough when I imagined that Newdow’s daughter had to not say the words, and was ridiculed because of that. Knowing that she’s against what he’s doing makes me think even less of the case, Michael Newdow, and the judges that gave the case credence.
It takes a low-life scumbag to use a kid against her will to further a selfish cause. As a parent, I can’t believe he did it! How does one explain it?
"It doesn’t matter what the child believes."
In a way I agree with Mr. Newdow’s quote. I believe he’s a scumbag as a father - even if the child doesn’t.
The separation of church and state is not contained in the Constitution.
The fourth verse of the Star Spangled Banner contains the word "God."
Thomas Jefferson allowed, and attended, religious services in government buildings.
In striking down a New York law which required prayer at the start of each school day, the Supreme Court distinguished recitations that include reference to a deity from prayer as "patriotic or ceremonial occasions [that] bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance."
Some other things I've written about: