Mom: Daughter in Pledge Case Worships God

Fox News ^ | 7/11/02

[marshmallow]

SAN FRANCISCO

[EggsAckley]

Your reasoning is simply not logical. I think what we have here is a freeper looking for a fight, and I won't do it.

[He Rides A White Horse]

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."

That doesn't appear to be the case. What say you?

[Tired of Taxes]

I don't want a "fight". I'm just trying to inject alittle commonsense into all of the hysteria on this forum.

Suppose the tables were turned: Let's say an ATHEIST MOTHER moved away with her daughter, and the CHRISTIAN FATHER followed her to be closer to his child. The Christian father makes child care payments, and, all the while, the atheist mother is fighting him in a custody battle.

Then the Christian father sues to keep his child out of a public school class promoting abortion, for example, saying it violates his daughter's religious beliefs. But the atheist mother disagrees.

Isn't it the father's right, too, to decide what his daughter learns? Of course it is! Fatherhood doesn't stop with the child care payments.

In this case, the mother is insisting the daughter is a "Christian", but the mother isn't the only person who gets to decide how to raise the child. If this mother didn't want her daughter to be raised with an atheistic influence, she should've chosen another man to father her child!

And that is the whole crux of the issue. Both the mother AND father decide how to raise the daughter, whether the general public likes it or not.

[twigs]

Though the mother is an "active Christian", that hasn't stopped her from accepting child care payments from atheist Newdow.

Why should her Christianity stop her from accepting payment? This guy sired the child. He should be paying! Mom is raising her. Sire is trying to use her. Hope Mom is successful in protecting daughter from the junk this man is spewing her way.

[He Rides A White Horse]

He said he doesn't want the gov't taking his tax money then using it to promote a religious view to his child in a "pledge" in public schools.

Mom: The California schoolgirl whose atheist father successfully sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional has no problem with reciting the pledge, her mother said Thursday.

He says lots of things: 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.

"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.

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.

He gets busted on the fact that his daughter hasn't been injured by anyone other than himself; now it's time to backpedal and claim that he is the injured party.

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.

.....and now it's, "So what if she really never was injured? It's always been about me".

In its opinion, the 9th Circuit panel noted that Newdow asserted perjured that 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."

She hasn't been injured.

[twigs]

In this case, the mother is insisting the daughter is a "Christian", but the mother isn't the only person who gets to decide how to raise the child. If this mother didn't want her daughter to be raised with an atheistic influence, she should've chosen another man to father her child!

What you say is true. This mom will have her hands full, but the sire does have a right to be part of the decisions. He sounds very unstable though and is willing to use his daughter for his own ends. I'm sure this Mom has wished many times that she had found a better father for her child. However, I'm sure that that was not foremost on her mind at the time.

[Tired of Taxes]

Would you please read my other post, too? This man didn't just "sire" a child. Apparently, he wants to be involved in her life, and the mother is unwilling. Doesn't matter if anyone else disagrees with his views; the fact is that she slept with the man, became pregnant, and now Newdow, as a father, has a right to influence how his child should be raised, too.

[Tired of Taxes]

Oops... I replied too quickly. You have now read the other post. I need to wrench myself away from the computer now...

[colorado tanker]

Newdow says he decided not to marry the mother because he wasn't "in love" with her, although that didn't stop him from sleeping with her. Sorry, but in my view a man who doesn't want to fulfill his responsibility to provide a home and an intact family for his child doesn't get all the rights of a true father. BTW, he's a loon.

[He Rides A White Horse]

From another article:

Newdow denied an Associated Press report that he is raising the girl as an atheist, adding that he reads her Bible stories.

"I want her to know her mother is Christian, and I want her to know I'm atheist, and I want her to decide as she gets older what makes sense. ... I read her Bible stories and say, 'does this make sense to you? Do you believe some guy was able to go all over the Earth and get every two animals from polar bears and marine iguanas ... and tigers and put them all on one boat? Sounds pretty incredible to me. You can decide for yourself.'"

This guy is a walking contradiction. Read the above , Tired of Taxes, and tell me what you see........

........He's not raising her to be an atheist, he just mocks the Bible to his impressionable eight year old.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Here's more:

Newdow tells WND he's girding for a bigger battle against the government over family law, which he complains is rife with constitutional violations and "destroys families and injures children." His ire over the family court system has been raised through the custody battle in which he and Banning are embroiled over their daughter, who splits her time between the two homes.

Your boy is a manipulative little twit who doesn't care squat about his daughter, the pledge, etc...........he has another goal in mind.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I need to wrench myself away from the computer now...

Me too. Tell you what..........kindly ping me when you get back. I have a theory I would like to share with you. See what you think, you know?

[azhenfud]

Come on! The only reason Newdow "wants" part in his daughter's life is because he probably thinks his child-support payments buys him "rights" and obligates the mother and child to him - whether his influence on the child is constructive or not. He probably hopes the assertions he has made would serve to eventually free him from his C.S. payments if he "ribbs" them long enough and embarasses them badly enough. Remember - his not working = struggle to pay.

He is a lawyer - probably one of those who would use any trick in the book to free themself of a binding legal obligation.
MONEY is motive when you can't stand on principles.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Newdow:

"I will muster the liberal ACLU types, and also disgruntled fathers fed up with the court system everywhere. We will advance under the cover of my daughter, so what if she takes a few bullets. This is about me. Chaaaaaaarge!!!

[StockAyatollah]

So this case was based on a fraudulent premise, just like Roe v. Wade.

[Tired of Taxes]

*** "This guy is a walking contradiction. Read the above , Tired of Taxes, and tell me what you see........
........He's not raising her to be an atheist, he just mocks the Bible to his impressionable eight year old." ***


Well, he certainly doesn't fit my view of an "atheist". An atheist doesn't call himself "Reverend" and then establish a church.

However, like Newdow, I, as an atheist, also discuss religious stories and so on openly with at least my oldest child (the others are still too young to comprehend it all). That is, I want my children to decide on their own, as long as they reach their conclusions through careful thought and consideration (which, of course, would lead to my view. =) ). I think most atheists do the same.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Newdow:

"Oh, by the way, if I hadn't mentioned it before, the target is Ms Banning. It always was."

[Tired of Taxes]

Actually, he wants custody of the girl. At least, that's what I read and cannot find anywhere....

Still haven't wrenched myself away from this computer... Hmmm... can I do it this time? Trying...to...pull...myself...away...

[azhenfud]

I know - I do that all the time too...

I still believe he only wants to curtail his C.S. payments.
We'd probably see him fade away if the money obligation vanished...

Regards,
Az

[constitutiongirl]

The fact of the matter is that the man LIED in order to advance his case. What type of man LIES about his child to the court in order to advance his own agenda?