Michael Newdow is NOT an athiest...

FOX NEWS (Fox & Friends per Fox News Rita Cosby) | 07/15/02 | Me

[kcvl]

Newdow is NOT an athiest. He is a PRACTICING Jew according to his child's mother per ED on Fox & Friends according to Rita Cosby's report interviewing Newdow's daughter's mother(they have never been married). He has always been "interested" in contitutional law is the reason given for taking this to court. Isn't THAT SPECIAL?!

[Alouette]

i'm positive there is an atheist waiting in the wings with a brainwashed 7 year old who will claim to be harmed by the phrase.

Well, let's not leave out CAIR, who will insist that "under Allah" be put into the Pledge.

[rkrtgw]

I saw the interview last night. She has sole legal custody, they were never married, and the kid is a Christian. Does he really have legal standing for filing the suit?

It appears that didn't make a difference to the court

[kcvl]

May I ask a stupid question? Why does someone wear tennis shoes on Thursday. I know about the fasting but I didn't know about that. I'm just curious not meaning anything rude with the question.

[Miss Marple]

This guy is a stalker, and he is using the courts as a weapon. Notice that he first filed suit in Florida, where it was thtown out. The mother moved to California, and he apparently followed her. He does not live in the school district, and now we find out he doesn't have custody. I am wondering if he even gets visitation...or were all those toys a sham as well.

He is using the court to harass the mother. He should be arrested.

[tictoc]

The guy is an idiot and should have his voting privileges taking away.

[ChasingFletch]

"What does he practice, exactly?"........

I don't know, but he may have practised how to be "chosen". He sure chose to bring enough attention to himself........."the chosen people"!

Self-chosen!

[the crow]

Here is an earlier post dealing with the question of wether he has standing. article from the Union Leader.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/716305/posts

[kcvl]

I don't know if he gets any kind of custody but he was the one who called his daughter to break the "good news" to her. He sounds like a NUT to me.

I never understood how an emergency room doctor turned lawyer had so much free time on his hands and where he got his money to spend on these lawsuits. It seems he no longer works in the emergency room (thank goodness) or at least I think that's what I heard. I wonder if he has any clients besides himself?

[Miss Marple]

Lots of questions about this guy. My major complaint is that he is abusing the court system, plus he is a LIAR.

[hellinahandcart]

Because she thought everyone was angry at her daughter for being an atheist.

All the more reason to come out with the information immediately, if not during the court case itself.

[Alouette]

Would the phrase "under God" be offensive to a practicing Jew?

A "practicing Jew" is someone who believes in G*D and observes the commandments in the Torah.

It is very doubtful that Mr. Newdow is this kind of Jew. Maybe he belongs to one of the whacked-out extreme left-wing cults of "reconstructive" or "secular-humanist" bogus "Judaism."

[kcvl]

Thanks for the link to the article...

JUDGES ON the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals have some 'splainin' to do. Why did they agree to take a case in which the plaintiff had no legal standing to bring one?

Any first-year law student knows that a person cannot file a lawsuit unless he can demonstrate "standing," which basically means he has to show that he was harmed. Michael Newdow, the atheist who filed suit with the charge that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, claimed that his daughter was harmed when she was exposed to the Pledge in school.

Last week, the girl's mother, who never married Newdow and has sole custody of the daughter, said the child in question was a Christian, goes to church regularly, doesn't mind reciting the Pledge, and was not harmed in any way by its recitation in school.

Check mate.

[hellinahandcart]

What does he practice, exactly?

The art of deception, for sure.

[OldFriend]

Most of the country does not hate this child. It was clear from the beginning the father was exploiting a situation and the child was an innocent vassel.

[TheOtherOne]

Don't look now, your prejudice is showing:

You have previously posted this:

How many of you wonder what group controls Hollywierd, the New York Times, The perverted Music Industry, the Washington Post, See-B.S. News, etc...........the institutions that are responsible for the destruction of the fiber of this country?

Well, it's not the Arabs. It's "The Chosen People".

The Jewish people are GREAT people, but IMO, they are the most destructive force in this country.

It is apparently so odd that the same wonderful man that I knew, Jonas Salk ( the polio vaccine at my Univ. of Pittsburgh), and other wonderful Jewish folks should end up being the BEST, most accomplished and at the same time, the Worst in our society!!

[kcvl]

Washington Post story on this...

Also here is what Newdow said in response to the mother's interview...

"I have a right to send my child to a public school without the government inculcating any religious beliefs," he said.

Newdow also 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," he said.

[kcvl]

Girl in pledge case not an atheist, mom to tell court

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, July 13, 2002


The mother of an 8-year-old Sacramento-area girl whose father challenged the Pledge of Allegiance is entering the case now for a simple reason: to make it clear that her daughter is not an atheist, her lawyer said Friday.

She won't be arguing that the pledge is constitutional, the lawyer said, but if the court used the new information to dismiss the father's suit, the mother would welcome the result.

"It is a narrow charge that we have from our client, to get that information to the court and the general public," said attorney Paul E. Sullivan, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm. "She was concerned that the girl would be branded for the rest of her life as the girl who was the atheist in the pledge case or the girl who didn't like the Pledge of Allegiance."

But Sullivan added -- and some independent legal analysts agreed -- that the intervention of a mother with sole custody of the child, and religious views that contradict the father's, could have a serious effect on his ability to maintain the suit.

In a stunning 2-1 decision June 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco declared the pledge unconstitutional because the phrase "under God," added by Congress in 1954, makes it a government endorsement of religion. The federal and state governments and the Elk Grove Unified School District, where the girl has just finished the second grade, are all asking for a rehearing before an 11-judge panel.

The suit was filed by Michael Newdow, an atheist acting as his own lawyer, in 2000 when his daughter was in kindergarten. The appeals court said Newdow had legal standing, essential to any lawsuit, because he was challenging "a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter."

On Thursday, the child's mother, Sandra Banning, announced that she had retained Sullivan to bring the facts about her daughter to the court's attention.

"It is my hope that these efforts will lead to a reversal of (the Court of Appeals') decision," Banning said in a statement.

She described herself and her daughter as practicing Christians who are active in their Elk Grove church. When her daughter expressed sadness at the ruling, Banning said, she told her that it would be a long time before the case was over. The girl replied "that it was OK because she will still whisper 'one nation under God' and no one will hear her and know she is breaking the law," Banning said.

Sullivan said Banning was awarded full custody of the girl after Newdow filed his suit. The child, who lives with her mother and is visited by her father, has not been identified in court documents or the news media.

Newdow did not return telephone calls Friday but was quoted in several published reports as saying the case is largely about his beliefs, not his daughter's, and should survive Banning's objections. But some analysts said the suit could be imperiled.

"If she has custody, she's got to decide what the child will learn," said John Coons, a professor at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law. "I think you have a very serious standing question, because he's not in a position to have that child raised as a professed atheist."

Vikram Amar, who teaches constitutional law at UC's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, said it would be plausible for a court to decide that "the one who has legal custody gets to make that decision (about the child's religious upbringing), like other decisions" involving the child. Courts often try to accommodate both parents' views, so a key question in this case may be whether Banning's concerns can be satisfied without dismissing Newdow's suit, Amar said.

Sullivan said some accommodation, like an amended ruling that made the child's situation clear, might be possible.

"It will satisfy (Banning) that she has had the opportunity to get the information to the court . . . and to the American public," the lawyer said. "What the court does with it is beyond her control."

He said he and others at his firm, Foley & Lardner, are studying whether to ask for full intervention in the case -- status that would allow them to take part in oral arguments and appeal any unfavorable ruling -- or merely file a friend-of-the-court brief presenting Banning's views. The filing will be made by early August when the government's appeals are due, Sullivan said.

[zip]

How do we spell PERJURY??????

[ChasingFletch]

"How many of you wonder what group controls Hollywierd,..........."

What's your point, genius. You are doing your homework. Tell me ONE WORD ore ONE SENTENCE that is not true.

By the way, wiseone, prejudice has a bad connotation these days. We think you should go find a dictionary, look the word up, and find out what it meant before these days of moral relativism! Have a good day!

[2sheep]

>Newdow is NOT an athiest. He is a PRACTICING Jew according to his child's mother

He should stop practicing and be one.  He chooses to not be "UNDER GOD" and G-d will certainly honor his request.