In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
DAUGHTER IN PLEDGE CASE WORSHIPS GOD..!!!!!
n/a
Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
I read this story and started thinking,,just what is the father up to?.. How can his daughter be injured if she believes in God?..The it said HE was the injured person, not his daughter.. Apparantly the father has sued approx 11 times ... Is that how he makes his living?.. If it is, maybe the American people could sue him, he injured the public by using their tax dollar...
Mom: Daughter in Pledge Case Worships God
Thursday, July 11, 2002
SAN FRANCISCO - 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.
"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.
The case is Newdow v. Congress, 00-16423.
"A wise man is a man that realizes just how little he knows"
Mom: Daughter in Pledge Case Worships God
Thursday, July 11, 2002
SAN FRANCISCO - 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.
"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.
The case is Newdow v. Congress, 00-16423.
"A wise man is a man that realizes just how little he knows"
Comments
Rugster
www.waveformwear.com
fighting censorship...with an attitude
Then, too, mom and dad's values don't even match up, so where does that leave the girl or the school in this case? I think it should leave the school to encourage individual choice for kids when they are old enough to make up their own minds about things like religion and "allegiance." When you teach kids to chant, you don't even know if they know what they're saying. Since kids are not "Mini-me," they're not supposed to be like us, they're supposed to surprise us with their personalities. I don't think this fact gets enough airing.
Are we into indoctrination of our kids in this country? Of course we are, but we believe (and rightly, to a point) that it's the benign kind -- the "Superman" kind -- "Truth, Justice, and the American Way!" By the way, did you know Superman was invented by a Jewish guy who never saw a dime of royalties?
Anyway, I don't think it's healthy for adults to ever use their kids as pawns in making a personal political point. If you are adult enough to want to make your own political stands on something, find a way to do it without sticking you own poor kids in the middle of your lawsuit.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
rodney colson
The hypocrite part is He demands that he is not exposed to religion, but forces his view on his daughter, taking away her right to make a free choice.
No wonder his Wife is divorceing him. What an Idiot.
"A wise man is a man that realizes just how little he knows"
If that happens,I predict that he will be disbarred as a lawyer, and his DEA certificate pulled as an MD, which will not allow him to write prescriptions. He will then be out of business, period.
This guy is in very deep dookey. His 15 minutes of fame will cost him more than he ever imagined.
You really can't have it both ways. Either the parents have the right to control what their kids are exposed to in school, or the kids have the right to make their own choice. When it's something like prayer in school, it's easy to say one thing. But what if it's about reading some book the parents don't like? I think it would be hypocritical IN THE EXTREME for parents to defend the school and this girl's right to make her own choice in this case, and then start whining about how their kids aren't old enough to make their own choices while they're still living at home and "we pay the taxes" and blah, blah, blah on some other issue they don't like as well.
See my point? Harsh as it may seem, freedom cuts both ways. And there are lots of two-faced parents in the world depending on which issue in school we talk about. I say, get on one horse or the other, bub. You can't sue on the most convenient side depending upon the subject matter. That's called hypocracy.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
What about the rest of us? Isn't the court denying us our rights to freedom of religion by outlawing the word "God" in our schools.
They only mention of religion in the first ammendant to the constitution simply states "Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of a religion." How then, by a school kid saying the pledge of allegiance, is Congress trying to pass a law establishing a religion?
How can the courts suspend our freedom of speech by saying that there are words that we can or cannot say.
If the court tries to tell my kids that they can't say the word "God" in public school, what's next, they can't say it on the street either? After all, the streets are owned by the government, aren't they?
If the judge says that the pledge is unconstitutional because it contains the word "God", then isn't his oath of office also unconstitutional be he swore "so help me God".
Help me out here people...it seems that the inmates are running the assylum.