Follow-up: The basis of the case that caused the 9th Circuit Appeals Court to declare the phrase “under God” in the Pledge Of Allegiance unconstitutional is on increasingly shaky grounds. Michael Newdow, the
dick atheist who brought the case, initially claimed that his daughter was being made fun of in school for not saying the Pledge. First of all, as Newdow has already admitted, the daughter suffered no alienation or ostracism at school. Secondly, he does not have custody of the daughter, and she is not even being raised as an atheist.
Her mother, who has full custody, has stepped forward and made this clear in recent interviews: “I see my role as just correcting the record and making sure that the American people know that my daughter is being raised in a Christian home. …She attends Sunday school and I teach Sunday school. And I believe the court record indicates or implies that my daughter is an atheist.” I think that the most telling quote is from the daughter herself: “That’s OK, Mom, because even if they do change the Pledge of Allegiance, I’ll still say ‘under God,’ and no one will know that I’m breaking the law.”
IANAL, but it seems to me that if the basis for starting the case in the first place is flawed, then it follows that the verdict shouldn’t stand. Let’s hope that the court thinks so too…