If This is True, Then Pledge Dad = Bigger Schmuck Than We Knew!

The BBQ Pit
1

This will be a lame rant because I’m angry, but at the same time, I’m trying to be fair. I’m taking the story that I’ve just heard with a grain of salt until I can see or read the interview in question – that interview being with the mother of the child of the Newdow guy who sued to get “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance. The mother reports several interesting things about Newdow and their daughter.

First of all, Mom says, the kid is not an atheist. The girl lives with her mother, not Dr. Newdow, (he and the mother were never married and he has never had any kind of custody of the girl) and attends Catholic mass with her mother on a regular basis. She has been raised as a Christian and has never, by the mother’s report, made any denial of God or Christianity.

Moreover, the kid has said, reportedly, that she has no personal objection to the “under God” portion of the Pledge. This was Newdow’s stated reason for filing suit to begin with, it was all on behalf of his beloved child who was displeased, uncomfortable, unhappy and generally peeved about having to hear the big awful G-word invoked in her classroom every day.

But Mom says that the little girl took her turns as the “pledge leader” in her classroom, (directing the recitation for her classmates) and included the supposedly offensive “under God” portion without balking. In addition, the kid has reportedly told her mother that she will continue to say “under God” when she says the pledge, but she’s going to say it “really quietly” so that she “doesn’t get in trouble.”

Moreover, the mom has reportedly told the interviewed that Newdow, who was raised in the Jewish faith, has recently celebrated Jewish religious holidays with the child. He is also strongly interested in Constitutional law issues, and the mom says that he may well have pushed this lawsuit solely to see how far it could go and how it would progress through the courts!!

So, if this is all true, he lied and either used his kid fraudulently as a political football to further either some vaguely-held agenda or tied up the courts just for kicks. If it’s all true, he’s a bigger schmuck than we originally knew.

I’m waiting to get blasted for posting this, but I’m seething with even the thought that this guy wasn’t even on the up and up when he went on this quest. It’s a misuse of our overtaxed court system to advance what is one of the least pressing issues in our overwrought public school systems, just so that this guy could get his rocks off. Grrrr.

2

Ok, so he’s a jackass.

Declaring “under god” in the pledge unconstitutional was still the right thing to do.

3

There’s a difference between observing a religion as a private citizen and the government’s mandating that your children make a religious statement in a daily school ceremony. I don’t see a contradiction in doing the former and protesting the latter.

4

Exactly. Whatever the child’s religious expression at home, the parent still has the right to ask that she not be exposed to religious indoctrination with the power of the state behind it at school. Noncustodial parent or not, he still has rights.

As far as him being Jewish, I know a lot of atheist, secular Jews who nevertheless celebrate the holidays for cultural reasons. My father, for one, has never been a religious Jew, but he still lights the menorah in his home at Channukah.

And with regards to the child’s own religious beliefs . . . she’s 8 years old. If her mother has been taking her to Catholic mass since she was born, of course the child’s going to say she’s a Christian and believes in God. She’s eight years old. Her mother has been indoctrinating her into Christianity. Most eight year old children don’t do a lot of deep thinking about whether to become an atheist or not.

5

Here’s the problem – the ends do not justify the means.

In order to sue, one must have standing. In this case, that would mean a parent acting on behalf of a child whose freedoms, as described by the First Amendment, were being infringed upon. A parent does have the right to make such a determination on behalf of his child, custody notwithstanding, but he cannot falsify the basis by which he determined such an infringement to exist.

Newdow’s personal objections or beliefs with regard to the under God portion of the pledge do not equate to an infringement upon his daughter. This is especially so if she believes something in diametric opposition to her father, who apparently does not spend nearly as much time with him as she spends with her mother, which would mean that he is not availed of as many opportunities to know the child’s thoughts on such intimate matters as personal faith.

In addition, if the girl does not, indeed, have any qualms about the pledge, or about things religious, Newdow has lied. In his numerous television appearances, particularly his interview with Katie Couric on the Today show, he’s attempted to portray the child as being uncomfortable (at the very least) with the phrase in the pledge, thereby forming the basis of the infringement on her freedoms. Unfortunately, I am not currently hooked into any network which would enable me to read Newdow’s exact statements to the court, but if this was the basis on which he filed suit, and it is not the truth, his entire claim is baseless and not a legitimate cause of action. The spectre of perjury also looms large.

Feelings on the constitutionality of the “under God” phrase notwithstanding, you can’t go about filing lawsuits based on a made up injury. If the kid isn’t being harmed anywhere beyond the mind of her father, then this is no different than any other trumped up, garbage lawsuit. This has less merit than the McDonald’s hot coffee in the lap case! Hell, it has less merit than the chick from Big Brother suing CBS over the knife to the throat incident.

That kind of crap is despicable enough when it’s done by someone who is just making up stuff about themselves. It’s worse when someone uses their kid (who is too young to be called on to testify, thereby “sealing” the lie) to do so. It’s a subversion of the system of justice, and it’s a betrayal of Newdow’s role as a parent, and that pisses me off.

6

It’s like Roe v. Wade.

Jane Roe in that case (Norma McCorvey - sp?) confessed years after the fact that she was lying when she claimed her unwanted pregnancy was the result of a rape.

The fact that the original case is based on a lie does not necessarily affect discussions of the constitutional issues involved.

The interesting question is whether the mother, who is apparently the custodial parent, should be the one making the proxy decision for her minor child on whether to say the “under God” part of the Pledge or not.

Some atheists are simply out to attract attention to themselves by looking for a majority opinion, and then advocating against it. I have often thought that if we had a majority atheist, left-wing society, the late unlamented Madlyn Murray O’Hair would have been the leader of the Moral Majority.

Constitutional protections extend even to those who behave like assholes. (Fortunately for me.)

Regards,
Shodan

7

Why did you think he was a shmuck before these new revelations?

8

It’s not the same at all.

The rape and the harm that it would have caused, had it happened, were not what Roe v. Wade were about. That was a completely separate issue.

McCorvey’s brought suit to rectify the harm that she suffered as a result of the Texas statute which prevented her from terminating her unwanted pregnancy, an infringement on her right to privacy in managing her own medical matters. It was no lie that she was pregnant, it was no lie that Texas law prevented her from ending that pregnancy, and would have regardless of how that pregnancy came about. That’s all that mattered. If we wanted to draw a correlation, McCorvey would have had to have never been pregnant at all.

9

tlw:

If the ends do not justify the means, then the mother shouldn’t be taking the child to church, hey?

10

If the decision was that “under god” did not belong in the pledge, then it doesn’t matter if McDonalds suing Burger King brought it to light. If a judge was scratching his ass while making a ruling I don’t care either.

If the guy lied, he should be punished for lying on the stand (if he did), exploiting his child (if he did), and so on. But none of that changes the question, “Should the phrase ‘under God’ be allowed in the pledge?” nor the answer, “no.”

11

But if the guy lied, then the basis for his lawsuit goes out the window. And personal preferences aside, a civil court cannot make a ruling on a case such as “under God” without a viable lawsuit.

Imagine this scenario: OJ Simpson produces incontrovertible, absolute proof he didn’t kill Ron & Nicole. (I know, I know, but this is my scenario. Imagine it’s a science-fiction novel.) Based on that, the ruling from the civil trial that forced him to pay millions of dollars to their heirs goes out the window. After all, if he wasn’t responsible for the crime (and, by association, the damages) from that case, he can’t be made to pay for it, right?

However, I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know the applicable laws.

12

I think pld already made sufficient response to tlw’s and Sauron’s subsequent posts when he said,

The beliefs of the child are immaterial at that age. But if the state chooses to engage in religious indoctrination of its own, it is interfering with the parent’s right to raise the child free of such indoctrination.

And the parents’ differing religions (or lack thereof) is equally irrelevant. If they disagree on the religious upbringing of their child, each parent has the right to expect the state to not take sides in the matter.

13

The basis for the lawsuit is that the words, “Under God” are in the pledge. The man wasn’t lying about that, Sauron.

14

I think this is the crux of the issue, but it’s not so clear that he had standing to sue as a noncustodial parent. In this case he had no custodial rights and was arguing a position contrary to his daughter’s beliefs and the custodial parent’s belief. I think a strong argument could be made that he didn’t have standing. The Ninth Circuit discussed standing but only as it applied to the type of statute that was being challenged and whether the student suffered an immediate harm. The opinion seemed to assume there were no issues of custody (which is understandable since I don’t believe Newdow or the school district ever mentioned the issue.)

I don’t know much about family law, so I don’t really know the answer here. But the circumstances of the case certainly make it a candidate for attack on lack of standing. The plaintiff is a non-custodial parent who was never married to the child’s mother. On the other side is the child and custodial parent who say the daughter wasn’t harmed by the statute. I don’t know if they’d win on challenging standing or if the Ninth Circuit would even hear a challenge. But the custody issue might be very relevant to the underlying standing issue.

The article I read said that the mother was only interested in letting people know her daughter’s not an atheist, so the standing issue might be purely academic. But if she challenges the holding it will be interesting to see what the Ninth Circuit says. I think it would be wise for a happily married atheist with children in public school to get ready to file another challenge.

15

But see, I don’t think you can bring a civil lawsuit just because those words are there – you have to be able to prove damages. (I’m paraphrasing what I’ve heard on various radio and television programs, so my understanding may be off a bit.) That’s why his claim may be specious – there’s no proof that his daughter has been harmed by those words in the pledge, given her current beliefs. Or, rather, the court agreed there was proof she was harmed, but now I guess the question is who gets to define “harmed.”

The court’s ruling is valid only as long as it’s based on a viable lawsuit. If the lawsuit is thrown out based on perjury (assuming he perjured himself, which isn’t proven by any stretch), I don’t think the ruling stands.

16

But if the custodial mother has no problem with the words “under God” in the PoA, and wishes her daughter to continue to say them, it is not (IMO) the business of the state to overrule her decision. And if the parents disagree, as they do in this case, they can hardly avoid taking one side or the other.

You could still say that the “under God” clause is out of the Pledge, but it could not be based on the facts of this case. Just like Roe v. Wade.

Whether or not it is constitutional for states to regulate abortion, and whether or not references to God are constitutional in the official PoA, are different issues from whether or not this particular case shows somebody suffering harm.

IANA Constitutional L, thank God.

Regards,
Shodan

17

Or his. It’s not the business of the state to have an opinion of whether monotheism is preferable to atheism, period.

How do you see that? The state doesn’t need to intervene every time divorced parents disagree with respect to their children’s upbringing, believe it or not. And it certainly doesn’t need to have a pre-existing stance on the matter of a preferred religion sitting in the statutes of the Federal government.

18

[/QUOTE]

I don’t think he perjured himself. At least I haven’t read anything that indicates he perjured himself. But I agree with you that

Agreed. But the state does assign certain rights in custody disputes. It’s quite possible that the rights assigned to the mother in the dispute mean that the father doesn’t have standing to bring the case.

Generally a custodial parent has the right to bring suit on behalf of a minor, whether it’s a suit about the Establishment Clause or a suit about injuries from a car wreck. The state doesn’t have to take a position regarding whether atheism or monotheism is preferable. It only has to apply neutral rules about standing.

As I’ve said, there might be some quirk to family law that gives a non-custodial parent to bring suit, but I’d be surprised. At the very least I’d think a non-custodial parent would have to convince the court that they have greater standing than the custodial parent. Absent abuse or extreme neglect my understanding is that courts won’t tamper with the custodial arrangements and, by implication, the standing to sue on behalf of a child.

19

I haven’t seen the custody agreement–have you? For all you know, the agreement specifically says the child’s father has a say in the religious upbringing of the child.

So get off it.

20

According to the interview (I finally saw it) there is no formal custody agreement, the parents never lived together and the girl has always lived with her mother.

That aside, if the parents did agree that the father had a say in the religious upbringing of the child, he’d be a piss poor atheist if he agreed to the mother taking the child to Mass on a regular basis, wouldn’t he?