Recent revelations may create future problems for the lawsuit that caused a federal court to rule the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. The young girl who was the subject of the case attends church and has a Christian mother.
Many legal experts anticipate that the recent decision by a majority of a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be overturned anyway, but the mother’s revelation may seal the fate of the lawsuit.
At issue is whether professed atheist Michael Newdow had standing to file the lawsuit that precipitated the decision.
Newdow, who represented himself in the case, claimed in the lawsuit that his elementary school-aged daughter suffered when a California school district forced her to listen to her teacher and classmates reciting the pledge.Though the Pledge of Allegiance was first penned in 1892, it has contained the words “under God” since Congress added them in 1954.
Newdow also argued that Congress had a clearly religious intent in adding the words and that forcing his daughter to listen to a ceremony reciting the words in her public school interfered with his ability as a parent to direct his child’s religious upbringing.
The court agreed with Newdow that he had standing to bring the case because of his role in her religious training.
Not offended by pledge
But in a surprising announcement on July 11, the child’s mother, Sandra Banning, said that she was an active Christian and that the child attended church with her and was not offended by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
In a July 16 appearance on NBC’s “Today Show,” Banning said her daughter even led her class in saying the pledge earlier this school year.
Banning is a member of Calvary Chapel, a charismatic church in the Sacramento suburb of Elk Grove. She said she and her daughter both attend services there regularly.
Banning also has full custody of the child, although Newdow is challenging that in court, according to several media reports. Banning and Newdow were never married.
The legal news Web site Law.com reported that family law experts believe the constitutional issue would become moot if a court finds that Banning has an equally legitimate claim on her daughter’s religious upbringing and does not agree with Newdow’s position in the suit.
In interviews, Newdow has repeatedly refused to discuss his daughter’s role in the case. According to Law.com, he said, “I don’t want to say anything about my daughter because it’s not her case. It’s my case.”
The federal government has asked the full 11-judge 9th Circuit panel to review the case. Even if they uphold the previous ruling, most observers expect the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately to reverse the decision.
Banning has not indicated whether she will attempt to challenge Newdow’s standing in the suit, although she has established a legal fund for court costs related to the case. (ABP)
Share with others: