dictionary

'Under God' opponent claims personal affront

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- A California father who filed a lawsuit to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance insisted Saturday his legal challenge was on behalf of his own views, and not those of his daughter.

"I filed it mostly on my own behalf, that I have the right as a parent to send my child to public school without indoctrination of religious dogma," Michael Newdow told CNN. "I think all parents have that right. That's the key of the issue."

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, created widespread public outrage June 26 when it ruled the pledge could not be said in public schools because of the reference to God. President Bush and both houses of Congress have denounced the decision.

Newdow, an acknowledged atheist who lives in Sacramento, California, said the phrase amounted to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the guarantee of separation of church and state.

He said in June he wanted his 8-year-old daughter to be able to attend school without being subjected to a government-imposed religious dogma.

Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  CNN NewsPass Video    •  Man behind landmark pledge ruling  MORE STORIES   •  Pledge back in court   •  Mom: Girl not harmed by pledging 'under God'  RESOURCES   •  Justice Department's filing (PDF)   •  On the Scene: Toobin: Pledge ruling likely 'dead on arrival'   •  CNN Access: Litigant explains why he brought Pledge suit   •  History of the Pledge   •  Read the court decision: Newdow v. U.S. Congress, et al. (FindLaw) (PDF)   •  Judges in Pledge of Allegiance decision  EXTRA INFORMATION   •  Gallery: A look at the three-judge panel that made the ruling

Sandra Banning, the girl's mother, has accused Newdow of using their daughter to pursue his own agenda, telling CNN earlier this week their daughter gave Newdow "an excellent vehicle to gain sympathy with the court."

Newdow said he would let the courts decide whether, as Banning claims, he lacks legal standing because he does not have custody of the daughter. But he said he has other legal bases too, including "taxpayer standing" and a right not to say the phrase "under God" when he himself recites the Pledge.

"My gut feeling is what I know to be correct, which is that 'under God' in the middle of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Constitution," he said.

Banning has established a legal defense fund to assist her in fighting her case. A spokeswoman for the fund, Carolyn Malenick, said the daughter in fact enjoys reciting the words against which her father is fighting.

"She has led her class in the Pledge of Allegiance and she wants to continue to say it," Malenick told CNN.

She said Banning is "thrilled" about a Justice Department appeal of the ruling, filed Friday, which requests a rehearing of the case by the entire 11-judge panel.

In the appeal, the Justice Department argues the U.S. Supreme Court, in two majority opinions, has specifically stated Congress' inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance statute is constitutional.

Ultimately, Newdow said, resolution of the case depends on the impartiality of the courts.

"The issue is whether or not the judges are going to adhere to principle, or are going to do what they may want to do on their own personal behalf," he said.