| Revision as of 05:33, 24 March 2006 editDave Runger (talk | contribs)1,008 edits wikify First Amendmist Church of True Science← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:22, 31 March 2006 edit undoBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,450,125 editsm bypass redirect using AWBNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The Rev. '''Michael Newdow''' is a ] attorney and medical doctor. He is a ] and an ordained minister of the ]. In 1997, Newdow started a ] organization called the ] (FACTS), which advocates a strong ] in public institutions. | The Rev. '''Michael Newdow''' is a ] attorney and medical doctor. He is a ] and an ordained minister of the ]. In 1997, Newdow started a ] organization called the ] (FACTS), which advocates a strong ] in public institutions. | ||
| Newdow is most famous for a ] filed on behalf of his daughter against inclusion of the words "under God" in public schools' recitals of the ] ]. The ] found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of ], and therefore violates the ] of the ]. However, the decision was later overruled by the ] on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have ] of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf. Newdow has once again filed suit regarding the same issue, but this time on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Citing the ] set by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the course of Newdow's previous suit, ] ] has concurred that the pledge is ] when recited in public schools. | Newdow is most famous for a ] filed on behalf of his daughter against inclusion of the words "under God" in public schools' recitals of the ] ]. The ] found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of ], and therefore violates the ] of the ]. However, the decision was later overruled by the ] on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have ] of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf. Newdow has once again filed suit regarding the same issue, but this time on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Citing the ] set by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the course of Newdow's previous suit, ] ] has concurred that the pledge is ] when recited in public schools. | ||
| In November of 2005, Newdow announced he wants to have "]" removed from U.S. money. In a November 14, 2005 interview with ]' ], Newdow compared "In God We Trust" being on U.S. Currency with ] (specifically separate drinking fountains), saying "How can you not compare those? What is the difference there? Both of them (whites and blacks) got equal water. They both had access. It was government saying that it's OK to separate out these two people on the basis of race. Here we're saying it's OK to separate two people on the basis of their religious beliefs." | In November of 2005, Newdow announced he wants to have "]" removed from U.S. money. In a November 14, 2005 interview with ]' ], Newdow compared "In God We Trust" being on U.S. Currency with ] (specifically separate drinking fountains), saying "How can you not compare those? What is the difference there? Both of them (whites and blacks) got equal water. They both had access. It was government saying that it's OK to separate out these two people on the basis of race. Here we're saying it's OK to separate two people on the basis of their religious beliefs." | ||
Revision as of 05:22, 31 March 2006
The Rev. Michael Newdow is a Sacramento, California attorney and medical doctor. He is a strong atheist and an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church. In 1997, Newdow started a naturalistic organization called the First Amendmist Church of True Science (FACTS), which advocates a strong separation of church and state in public institutions.
Newdow is most famous for a lawsuit filed on behalf of his daughter against inclusion of the words "under God" in public schools' recitals of the United States Pledge of Allegiance. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the decision was later overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf. Newdow has once again filed suit regarding the same issue, but this time on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Citing the precedent set by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the course of Newdow's previous suit, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton has concurred that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
In November of 2005, Newdow announced he wants to have "In God We Trust" removed from U.S. money. In a November 14, 2005 interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto, Newdow compared "In God We Trust" being on U.S. Currency with segregation (specifically separate drinking fountains), saying "How can you not compare those? What is the difference there? Both of them (whites and blacks) got equal water. They both had access. It was government saying that it's OK to separate out these two people on the basis of race. Here we're saying it's OK to separate two people on the basis of their religious beliefs."
See also
References
The most recent judgment, full text (PDF format): http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/newdowus91405opn.pdf
External links
- Restore Our Pledge of Allegiance - Michael Newdow's website promoting restoration of the 1954 pledge. Features historical information about the pledge and information about current legal battles.
- Biography of Michael Newdow
- Litigation filed by Michael Newdow in 2005 concerning the pledge
- 2002 Time magazine interview