Newdow Case Study

There is so much debate in the Newdow vs congress case. In 2000-2002 Michael Newdow is an atheist who wants to take out the “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because it is an endorsement to religion. Now how would you feel if our forefathers who created the pledge to provide unity for our country, if those words just be taken out. That makes me infuriated that a person like Michael, who is an atheist wants to take out this great part of the pledge because of his beliefs, in my opinion, I think it is just plain wrong to do such an action .Now the 1954 federal statute made an addition of these words to be constitutionally put into the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Michael’s daughter goes to Elk Grove Unified School District in California. The accordance …show more content…
It was put there for a reason, and to take it out would be monogamous. I truly feel like in the case of Newdow, that they made the right decision in making the reaction negative on his case. I agree with the mother. She tried to intervene or to dismiss the complaint of Newdow. To represent her legal interests and make all decisions about her education welfare. That way Newdow didn’t have basically any legal right to change what his daughter believes in because of what he does. Sandra Banning, the mother, said to the court that her daughter believes in god and has no objection to recite the pledge of allegiance or to hear it instead. She said the daughter may do what she thinks is best for the start of her day in the classroom and that her father who had no rights over her, did not have a legal right to go to court on her daughter’s behalf. She also stated that it would harm her beliefs regarding her father’s atheism, and that she had no interest to be in the party of her father’s lawsuit. Newdow’s case lost and was just an amended opinion regarding what “under God” meant in the pledge. It was under President Eisenhower that added that in the pledge because he was against atheistic communists in that