After failed attempts, Newdow vows to continued fight against prayer, pledge

The most pressing concern by the Sacramento atheist this week was trying to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent a pastor from leading prayer at today's presidential inauguration.

But two other concerns consume his life -- a second attempt to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, and for family court in Sacramento County to award him joint custody of his 10-year-old daughter.

Just how important are these issues?

In a phone interview Tuesday morning from his home, Newdow said he had stayed up all night attending to his various court cases.

Newdow's quest to have prayer banned at President Bush's inauguration today was struck down Wednesday by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice John Paul Stevens.

Newdow had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court last week's decision by John D. Bates, a U.S. District Court Judge in Washington, D.C. who ruled that prayer has been at presidential inaugurations since George Washington. He also said there is a long-standing legal precedent that courts lack the power to prevent acts made by the president.

Newdow had a plane reservation at Sacramento International Airport for Tuesday afternoon, but refused to attend the inauguration unless pastors were banned from participating in the ceremony. Newdow also requested that Rhenquist abstain from ruling on his case because his plans to swear in Bush today marks a conflict of interest.

Newdow, 51, who lives in the Pocket area of South Sacramento, sounded angry on Tuesday at the idea of having God forced on him at government events and for what he maintains is a genuine separation of church and state. People in Lodi wouldn't like it if it happened here, he insists.

"If government said we believe in Sun Myung Moon in Lodi, what would people think? They'd go berserk," Newdow argued. (Moon is the head of the Unification Church.)

A former emergency room physician and attorney, Newdow admits that he is an unhappy man because of his court struggles, the biggest one being his fight to gain joint-custody of his 10-year-old daughter, who lives with her mother in Elk Grove. He has custody 30 percent at his time, but he is demanding 50 percent.

"I'm a miserable individual," he said. "I used to be a happy, loving individual."

Doesn't keep schedule

Newdow said he doesn't like to keep a schedule. Last week, he declined to set an interview with the News-Sentinel for a later date, yet he offered to conduct the interview over the phone right on the spot.

Despite the notoriety Newdow has achieved through his various court challenges, he maintains that he doesn't seek publicity. Except for one returned call, Newdow said he hasn't made any phone calls to the news media.

"I couldn't care less (about personal notoriety)," he said. "I'm concerned about people not having their lives shattered by their own government."

Newdow is a soft-spoken man with a monotone voice, but his voice became increasingly louder and more determined the more he argued about his causes.

He became somewhat of a celebrity in 2002 after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the words "under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Newdow's victory was overturned last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, with a majority of justices maintaining that Newdow doesn't have custody of his daughter; therefore, he cannot act on her behalf.

"I didn't say she was offended" by the use of "under God" in the pledge, Newdow said. "That's what everybody keeps telling me I said. I don't talk about my daughter."

Newdow maintains that he has never talked about his daughter when discussing the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, yet she is mentioned -- without her name stated -- several times in his lawsuit that was tossed out in 2003. The daughter, who was not named, was listed, as a co-plaintiff, according to the lawsuit, as posted on Newdow's Web site.

Newdow said he doesn't think his daughter was offended by the use of "under God" in the pledge, as published reports have maintained.

"I think she's being indoctrinated," he said.

Explaining why he works so hard to remove "under God' from the pledge, Newdow says on his Web site, "'One nation under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance is infuriating to me -- as much as 'one nation under white people,' 'one nation under Jesus' or 'one nation under no God' would be."

New 'pledge' suit filed

To get around the Supreme Court's argument that Newdow can't argue on his daughter's behalf because he doesn't have legal custody of his daughter, he filed a new suit on Jan. 3 in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California.

He removed his unnamed daughter as a plaintiff, but he added two mothers and their children, plus two parents and their child. All parents named in the new suit either have full or joint custody of their children.

One of the plaintiffs is from San Joaquin County, in the Lincoln Unified School District in north Stockton. The other children listed as plaintiffs attend Elk Grove, Elverta and Rio Linda schools in Sacramento County.

The Sacramento City and Elk Grove districts are also named in the lawsuit because Newdow owns property in the district. Other defendants include administrators in each district, the United States, state of California and Congress.

Newdow acknowledges that a majority of American citizens believe in God, he's still trying to correct what he maintains is a violation of the Constitution.

Responding to a frequent argument -- certainly in Lodi -- that the United States was founded by the pilgrims on Christian principles, Newdow said, "They were also white. What does that have to do with it?"

Newdow said that having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is as discriminatory as the former practice in the South of white and black people using separate water fountains.

More important than pledge

As much as Newdow wants to keep references to God and religion out of government, he maintains that his battles with family law judges to gain joint custody of his daughter consume most of his time and emotions.

"I stopped thinking about fun as soon as family court got into my life," he said. "This is the most egregious abuse of power since slavery, and it may be worse."

Newdow maintains that family court abuses are worse than the torture American soldiers committed on Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison last year.

"It's a lot more important that the pledge," he said.

Due to the expenses he's incurred in family court and battling religion in government, Newdow said he will resume his medical practice in a Sacramento-area emergency room in February because he's running out of money. He said he hasn't had a paying job in three years.

For more information, see Newdow's Web site, http://www.restorethepledge.com.

Contact reporter Ross Farrow at rossf@lodinews.com.

Reader Feedback

Comments on this story are now closed.

Archives

Story Tools

Indexes

After failed attempts, Newdow vows to continued fight against prayer, pledge

Reader Feedback

Special Sections

Photo Reprints

Find Ads

Weather

Services

Contact Us

Office

Newsroom

Subscriptions

Advertising

Classifieds