Atheist spars with skeptical justices over Pledge

Michael Newdow, the atheist whose landmark court case on whether the words “under God” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, told Supreme Court justices yesterday that patriotism should not be mixed with piety.

“Every morning, government agents have children stand up, including my daughter, and have them affirm this nation is under a religious deity who many people, including myself, do not accept,” he said. “My daughter is forced to stand up and say, ‘My father is wrong.’”

Mr. Newdow did not have legal custody of his daughter when he filed the case in 2000 and has fought for years to counteract the Christian environment in which the child, age 9, is being raised.

The girl’s mother, Sandra Banning, who does have custody, never married Mr. Newdow, who she said yesterday “was very well-spoken.”

“He showed as much passion in front of the Supreme Court today,” she told reporters, “as he shows in family court.”

Mr. Newdow, a California emergency-room physician who also holds a law degree, filed Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. He is arguing the case himself, which is unusual for a plaintiff before the Supreme Court.

America’s traditional friendliness toward religion and deeply felt belief in God should not be worded in a Pledge recited by millions of schoolchildren, Mr. Newdow told the court. But skeptical justices brought up several instances of religious language in American public life and challenged Mr. Newdow on whether two words could force anyone into faith.

“We have so many references to God in our daily lives in our country,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said. “Today, we opened our court with ‘God save the United States and this honorable court.’ ”

“But,” Mr. Newdow said, “no one is forced to stand up and put their hand on their heart to affirm that.”

“Do you,” Justice O’Connor asked, “have a problem with ‘In God We Trust’ on coins?”

“Only if my daughter is forced to say, ‘In God We Trust,’” the father said.

Two justices reminded him again his daughter was not being forced to say anything.

“She is not required, but she is being coerced,” Mr. Newdow said. “It seems like the government is imposing on her what it thinks of religion.”

Story Continues →