Michael Newdow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Rev. Dr. Michael Arthur Newdow (born June 24, 1953) 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.

1 Education
2 Background
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

[edit] Education

B.S., Biology, Brown University (1974) M.D., University of California at Los Angeles (1978) J.D., University of Michigan (1988)

[edit] Background

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 ruled 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 okay to separate out these two people on the basis of race. Here we're saying it's okay to separate two people on the basis of their religious beliefs." In June of 2006, a federal judge rejected this lawsuit, on the grounds that the minted words amount to a secular national slogan, and they do not dictate anyone's beliefs. Newdow stated that he would appeal the ruling.[1]

In a 2006 interview on the day that the House of Representatives passed the Pledge Protection Act, Newdow told WERS-FM's David Goodman, "A few hours ago, the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America voted 260 to 167 to completely gut the Constitution of its separation of powers and violate numerous other clauses because they thought it was important enough to keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't think people would've done that for our political heritage or anything else. They did it because they want God in their government because it stands for a religious view that they adhere to, and they want to see that religious view espoused by government, which is exactly what the establishment clause forbids."