High court considers rights of father in pledge lawsuit

On the same day the Supreme Court wrangled over whether a California father had the right to challenge the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance on behalf of his daughter, some residents in Southeast Missouri stood behind the phrase that was inserted into the pledge in 1954.

The emotional topic was brought up again Wednesday, more than a year after a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that reciting the pledge in public schools violates the Constitution's ban on government-established religion.

The issue being considered currently is whether Michael Newdow has the right to bring the lawsuit, considering the child's mother has primary custody and she opposes the lawsuit.

Newdow had sued the Sacramento school district and won, setting up the landmark appeal.

The mother, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian and supporter of the pledge.

"I object to his inclusion of our daughter" in the case, she said earlier Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America" show. She said she worries that her daughter will be "the child who is remembered as the little girl who changed the Pledge of Allegiance."

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said the issue raised in the case "certainly have nothing to do with domestic relations." And, Justice David. H. Souter said that Newdow could argue that his interest in his child "is enough to give him personal standing."

The Supreme Court already has ruled that schoolchildren cannot be forced to say the pledge, but Newdow says that is not good enough. When a teacher, paid by taxpayers, stands up and leads the pledge, it is unrealistic to expect small children to opt out, Newdow said.

"Imagine you're the one atheist with 30 Christians," Newdow said.

Cindy Parker of Cape Girardeau dismissed Newdow's argument. She wondered if he had ever seriously considered his own origin as a human.

"We are one nation under God," Parker said. "Our nation began with God."

The pledge is recited before many various functions in Southeast Missouri, including at schools, before city council meetings and at service club meetings.

"I strongly believe we ought to leave 'under God' in the pledge," said Jackson city administrator Jim Roach. "It's clear the country was founded on God-fearing, God-believing people, and the reference to God is all over the country's documents and court systems. I'll continue saying it whether it's taken out officially or not."

Newdow said saying the words "under God" are offensive to people who don't believe there is a God.

"I just can't believe that," said Bob Wendel of Jackson when told that the issue has been brought up again. "What happened to majority rules? Why do we put up with these idiots? If they don't like how it is here, there's no anchors on them. They don't have to stay."

Newdow said the court has no choice but to keep it out of public schools.

"It's indoctrinating children," he said. "The government is supposed to stay out of religion."

Jackson's Karen Buchheit, who was picking up a child from school Wednesday, took exception to that statement.

"It's not indoctrinating children," she said. "That is when there is only one standard of belief. It's the only time in school all day when God is mentioned. It doesn't say 'under a Christian God or a Jewish God.'"

Rehnquist noted that Congress unanimously added the words "under God" in the pledge in 1954.

"That doesn't sound divisive," he said.

"That's only because no atheists can be elected to office," Newdow responded.

Some in the audience erupted in applause in the courtroom, and were threatened with expulsion by the chief justice.

A new poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the reference to God. Almost nine in 10 people said the reference to God belongs in the pledge despite constitutional questions about the separation of church and state, according to an Associated Press poll.

Staff writer Bob Miller and news editor Tony Hall contributed to this report