Girl in pledge case is Christian, says mom

Christian Century, July 31, 2002

The mother of the girl whose father sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional said her daughter does not object to reciting the pledge at school. "I was concerned that the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist or that she has been harmed by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words `one nation under God,'" Sandra Banning said in a statement. "We are practicing Christians and are active in our church."

Banning's comments on July 11 were her first public remarks since the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed June 26 with Michael Newdow that the words "under God" involve the pledge in endorsing religion unconstitutionally. Congress added the two words in 1954. In a July 16 appearance on NBC's Today Show, Banning said her daughter even led her class in saying the pledge earlier this school year. Banning is a member of Calvary Chapel, a charismatic church in the Sacramento suburb of Elk Grove. She said she and her daughter both attend services there regularly.

Banning said she never married Newdow, the third-grader's father and the atheist who started the legal challenge in California. She has full custody of their daughter, which Newdow is fighting in court. Banning has hired attorneys in part to consider intervention in the case. She said her daughter "expressed sadness" after the decision, which has been stayed in an unusual move by the appellate court.

Newdow argued in his suit that his daughter was "injured" by being forced to listen to others at the Elk Grove Unified School District recite the pledge. "I have a right to send my child to a public school without the government inculcating any religious beliefs," he said. He added that it doesn't matter what his daughter believes and that taking her to church doesn't mean she chooses to be religious. "The main thrust of this case is not my daughter," he said. "It's me."

Some legal experts think the mother's declaration that the girl is not harmed by the pledge could make the case moot. "The federal courts can't address anything unless it's a case of controversy," said Rory Little, a professor at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. "You have to have injury."