Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview with Michael Newdow

Aired June 27, 2002 - 07:14   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Now, I want to get to the very man who began the court case that resulted in the Pledge of Allegiance ruling from yesterday, an atheist and the father of a California school -- grade schooler.

Michael Newdow objected to his daughter having to recite the Pledge in school and took the case upon himself all the way to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Michael Newdow is our guest this morning from Sacramento -- sir, good morning to you -- thanks for getting up early with us.

MICHAEL NEWDOW, PLAINTIFF: Thank you.

HEMMER: How long had you thought about this?

NEWDOW: The case actually started when I went to pay for something, and I saw "in God we trust" on the coins and currency. And...

HEMMER: Which was when, Michael?

NEWDOW: 1997, Thanksgiving.

HEMMER: 1997. Now, the actual case itself, did you approach your daughter? Or did she talk to you about this?

NEWDOW: I'd like to leave her out of it. This is my case.

HEMMER: But you took it up on her behalf, right?

NEWDOW: I took it up on my behalf as a parent, who has the right to allow his child to go to public school without the nation and the government throwing religious dogma on her.

HEMMER: But obviously in this, you did not want your daughter to cite the words "under God" in school. Is that a fair assessment?

NEWDOW: No. She can cite whatever she wants. I didn't want the government influencing what she cites.

HEMMER: OK. You take this case to court. Did you expect to win?

NEWDOW: I think the law is clearly on my side. The question is just whether or not judges are going to uphold the law.

HEMMER: Knowing the history of the court, though, knowing that it is the most overturned court in the country, did you think you stood a pretty fair chance?

NEWDOW: You know, the 9th Circuit is a circuit that I think speaks its mind, and they did in this case. But the law, I think -- and I think if this gets to the Supreme Court, I think I'd win.

HEMMER: Go back to your original answer. What was it about the phrase "under God" that you oppose?

NEWDOW: It says "under God." It's -- you know, it's religion that I don't agree with, and there is not supposed to be religion at all infused by government.

HEMMER: Do you believe that this influences people who say it?

NEWDOW: If it doesn't, why did Congress stick it in the Pledge to begin with?

HEMMER: Yes, I guess my question goes to a Supreme Court ruling from years ago, which came out and said basically if you don't want to say it, you don't have to.

NEWDOW: You are referring to West Virginia v. Barnett, which is a case in 1943 before there was "under God" in the Pledge, and they said you can't make anybody say something they don't believe in. But that was a different issue, although it was brought by Jehovah's Witnesses, it was not ruled in a religious freedom thing.

HEMMER: OK. But in this case, Michael, you, as a parent, could have told your daughter don't say the words, right?

NEWDOW: Absolutely.

HEMMER: Have you done that?

NEWDOW: It's not the issue. The issue is whether or not government should be putting this stuff in the middle of the school. If it were "one nation under Mohammed", would everyone say, oh, that's fine, just don't say it, to all of their children? I doubt it.

HEMMER: Let's move to another area here. I understand you have had some death threats against you. Is that accurate?

NEWDOW: There has been -- I have a tape machine, and there have been some threatening messages left.

HEMMER: How do you feel about that?

NEWDOW: Oh, I think that these people don't understand the Constitution. Hopefully, they'll understand it.

HEMMER: Do you fear that possibly your daughter right now could find herself in the crosshairs of this argument? NEWDOW: Obviously. Hopefully, she'll be kept out of it.

HEMMER: Yes. What have you told her about it?

NEWDOW: Well, just she knows what I believe, and she can choose what she believes. But the issue is whether or not government should be placing religion in the public schools or anywhere else.

HEMMER: And what about the reaction? We got a Senate ruling yesterday. It passed 99 to nothing.

NEWDOW: Yes...

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: Some people say they are outraged. The president says it's ridiculous. Your reaction?

NEWDOW: Well, first of all, Jesse Helms was in the hospital. I think he is actually on my side on this. But the reaction is those are politicians, and they know that 93 percent of the country believes in God. And if you want to get votes, you sometimes avoid the Constitution, and you go for political power.

HEMMER: Michael, hang on one second there. On the other side of the argument, the local school district. David Gordon is the superintendent of the Elk Grove United School District. He is also in Sacramento -- sir, good morning to you.

DAVID GORDON, SUPERINTENDENT, ELK GROVE SCHOOLS: Good morning.

HEMMER: Your reaction yesterday, number one. And number two, the children in your school district, although this ruling does not go into effect for a couple of months' time, what do they do in the meantime? Do they still stand up, put their hand over their heart and recite this Pledge?

GORDON: Well, first, we were shocked and disappointed at the ruling. We had prevailed in federal district court and expected to prevail in the 9th Circuit. And we are committed to appeal this to the end to maintain the Pledge. In the meantime, our children will, in fact, say the Pledge.

HEMMER: How do you explain this ruling to students? Have you thought about that?

GORDON: Yes, I have, and Mr. Newdow, I think it's a teachable moment for our kids in the sense that Mr. Newdow has every right to bring this challenge, and we have every right to fight it. And one reason we are a strong democracy is that we fight in court, not on the streets. And that's something our kids need to understand, because that's what makes us a strong democracy.

HEMMER: How far are you willing to go to defend the decision of yesterday? The Supreme Court?

NEWDOW: Are you referring to me?

GORDON: We will go as far as it takes.

HEMMER: Michael Newdow, in the short time we have left here, it's on our money. The Supreme Court has it in its saying every day. The House and the Senate, they recite it as well. How far are you willing to push this issue? Or would you like to see the word "God" removed from everything we have in American culture here as it relates to the government?

NEWDOW: You know, I see this like 1954, when they stuck "under God" into the Pledge. They also took out the separate but equal doctrine that we had. And you know, you can make the same argument, well, you want to let blacks and whites not eat at the same cafeterias, not go to the same movie theaters, not go to the same schools. You know, we have a nation that has a bunch of ideals that we are supposed to uphold, and they should be upheld across the board.

HEMMER: If nothing else, you've got people talking. Michael Newdow, the plaintiff, victorious from yesterday. We'll see where it goes from here. Also with us, David Gordon, the superintendent out there in northern California -- thank you, men.

NEWDOW: Thank you.

GORDON: Happy to be with you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.