Man who sued to stop pledge explains reasons for suit

Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow said Wednesday he was trying to restore the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version because no one should be forced to worship a religion in which they don't believe.

But if the messages on his answering machine are any indication, the American public is not thanking him.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday the phrase "one nation under God" amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the separation of church and state.

The decision was denounced as "ridiculous" by a wide range of people, from President Bush to parents of children who attend Florence Markofer Elementary School, the Elk Grove school where Newdow's daughter was a 2nd-grader.

Newdow, a Sacramento emergency room doctor, said in an interview that "Congress never intended to force people to worship a religion that they don't believe in" when they added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

While he expected the lawsuit would generate some controversy, Newdow said he didn't expect the media attention or the threatening phone calls he experienced Wednesday.

Even though his daughter wasn't forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, it was wrong to require her to listen to it when she doesn't believe in it, he said.

Newdow said his family and his daughter have been threatened because of the lawsuit. He refused to discuss his daughter, saying only that she was "in a safe place." He also wouldn't say if he was married.

He wouldn't characterize the threats he received, saying only that they were "personal and scary. I could be dead tomorrow.

"Many people who are upset about this are people who just don't understand," he said. "People have to consider what if they were in the minority religion and the majority religion was overpowering them.

"Justice O'Connor said nobody should be made to feel like an outsider. This is a violation. I feel like I'm not a real American because I won't uphold the pledge," he said.

He filed a similar case in Florida in 1997, seeking to strike the words "in God we trust" from U.S. currency. He said Wednesday's decision is a "hopping off point" for other lawsuits, including one to end family laws, such as those concerning custody.