To All,
A fundamental tenet of democracy and free expression within our society is a protection from "state" sponsored religion. We are a nation of differing ideas and religions. Everyone must be represented without fear of consequences or exclusion. Therefore if our government makes people use such terminology it is in effect a violation of that freedom.
Now you may be thinking where does "in god we trust" and "one nation under god come from"? You also may say that our fore-fathers were strict god fearing men. You are right on both fronts. They did use this language because of their beliefs and also because of the verbal habits of the time. This is NOT an allusion to the US as sponsoring the Christian God! It is a mere semantical allusion that over time has generated mistakenly into its own entity.
Our forefathers had the ability to foresee that this massive land would be overrun by radically differing religions and people. That is why there are clauses within our Constitution to protect all of our idea/beliefs from the overwhelming tyranny of state sponsored religion. I am not even opposed to "in god we trust" or any references on the dollar or buildings because "god" can mean so many different things
Now to Mr Newdow, I believe all he was trying to do was verbalize that the government should not be able to require or implement a policy that in effect violates his (in this case his daughters) freedom from state sponsored religion. When you hold your hand on your chest, gaze at the flag and then repeat those words you are in effect saying that you pledge/believe in those things, one of which is god. Being a free society he is only saying that his daughter or anyone else should not be required to do it. That is of course my take on the whole situation. Besides we all know that god is a big computer in the sky!