# data[].attributes.body
This news article is stating how the court won and how they closed the case by stating that the father does not have full custody of his daughter. This article says that the first amendment is not violated in any way because the pledge was never mandatory in the school and his daughter did not have to participate at any time. They also stated that "Not every mention of God or religion by our government or at the government’s direction is a violation of the Establishment Clause".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pledge of Allegiance’s God reference now upheld by court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pledge of Allegiance’s God reference now upheld by court

# data[].attributes.body
This book talks about the case and it talks about how it all developed. It starts with a man named Michael Newdow who is the father of a child at a school in Elk Grove Unified School District being an atheist. He would want his daughter to believe in what he does and he stated that her saying the pledge at school everyday, is violating the first amendment which includes freedom of religion. He then took the school district to court and lost in the supreme court because he did not have full custody of his daughter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Each day elementary school teachers in the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) lead their classes in a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Respondent, Michael A. Newdow, is an atheist whose daughter participates in that daily exercise. Because the Pledge contains the words "under God," he views the School District's policy as a religious indoctrination of his child that violates the First Amendment. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Newdow. In light of the obvious importance of that decision, we granted certiorari to review the First Amendment issue and, preliminarily, the question whether Newdow has standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. We conclude that Newdow lacks standing and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals' decision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
elk grove unified school dist. v. newdow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‎Elk Grove Unified School Dist. V. Newdow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Each day elementary school teachers in the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) lead their classes in a group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Respondent, Michael A. Newdow, is an atheist whose daughter participates in that daily exercise. Because the Pledge contains the words...

# data[].attributes.headline
Political Cartoon #2 author Zereena Grewal

# data[].attributes.subject
Political Cartoon #2 author Zereena Grewal

# data[].attributes.body
The focus in this cartoon is to inform people that the government is violating amendments by trying to make people say the pledge of allegiance. The author did a good job showing a government worker forcing a kid who may not believe in god to say the pledge of allegiance even though it says "under god". The cartoon is trying to say that we are forced and showing the kid who looks confused/scared to show that it should be optional. The bias is showing that government makes us say it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Political Cartoon #1 author Unknown stus.com

# data[].attributes.subject
Political Cartoon #1 author Unknown stus.com

# data[].attributes.body
The focus of this cartoon is to show how people think that having the pledge of allegiance in school should not be allowed. They believe that the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance violates their first amendment. In this carton the little girl is telling the teacher that it just open up a divorce war with her parents. I believe that the author is trying to make fun of people by making up a story because people don't come up with good enough reasons to take the pledge out of schools. The bias is showing that we should not have it mandatory