Sign in to follow this  
Madame Butterfly

Judge Rules School Pledge Unconstitutional

Recommended Posts

Updated: 03:19 PM EDT

Judge Rules School Pledge Unconstitutional

By DAVID KRAVETS, AP

 

 

 

 

 

SAN FRANCISCO (Sept. 14) - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

 

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

 

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

 

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

 

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

 

Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

 

The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.

 

Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.

 

Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down unexpectedly from the Supreme Court in July.

 

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.

 

"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.

 

Newdow, reached at his home, was not immediately prepared to comment

Edited by Madame Butterfly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the judge.

 

Pledging loyalty to the nation you are a citizen of is fine.

 

Pledging loyalty to a god you may not even believe in is not.

 

This should be the new Pledge:

 

"I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag Of The United States Of America, And To The Republic For Which It Stands, One Nation United And Indivisible, With Liberty And Justice For All".

 

If they don't alter the pledge, then an Atheist child should not be compelled to recite it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't object to saying "under God"

 

Though what I do find disturbing, is making a pledge to the "Christian flag", as many children do at private schools runs through a church.

 

Rules apply differently there though, if they don't accept state or federal money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the Christian pledge bothers me, because I believe religion is a private matter.

 

Each student has different religious beliefs.

 

Under God doesn't necessary mean the Christian god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLEDGE TO THE CHRISTIAN FLAG

 

I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty to all who believe.

Edited by Madame Butterfly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the Christian pledge bothers me, because I believe religion is a private matter.

 

Each student has different religious beliefs.

 

Under God doesn't necessary mean the Christian god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLEDGE TO THE CHRISTIAN FLAG

 

I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty to all who believe.

352245[/snapback]

In my school we said 3 pledges every morning. The pledge to the Christian flag, the pledge to the Bible and the pledge of allegiance.

 

 

Here's the Pledge to the Bible:

 

I pledge allegiance to the Bible, God's Holy Word, and will make it a lamp unto my feet, a light unto my path, and will hide its word in my heart that I may not sin against God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Under God doesn't necessary mean the Christian god.

 

It's true that it may not necessarily be the Christian deity, but on the other hand, "God" is the proper name for the Christian deity - i.e. the Christian deity's name is "God". I suspect that the original intent of adding "God" to the pledge was to acknowedge the Christian deity, but that's just me. People who object to saying "under God" could easily refrain from saying those 2 words, or remain silent during the recitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Under God doesn't necessary mean the Christian god.

 

It's true that it may not necessarily be the Christian deity, but on the other hand, "God" is the proper name for the Christian deity - i.e. the Christian deity's name is "God". I suspect that the original intent of adding "God" to the pledge was to acknowedge the Christian deity, but that's just me. People who object to saying "under God" could easily refrain from saying those 2 words, or remain silent during the recitation.

352259[/snapback]

Actually the Christian God is known by a few different names. Jehovah, Yahweh, Yeshua and I AM but "God" is not one of them. "God" is a title, not a name. Many religions call their deity "God".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see nothing wrong with it.

as said above if you do want to say

under god then dont say it.

or place who you belive in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually the Christian God is known by a few different names. Jehovah, Yahweh, Yeshua and I AM but "God" is not one of them. "God" is a title, not a name. Many religions call their deity "God".

352265[/snapback]

 

You're right. I forgot about the other names. :laugh: I was under the impression that the Christian God referred to himself as "God" as a proper name. Guess I'll have to do more research. Oops. :yahoo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record - children are not coerced into saying the pledge - if they are in this schoold district they are the exception - and it should be stopped. There is no question that children shouldn't be forced to repeat something they find objectionable or repugnant (but that works both ways) Most schools allow for non-participation for students that object to the "under God" part.

 

However, there is a big difference between not being forced to do something and demanding that no one else can do it because you dont' like it.

 

And there is where the central issue lies. If a child feel uncomfortable non-participating - should all other children be banned from an activity. The precedent set here will be far reaching. How far are you willing to draw the line for the most "sensitive" members of our society?

 

Personally, I think the issue is more symbolic - the person bringing the suit wants to strike a blow at religion. I also think there are much more pressing issues regarding religious freedom and the public school system and putting too much attention on this diverts energy from real concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is just like atheists trying to get rid of the "God" in the canadian national anthem... most people i talk to don't really care about it, and if atheist children don't want to say God, just mumble or something, don't sue people. All in all, i hope this case gets thrown out as IMHO it is hogwash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is just like atheists trying to get rid of the "God" in the canadian national anthem... most people i talk to don't really care about it, and if atheist children don't want to say God, just mumble or something, don't sue people. All in all, i hope this case gets thrown out as IMHO it is hogwash.

 

For you it's hogwash because you claim to be a religious person.

 

So obviously you would see nothing wrong with pledging your loyalty to a god you believed in anyway.

 

Those who don't wish to pledge loyalty to a god they don't believe exists might not feel the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, Here's my understanding on this subject...

 

 

ALL School Districts that have children recite the pledge DO allow students to not participate in the saying of the Pledge for any number of reasons. Political reasons (IE, You are NOT a US Citizen, which by the way, there are probably many students in the California School System to which that applies), and religious reasons. If you don't want to say "Under God", then don't. the Original Pledge did not have the term in there, so just say the pledge in it's original context. there is no "law" saying you HAVE to say "One Nation, Under God". I hate it when an extremely small minority (Which athiests are, something like 2%) Try and force THEIR beliefs on the majority. 98% of Americans believe in some sort of religion. That may not neccissarily mean they believe in a Divine Being, but the point stands. If the Courts start ruling to make everyone concede to the demands of a 2% minority, we may see something similar to Aparthied here in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those who don't wish to pledge loyalty to a god they don't believe exists might not feel the same way.

352302[/snapback]

 

The Pledge isn't "to a God", it's to the Flag of the United States and to this Republic.

 

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag

of the United States of America,

and to the Republic for which it stands:

one Nation under God, indivisible,

With Liberty and Justice for all."

 

"Under God" is simply an acknowledgement of the religious roots with which this nation was founded. Whether or not people believe in God or not it is a historical fact that this nation was founded with religious morals and roots. Not just Christian morals and roots, but several religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't want to say the pledge, then don't. I've got no problem with non-participation. However, I don't see that the issue is lawsuit-worthy. As has been pointed out, it's not a pledge to God. It's an acknowledgment of this nation's heritage.

 

As for the pldges to the Christian flag and the Bible, private schools are allowed to do such things and have every right to do so. The majority of "private schools" are actually Christian or Catholic schools, or at least associated with some other religion or denomination. If you choose to go to a school that is Christian in nature, you should expect to hear the pledge to the Christian flag. If you don't believe in such things, I don't see how complaints could be valid as a conscious choice was made to go there (rather than to the more easily accessible public school), and since it wouldn't have taken a parent much effort to find out the religious nature of the school.

 

In a rush. The above is a bit jumbled, I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't believe in such things, I don't see how complaints could be valid as a conscious choice was made to go there (rather than to the more easily accessible public school), and since it wouldn't have taken a parent much effort to find out the religious nature of the school.

352330[/snapback]

If most private (religious) schools are like the ones I went to (I went to 2) then it would be pretty unusual for someone to be attending that didn't have some basic belief in that schools fundamental teachings.

 

When my parents went to enroll me we all had to go through an interview process with the principal where we were told what the school (and associated church) taught and believed. In the case of the second school (the first one was for 1 year, 7th grade the 2nd was from 8th grade through 12th grade) we interviewed with the Principal, the church's Pastor and his wife. Both my parents and I had to sign a declaration of belief in Jesus as the Son of God as taught by the Christian faith, if we did not do those things then I would not be accepted at the school. We did those things willingly and I am glad I did. It was a really goos (though small) school.

 

So like I said, if other private religious schools operate the same way then I can't imagine someone attending that would have a problem with saying any of the pledges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember having to sign papers like that, but the Christian-nature of the schools was more than apparent when I attended (1st private school = 3rd-6th, 2nd private school = 7th grade).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click For Spoiler
Atheist Gets Victory in 'Under God' Case By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

Thu Sep 15,12:01 PM ET

 

 

 

SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist seeking to strike the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools has won a major battle in his quest to force the     U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue again.

 

 

 

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton sided with atheist Michael Newdow in ruling Wednesday that the pledge's reference to God violates the rights of children in three school districts to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

 

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

 

The latest decision could set up another church-state showdown at a time when the Supreme Court is in flux. John Roberts, who would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, is undergoing confirmation hearings, and Justice     Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring when a successor is confirmed.

 

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

 

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

 

Newdow is hoping to get the high court to remove the pledge's reference to God and restore its pre-1954 wording, "one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

 

Personally, I think that instead of "under God," it should say "under (insert deity of choice)." Or, for the atheists, "under law."

 

Note: I added the spoiler as the article you quoted is the same as in MB's post. As well, I merged your thread with the one that had already been started on the topic by MB. Also, I closed your colour tag.

Takara

Edited by Takara_Soong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I think that instead of "under God," it should say "under (insert deity of choice)." Or, for the atheists, "under law."

352418[/snapback]

 

Excellent idea! If people were to say the pledge that way, it would be a better reflection of American diversity. On the other hand, if litte kids were to "insert deity of choice", the variety of responses could make them start laughing before they finished! I still like the idea though. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the original text of the Pledge of Allegiance didn't include the words "under God" is it really such a big deal to remove them? "Under God" wasn't added until 1954.

 

It's so easy to say a person doesn't have to say it if they don't want to but how many of you at that age would want to stand out like that if your classmates were all saying it. I remember when I was in grade 6. It was my first year at a very small school in rural Manitoba. At the beginning of each school day a different student would read a passage from the Bible. When it got to be my turn I didn't want to do it but I did anyways because I was new and didn't want to stand out. I compromised my beliefs because I didn't want to risk being bullied by my classmates for being different. Thankfully that practice ended shortly after I arrived because of a court case in another jurisdiction.

 

I am so against practices like having students leave a room so they don't have to participate. Public education is supposed to be inclusive. IMO there is no reason for teaching about any god in a public school. Religion is best taught at home and/or church.

 

Funny but as I was reading some of the comments I couldn't help but think back to the story about that kid who was allegedly suspended for saying a pledge to the UFP in place of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Edited by Takara_Soong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am so against practices like having students leave a room so they don't have to participate. Public education is supposed to be inclusive. IMO there is no reason for teaching about any god in a public school. Religion is best taught at home and/or church.

 

 

Should they eliminate sex education because it might traumatize some students to leave the room when it is taught? Parents do have the choice to opt out their child if such teachings violate their beliefs?

 

And what about the battle over "evolution" - whether we agree or not, for some people it is a moral issue. So how do you address it? Not teach it because someone will be offended if they leave the room or force children to sit through a class and repeat material (on paper if not verbally) that is personally offensive to them. Remember the point isn't what you feel about the issue but how we deal with forcing "common" beliefs on someone else who doesn't share them. The law should be applied equally to all children. To say non-religious children deserve protection but religious children don't is IMO a double standard and the sign of specific persecution.

 

So back to my original question - where do you draw the line in protecting children who have different ideas?

 

As for changing the words of the pledge - as I said before - it has now become "symbolic" and the battle will eat up precious time and resources while more pressing issues are ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should they eliminate sex education because it might traumatize some students to leave the room when it is taught? Parents do have the choice to opt out their child if such teachings violate their beliefs?

 

Yes, an opt-out has always been used here in the UK. Before I was taught SexEd we had to get our parents permission first.

 

And what about the battle over "evolution" - whether we agree or not, for some people it is a moral issue. So how do you address it? Not teach it because someone will be offended if they leave the room or force children to sit through a class and repeat material (on paper if not verbally) that is personally offensive to them. Remember the point isn't what you feel about the issue but how we deal with forcing "common" beliefs on someone else who doesn't share them. The law should be applied equally to all children. To say non-religious children deserve protection but religious children don't is IMO a double standard and the sign of specific persecution.

 

The theory of Evolution would be taught in Science Classes. Religious parents may choose to opt out of those classes but honestly they may as well simply opt out ALL science classes because many things may be taught which are contrary to Biblical teachings. If parents REALLY want their children to learn about Creationism on an equal basis to Evolution or perhaps to ONLY learn about Creationism, then they can remove their child from public education and send them to a faith school privately.

 

Matters relating to Creationism would be part of Philiosophy or RE classes, which also would be optional for students, even though as an Atheist, I would still take those classes.

 

As for changing the words of the pledge - as I said before - it has now become "symbolic" and the battle will eat up precious time and resources while more pressing issues are ignored.

 

Sorry, but who are you to decide what's more pressing? To an Atheist, the fact that religious elements are mixed with a pledge of loyalty to the nation you are a citizen of IS a pressing issue and a constitutional matter.

Edited by HRH The KING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. Senate drafted a resolution condemning the ruling against the Pledge this morning.And Atty.General Alberto gonzalez says he'll use every resource to keep the words of the Pledge as is.

I know the Supreme Court won't uphold the ruling.Especially with Roberts joining.

So I've no worries.

The Pledge will continue in it's present form for a long time to come. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am so against practices like having students leave a room so they don't have to participate. Public education is supposed to be inclusive. IMO there is no reason for teaching about any god in a public school. Religion is best taught at home and/or church.

 

 

Should they eliminate sex education because it might traumatize some students to leave the room when it is taught? Parents do have the choice to opt out their child if such teachings violate their beliefs?

 

And what about the battle over "evolution" - whether we agree or not, for some people it is a moral issue. So how do you address it? Not teach it because someone will be offended if they leave the room or force children to sit through a class and repeat material (on paper if not verbally) that is personally offensive to them. Remember the point isn't what you feel about the issue but how we deal with forcing "common" beliefs on someone else who doesn't share them. The law should be applied equally to all children. To say non-religious children deserve protection but religious children don't is IMO a double standard and the sign of specific persecution.

 

So back to my original question - where do you draw the line in protecting children who have different ideas?

 

As for changing the words of the pledge - as I said before - it has now become "symbolic" and the battle will eat up precious time and resources while more pressing issues are ignored.

352482[/snapback]

 

Should they eliminate sex education - no. Should parents be allowed to opt their child out - IMO, no. A balanced curriculum should be taught but unfortunately balance is most often what is objectionable. Study after study on teen sexuality have shown teens don't have the information necessary to make informed decisions.

 

If a parent is offended by the teaching of the Theory of Evolution then they should enroll their child in a religious school that teaches creationism. Creationism should not be taught in a science class because it is not science.

 

The public school system should be at the very least a secular system. If a parent wants religious matters taught then they have the right to enroll their child in a non-secular school or supplement their education at home or through their church.

 

King, I have a question for you. I know the terminology for your school systems are different from North America but how much religion is taught in British schools that would be considered public schools by North American standards. From what I read and see on television, religion being taught in public schools is much, much more of an issue in the US than Canada and Western Europe. Perhaps you can confirm or reject my observation based on your experience in Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The U.S. Senate drafted a resolution condemning the ruling against the Pledge this morning.And Atty.General Alberto gonzalez says he'll use every resource to keep the words of the Pledge as is.

I know the Supreme Court won't uphold the ruling.Especially with Roberts joining.

So I've no worries.

The Pledge will continue in it's present form for a long time to come. 

 

Why would it worry you if the words "Under God" were removed?

 

Would it cause you to lose your faith or for the Christian religion to fall?

 

 

In all honesty, if the United States Supreme Court did what they were supposed to do and uphold the United States Constitution, then they SHOULD order those two words to be removed from the pledge, or if not then the pledge itself should not be spoken in public schools.

 

The fact that they won't makes somewhat of a mockery of the court and the purpose they were intended to fulfill. For the Attorney-General to take such a religious bias is an absurdity.

 

King, I have a question for you. I know the terminology for your school systems are different from North America but how much religion is taught in British schools that would be considered public schools by North American standards. From what I read and see on television, religion being taught in public schools is much, much more of an issue in the US than Canada and Western Europe. Perhaps you can confirm or reject my observation based on your experience in Britain.

 

I do remember that occasionally prayers were said in school during assembly once a week, though that was long ago and I always remained absolutely silent during the prayer, as did some friends of mine. We were basically forced to bow our heads though which I always did with venomous thoughts in my mind.

 

We had Religious Education classes, but they were always a joke. No one wanted to be there and the class only lasted thirty minutes. Many occasions myself and my friends were told to shut up because we were asking too many questions which the teacher didn't want to answer or couldn't answer.

Edited by HRH The KING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for changing the words of the pledge - as I said before - it has now become "symbolic" and the battle will eat up precious time and resources while more pressing issues are ignored.

 

Sorry, but who are you to decide what's more pressing? To an Atheist, the fact that religious elements are mixed with a pledge of loyalty to the nation you are a citizen of IS a pressing issue and a constitutional matter.

352524[/snapback]

You seem to be assuming I was talking about the athiest point of view - perhaps you should read my quote again. In case it's still not clear - athiests aren't the ones opposed to changing the wording. And I have every right in the world to say that there are greater threats to religious freedom in our public schools than the words to the pledge - because I believe that is true.

 

Takara, I have to say your answer suprised me. It seems you're missing the point. I dont' care what you think about evolution or sex education - it's irrelevant- which is why I didn't share my views on the topic. I can't stress this enough - the point is one group of people imposing their views on another. On the one hand you tell us a story about how you felt as a child and then turn around and indicate it's okay to do the same to another child if that child is from a religious family. That makes no sense to me...children are children. Can you explain what makes children from non-religious families more deserving of kindness or respect? It's that distinction that I need someone to explain to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it worry you if the words "Under God" were removed?

 

Would it cause you to lose your faith or for the Christian religion to fall?

 

 

In all honesty, if the United States Supreme Court did what they were supposed to do and uphold the United States Constitution, then they SHOULD order those two words to be removed from the pledge, or if not then the pledge itself should not be spoken in public schools.

 

The fact that they won't makes somewhat of a mockery of the court and the purpose they were intended to fulfill. For the Attorney-General to take such a religious bias is an absurdity.

(Quote....HRH The King)

 

 

The thing is,and I know this will cause some people to have a hissy fit....

The United States was founded a Christian nation and has always been a Christian nation and will always be a Christian nation.

And all despite the best efforts of opposing groups trying to change that.

Its not PC to say that.But ask me if I care.

If someone doesn't like the fact that we are "one nation under God",then they can leave.

America has become the world's sole super power due in large part to our acknowledgement of God as the source of our inspiration and strength.I can already hear atheists and non-Christians ranting about that fact,but their rants make that fact no less true.

It's no surprise that as Europe moved further away from Christianity and more toward secularism,it's influence has wained.It's no suprise that an aethiestic state like the USSR fell flat on its face,or that similar nations like North Korea have millions starving and disease run rampant.

You may not know it,but here in the United States we've always been a monarchy.Our Lord and King is Jesus Christ.No body will EVER change that.

 

That's basically all I have to say on the subject.

Later! :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen these little automatons that everyone is so worried about chanting/mumbling/groaning along to the Pledge of Allegiance. I find it highly amusing that anyone thinks these kids really know the words --and if they actually do know the text of the pledge, that anyone thinks they even begin to comprehend what it means. Take out "under God" or leave it in ... it won't make a hoot in heck's worth of difference. These kids don't know what they are saying anyway.

Edited by Susan_Delgado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this