Court clears reciting of Pledge of Allegiance at Western schools

[Johnny Bravo]

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
March 11, 2010 9:22 p.m. EST
The appeals court ruled that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance "serves to unite our vast nation."
Washington (CNN) -- Public schools in Western states can continue teacher-led reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance, after a federal court ruled against a group of atheist parents.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, California, ruled 2-1 Thursday that the pledge does not represent a government endorsement of religion, prohibited by the Constitution.

"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our republic was founded and for which we continue to strive: one Nation under God," wrote the majority. "Millions of people daily recite these words when pledging allegiance to the United States of America."

The ruling applies only to the 11 states and territories in the West covered by the 9th Circuit, but it reinforces other rulings from other courts upholding the pledge. The same appeals court also ruled separately Thursday, upholding the use of the words "In God We Trust" on U.S. money.

The lawsuit was brought by several parents in the Sacramento, California, area who objected to the school policy.

Among them is Michael Newdow, a prominent attorney and atheist, who had brought his long-standing dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004. The justices had dismissed that earlier appeal on purely technical grounds, over questions he lacking standing as a custodial parent to bring the lawsuit on behalf of his school-age daughter. Newdow then recruited other parents into the current case.

Newdow said he would appeal Thursday's decision but acknowledged his dim prospects going forward. "This was the appeal and this is the end of the road in terms of what you're guaranteed," he said.

Newdow said he'll ask for a rehearing and, if that fails, will appeal to the Supreme Court. "But they don't have to take it," he said, referring to the nation's high court, "and the odds are pretty good that they won't."

A woman identified only as Jan Roe was a key plaintiff, arguing she did not believe in God. She claimed the daily recitation interfered with her right to direct her child's upbringing and that it indoctrinated her child with the belief that God exists.

Children are not required to stand and repeat the pledge, but some parents said the social pressures to conform were an improper infringement of their rights. The plaintiffs now have the option of asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.

The appeals court framed the issue as a dispute over whether was a traditional patriotic exercise or a blatant religious message. The same court in 2002 agreed with Newdow and other atheist parents.

In dissent to Thursday's ruling, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the pledge was an overtly religious message.

"Carrying out such an indoctrination in a public school classroom unconstitutionally forces many young children either to profess a religious belief antithetical to their personal views or to declare themselves through their silence or nonparticipation to be protesting nonbelievers, thereby subjecting themselves to hostility and ridicule," he wrote.

The Supreme Court previously has ruled the mere mention of God or religion by the government in a public setting does not necessarily mean a violation of the "Establishment Clause" of the Constitution, which ensures the separation of church and state.

Examples that have met high court scrutiny include Ten Commandments or Chanukah menorah displays in a public park; opening a legislative session with a prayer; granting tax breaks for religious organizations; and reimbursing transportation costs for parents whose end their children to parochial schools.

The pledge was written in 1892 by Baptist minister and educator Francis Bellamy, who made no reference to religion in his version. It was originally worded: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It quickly became a part of public school programs.

In 1954, Congress added the words "under God," at the urging of the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Another modification was to change "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America."

"This decision is a victory for common sense," Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson of the Knights of Columbus said in a news release. "Today, the court got it absolutely right: Recitation of the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious prayer. ... Every reasonable person knows that, and today's decision is a breath of fresh air from a court system that has too often seemed to be almost allergic to public references to God."

The case is Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District (05-17257).

[PegLeg45]

The lawsuit was brought by several parents in the Sacramento, California, area who objected to the school policy.

Among them is Michael Newdow, a prominent attorney and atheist, who had brought his long-standing dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004. The justices had dismissed that earlier appeal on purely technical grounds, over questions he lacking standing as a custodial parent to bring the lawsuit on behalf of his school-age daughter. Newdow then recruited other parents into the current case.

Newdow said he would appeal Thursday's decision but acknowledged his dim prospects going forward. "This was the appeal and this is the end of the road in terms of what you're guaranteed," he said.

Newdow said he'll ask for a rehearing and, if that fails, will appeal to the Supreme Court. "But they don't have to take it," he said, referring to the nation's high court, "and the odds are pretty good that they won't."

A woman identified only as Jan Roe was a key plaintiff, arguing she did not believe in God. She claimed the daily recitation interfered with her right to direct her child's upbringing and that it indoctrinated her child with the belief that God exists.

Children are not required to stand and repeat the pledge, but some parents said the social pressures to conform were an improper infringement of their rights. The plaintiffs now have the option of asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.

I understand these people have the right to their own personal beliefs, but why can't they understand the concept of 'majority rules'?
If you remove religion from the argument altogether, and say you have 21 people in a room and they are voting for something. If 11 vote for one thing and 10 vote for another, the 11 win. From what I understand, there are more people in this country who believe in God than those who don't.

I, for one, am glad to see the court's ruling.

[BAC]

Children are not required to stand and repeat the pledge

I thought these people were all about "choice"?  So the kids aren't being forced to recite the Pledge, but that's apparently not good enough.  They want to take away the "choice" for everyone.  Do I have that right?

[Solus]

I understand these people have the right to their own personal beliefs, but why can't they understand the concept of 'majority rules'?
If you remove religion from the argument altogether, and say you have 21 people in a room and they are voting for something. If 11 vote for one thing and 10 vote for another, the 11 win. From what I understand, there are more people in this country who believe in God than those who don't.

I, for one, am glad to see the court's ruling.

Our Founding Fathers understood the concept of 'majority rules' and that is exactly why we have a Republic rather than a Democracy. 

This should be discussed on the basis is of what is right or wrong, not on who has more folks on their side.

[PegLeg45]

Our Founding Fathers understood the concept of 'majority rules' and that is exactly why we have a Republic rather than a Democracy. 

This should be discussed on the basis is of what is right or wrong, not on who has more folks on their side.

But on whose opinion of right and wrong?

In some cases, right and wrong are matters of moral, ethical, or religious opinion.

Suppose the country was 90% atheist and 10% Christian?

I really didn't want this to spiral into a drawn out debate over religion (from what I gather, we are in the same boat on that one). I also understand that religious ideology is at the root of the lawsuit, but maybe I oversimplified my first post.....I was just expressing the point of being tired of the same old tap dance where the minority continues to try to overturn what is, and has been, the majority consensus since the founding of this great nation. I was just happy that the court ruled in that vein.

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

Peg,

What is right is what is fair.  Since we are never going to come up with a solution that is fair to every religious or ethnic group, simply eliminate those words that make the pledge 'biases' towards one group or another.

It worked for many years as such and we do not make any gains by including the phrase 'under God'.

I know kids can choose to sit and not pledge if they would be forced to support a religion which they choose not to, but this has two drawbacks I can see.

One is we exclude a portion of the population that wants to show support for the country and the flag.  Is this an intended consequence?

Two is that I cannot help that think that the kids who do sit out for these reasons will suffer for not standing and taking the pledge.  Not by the teachers, but by the other kids. 

[PegLeg45]

I understand where you are coming from, and can respect that.

But I submit that life isn't fair.

This isn't new ground. Even as far back as when I was in school, I knew a boy whose family were not Christian. He stood with the class and said the Pledge. When he got to the 'under God' part, he just didn't say those words. It didn't really bother me. True story, not made up just for this thread.

Heck, I'm the last person who would try to force someone to do something they didn't believe was right. I know this country was founded on religious freedom, but it was also founded on the core belief of Christianity. I also know that the words "under God" were added later. So, there's no easy solution without getting a lot of people riled up.

I don't have all the answers.

[fightingquaker13]

Peg,

What is right is what is fair.  Since we are never going to come up with a solution that is fair to every religious or ethnic group, simply eliminate those words that make the pledge 'biases' towards one group or another.

It worked for many years as such and we do not make any gains by including the phrase 'under God'.

I know kids can choose to sit and not pledge if they would be forced to support a religion which they choose not to, but this has two drawbacks I can see.

One is we exclude a portion of the population that wants to show support for the country and the flag.  Is this an intended consequence?

Two is that I cannot help that think that the kids who do sit out for these reasons will suffer for not standing and taking the pledge.  Not by the teachers, but by the other kids. 

I agree. Lets rember the Pledge was penned by a socialist, but still a patriot, named Bellamy (and no, socialist and patriot are not oxymorons, those who think they are however....). The words "under God" were added in 1954 to appease a Catholic special interest group. Me, I'm a Christian, but I think you should be able to pledge loyaly to your nation without any sort of religious test attached to it. Wait that sounds familiar, it might even have been mentioned once or twice in the Constitution.
FQ13
PS For a brief history of the Pledge and its author click here.
http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm

[PegLeg45]

I agree. Lets rember the Pledge was penned by a socialist, but still a patriot, named Bellamy (and no, socialist and patriot are not oxymorons, those who think they are however....). The words "under God" were added in 1954 to appease a Catholic special interest group. Me, I'm a Christian, but I think you should be able to pledge loyaly to your nation without any sort of religious test attached to it. Wait that sounds familiar, it might even have been mentioned once or twice in the Constitution.
FQ13
PS For a brief history of the Pledge and its author click here.
http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ah, such a double-edged sword............... if you quash one side for fear of religious establishment, then you also step on the toes of the free speech crowd..........hmmmmm.

[fightingquaker13]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ah, such a double-edged sword............... if you quash one side for fear of religious establishment, then you also step on the toes of the free speech crowd..........hmmmmm.

Not in terms of the pledge. Here its just about saying you're a loyal American without signing on for a particular (or for that matter any) religious belief. What settles the argument for me isn't the 1A, its Article VI section 3, which reads "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". To me that would include a loyalty oath. I want you to pledge allegiance to the nation. God is on his own. He can handle it.
FQ13