Religion
Related: About this forumHumanists Will Appeal "under God" Ruling
For immediate release (American Humanist Association Press Release)
(Washington, DC June 11, 2012) A Massachusetts court has ruled against a humanist family in their challenge to the under God wording of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Humanist Association and a Massachusetts family, is the first of its kind seeking equal rights for atheists-humanists while ignoring traditional First Amendment Establishment Clause arguments. It seeks a declaration that the daily classroom practice of recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flagin the version that includes an affirmation that the nation is under Godviolates state nondiscrimination law. In Massachusetts, both the state constitution and state statute prohibit discrimination based on religion.
No child should go to school every day, from kindergarten to grade twelve, to be faced with an exercise that defines patriotism according to religious belief, said the plaintiffs attorney David Niose, who is also AHA president. If conducting a daily classroom exercise that marginalizes one religious group while exalting another does not violate basic principles of equal rights and nondiscrimination, then I dont know what does.
The Massachusetts case, while not challenging the federal statute that added under God language to the Pledge in 1954, argues that states nevertheless can have a right and a duty to protect religious minorities that are marginalized by such exclusionary language.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/news/details/2012-06-humanists-will-appeal-under-god-ruling
The decision:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/system/storage/63/ee/7/3171/SJ_Decision_Partial.pdf
elleng
(131,458 posts)and I'm a Jewish Agnostic humanist.
Not only does it waste everyone's time and money, it runs the chance of stiffing up ill-will (at a rather sensitive time.)
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Wouldn't want to do what's right if it's going to make someone angry.
elleng
(131,458 posts)AND I still say, this is a foolish waste of resources.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"This is a Christian nation! 'Under god' is in our pledge! God is on our money!"
Foolish is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess.
elleng
(131,458 posts)they chose to ignore, or never knew, about what went on at the founding, and what the founders thought and believed.
Pledge and money matters came much later, and were mistaken then, and foolish now.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You can call others foolish for pursuing state-church separation. I'm not going to.
Ninjaneer
(607 posts)Ridiculous.
Every one of these battles must be fought, none are too trivial. No one is asking you to take part, you can pick your own battles. These people have chosen theirs.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are parents that feel very strongly about this and I think it's their right to not have their children recite something that they don't believe and are even actively opposed to.
My connection is too slow to get the decision to open, but I am wondering on what basis the court ruled against this.
rug
(82,333 posts)and there is no Equal Protection violation. It goes through the history and legislative intent behind the Pledge pretty thoroughly.
My daughter hasn't said it since fourth grade, not because of "under God" but because of its jingoism. "It's just a piece of cloth, why should I have to pledge to it?"
Pennsylvania had passed a mandatory recitation after 9/11 which the Third Circuit overturned on free speech grounds, holding, essentially, that coerced speech is prohinted under the First Amendment.
I think that's where it stands now. As long as it's voluntary the schools can recite it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)is really murky to me.
Your daughter may be in a school where she has some support for not participating, but what about those that are not?
The law, as you explain it, makes sense, I just question its real application.
rug
(82,333 posts)Her fourth grade teacher had a son in Iraq and made an issue of it briefly but she understood and backed off.
What's interesting about this case is the court ruled it is not a prayer. So, that leaves the question, what of schools or school children, or communities that want to have an overtly patriotic recitation at the beginning of school? Should it be forbidden?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think the objections to the god language are legitimate, though.
My parents objected to the pledge, iirc, but I was in a suburban school outside Washington, DC at the time and it would have been impossible for me not to have joined in.
longship
(40,416 posts)I do not like the flag pledge in principle let alone the "under God" clause.
As all government employees know well, including all public school teachers. Nobody gets hired before they swear a pledge of allegiance... to the US Constitution.
The history of the pledge to a flag is an interesting one. It was first proposed by the publisher of youth magazine at the turn of the 20th century. It went through several changes before it was adopted, IIRC in the 1920's. Finally, the insidious words "under God" were added in the midst of the McCarthy era, the early 1950's, the same f*cking era that the loonies put "In God We Trust" on all our money.
By the way, the guy that wrote the first pledge was a socialist and a Democrat.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)and then refused to say it for decades
Swearing allegience to a piece of cloth? What's up with that?
We have liberty and justice for all here? Oh, really? Since when?
Nowadays, at those rare times when I recite the pledge, I simply leave out the "under G-d" nonsense
daaron
(763 posts)Of course, when I play "House of the Rising Sun," I do the original folk version from the POV of a woman, not the lame rock version from the POV of a man. Never been into changing lyrics of folk songs to suit myself or my times.
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)and never once felt it was voluntary. Of course, at the time, I had no reason to suspect it should be. I was one of the majority so eff all you non-believers.
And that's why it's wrong.
Evoman
(8,040 posts)Under god only makes is slightly more terrifying.