Atheist bring lawsuit against New Jersey school over Pledge of Allegiance

[rug]

Updated 37 mins ago

FREEHOLD, N.J. -- A judge will hear arguments in a lawsuit filed against a New Jersey school district by a family identified in court papers as John and Jane Doe and their child.

The family claims the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance discriminates against children with atheist beliefs.

John and Jane Doe are suing the Aberdeen Matawan school district contenting that the phrase "under God" in the pledge is discriminatory.

The school district claims it is merely following a state law that requires schools to have a daily recitation of the pledge. Individual students do not have to participate in the pledge.

http://7online.com/religion/does-reciting-the-pledge-of-allegiance-discriminate/402085/

Arguments are today in state court.

[Feral Child]

1. I find it offensive

and will not recite the Pledge, or leave that phrase out if I decide to participate. I really don't like the pledge at all; I find it jingoistic, nationalistic, and I'm more and more finding it to be dishonest.

[rug]

2. Me either. It's not just those two words.

[Feral Child]

9. Yep.

Loyalty oaths...

[stone space]

13. Exactly! (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

16. +1

[cbayer]

3. I thought this had been previously settled.

[brooklynite]

14. That was a Federal Court case...

[cbayer]

15. I admit that what I know about the legal system is thin,

but doesn't that take some kind of precedence?

[struggle4progress]

17. I think that may depend on the exact nature of the lawsuit

When the question is a fundamental right under the US Constitution, and has been settled by a Federal Court governing the location at hand, the Federal ruling disposes the matter. So the question of whether one can compel students to say the pledge, against religious conscience, was resolved in 1943 by WEST VIRGINIA v BARNETTE. The modern interpretation would, I think, probably be that anyone who has a deep conviction, based on notions that govern their lives and conscience in the same manner that strongly-held standard religious views would, cannot be forced by the state to recite the pledge

On the other hand, Federal law and state law are generally distinct and not every Federal decision has implications at the state level

[cbayer]

21. Appreciate that information.

[truebrit71]

4. I find the whole concept of a loyalty oath in a country that spouts off about personal freedom...

...left right and centre to be quite amusing...aren't those sort of things only supposed to happen in dictatorships?

[Man from Pickens]

6. you should look up the origin of the Pledge

It was originally accompanied by the exact same salute as the Nazis used.

[Mariana]

11. You're right. The whole thing is creepy as hell

and it was from the beginning, before the religious phrase was attached to it.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[vi5]

5. Ugh. I hate these suits

I'm in NJ. I'm a hardcore atheist. I tell my kids if they want to say the pledge they can, if they don't they can just remain silent. Or they can say the pledge and leave out under god. It's up to them, just as what they believe and whether they choose to be religious is up to them.

So many bigger problems related to religion, even just within the school system that should be dealt with first.

[HockeyMom]

7. Wiccan 8th grade boy in NY Public School

He left the room every time the pledge was said. "It is against my religion to worship a piece of cloth". No, it was not just the words "Under God" but the entire concept.

I also worked in a public schools in Florida which had a number of JW students and staff. They did not say, or stand, for the pledge either. Again, the word God was not the problem. It was their belief, as the Wiccans, that the Pledge was Idolatry.

It is not just Atheists, but the media wants people to think it is solely the "Godless" who want the pledge ended.

[MisterP]

8. and for that we have a literalist and literally-Orwellian fundie cult to thank!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

[struggle4progress]

18. I don't always understand the JW but now and then their adherence to their views is quite admirable

The Nazis violently suppressed the JW for refusing to give the Hitler salute. JW who refused to give the salute were beaten brutally, then told again to say the salute, refused again, and suffered further beatings. They were a small sect in Germany, and many of them died because the Nazis tolerated no dissent

They are also absolute pacifists, which I think reflects a slightly unrealistic view but is much more admirable and more honorable than the widespread jingoistic war-mongering mentality that all-too-frequently sweeps over the US

[Feral Child]

10. The litigation is necessary.

In the past students have been shamed and otherwise punished for not reciting the Loyalty Oath that is the Pledge. Lawsuits have stopped those punishments to a degree, but the abuses continue. Do you want your child to be singled out and publicly shamed for just remaining silent?

The Pledge is an attempt to indoctrinate young children into the mindless acceptance of allegiance to the actions of the government because they are anointed by "God". Do you want your child to eschew questioning governmental action because he/she has been programmed to believe they owe unquestioning loyalty?

Do you want your child to be required, forced to swear to a god he/she doesn't believe exists? That you don't believe exists?

It's happened, it's still happening when teachers that are religious/nationalistic zealots have ignored court orders and legal precedent. You can believe it's a small matter if you like, but the Pledge opens the door to other proselytizing (recruitment) in public schools.


What do you think about the lawsuits over displaying the "10 Commandments" in courts? Do you hate those suits also?

[vi5]

12. Here's the thing though.

The suits do nothing to stop whatever shaming a kid is going to get. If anything they exacerbate that shaming and put an even bigger spotlight on the kid. That's my issue with it, and if the concern truly is to prevent that, this does nothing. I get why from a litigation standpoint and a precedent standpoint it might be necessary. That's why the 10 commandments suits are different.

My issue is less with the legal aspect of it and more with parents using their kids to make a legal point.

And if the goal was to make the pledge itself illegal that would be one thing. But if the goal is got get "under god" out of it, it's not going to happen. As long as people are saying the pledge they are going to add it in if they want.

If it were someone who didn't have kids, in the abstract bringing this suit I'd be 100% for it.

[Feral Child]

19. Recompense.

Granted that fanatic fundy teachers continue to ignore precedent, making the school district pay a penalty for allowing this behavior will change that reality quickly. School-boards are accountable to parents and non-deluded-by-evangelism parents won't stand for taxes intended for their children's education to be squandered propping up some zealot's delusions.

The pedantic asshole that forced his/her own self-righteous screed onto defenseless children is also going to have to pay a penalty beyond job-loss. Other school-boards aren't going to hire a lunatic that will likely cost mega-bucks due to their neurotic need to demand reverence for their artificial reality. So, this unemployed pedant will not only lose a career, he/she will also spend the next 25-30 years in debt. That's a martyrdom that pampered American Xian's will suddenly realize is more than they're prepared for.


As for the child, he/she'll get a lesson in justice that will stick and teach them that , if they persevere, bullies can be resisted.

In rebuttal of your final caveat, let me explain that the "under God&quot sic) clause is the part that's illegal. Your statement is ambiguous, do you mean individuals will add it to their own Pledge? I don't care what fools do to themselves. If you meant that teachers will continue to force their religious beliefs on children, then the only way to stop is make them pay and pay again. Christians consider it pragmatic not to waste money on useless things like taxes and fines for breaking the law; they need that cash to bribe Yahweh through tithes to their charlatan preachers.

Do you have any other excuses for condemning a progressive and patriotic cause? (True patriotism is defending the Constitution and it's Separation Clause, not finding excuses to retain Loyalty Oaths.)

[vi5]

20. By that last part...

I mean that whether it's legal or not, idiot parents will still teach their kids to say "under god" when they say the pledge and those kids will still say it. Teachers will still say it when they recite it, even if they don't force kids to say it.

And for the record I didn't condemn this cause. I agree with this cause. I just don't 100% know or feel comfortable that it's the right way to go about accomplishing such a progressive and patriotic cause, especially since in this instance it's all but unenforceable.

And yes, absolutely if some kid is getting harassed for not saying it then his parents should sue about that. If a kid is being forced to say "under god" in the pledge and punished if they don't, then they should sue.

But it's already established legal precedent that a child cannot be forced to say "under god" when reciting the pledge. Whether it's because they are atheist, because they are Jehovah's Witness or whatever.

This case is in NJ. I live in NJ. My kids don't say under god in the pledge and nobody says boo about it. Same in the other districts we've lived in. So yeah, if a kid is getting harassed because of it, then sue for that harassment and that will teach the bullies the lesson you're wanting to teach them. And perhaps that's what's going on with this case. I have not had the chance to fully read up on it so I'm very willing to admit that if that is what this case is about then great. But if it's just a grandstanding suit to have the pledge taken out of schools altogether, while I think that would be great and amazing, it's not going to happen.