Atheist lawsuit claims "under God" in NJ school's daily pledge recital harms children

[Goblinmonger]

On Saturday, the American Humanist Association filed a lawsuit in New Jersey on behalf of an atheist family seeking to erase the phrase “one Nation under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

According to the lawsuit, “John Doe and Jane Doe are atheists…who have personally experienced the public’s prejudice against atheists.” They have been told they are “arrogant for not believing in God,” and “Doechild is…aware of unfavorable public attitudes toward atheism, and has in fact been personally confronted and shouted at in response to his openly identifying as atheist.”

Because of this, John and Jane Doe do not believe Doechild — who attends a public school in the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District — should be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on a daily basis, as that forces Doechild into a position in which classmates will come to recognize that he is a non-believer.

David Niose, an attorney for the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center, said in a statement on Monday that “[p]ublic schools should not engage in an exercise that tells students that patriotism is tied to a belief in God. Such a daily exercise portrays atheist and humanist children as second-class citizens, and certainly contributes to anti-atheist prejudices.”

Full article

Hopefully, the reactions to this are not as equally wonderful as Jessica Ahlquist received regarding the banner in Rhode Island. I'm not holding my breath, though.

[brewens]

1. Not having that in there certainly didn't harm children. The kids that grew up with the earlier

version helped win two world wars.

[Goblinmonger]

3. Then we added it and lost Vietnam.

[Brettongarcia]

19. The Germans had it around WW II: "Gott Mit Uns" or "God With Us"

Did loads for them, obviously.

Seems like every fascist there is asserts that God is on his side. Bob Dylan even did a song on this.

[immoderate]

2. They added "under god" when I was in the third grade.

It sounds as stupid now as it did then.


--imm

[Ron Obvious]

4. The whole concept of a "Pledge of Allegiance" creeps me out.

Loyalty oaths, recited after rote-memorisation by children who probably don't even know what most of the words mean, is something I associate with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and North Korea, not a society that likes to think of itself as the free'est and most democratic society on earth.

If you hadn't grow up with it, I suspect it would creep you out too.

[brewens]

14. One of my favorite old guys was a naval aviator that flew Skyraiders I believe.

I drank and shot the shit with him a lot and he said that kind of blind patriotism scared him for the reasons you mentioned. He was a really cool guy.

He told me about his only combat mission. He was really in between wars. He got in on the last days of the Korean War and got out before Vietnam. He and another guy were just doing a patrol to check out a North Korean island off the coast that had some sort of installation we were going to bomb the crap out of.

They saw nothing unusual but a fisherman was heading into a little bay too close to where the attack was going to be so they decided to shoo him away. They buzzed him and it only pissed him off. They could see him yelling at them and shaking his fist at them! On the next pass he opened up on him with all his guns which is quite a fearsome display from that airplane, carefully aiming to miss to the side of course. He got the message that time and turned around. Old Captain Lyle was genuinely proud that that was the only time he used his weapons in a war.

[el_bryanto]

5. There are two questions

The question of Under God seems clear to me - it should be taken out. It requires a certain level of conformity on religion that's not healthy.

The other question is does the Pledge serve a purpose at all. I don't know about that one.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

6. In Wisconsin, schools are required

to either do the Pledge or National Anthem school wide. Been that way for about 13 years.

I have found there is no better way to have students not give a shit about the Pledge than to have it over the speakers every day.

[el_bryanto]

7. I can definitely see that

On the other hand I feel like as a society we are moving further along towards the selfish end of the spectrum - "I got mine." Was thinking about this earlier with Richard Nixon; while a despicable person in a lot of ways, some of the policies he put forward would be impossible to get through today or even propose. The EPA and the Negative Income Tax.

I don't know if the pledge helps with that; I guess it probably doesn't. But I don't know how you build a sense of community in our modern age.

Bryant

[TM99]

8. That is an interesting point.

Where is the line between a healthy patriotism that unites all and an unhealthy nationalism that becomes destructive to the societal good?

I think it is when religion gets mixed up with the state. I fully support the removing of 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. In our day and time, I don't know if the Pledge is even something that strikes or could strike the heart of Americans as something worthy and positive.

Should it be fully removed - just a product of time's past? Or perhaps do we need a new Pledge?

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Mandatory oath swearing is not even in question.

It doesn't "promote healthy patriotism", at least not in the context of a republic of free citizens, it is an act of authoritarian nationalism.

[TM99]

10. I don't disagree with you.

I also am more likely to support incremental changes rather than bold acts of radical change. Can we change what has occurred over a lengthy period of time immediately overnight? Not in my experience, so we make small changes heading towards an agreed upon more positive outcome. That way, I see more acceptance by a wider audience than just those that agree with my own specific viewpoint.

[Starboard Tack]

11. The Pledge is bullshit.

The "under God" part is double bullshit. Kids need to start standing up for themselves. They can't be forced to recite this nonsense.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. They aren't technically "forced", just unofficially shamed for not participating.

[Mariana]

25. I don't think it's reasonable to expect little children

to "stand up for themselves" and refuse to say the pledge. How many of them even know that they aren't required to say it? Very few, I'll bet. The teachers don't inform them that they don't have to participate if they don't want to. The kids are just told to do it.

[struggle4progress]

12. The statute says the board of education should require the pledge. The definitions

make clear that board refers to the local board of education, as opposed to state board (which refers to the state board of education). In NJ, local boards are elected (usually but perhaps not always in November)

The local superintendent, on the other hand, is hired by the local board. David M. Healy is currently superintendent of the Matawan-Aberdeen school district, but in March he was offered a position as superintendent of the Toms River school district by the Toms River board and seems to be planning to leave Matawan-Aberdeen for the Toms River position. I suppose the styling "in his capacity as" means that the name of Healy's successor will be substituted for Healy's name in the suit, when and if he moves to Toms River

It is less clear to me why the defendants are named as the school district and the local superintendent. The state law refers to the local board, which hires the local superintendent and sets policy for the local district. This may reflect a weakness of the suit. I have been unable to determine what steps plaintiffs actually took in February, but both the timing and the styling of the suit might suggest a failure to attempt all possible administrative remedies before filing. Notable in particular is the lack of any specific reference to district or local board policy, which ought have been uncovered in the course of seeking administrative remedy

Another weakness of the suit seems to me the claim that doechild wishes to say the pledge. Insofar as the statute cited says "pupils who have conscientious scruples .. shall not be required to render such .. pledge," a natural rejoinder might be "What prevents doechild from rendering the pledge but omitting the words under God?" -- for surely if a child has the right to refrain entirely from the pledge, on the grounds that a portion offends conscience, the child has a right to recite a portion of the pledge, refraining from the two words that offend conscience. That particular approach would likely to pass generally un-noticed, hence would attract little attention, positive or negative

The complaint unfortunately also incorporates a number of irrelevant matters, such as reference to unenforceable laws in states other than New Jersey or reference to the collapse of the Soviet Union, having no immediate bearing on the issues of New Jersey law and practice. The reference to the Maryland constitution is particularly infelicitous, since the provision cited was directly and explicitly invalidated by the Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins over fifty years ago; it is certainly a waste of time to incorporate such matter, and it may be counter-productive, insofar as it forces the court to spend time on arguments about relevancy which are certain to be resolved against the defendants. And, of course, Matawan-Aberdeen itself is in the New York metropolitan area, which is perhaps one of the most culturally diverse metropolitan areas in the country

I would myself prefer to see the two words in question removed from the Pledge, but I think there is little chance of removal by judicial process. The courts generally seem to regard "under God" in the Pledge and "In God We Trust" on the coinage as conventions that contain no actual doctrinal stances, that do not require affirmation or denial of any actual doctrinal stances, and that do not reward or punish any actual doctrinal stances. The prospect is worse when we have such a rambling complaint

[Brettongarcia]

15. There are dozens of precedents dealing specifically with the Pledge.

[struggle4progress]

16. The actual complaint has been linked in this forum. It explicitly disavows any federal issue,

presumably to avoid the outcome of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow or similar cases. You might benefit by actually reading the complaint, the New Jersey statute (which appears consistent with such rulings as West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, insofar as it does not compel anyone to recite the pledge if doing so would offend conscience) which is the subject of the complaint, and the allegedly relevant portion of the NJ constitution (Article I.5: No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil .. right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil .. right, nor be segregated in the .. the public schools, because of religious principles ...)

The complaint is unusual in demanding, not that doechild not be forced to recite the pledge (indeed, the complaint explicitly says doechild wishes to recite the pledge), nor that doechild be allowed to recite the pledge without the offending two words (a simple solution that I expect the statute must permit), but that the two words be removed from the pledge

For the reasons I stated prior, I think the plaintiffs unlikely to prevail, in part because the complaint is sloppy and poorly researched

[Goblinmonger]

17. The point being, I believe,

is that if Doechild recites the pledge and just doesn't say "under God" that will identify Doechild as a non-believer and subject Doechild to the ill effects of society seeing said child as an atheist. It would be similar to the arguments for school prayer that were shot down in which the child was able to opt out which then led to the child being ostracized for their views (or lack thereof).

[Brettongarcia]

20. That is my point. Though it IS interesting as I hear of MANY cases trying to get around the Fed

Now and then even "Struggle" makes an interesting point

[okasha]

21. Not saying "under God"

will not identify Doechild as an atheist. Jehovah's Witnesses and a number of other religious groups also "abstain" from public affirmations of either political loyalty or religious affiliation.

That said, the phrase has no business in the pledge, and the pledge has no business in the schools.

[struggle4progress]

23. My comments have focused largely on whether the suit might succeed, which I think unlikely

for the reasons I have stated, reasons having very little to do with my views of the phrase in question -- in fact, I have (for many years now) repeatedly said at this website that I myself would be pleased if those two words were omitted from the pledge

Courts generally attempt to decide cases on grounds not requiring them to find statutes unconstitutional, whenever that is possible -- as (for example) in ARONOW v US, where a challenge to the constitutionality of the slogan on coins was met with the remark that the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact or in ELKGROVE v NEWDOW (pdf) where a challenge to the pledge language was dismissed for lack of standing based on legal custodial considerations. It may indeed be the case that alleged violation of NJ Constitution I.5 warrants a strict scrutiny, but the court will still demand some actual reason to think there is some enjoyment of a civil right denied, or some exercise of a civil right discriminated against, or some public school segregated, in order to overturn the statute. The statute, however, does not force much upon anyone: those who object to the pledge are merely required to stand respectfully during it, without recital. As doechild is not segregated by the latter requirement, and does not object to any of the pledge, except for two words -- and in fact reportedly would want to say the pledge except for the two words -- the constitutional question reduces to whether the statute denies doechild enjoyment of some civil right denied or discriminates against doechild's exercise of some civil right. The statute, however, does not force doechild to recite the pledge, and the court is unlikely to construe the statute as forcing doechild to choose between reciting the whole pledge (including the offending phrase) or refraining entirely from reciting the pledge. While doechild is free to assert that the offending phrase is religious in nature, and while the court will uphold doechild's right to this view and doechild's right to adjust doechild's own conduct accordingly, I would also expect the court itself to adopt a view, like that in Aronow, that the phrase is entirely ceremonial in nature and neither enforces any definite theological stance nor requires any definite religious ritual practice from anyone -- and that therefore doechild, while personally free to refrain from utterance of the phrase, has no civil rights basis for asking that others also refrain from it. The complaint, of course, is absolutely correct that the case would be open-and-shut in favor of the plaintiffs if the offending phrase were (say) "under Jesus," which certainly would imply a definite sectarian or theological stance -- but this not being the phrase, the plaintiffs have by this example witlessly set for themselves the gargantuan task of showing the offending phrase nevertheless still implies a definite sectarian or theological stance.

The argument you wish to make seems to me also unlikely to succeed. Courts, when possible, will consider general principles in deciding cases and will try to interpret the concrete facts in light of such principle. An obvious general principle suggested by your argument is this: If a student conscientiously objects to a certain activity, and fears ridicule for refusing to engage in that activity in a school setting, then no should engage in the activity. Would that be a sound principle? Consider application of this putative principle, in the context of a senior level high school civics class, containing a student who (as a Jehovah's Witness) has religious objection to voting but fears ridicule if s/he refuses to fill out a voter registration form during a class period devoted to elections, when the teachers offers unregistered students voter registration forms and class time for filling out the form. If the student sues to prevent civics teachers from offering class time to complete voter forms, should the court follow the putative principle, that I have stated, to decide the case? I think the natural view might be that, though all are free to follow conscience, there is no right to demand everyone else adjust their behavior to prevent disclosure of and possible embarrassment to those who are following their consciences; it may be polite, in some circumstances, to do so, but this possible kindness does not rise to the level of a legal requirement. You are, of course, free to provide a different abstract principle on which your argument is based; and it would be even better if your principle were derived from existing principles of NJ case law; you might thereby provide a much better principle than I have dashed down; but if you do not provide the principle clearly and ground it well in law, someone else will provide it for you (as I have just done), and your desired stand may not benefit from the result

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Remaining silent for those two beats is what I did, from Kindergarten to graduation.

No one ever bothered me for it. But I may be one of the lucky few. There are certainly instances of kids getting messed with for it. And, it does violate a principle.

Forget atheists. Would you force a Buddhist to swear to 'under god' or 'in god we trust'? That seems particularly noxious to me.

But I agree, the courts are unlikely to correct this matter.

[rug]

13. DUpe, with the Complaint.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218125120

[stone space]

24. As an atheist, I don't as a rule pledge my allegiance to a piece of cloth, but were I to do so, ...

...I'd hardly be inclined to quibble about the relative position of the Holy Cloth with respect to some imaginary Deity.

I mean, once one has decided to worship a piece of cloth, what's the point of such quibbling?

Why should I care whether said Holy Cloth passes under, over, or through some imaginary Deity?

For God's sake, I've already made the decision to worship at the Alter of the Holy Cloth by that point!

So now I'm going to bring up my atheist scruples?

It's a little late for that, don't you think?

[Goblinmonger]

26. I think the argument here is more nuanced

I generally agree with you that saying the pledge is ridiculous. I think that every day we have to do it in school.

But the plaintiffs here seem to be going for something that is a little more acceptable. They are trying to say they want to be patriotic but that it violates their religious beliefs or puts them up for ridicule and scorn if they do. I think it is important that this phrase be taken out of the pledge. Bringing up a case where they say pledging allegiance to a cloth is a shitty stupid thing to do probably isn't going to make that happen.

And I would additionally say that being atheist in many areas may be a lot harder than you are putting off to be.

[stone space]

27. I guess that my point is that the Pledge itself is a prayer, with or without mention...

...of any Deities.

Even without "under God", it still functions as a prayer.