Court Upholds NH Law Allowing 'God' Reference In Schools Pledge Of Allegiance

BOSTON — A federal appeals court has upheld a New Hampshire law requiring schools to authorize a time each day for students to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, finding the oath's reference to God doesn't violate the students' constitutional rights.

A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston on Friday affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who found students can use the phrase "under God" when reciting the pledge.

Parents and The Freedom From Religion Foundation had sued the Hanover School District in New Hampshire and the Dresden School District in New Hampshire and Vermont in 2007. They said children's constitutional rights were being violated.

The appeals court found the primary effect of the law is "not the advancement of religion, but the advancement of patriotism."

Comments

[blindjester]

03:14 PM on 11/20/2010

I have to recite it with my class, and it makes me uncomfortable every day. I never say the "under god" part, and I'm not sure who notices. Most of the students simply stand. A few recite it.

The pledging does NOTHING to make those student feel patriotic, or love their country more. (Why would it?) But we do it every single day.

[johnny g locker]

01:22 AM on 11/18/2010

The Declaration of Independence use the word God. Should that be banned?

[Dan Jighter]

03:20 AM on 11/18/2010

Firstly, the Declaration of Independence used Nature's God (also called the Creator). Jefferson was a deist and making an argument from natural law philosophy for declaring independence. Thus the god Jefferson refers to is the deist god. Jefferson was not explicitly referring to the Abrahamic God or any similar such gods.

The Declaration of Independence was written before the US Constitution, so who cares about its constitutionality. It was written at a time when virtually all colonists were Christian or deist, so this was sufficiently secular and inclusive for the time period. Contrast that with the 1950's when "under God" was added to the Pledge and it was full known that some Americans didn't believe in God and some of those viewed this as a violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. "Under God" was deliberately added to be exclusive by contrasting us from the godless Commies as a Christian nation. It was to deliberately say that atheists like me aren't true patriots. "Under God" wasn't originally in the Pledge to begin with.

The point in some sense is that "under God" in the Pledge is to say I'd not a patriot, the Declaration of Independence is just a historical document that did nothing of the sort.

Note that I have no interests in "banning" historical documents. But if Obama or someone else issued a declaration on the behalf of the US government mentioning God today, I would see a big problem with that.

[olmossy]

06:21 PM on 11/17/2010

This is just another case of " School Bullying" . The School is Bullying any child that is not religious.

[cdiasmd]

03:28 PM on 11/17/2010

Seems the two words preceeding "indivisible" divide us.
28 Apr, 1952, in the SC decision in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: 'The 1stAmendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other — hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths — these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the 1st Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/sect4notes.htm

[Murphdogg]

06:02 PM on 11/16/2010

1. The little girl in red in the middle is using her left hand.
2. Someone needs to have a kid loudly sing the following during the "voluntary" time and we'll see what happens
1.
Союз нерушимый республик свободных
Сплотила навеки Великая Русь!
Да здравствует созданный волей народов
Единый, могучий Советский Союз!

ПРИПЕВ:

Славься, Отечество наше свободное,
Дружбы народов надёжный оплот!
Партия Ленина — сила народная
Нас к торжеству коммунизма ведёт!
2.
Сквозь грозы сияло нам солнце свободы,
И Ленин великий нам путь озарил:
На правое дело он поднял народы,
На труд и на подвиги нас вдохновил!

ПРИПЕВ
3.
В победе бессмертных идей коммунизма
Мы видим грядущее нашей страны,
И Красному знамени славной Отчизны
Мы будем всегда беззаветно верны!

ПРИПЕВ

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:50 PM on 11/17/2010

I'd LOVE to see the panic introduced if this were to be sung. "The Internationale", right?

[Murphdogg]

03:53 PM on 11/17/2010

Soviet National Anthem, '70's version.

[supportamerica]

10:41 AM on 11/16/2010

I happen to be proud of the country I live in.

I happen to be proud of the fact that we live in a society where we have the freedom to worship as we wish, say the pledge if we wish .

No one is forcing any one else to say "under God' if they do not wish to do so. You may simply omit that part or sit down. If you feel you are being "looked at funny" then that is your problem. You chose your path, but not every one is going to walk your path nor should they have to, nor you to walk theirs.

To "force" people to leave out that passage is if they choose to say it, then it becomes some thing other than a free society allowing free speech.

Many people in our society seem to be looking for a "utopian" society, where everything is spelled out in black and white and preprogrammed. If in fact, that is what they wish, the borders are open in both directions.

[Dan Jighter]

01:01 PM on 11/16/2010

I'm proud to live in this country too and I'd greatly wish our Pledge reflected that.

No, you don't force me to say "under God". You just give me dirty looks if I don't stand for the Pledge and some shout "UNDER GOD" at me. In any case, if people want to say the Pledge in some manner that is their right. But that has nothing to do with the federal government making it a law the "under God" is part of the official Pledge. I don't want utopia, I just want my own government to treat me like the patriot that I am.

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:38 PM on 11/17/2010

Look at what happened to the student who refused to say the Pledge until GLBT people have full rights. I don't need to broadcast "the Goddess" everywhere I go but if the religious wrong/Christianists want to force this crap, maybe next time the pledge is said, I can loudly substitute "under Goddess" and see what happens.

[olmossy]

05:45 PM on 11/17/2010

Right On Dan. They do the same thing at county council meetings.
How can the Federal Government or any government body force a person accept religion or refusing to say the "religious Pledge" and appearing unpatriotic to his neighbors ?
Tell me how this doesn't advance religion over non-religion.

It is just another way of seperating the pure holy religious right from everyone else.

[olmossy]

06:37 PM on 11/17/2010

"borders open both ways" So it's like it 'ourway' or leave it. Thank you Joe McCarthy.

[zenju2]

06:48 AM on 11/16/2010

Every school, every school board, that "encourages" the Pledge of Allegiance--especially at one time, over the intercom, so that the "unpatriotic" are quickly and visibly singled out, is FASCIST. Every school administration and every school board that tries this needs to be SUED...taken to court, swiftly, publicly and doggedly, until it becomes unprofitable for this "patriotic" indoctrination to ever be even contemplated.

[Nofuzzydreams]

11:37 AM on 11/17/2010

You should not live in a country that you can pledge your allegiance to. It is hypocritical. No country in the world will tolerate your attitude.

[zenju2]

01:59 AM on 11/18/2010

Really? I'm guessing you've never lived in Britain? Most people in the UK are rather laid back about such matters and certainly do not engage in shallow flag-waving 'yee haw' patriotism.
I 'pledge allegiance' to NO nation-state, fictions of human imagination that they are. I will gladly give my best efforts to my community, my friends, my family--out of choice, never because I'm 'told' to do it. I will pick and choose my OWN fights. I'll even swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. I will freely criticise any and all governments and institutions, including my own, following my own informed judgment. If I have any allegiance to pledge, it's to Earth and the survival and prosperity of its living beings. And any 'country in the world' can either learn to 'tolerate' such attitudes from its citizens or kiss my @ss.

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:40 PM on 11/17/2010

Fanned and faved. Why should we have to say an addition which came in in the 1950s in a hysterical toadying to McCarthyism? Question to Fundies: If you believe in a supreme being, great. Why do you have to advertise it everywhere? Often as loudly as possible?

[Dan Jighter]

02:49 AM on 11/16/2010

I agree with many of the remarks Bike Commuter made. I haven't read the decision yet so I can't speak to the correctness of the ruling. But I suspect suing over school policies of saying the Pledge is making the wrong argument.

The argument in my mind is this. It isn't just isolated things like the Pledge or Motto. It is the full pattern of laws passed in the 1950s that created several strong symbols mixing patriotism and religion. This is clear given the history of these symbols, for example the history of the Pledge with George Docherty's sermon and such. This is clear from the public reaction to the Pledge and controversy over "under God". It is clear from all this that these symbols are intended to say that the US is a Christian nation, not an atheist one, and that atheists aren't welcomed as Americans. That's the issue, that the federal government has made laws implying a group of citizens, in particular a religious group, are not patriots.

It has nothing to do with school children being forced to say the Pledge or not. It has to do with the government telling you you have to believe in God to be a true patriot.

I don't know the legal logistics of this, but I think the case to be made is about all the patriotic symbols, even "God Save This Honorable Court", with group of atheists suing the government for discrimination and violating the 1st Amendment.

[Dan Jighter]

03:38 AM on 11/16/2010

After reading the decision (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=09-2473P.01A), I want to add that I completely agree with Bike Commuter. The NH School Patriot Act is too carefully worded to no pass the usual 1st Amendment tests. The NH School Patriot Act is just trying to promote patriotism, it is the 1954 law that is unconstitutional. Also, the lawyers seemed to do a poor job of arguing their case.

Also, there is a good reason for going after more than one instance of Establishment Clause violations at once. The case does appeal to other cases where things like prayer before opening sessions of a legislature are constitutional. If you only go after the Pledge, the courts can point to other things as "they are constitutional, why not the Pledge".

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:42 PM on 11/17/2010

Thank you and well-said. I am Pagan. I do not believe anyone has to believe in a deity to be a good American. Why do we who believe thus have to be singled out by remaining silent? Why cannot the believers say "under God" quietly, to themselves.

[Bike Commuter]

06:13 PM on 11/15/2010

To be truthful, the court was correct on this ruling. The law that they are talking about is the NH law that calls for voluntary recitation of the pledge. The pledge IS primarily patriotic in nature. As such, the NH law is constitutional.
 
The law that is unconstitutional is the 1954 law that officially inserted "under God" in the pledge. That law is primarily religious in nature, and it has the result of promoting certain religions over others.

[stape45]

08:03 PM on 11/15/2010

That was fifty-six years ago. For how many years has it been a problem? Ten? Fifteen? Why all-of-a-sudden?

[Bike Commuter]

08:18 PM on 11/15/2010

Actually it has been a problem for plenty of people for decades. I still remember an episode of Good Times from the 70s that talked about it.
 
Not that this matters. If it is unconstitutional then that is what matters. There have been plenty of instances where the Supreme Court has found very old laws to be unconstitutional. See Brown vs. Board of Education.

[cloudmaker]

05:43 PM on 11/15/2010

Why not, "One nation under Santa Claus?" It's just as much of a fantasy.

[Vernon Brown]

05:49 PM on 11/15/2010

Hey, easy, children use this site. At least it seems like it a lot of times.

[olmossy]

05:54 PM on 11/17/2010

Thank you very much vern. after all some of us Atheist still really do believe in Santa.

[Franciscodeflores]

06:03 PM on 11/15/2010

If they changed it to say "One nation under Allah" then you would see some fire works in the courts.

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:45 PM on 11/17/2010

And deservedly so.

[SiberianRat]

05:30 PM on 11/15/2010

The appeals court found the primary effect of the law is "not the advancement of religion, but the advancement of patriotism."

Bee-ess: It's the advancement of nationalism.

[Murphdogg]

06:06 PM on 11/16/2010

It's a little difficult to distinguish the difference these days...

[olmossy]

05:55 PM on 11/17/2010

So then if I just kept one very small slave but really promoted a LOT of patriotism.....

[kirbycouey]

05:28 PM on 11/15/2010

Just tell your kids to not recite the pledge. It's a free country right? Or to recite the pledge and leave that part out since it was added back in the 1950's when In God We Trust was put on our currency.

[cloudmaker]

05:44 PM on 11/15/2010

Sure, and when they're bullied by the other kids who do buy the fantasy of God, then what do you tell them?

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:47 PM on 11/17/2010

Why don't the believers just say it silently to themselves. Why are the non-believers to be singled out?

[cash05458]

05:18 PM on 11/15/2010

and the mindless advance of fake patriotism is just fine huh?

[jmengr]

05:16 PM on 11/15/2010

Let jingoism reign!!!

[GreaterApe]

05:00 PM on 11/15/2010

My question is: Would a student be punished for refusing to say "under god?" More than anything that is when the violation would occur.

[ModerateVoiceofReason]

05:08 PM on 11/15/2010

Where I live, Jehovah's Witness students are allowed to refuse to say the pledge for religious reasons.

[jmengr]

05:16 PM on 11/15/2010

They said that reciting the pledge is voluntary.

[Murphdogg]

06:48 PM on 11/16/2010

So is standing up during the National Anthem at a baseball game. Ever seen an adult not stand who wasn't in a wheel chair. These are kids with adults telling them it is time for the pledge. I guess you can never learn fear too soon. Colbert will be estatic over the ruling.