It was ALREADY illegal to force one to recite the pledge

[lastliberalintexas]

West Virginia vs. Barnett, 1943 with opinion written by the wonderful Justice Robert Jackson. This case was decided in the middle of WWII, even, and the Court sided with the students opposed to being forced to recite a pledge.

The Court has even ruled that students can not be forced to otherwise participate in the pledge against their wills. Meaning they can not be forced to stand, leave the room, bow their heads, etc.

So I guess I am simply wondering what this parent's lawsuit was about? Is he an attention seeker? Or is his real agenda to help motivate and mobilize the right wingers? Anyone know?

Because what this case has now done, other than motivate the base, is give the soon to be Roberts Court the opportunity to rule on this issue if 4 of the justices so choose. And for anyone who thinks that the current Court will err on the side of civil liberties- I have a bridge you might want to buy.

So why was this case brought? Were California schools acting illegally? Inquiring minds want to know. :)

[Eric J in MN]

1. Suppose a state decided to make their version

"one nation under Jesus."

Then would you understand the objection?

[lastliberalintexas]

7. Um, where did I say it wasn't objectionable?

I'm simply pointing out that it has been illegal to force a student to recite the pledge of allegiance for *more than 60 years* now.

So what I'm wondering is why the heck this new suit was ever filed? Were the CA schools violating the law and that required the filing? Or is there some other motive involved?

[Eric J in MN]

12. The plaintiff wasn't born yet 60 years ago. He has to bring the case

in the age he lives in.

[lastliberalintexas]

14. Oy

Not if the case involved the forced recitation of the pledge, an issue already decided by the Court. A Supreme Court decision stands until overturned by the Court or by legislation of Congress, regardless of how long it has been since the opinion was issued.

But I think I misunderstood the case, so it is clearer now.

[unblock]

2. ah, but that was the OLD pledge

the NEW pledge has the words "under god" inserted, making it, er, um, even less constitutional....

[etherealtruth]

3. Forgive my ignorance ...

... to which case are you referring?

[lastliberalintexas]

9. West Virginia v. Barnett

Also referred to as Board of Education v. Barnett.

[xray s]

4. I think its a bunch of hooey

On my list of really important things to work on, this one ranks about 23,876,962.

But it will suck up a whole bunch of oxygen in '06.

[CBGLuthier]

5. different point

This is about the pledge with the god clause not belonging in public schools period.

Like prayer.

[lastliberalintexas]

10. Prayer is not absolutely forbidden in public schools

And neither should the pledge be, because then we would be violating the 1st amendment rights of those individuals.

Please do not unintentionally repeat that right wing lie about prayer being forbidden in school. The Court has simply held that the school can not force a student to participate in a prayer- just like they had previously ruled with respect to the pledge.

However, under current law any student can pray at school- so long as it is done pursuant to neutral time, place and manner restrictions that govern any "free speech" at a school. Meaning, a student can not try to recite either The Lord's Prayer OR the Gettysburg Address in chemistry class.

[July]

17. I feel the pledge shouldn't be led by teachers or principals.

Using your prayer analogy, students should be free to recite the pledge if they wish -- on their own. When they incorporate it into the school day, they are forcing some children to go against a school-led or school-endorsed activity. In the schools, prayers may not be school-sponsored or teacher-led. I'm okay with the same arrangement for the pledge.

[charlie]

6. The school district was requiring

that the pledge used include the "under God" phrase. That's the basis of his complaint.

[politicat]

8. The issue is that children who opt out are also singled out.

They're often bullied for being different because they've opted out. If kids can get bullied for having freckles, then not saying the PoA can be a big deal in this uber-jingoistic country.

Further, the language specifically puts a child who is not a member of the dominant faith (i.e. atheist, agnostic, polytheistic or similar) in a position where they are forced to be exposed to monotheism as government endorsed above their own faith system. Exposure to monotheism is not a bad idea, but it is not the school's place to endorse religion or the religion of the state. The school, as public institution, must remain neutral when it comes to religion and patriotism because the school has a conflict of interest when it comes to patriotism.

[sui generis]

11. actually, the issue from my experience

is that you could ask anyone who "would like to" stand up to voluntarily recite the pledge.

That meant that people who didn't "stand up" got singled out too.

Anyway, it is purely a matter of principle. I don't think there's anything wrong with the old pledge of allegiance, before they inserted the creepy god stuff. I don't care about statements of faith in a public school - I just think they should be conducted and observed in private.

I don't think there's any agenda involved at all. Or rather, the plaintiff doesn't set the court date. Or rather, there's never a good time to separate church from state for some people . . .

What if the phrase had traditionally been, "one nation, under The Western Judeo=Christian God of Pure Caucasions" and people had a problem with that? Would we still think it was appropriate even though traditional?

[lastliberalintexas]

13. Actually, I personally dislike the recitation under either version

I'm grateful that my schools in "backwards" Texas never required this daily ritual.

But I think I've simply misunderstood the lawsuit. Apparently this father/plaintiff was asking that the pledge not be recited, period. He apparently wasn't complaining about a *forced* recitation as I'd been informed.

[sui generis]

15. you make a great point though

I think that a lot of people who are going to be OUTRAGED, OUTRAGED I TELL YOU, are going to intentionally misunderstand it or told what to think about it. That will be to their disadvantage in the long run if they try to use it politically, so let 'em.

;)

[Eric J in MN]

16. The father wants them to drop the "under God" part added

in the fifties.

They could still say an older version.