Pledge of Allegiance
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”— Justice Robert Jackson in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
The recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance has caused controversy that has reached the hallowed halls of the U.S. Supreme Court on several occasions, including the latest case that was dispatched by the justices in June 2004. Two major issues have arisen with respect to the recitation of the pledge in public schools: 1) whether students can be compelled to recite the pledge without infringing on their First Amendment rights and 2) whether the inclusion of the phrase “under God” — added in 1954 — violates the establishment clause.
Compelled-speech issue
The compelled-speech issue seemed to have been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court more than 60 years ago with its landmark 1943 decision West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. Despite the decision allowing to students to opt out of saying the pledge, children have been punished for refusing to stand during or to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In March 1998, a 13-year-old Jehovah’s Witness in a Seattle middle school was forced to stand outside in the rain for 15 minutes for refusing to say the pledge. In April 1998, a 16-year-old student in San Diego was forced to serve detention for her failure to recite the pledge.
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a resurgence of patriotism has swept the nation. Public schools have helped fuel this patriotic zeal by placing an increased emphasis on the pledge. Several state legislatures have either considered or passed laws requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. For example, Colorado passed a law in 2002 that required all public school students to recite the pledge unless they had a religious objection or had obtained parental permission to abstain from the oath. After Colorado’s American Civil Liberties Union chapter challenged the law in federal court, the Legislature in March 2004 enacted a revised statute to allow students to opt out of the pledge.
These examples are somewhat surprising given the decision in Barnette. In that case, the high court struck down a West Virginia law that penalized students and their parents if the children failed to salute the U.S. flag or recite the pledge. The students could be expelled for insubordination, while their parents could face a $50 fine and a 30-day jail term. A group of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who refused to comply with the law for religious reasons, challenged the statute.
Whether the Jehovah’s Witnesses would prevail was an open question. Looking at Supreme Court precedent, their position appeared bleak. That’s because in its 1940 decision Minersville School District v. Gobitis, the Court upheld a similar Pennsylvania flag-salute law. “The ultimate foundation of a free society is the binding tie of cohesive sentiment,” Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote for the majority.
Intolerance ran rampant against Jehovah’s Witnesses in various parts of the country after the Gobitis decision. Author Shawn Francis Peters, in his book Judging Jehovah’s Witnesses: Religious Persecution And the Dawn of the Rights Revolution, writes: “Targeted largely because they refused to salute the American flag, Witnesses throughout the United States were pummeled in situations ranging from riots involving hundreds of people to scuffles among a handful of men.” He adds that the Court’s “notorious ruling in the Gobitis flag-salute case, handed down in June 1940, helped to ignite some of the worst anti-Witness violence of the period.”
In a remarkable turnaround only three years after its ruling in Gobitis, the high court overruled itself in Barnette. Writing at the jingoistic time of World War II, the Court nonetheless issued an opinion remarkably protective of student First Amendment rights. The Court wrote that school boards must engage in “scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual … [so as] not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.” The Court reasoned that the First Amendment free-speech clause included the right not to speak.
Barnette established a baseline of protection for student rights and clearly held that students could not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
One federal appeals court (in Lipp v. Morris) even ruled in 1978 that school officials in New Jersey violated the First Amendment when they punished a student for refusing to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance.
Alabama example
Even though Barnette established that students have the right to opt out of reciting the pledge, students today are still punished for refusing to participate.
Consider the case of Michael Holloman, a high school student in Alabama. In May 2000, Holloman was castigated by teacher Fawn Allred and then paddled by a school administrator for raising his fist during the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Holloman remained silent and raised his fist to express support for fellow student John Michael Hutto, who had been forced to apologize to Allred’s class for refusing to recite the pledge one day earlier. Holloman said he believed the treatment of Hutto was unfair and unconstitutional.
Holloman sued Principal George Harland, Allred and the Walker County Board of Education, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. In August 2000, a federal judge granted summary judgment to the defendants, reasoning that they had qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right to silently raise one’s fist during the pledge.
On appeal, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in Holloman v. Walker County Board of Education. In the May 2004 ruling, the panel voted 2-1 to reinstate Holloman’s lawsuit, saying that the lower court erred in dismissing it. The majority also reasoned that it was improper for the federal judge to grant the teacher and principal qualified immunity because it was clearly established that students cannot be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
“Barnette clearly and specifically established that schoolchildren have the right to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance,” the majority wrote. “Under Barnette, any ‘reasonable person would have known’ that disciplining Holloman for refusing to recite the pledge impermissibly chills his First Amendment rights.”
The school officials’ attorneys argued that the teacher and principal were justified because Holloman’s act in raising his fist was disruptive and upset other students. The majority disagreed, writing, “Where students’ expressive activity does not materially interfere with a school’s vital educational mission, and does not raise a realistic chance of doing so, it may not be prohibited simply because it conceivably might have such an effect.”
The majority concluded, “Holloman had the constitutional right to raise his fist during the Pledge of Allegiance so long as he did not disrupt the educational process or the class in any real way.”
The school defendants contended that Holloman’s right to raise his fist during the pledge was not clearly established because Barnette applied to students with hands by their sides or in their pockets, rather than with clenched fists.
“This is a hair we will not split,” the panel responded. “First Amendment protections are not lost that easily.”
Colorado’s statute
In 2003, Colorado passed a law requiring daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by students and teachers. The only exceptions were for religious reasons or “if a parent or guardian of the student objects in writing to the recitation of the pledge on any grounds and files the objection with the principal of the school.”
Three students and six teachers, along with the ACLU, challenged the new law in federal court. The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint, Lane v. Owens, that the statute violated their “rights to be free from state-compelled expression.” In an oral ruling from the bench in August 2003, U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order. “It doesn’t matter whether you’re a teacher, a student, a citizen, an administrator, or anyone else, it is beyond the power of the authority of government to compel the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance,” he wrote.
Babcock stayed the case until the end of the legislative session in 2004 to allow Colorado to amend the statute. The governor signed the revised law in March 2004. The law provides: “Any person not wishing to participate in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance shall be exempt from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and need not participate.”
Mark Silverstein, legal director of the Colorado ACLU, told the First Amendment Center Online that the revised statute solved the law’s constitutional problems under Barnette.
“Colorado legislators said their aim was to instill respect for the ideals represented by the First Amendment,” he said. “We thought the law undermined those very goals because public expression of beliefs and ideals of liberty and justice should be voluntary, not coerced by forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.”
Establishment-clause issues
Another First Amendment challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance concerns the phrase “under God,” which was added by Congress in 1954. The pledge was proposed in 1892 by the children’s magazine The Youth’s Companion, as part of the celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ discovery of America. Attributed to clergyman Francis Bellamy, the original version read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
In June 1954, President Eisenhower signed into law a measure adding “under God” to the pledge. A congressional report accompanying the measure read: “from the time of our earliest history our people and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God.”
Michael Newdow, an atheist in California, challenged the constitutionality of the Pledge of the Allegiance and its recitation in public schools. Newdow sued because he did not want his elementary school-age daughter to be forced to hear the words “under God” in the pledge. After a federal judge dismissed the suit, Newdow appealed to the 9th Circuit.
In June 2002, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 in Newdow v. U.S. Congress that the 1954 law adding the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Judge Alfred T. Goodwin reasoned that the pledge violated the three most common tests used to analyze establishment-clause cases — Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s endorsement test, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s coercion test, and the Supreme Court’s oft-criticized Lemon test from its 1971 decision Lemon v. Kurtzman.
Goodwin first applied O’Connor’s endorsement test (from her dissent in Lynch v. Donnelly) and wrote that “in the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation ‘under God’ is an endorsement of religion.”
“Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the Pledge,” Goodwin wrote.
Next, Goodwin examined the coercion test, which takes its roots from Kennedy’s 1992 opinion in a middle school prayer case, Lee v. Weisman. Goodwin wrote: “The coercive effect of this policy is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren, and their understanding that they are required to adhere to the norms set by their school, their teacher and their fellow students.”
Finally, Goodwin applied the Lemon test. He examined the legislative history of the 1954 law amending the pledge to determine that the primary effect of the pledge was religious. He quoted from the legislative history, which stated: “The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator.”
The ruling in Newdow I unleashed a torrent of criticism from President Bush, Congress and many members of the public.
The 9th Circuit narrowly denied en banc, or full panel, review in February 2003. Goodwin, the judge who wrote the original panel decision, amended the earlier opinion to focus only on the issue of whether the recitation of the pledge with the words “under God” was constitutional in the public school setting. The amended opinion did not discuss whether the 1954 federal law was constitutional. Goodwin concluded that the “school district policy impermissibly coerces a religious act.”
The 9th Circuit decision conflicted with an earlier opinion from the 7th Circuit. In 1992, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit ruled in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 that the recitation of the pledge in Illinois elementary schools did not violate the establishment clause.
Judge Frank Easterbrook, who wrote the 7th Circuit opinion, reasoned that “the Pledge is a secular rather than sectarian vow.” Easterbrook devoted much of his opinion to historical examples of U.S. leaders making religious references:
“James Madison, the author of the first amendment, issued presidential proclamations of religious fasting and thanksgiving. Thomas Jefferson, who refused on separationist grounds to issue thanksgiving proclamations, nonetheless signed treaties sending ministers to the Indians. The tradition of thanksgiving proclamations began with President Washington, who presided over the constitutional convention. From the outset, witnesses in our courts have taken oaths on the Bible, and sessions of court have opened with the cry ‘God save the United States and this honorable court.’ Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence contains multiple references to God (for example: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’). When Madison and Jefferson wrote their famous declarations supporting separation of church and state, they invoked the name of the Almighty in support.”
Easterbrook noted that President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address contained no less than 14 references to God in its 699 words. To Easterbrook, references to “under God” in the pledge and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, represented a form of “ceremonial deism” that does not impermissibly endorse or coerce religious belief.
Newdow goes to the Supreme Court
Presumably, because of the split between the 7th and the 9th Circuits, the Supreme Court agreed to review the 9th Circuit’s controversial Newdow decision. Newdow, who is both an emergency room physician and a lawyer, argued the case himself before the high court.
On Flag Day, June 14, 2004, the Court issued its opinion in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. However, a majority of the Court refused to address the underlying establishment-clause issue. Instead, the five-member majority — led by Justice John Paul Stevens — decided the case on standing grounds. The majority determined that Newdow lacked standing because the child’s mother, Sandra Banning, had primary legal custody and could make final decisions involving the child.
“In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff’s claimed standing,” Stevens wrote. “We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court.”
Three justices dissented on the standing issue. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas and O’Connor all wrote separate opinions addressing the merits, or lack thereof, of Newdow’s lawsuit. All three concluded that the recitation of the pledge in public schools with the words “under God” does not violate the establishment clause.
Only eight of the justices participated in the case because Justice Antonin Scalia had recused himself. Newdow had requested Scalia’s recusal because of the justice’s public comments that the 9th Circuit had ruled improperly.
For his part, Newdow vowed that he would continue the fight against the pledge.
“I could easily imagine the case coming back up before the Court in a case with parents both of whom oppose the pledge,” Fordham University School of Law professor Abner Greene told the First Amendment Center Online.
Newdow files another challenge
Newdow kept his word, filing another lawsuit on behalf of himself and three other parents known in court papers as Jan Doe, Pat Doe and Jan Roe. These parents also have children ranging from grades kindergarten to middle school in the Elk Grove Unified School District.
In September 2005, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in Newdow v. Congress, (No. Civ. S-05-17)(E.D. Cal.)(9/14/05) that Newdow lacked standing on the basis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Newdow’s previous lawsuit. However, the school officials conceded that Jan and Pat Doe had standing. Karlton also ruled that Jan Roe had standing.
Karlton then asserted that he was bound by the 9th Circuit’s ruling in 2002 that teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the establishment clause. That ruling, according to Karlton, established that “the school district’s policy with regard to the pledge is an unconstitutional violation of the children’s right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”
Karlton’s decision provoked a quick response from U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who said the Justice Department would fight the ruling.
In October 2005, Karlton stayed his ruling, setting up another appeal to the 9th Circuit. In December 2007, the 9th Circuit heard arguments in the case, which was consolidated with another lawsuit Newdow filed challenging the use of “In God We Trust” on currency, but no decision has emerged.
Other controversies
Although most of the recent attention about the pledge focuses on the Newdow litigation, other federal courts continue to address pledge controversies on establishment-clause grounds. In August 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit ruled in Myers v. Loudoun County Public Schools that a Virginia statute providing for daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the establishment clause. The statute also provided that “no student shall be compelled to recite the Pledge if he, his parent or legal guardian objects on religious, philosophical or other grounds to his participating in this exercise.”
The panel determined that the voluntary recitation of the pledge was a patriotic, not a religious, exercise and, thus, not a violation of the establishment clause.
“Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words ‘under God’ contain no religious significance,” Judge Karen Williams wrote. “The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity.”
In September 2009, a federal district court in New Hampshire also rejected an establishment-clause challenge to the Pledge in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District.
“The New Hampshire Pledge statute plainly has a secular legislative purpose,” the judge wrote. “The New Hampshire Pledge statute is titled ‘New Hampshire School Patriot Act.’ The statute’s own words describe its purpose as continuing ‘the policy of teaching our country’s history to the elementary and secondary pupils of this state.’ That is a secular purpose.”
Florida’s pledge statute came under scrutiny when, in December 2005, then-high school student Cameron Frazier challenged it on First Amendment grounds.
The 11th Circuit struck down a provision that required “civilians,” including students, to stand at attention during the required daily pledge recitation in the state’s public schools. The statute provided that the pledge “shall be rendered by students” and be “recited at the beginning of the day in each public elementary, middle and high school in the state.” Another provision stated that “when the pledge is given, civilians must show full respect to the flag by standing at attention.”
In its July 2008 opinion Frazier v. Winn, the appeals court found the “standing at attention” clause violated the First Amendment. “That students have a constitutional right to remain seated during the Pledge is well established,” wrote the three-judge panel in a per curiam opinion.
However, the panel left the rest of the statute intact, refusing to strike down part of the law that allows students to be excused from reciting the pledge only by written request of their parent.
In January 2009, the full 11th Circuit declined to review the case. Judge Rosemary Barkett dissented from the denial of review, contending that the panel’s decision “directly contravenes” the Barnette decision. She reasoned that “the right to exercise one’s conscience in not reciting the Pledge lies solely with the individual student, not with the parents of that student and certainly not with the State.”
The student, represented by the ACLU, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to review the 11th Circuit decision. The petition emphasized that that the 11th Circuit decision conflicted with the Supreme Court’s seminal ruling in Barnette. The petition said the Florida law “undermines the right of individual conscience that Barnette enshrined as a bedrock principle of First Amendment law.”
However, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review on October 5, 2009, in Frazier v. Smith (08-1351).
Conclusion
The fundamental First Amendment principle from Barnette is that public school students cannot be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Schools must allow students to opt out; the Court’s compelled-speech doctrine requires as much.
The questions that will likely resurface are whether the inclusion of the words “under God” violates the establishment clause and whether — in light of the 11th Circuit’s decision in the Cameron Frazier case — schools can require parental consent before allowing a student to opt-out of the pledge. Given the opinions of the justices in Newdow, an establishment-clause challenge to the pledge would face some high hurdles.
Updated October 2009
40 Responses to “Pledge of Allegiance”
The First Amendment Center is an educational organization and cannot provide legal advice.
Ken Paulson is president and chief executive officer of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University and in Washington, D.C. Previously, Paulson served as the editor and senior vice president/news of USA Today.
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center and president and chief operating officer of the Diversity Institute, is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.
John Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.
Dr. Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum. He writes and speaks extensively on religious liberty and religion in American public life.
David L. Hudson Jr. is an expert in First Amendment issues who writes for firstamendmentcenter.org and for other publications. Hudson teaches law and was a scholar at the First Amendment Center.
Tiffany Villager is director/First Amendment studies at the First Amendment Center, which she joined in 1993. She also served as the center’s research manager and research coordinator, and developed the center’s library.
[...] Update at 12:35 p.m. ET: Students of history remind us that the words “under God” were added to the Pledge in 1954. [...]
No only did they leave out “Under God” they left out “one nation indivisible. They want to get rid of God and also destroy our nation. They thing the Constitution should be done away with. NBC stands for Not Being Christian.
I was made to stand and repeat the Pledge every morning for twelve years. This is the kind of thing that those same educators claimed were only done by ‘ Commies ‘. I think it is dogmatic bunk and will not repeat it again. The Supreme Court, has ruled that it is unlawful UNDER our Constitution, and Vicky Kramer is not my God. We don’t want to be ” rid of God ” in our house, we want Vicky Kramer to keep her ‘God ‘ to herself, so that we can require others to keep their ‘ God ‘ to themselves, and their religion out of our government, as Thomas Jefferson and others suggested.
I think it is fine that “Under God” was ommitted, as it wasn’t in the pledge in the first place. President Eisenhower edited it to begin with, and I feel that it is a violation ot the Separation of Church and State to require this to be said in every school in this country.
We don’t all conceive of God alike and i certainly don’t think that our conceptions belong in the Public Realm. I for one do not believe that God or whatever blesses this country anymore than any other country. Or that this country is under the particular blessing of some mythical God.
No where in the Constitution does it talk about ” seperation of church and state”. It talks about the government setting up a religion in this country. Read it, like it, or go to some other country and live. We have certain enaieable rights given to us by God which is life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you don’t accept this, live some place else.
Amen to that. Don’t like it, then go live under a hole where they welcome their type of ignorant way of thought.
AMEN!!!!! If you can’t live by the laws set forth by our Fore Fathers then LEAVE!!!!
I have said this so many times it drives me crazy. There is no such rule or statement in the constitution that says separation of church and state. What it says is that the government cannot establish a national religion like in England which was the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church and the Church and Government of England were intertwined with each other.
Our nation and government was founded on Christian Principles You can see the influence in the Constitution of the United States, and the Declaration of Independence, and many other documents from the founding fathers and from that time period. It is undeniable to say that this country was not founded on Christian principles. There is plenty of evidence to prove it.
What really bothers me is that people like you and the others that burn flags,, don’t like Christmas, get upset over manger displays, and all the other things you gripe about and you are in the minority but most of the time you get your own way and I am sick of it. Majority rules in this country and if you don’t like that then please follow my advice and go live somewhere else, just not here.
GOD HAS BLESSED AMERICA BUT THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA ARE DENYING GOD AND THEREFORE TEARING THIS NATION APART. IF WE DID NOT HAVE GOD WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING, INCLUDING OUR LIFE OR THE NEXT BREATH YOU TAKE. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE.GOD HAS DONE TOO MUCH AND CREATED THIS BEAUTIFUL EARTH AND MANY OTHER THINGS FOR US TO DENY HIS EXISTENCE. I JUST HOPE THAT IN THE END YOU KNOW JESUS AS YOUR SAVIOR AND WITHOUT HIM, NOTHING IS POSSIBLE. YES, YOU HAVE FREE WILL BUT HE WANTS YOU TO CHOOSE HIM AND NOT THE WAYS OF THE SINFUL WORLD. IT’S TIME FOR BELIEVERS IN CHRIST TO STAND FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IN AND DO EVERYTHING WE CAN NOT TO LET GOD BE TAKEN OUT OF THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE! WE HAVE TO GET AMERICA BACK TO GOD BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
ignoring the seperation of church and state, which you are correct is not in there in so many words.
if it was a person of another faith and not an atheist who made the case the courts wouldn’t have tried so hard to avoid making a decision. the very fact that the word god is always capitalized in the pledge shows that it is reffering to the christian god, a blatant disregard for the freedom of religion.
additionaly the word god should be taken out of everything that has to do with the federal government it is a violation of the first amendment and the only reason the referances remain is because the majority of the people in charge are christian. if eisenhower had been muslim and had added under allah instead of god can you honestly say you would be ok with it. no the only reason you don’t mind is because it is YOUR god it is referring to and forcing the youth of america to pledge their allegiance to YOUR god IS a breach of the freedom of religion as well as the implied seperation of church and state.
All christians accept on faith that God is their lord and master above all others, If so, is it not hipocricy to plegde alliegence to the flag of the United States when the Constitution also calls for Fidelity and the last full measure of devotion to the Constitution. which begs the quaestion can a Christian disobey the law in the name of God?
If you’re going to preach then at least get your facts straight. England was not Catholic, it was / is Church of England which is a Protestant religion.
God tells us in the scriptures that the world will not accept the truth. God also tells us in scriptures that we can do nothing without him. It takes more faith for a person to deny God’s existence since there is so much proof in and out of this world that he does exist. To acknowledge God is to accept the truth. To deny God is to promote ignorance and a spirit of error and bring only destruction to all who don’t know the truth. The truth shall not change even if you try and hide it. So why hide what at least in these time most Americans believe.
God is a part of our history and our history should remain record for posterity.
I tend to agree with MOST of your comment, however I take exception with your assertion that “…there is so much proof in and out of this world tht he does exist.”
Maulsby’s comment totally ignores the founding father’s documents that establish citizen’s rights under the Constitution. Wether the atheists like it,or not, the reference to God was part of the founding fathers drafting of the Constitution and disregard for those traditions will not change history. Barnett has provided protection of first amendment rights for those wishing not to recite the pledge.
It is people like you who destroy this country.if it was a person of another faith and not an atheist who made the case the courts wouldn’t have tried so hard to avoid making a decision. the very fact that the word god is always capitalized in the pledge shows that it is reffering to the christian god, a blatant disregard for the freedom of religion.
additionaly the word god should be taken out of everything that has to do with the federal government it is a violation of the first amendment and the only reason the referances remain is because the majority of the people in charge are christian. if eisenhower had been muslim and had added under allah instead of god can you honestly say you would be ok with it. no the only reason you don’t mind is because it is YOUR god it is referring to and forcing the youth of america to pledge their allegiance to YOUR god IS a breach of the freedom of religion as well as seperation of church and state.
Absolutely no mention of god in the constitution that I can see. None. Maybe they forgot?
I will paraphrase from Deut. 28. 1. Terror will come upon you. (Terrorist attacks. Many are saying it will happen again soon because we are weakening our defense.) 2. You will be the borrower not the lender. (Look how we are borrowing from China now.) 3. The strangers or foreigners among you will become stronger than you. (It’s happening we are becoming the minority because of the illegal aliens flooding our borders) 4. Plagues will cover the land. (super viruses are threatening everyday) If we condone the homosexual marriages, the abortions being so accessible and so many other un-godly legislations like not standing with Israel, WE are the ones who will be causing the Lord’s hand of protection to be lifted. BUT…… “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. II Chron. 7:14 And…. “And God said to him, ‘Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.’ So He called his name Israel. Also God said to him: ‘I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body. The land which I gave Abraham and Isaac I give to you; and to your descendants after you I give this land.’” Genesis 35:10-12 ♥~♥ This was written by a facebook friend of mine, Connie Beaton ~ But taking God out of the pledge is so wrong !We along with Obama and his administration are destroying America from within ~ Come back America to One Nation Under God before it is too Late~
Irene, You have hit the nail square on the head girl! Its time the Church WOKE UP, STOOD UP & TOOK BACK what the devil has been stealin from us for years!!! He has been robbin us blind and we have just sat back in our sofas watching the boobtoob letting him get away with it and thinking oh well somebody will deal with it sometime…..WELL PEOPLE ITS SOMETIME AND THAT SOMEBODY IS YOU AND ME!!!!! SO LETS SEE WHAT THE ROLL CALL IS FOR CHRIST NOW….YOU KNOW IT ONLY TOOK ONE WOMAN TO TAKE THE BIBLE AND PRAYER OUT OF SCHOOLS, THAT WAS A SINFUL SHAME…..LOOK AT THE MESS OUR WORLD IS IN NOW, SO HOW MANY OF YOU ARE WILLING TO STAND WITH ME AND SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND TAKE BACK GOD’S LAND AND CLAIM HIS CHILDREN FOR HIS KINGDOM….THIS IS “ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL!”
Correction: The Bible and prayer were not taken out of public schools. Only proselytizing and forced prayer were. Students are free to pray in public school, and to read the Bible, alone or in groups, as long as they don’t disrupt school.
Brian, you are wrong. Christians are not allowed to pray at school, but the muslims have prayer rooms so they can go and pray. You need to catch up.
If they are members of the “world” first, then let them
got somewhere else and worship whatever they wish and reap
the benefits there. We have emough problems here now with
out a bunch of screwballs that do not even know where they
belong. They are part of the problem and we need soultions.
Our nation is in peril due to taking God out of everything. First, God was taken out of the schools and children do not have the freedom to talk about Him there. Now God is being omitted from our country’s heritage and patriotism. United States use to be a blessed nation as it had reverence to God in country, school and home. Now we are seeing the downfall of this nation due to the fact that God is not being recognized for His sovereign power, provision and grace.
As a very patriotic person, I have a big problem with people so disrespectful as to refuse to at least stand to Pledge Allegiance. To do that is to give the finger to every man, woman and child that ever went to war, or had someone they love go to war to fight for their rights. In particular, it disgraces the sacrifices made by the families that lost those loved ones or those individuals that lost their lives. That being said, if a person does not want to the pledge I don’t believe they should be compelled to. After all, those same soldiers fought for the rights of the ungrateful, as well as the rest of us.
As a Christian, I again have to concede that an individual should not be compelled to repeat the phrase, “under God”. However, isn’t it trampling all over my rights to seek to remove it from the pledge altogether? The answer is yes, to all you liberal folks who don’t understand. If you don’t like that part of the pledge, don’t say it. But don’t try to take another freedom away from us that understand the connection to God and country and seek to honor it.
no it is not trampeling your rights. it was trampleing the rights of every non-christian american when eisenhower had it added in 1954. the pledge should be reverted back to the original as it was supposed to be read.
“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” – Francis Bellamy 1892
Sonia Maulsby
I personaly don’t want people like you to recite our pleadge.But get the hell out of my way and let me and my family and all respectful Americans show our country and our God the respect they deserve.
The goodridehd said that and I hope the hell you don’t like it.
Go complain to your ACLU.That is one organization that is totaly against the American way.Don’t get me started on that pile of garbage.
As a fellow american and veteran, I will stand and say the pledge as I was taught as a child. If you people want to take freedom of speech in the way you want it the I have a word that helps this idea.
America Love it or LEAVE it. Let standup for what our fathers faught
for. GOD BLESS AMERICA
standing up for what our fathers fought for IS what we are doing. they fought for freedom from being forced to bow to a god just because the majority worshiped that god. THAT is the reason many of the first settles came here. the addition of god in the pledge as well as all state and federal documents including money and the bible in court is an enormous breach of the principles upon which this country was formed. The only reason it has not been addressed before is because it is the MAJORITIES religion, and we not of the majority are sick of the Christians strutting around telling the world that this is a christian nation when it IS NOT!
The words “under God” does not have to mean the christian God. if you would use your head you would be smart enough to realize that. you cna think of the word God can stand for what ever god you want. if you don’t like the word God you shouldnt be using our money because it says the same thing on it but people still use the paper money.
I love it when people say that this country was funded on Christian principles. Here is a list of the 10 Commandants:
ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’
TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’
THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’
FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’
FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’
SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’
SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’
NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’
TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’
These are the basic fundamentals of the Christian religion, yet all but six and eight are against the law. And I will generously say that seven and nine may also considered against the law in certain contexts. But these are basic laws of survival that existed long before the first bible was written.
I agree that this country was founded on freedoms, and one of those freedoms was to be free of a specific oppressive church. Please look up the word freedom. It is not everybody is free to do anything they want as long as the majority agree with it. I say those of you who insist on forcing YOUR religion on the rest of us should go fond your own country without freedoms and leave us who enjoy the freedom to worship or not worship as we please alone.
An oath is a form of contract. A child, not being an adult, obviously can not enter into such an agreement. And to try and coerce such an oath is morally objectionable as well, not to mention unconstitutional.
Besides, to pledge allegiance to a piece of fabric (flag) is ridiculous. The oath American service members and elected federal officials take is to the essence of the United States, the federal constitution. And those oaths do not reference God or religion, except as an option at the end like “So help me God” occasionally for elected officials. The oath varies a bit for National Guard and state officials, but it certainly is not to a flag. That would be idol worship for all you Christians out there.
And for the record, I am a veteran of 23 years in the Army. I can still recite from memory the oath given to commissioned officers and enlisted soldiers.
The fact that the American flag is a piece of fabric is besides the point. I most certainly don’t worship it as a god as you seem to be insinuating. Nor does anyone else for that matter. Americans respect the flag for what it stands for, not for what it’s made of. The last time I checked, courage, valor, purity, and loyalty are not evil.
Illinois Court Records…
[...]Pledge of Allegiance | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition[...]…
This is absoloutly rubbish the bloody congress gave us freed om of speech, meaning that my child is alloud to perform or not to perform the Pledge of Allegience when he wants to, my child got reported to the office and forced to interupt my meeting at work to say he didn’t perform it this is an outrage, mainly piss off, WHITE AMERICA!!!!
I don’t understand, my child got expelled from a one thousand dollar school district for pissing during the pledge of allegience.
Good-Day,
For those professing “ALLEGIENCE”
As a True Blue Born & Bred American, I scanned a posting on My way down to post My views a very disturbing post. Sonia I don’t care if you bow to a Superior Being or not, I do and Bowing to God, as well as our Redeeming Savior our Father, each day. Although this Nation’s initial purpose was/is to bow to individual beliefs all Nation’s have the right and should acknowledge a Superior Entity so wake up America!!!
Repentant,
Mark E. Robertson
P.S. “I is a Biker so’s if I can you can”
I was born in 1926 and what I learned early was that despite some really deep differences in cultures, religions, et cetera the vast majority of Americans “pulled together” in times of stress: “The Great Depression”, “World War II”. Americans have changed to: “My way or the Highway”. Legally schooled, but fundamentally uneducated. There is Freedom FROM as well as Freedom FOR.
What made America great was: liberty, freedom, justice, respect for difference, recognition of need to stand together in times stress, like NOW.
Billy H. Conn, PhD
I believe that this religious stuff is all claptrap. Provide me some concrete proof of the existence of your sky wizard.
I can quantify and define freedom, liberty, justice, pluralism, and tolerance. Talking snakes, men living in whales, and men living to 900 years old. Really! Pure claptrap. Grow up America. It’s the 21st Century. When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish. (1 COR 13:11), and it’s even in that book!
I think this is stupid. The United States is a christian country. All the people that beieve god should be taken out are people that come to the United States for a better life. If you dont like loyalty that we show for our country go back from were you came from.
Loyalty to the country must include adherence to the First Amendment principle that government must not prohibit, interfere with or establish any religion. Our Founders were Christian, but they created a nation where everyone can believe and practice any religion, not just Christianity.