Updated version of this story with more information can be found here.
A federal judge in San Francisco today has ruled that it is unconstitutional to recite the pledge of allegiance in public schools. The ruling flies in the face of the recent Newdow v Common Sense ruling in 2003 that says there is nothing wrong with having school kids declare their allegiance to the legal entity that pays for their education and supplies their freedom. There is also nothing illegal about people such as Newdow lobbying their federal legislators to change the law, but that takes too much time. The court that ruled that the pledge was unconstitutional was also the same court that was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court in the Newdow case.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
It's unclear why Judge Karlton believes he's bound by an appellate precedent that was overturned by the Supreme Court. Newdow has brought the case that he lost to the courts again, this time representing some atheist families and their children. While Karlton has narrowed the case to recitation of the Pledge instead of the constitutionality of the pledge itself, he made it clear that "There is nothing whatsoever that requires acknowledging God to love this country".
The Supreme Court case in 2003 focused solely on Newdow's ability to sue on behalf of a child he does not see and does not have custody of. This case remedies the problem by Newdow fishing out a few families to represent instead, and presents the same arguments laying the way for the Supreme Court to actually decide the issue this time.
Ed:LM
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Taloran
Typical spin from Bambenek.
"there is nothing wrong with having school kids declare their allegiance to the legal entity that pays for their education..." That's not what the suit is about, is it? Nobody is bringing a suit about the constitutionality of pledging allegiance to the flag and the republic. It is about requiring children to recite the words "Under God" in public schools, which is, to me at least, a clear violation of the separation clause. Not to mention, the government doesn't pay for squat - we taxpayers do.
Bambenek says that the case was "ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court", which is correct. But what he doesn't say is the reason it was overturned - the guy who brought the suit did not have legal standing to do so. Now he does, so he's bringing it again.
"It's unclear why Judge Karlton believes he's bound by a appealate precedent that was overturned by the Supreme Court". See above. It was not overturned due to content or a ruling on the merits of the case, but due to the standing, or lack thereof, of the guy who brought the suit.
2 - billy
"declare their allegiance to the legal entity that pays for their education and supplies their freedom."
typical ass-backward republican. the government doesnt "supply us our freedom"
the constitution does, which PREVENTS the government from TAKING AWAY our freedom, which they routinel,y try to do. thank god for the ACLU,
and the previous comment explained EXACTLY why this ruling is right. THE USCT didnt rule on the merits of the case.
3 - Bennett
Taloran and billy are right, JB.
You once again prove that the word "god" should simply be replaced with the word, "educated".
As in "One Nation, under-educated..."
Try again if you like.
4 - John Bambenek
Taloran missed the last paragraph that does explain the first Newdow case.
But let's be honest, this isn't about the pledge, this about the elimination of Christianity from this country.
5 - Taloran
This is about non-Christians not having Christianity forced down the throats of their children.
6 - John Bambenek
Correction, this is about non-Christians not having to hear anything they don't like, including anything Christian. This isn't about freedom, this is about repression.
7 - Jon Sobel
Bambenek, you seem to be one of those paranoid believers who actually thinks that challenging a reference to religion in the public schools is part of a nefarious anti-Christian plot. That's absurd.
It never fails to amaze me how in some "Christians" the faith they profess is so fragile and paranoid they think their religion is actually being threatened - here, in the most religious, most Christian-dominated country in the West! Try being an American non-believer for a minute, see how you feel then. Jeez. Damn. See, you can't even curse in this culture without invoking religion. "Jeez." "Goddammit." "Oh, Hell."
8 - Taloran
Public schools are not the place for teaching Christian beliefs and dogma. Children, being innocent and malleable, believe pretty much anything authority figures tell them until age six or so. If a kid is told often enough, and forced to recite "One Nation Under God" often enough, he or she will come to believe it. My children have the right to grow up free of medieval superstition, and not to be force-fed it in public school.
I fully support keeping the Under God clause in the Pledge recited at parochial schools, if that is what the parents of attendees wish. But public schools, along with all other government supported and taxpayer funded public institutions, should be free of religion or any hint thereof.
9 - Jon Sobel
BTW I take back putting the word "Christians" in quotes in my first comment. I recognize that paranoid Christians are still Christians and not some facsimile thereof. By the same token I don't think Taloran should refer to the religion as "medieval superstition" - it's insulting to believers. Rational, friendly discourse (which Bambenek and his ilk won't engage in) shall set us free.
10 - Taloran
Jon Sobel, I appreciate what you said about my reference to superstition in your comment #9, and believe I understand your point of view, even if I disagree with it.
Not to be argumentative or unfriendly, but in my opinion (or should I say "from my perspective"?) the recitation on a daily basis of the phrase Under God by public school children is as much an act of superstition as ancient civilizations applying human form to the beings that caused drought, lightning, and plagues of insects.
There is (rightly, if I may say so) no room in our public schools for rituals bringing fruits and grains to statues of Thor, Zeus or Ceres. If there were, such rituals would make just as much sense to me as the words Under God in the Pledge.
11 - Bennett
Jon - Taloran chooses to speak frankly, and more power to him.
Greek Gods, Egyptian Gods, Roman Gods, Norse Gods, Japanese Spirits, Hindu Gods, Christian God and or Trinity, Hebrew God, Muslum Allah - all represent mankinds desire to fabricate a universal father figure to make sense of things they don't understand.
They are all EQUALLY valid, or not, depending on how you look at it.
Fanatics of any of these belief systems have always claimed that THEIRS is the eone true God.
Go figure.
12 - solomon_rex
This should be about democracy. This wasn't unconstitutional for 200 or so years. The majority of the country is Christian, and in localities where that isn't the case, they can change the pledge themselves. Christians, Muslims and Jews should be able to express their faith through government, in the same manner that every atheist and agnostic wants to.
Removing God from everything is equivalent to adding God to everything, being atheist or agnostic is a religous statement. Reflecting your views (by not acknowledging God) is no better than reflecting my views (that God exists as the gov't affirms in various places through history). Since this is a democracy, I ought to be able to have some Christian expression that isn't inherently coercive, and some 1 or 2 sentence mantra that isn't even strictly Christian doesn't count as coercive, just like not spending money to offer marriage (and government-supplied benefits) to same-sex couples isn't suddenly repression after 10,000 years or so of recorded precendence. No one cares if you say the pledge. It's not an establishment, it's 10 seconds a day to get along with 80% of the citizenry.
13 - Justin Berry
I dont feel that this case is about rights or freedom or about rligion it is simply about location.First of all its in California, the land of fruits and nuts.The land where they only allow Micheal Jackson to shove things down kids throats.Secondly this is the United States a land founded on Christian beliefs that are woven into our constition and pledge. Though this is a free country, some yahoo gets to tell everyone else what they can say?We gave this moron the freedom to do whatever he wants so if he is an athiest who doesnt agree with the way we do things, move to a more suitable athiest environment i.e. Russia,france,etc.Hopefully he will talk his friends into going with him!
14 - billy
This wasn't unconstitutional for 200 or so years.
What a lie, the fraternal order of eagles inserted "under god" into the pledge 50 years ago.
it was wrong then, its wrong now.
15 - billy
United States a land founded on Christian beliefs that are woven into our constition and pledge
what a lie. the constitution never mentions god except to exclude religion.
the pledge had under god put in 50 years ago.
wrong again brainles s right wingers.
16 - Taloran
Solomon_Rex, the words "Under God" were added to the Pledge during the Eisenhower administration to counteract the threat of godless communists during the then very hot Cold War. To even suggest at the time that the added words were unconstitutional would likely have gotten you an unpleasant seat at the House Anti-American Committee. Your statement that it "wasn't unconstitutional for 200 or so years" denies historical accuracy. And about it being "about democracy" - the Constitution decrees that democracy does not enforce the will of the majority over the minority, it enforces the rights of the minority to be free from the tyranny of the majority.
To quote Reuters (underline is mine): "In the Wednesday decision, Judge Lawrence Karlton said: "The court concludes that it is bound by the Ninth Circuit's previous determination 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."
The judge disagrees with you that this is not coercive - I suppose someone will come back with the argument about legislating from the bench, which does not apply in this case, as this is a strict, literal interpretation of the First Amendment.
You say that atheists and agnostics want to "express their faith through government", an old inaccurate argument that indicates that you really don't understand atheists and agnostics. I want the right to be free FROM religion the same way you want to be free to practice yours - no more, no less. I have no faith to express, but I wholeheartedly support your practicing your faith anywhere except in a government building with a government employee leading the supplication before Him.
I wish that you could similarly see that it is an infringement upon the First Amendment rights of my children to be required, or expected, or coerced, or harried, into reciting those words on a daily basis in their public school.
The "Lemon test" for determining whether a law or public act falls within the narrow scope of the First Amendment dictates that:
The law must have a secular purpose.
The law must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
The law does not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
I hope that the Supreme Court realizes that the coerced recitation of the Pledge in its current form does not pass the Lemon test.
17 - Taloran
Justin Berry: "Christian beliefs that are woven into our constition"
Huh? What? Have you READ the Constitution?
How many times does the word "God" appear in the U.S. Constitution? Zero
How many times does the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution refer to Christianity or Jesus? Zero
Who said "... the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." John Adams (2nd president, founding father)
What is the official religion of France? Roman Catholic
Get studying, man.
18 - Georgia
I have heard of a litmus test, but never a lemon test. Is this a new term, or am I just way out of the loop? Just curious.
19 - Taloran
The Lemon test was formulated by Chief Justice Warren Burger in the majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Lemon dealt with Rhode Island and Pennsylvania programs that supplemented the salaries of teachers in religiously based, private schools for teaching secular subjects. The Court struck down both programs as violating the establishment clause.
The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Full details available here and other places on the web. Just Google "Lemon Test".
20 - Taloran
I failed to note in my previous comment that the research quoted was written by Jim Allison, though I did link to the page from which I quoted. My apologies to Mr. Allison, whoever he is.
21 - DrPat
Rats, Taloran -- I just assumed it was something like Lemon Law for cars. You know, where you have the right to get your money back when the thing is just too clunky to run, and needs to be fixed constantly to do what it's supposed to.
Oh. Right...
22 - Georgia
Thanks a lot for the Lemon Test information. Very helpful.
23 - Les Slater
Glory Halleluiah, praise the Lord!
Finally someone stood up to Joseph McCarthy.
May the good judge be blessed for all eternity.
24 - John Bambenek
As a point of reference, the Constitution DOES make reference to God in the document. (We'll skip past the Declaration of Independence).
Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.
Numbering the years that way is done in reference to Christ's life, and therefore the use of "our Lord" clearly indicates that the signers are signing on to a document that makes reference to a collective belief in the Christian God.
25 - gonzo marx
yer fucking kidding me, right?
you supposition for statin gthat the Constitution is abtou "christian" values and beliefs is the fact that it uses the phrase
*in the year of our Lord*
which is based on the Roman A.D. calendar and has nothing to do with Biblical values and everything to do with Roman dating?
real weak...as usual
Excelsior!