Why New Jersey atheists don't want Pledge of Allegiance in school

A lawsuit has been filed in New Jersey that says the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance discriminates against atheist children. A similar case in Massachusetts is awaiting a court ruling.

A family is suing a New Jersey school district, contending that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance discriminates against atheist children.

The lawsuit against the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District was filed in state court last month and was announced Monday by the American Humanist Association. The group says the phrase, added in 1954, "marginalizes atheist and humanist kids as something less than ideal patriots."

The anonymous plaintiffs say those two words "under God" violate the state constitution.

But school district lawyer David Rubin says the district is merely following a state law that requires schools to have a daily recitation of the pledge. He says individual students don't have to participate.

The humanist group is awaiting a ruling from a court on a similar case in Massachusetts.

As The Christian Science Monitor reported last fall in the Massachusetts case:

“We have constitutional protections demanding equality," says David Niose, the attorney for the plaintiffs and president of the Secular Coalition for America. "The state statute that requires daily recitation – sponsored by school, led by teacher – of the Pledge of Allegiance, obviously discriminates against atheist and humanist children. On a daily basis, you’re having patriotism defined and having children indoctrinated in way that exalts one religious group and marginalizes atheists and humanists.”

In the past, most challenges to the “under God” clause in the Pledge have been unsuccessful. The notable exception was in 2002, when the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, in fact, the words are an endorsement of religion and violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment – a ruling that created a small political storm at the time. That ruling was reversed, however, when the US Supreme Court held that the plaintiff (a noncustodial parent) didn’t have standing to bring the suit. When a new suit was filed and reached that same Ninth Circuit eight years later, the court ruled that, in fact, the phrase is a historical reflection of beliefs that doesn’t constitute an endorsement of religion.

Atheists unhappy with the phrase in the Pledge have long pointed out that, in fact, that phrase doesn’t have many historical roots: The original Pledge – written in 1892 and adopted by Congress as a national pledge in 1942 – didn’t contain the words “under God.” The phrase was added in 1954 during the McCarthy Era.

Proponents of the pledge have argued that the solution is to allow students to opt out of the pledge. Jehovah’s Witnesses, who believe the pledge constitutes idolatry, have been sitting out the pledge for a very long time, notes Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, one of two defense attorneys in the Massachusetts case. They won the right from the Supreme Court in 1943, when the court ruled that “compulsory unification of opinion” is unconstitutional.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.