Atheists Challenge Reciting the Pledge

[Rob Sullivan]

A New Jersey school district faces a lawsuit from atheist parents over requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the "Under God" phrase included.  The district leaders responded that state law mandate the morning pledge.

[Molly]

As a person who grew up believing in God, and a Christian who was taught to pursue and practice my faith, if I were in pubic school now this wouldn't have a huge affect on my life. I would like to sympathize with the individuals and groups that have such strong convictions about the required daily pledge having the phrase "under God" in it, however I just think that their suing the school district is unreasonable. The school district is merely following a law set out by the state it resides in. And even then, the state does not require students to recite the pledge, it only requires the schools within the state to have a specific time set aside daily for the pledge to be recited.  I find the argument presented by the atheists and the humanists to be weak. They say that the phrase "under God" marginalizes the atheist and humanist children as less than nationalistic. But it makes me wonder, in what way have other students or people comfortable with reciting the pledge made those individuals feel isolated or marginalized for their refraining of reciting that part of the pledge? It makes me wonder how far separation of church and state will go. For instance, will my children eventually be banned from sharing their faith and beliefs in public school altogether? I think as long as the students are not required to say a pledge they are uncomfortable with, then the problem does not need to be taken further, at least as far as the state lawsuit is concerned.

[01uw9rm10y8ka]

As I read this article, I believe what is happening is that this New Jersey school district being used unjustly by the American Humanist Association. They are using this small district with only five elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school is being attacked by a non-profit with 24,000 members and 180 chapters and affiliates nation-wide. My initial question is why this school district? David Ruben, the school districts lawyer, says, "All we are doing is abiding by requirements of state law, we and approximately 590 other school districts in the state. If the group who's brought this lawsuit questions the wisdom of that policy or the legality of it, we believe their arguments are much better directed to the state Legislature who's imposed this requirement on us, rather than suing an individual school district on this matter" There are 590 other schools districts in New Jersey alone that are simply following the laws of their state, but the AHA is attacking this school district to get their agenda in the media. In addition to this they are saying that it is atheist children who are being discriminated against, yet the AHA will not release the schools of where these "children" go to or the parents who filed the complaint.

I believe this is nothing more than an added attack against religion and the traditions of the United States of America. The AHA is making attempts to uproot the foundation this country was built on. This country was not built by just Christians, but some of the founding fathers were atheists as well. All of the agreed upon many of the traditions that include phrases like "Under God" in its writings.

These things affect my life because these people are coming in the name of "human rights" but are covertly attempting to use people and school districts to support their causes with no thought about the people in the midst of the situation involved. Is the AHA standing for these atheists children by hiding them from the public and putting their brand at the forefront of the argument? I think not.

I believe if such problems need to be addressed, much like David Ruben said, it must be addressed by the state legislatures. If the AHA wants to sue someone, it should be the state of New Jersey or the United States, not the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District. This has nothing to do with them or the children so they need to stop using them and attacking a weaker party. It is heartless to do such a thing, and does not bring credibility to the supposed argument they have; it is simply dirty politics. It is my faith based responsibility not only to speak out against this subject but speak against any sort of Association who seeks to use people to progress their agenda.

[Argentina reeves]

Reading this article I could understand maybe if the kids were per say forced to say the Pledge( which they are not) or if maybe the under god was more narrowed down to a certain god but it's not it just states God which is relative to what you do or do not believe God does not necessarily mean the Christian God so we have to look not only are they protesting Christians but anyone who has even a sliver or belief that there might be something that created us. Also why attack the school why attack that school in particular schools everyone practice the pledge not just that one. I think that this suing is more just for show to gather people to their cause to take out God out of the pledge which is whatever I guess.

[Emily Austin]

As Americans, we have the choice to do many things, or not do many things if thats what you wish. It seems to me, taking a school district to court because your child is being required to say the pledge of allegiance seems to cross the line. Maybe I see it as crossing the line from a Christian stand point, but even as an Atheist, is this really something that important? Of course, your child can opt out of saying the pledge if he/she wants to. No where in the article did it say that children were being reprimanded for NOT participating. I think ultimately they should participate as an American, but I don't think they should be forced to say something they don't believe in or something that offends their "faith". The pledge of allegiance is more than just about those two words... Those two words by themselves don't make up the entire pledge, therefore they can't discount the validity of it (I understand some Christians would disagree). While I don't think we should back down from what we believe in, or take "Under God" out of the pledge, I do think as Christians we do need to consider others as well as ourselves. 

[Emily Greetham]

This article deals with an issue that appears to be constant in American government. Upon reading the article, I tried my best to rid of all bias and Christian perspectives, so that I could read with a open mind and be understanding of the parents who are attempting to sue the school. However, while I understand that the Pledge of Allegiance states "one nation under God," I cannot identify any violation of the state constitution from this. Students are by no means forced to participate in the Pledge, and if those words are truly offensive to them then they do not have to cite the phrase. Also, I think it is interesting that the parents are the ones causing all this drama, while they are not the ones actually affected. All religions experience limited freedom in the schools, and Christianity does not receive any special treatment because of the Pledge of Allegiance being recited in classrooms.

As a student who attended public schools before I was a Christian, I can testify that I did not by any means feel offended or pressured by Christian influences simply by stating allegiance to my country. I was also able to accept that Christianity is the founding religion of America; therefore, it makes sense that such a phrase is included in the Pledge. Christianity is very dear to me now, which makes me appreciate the Pledge that much more. Students who uphold Christianity can benefit from the declaration, while students who do not believe in God still should not feel any offense or injustice. I agree with the state law that recently mandated the morning pledge. 

[3age7zth9y15s]

It is hard to comprehend a situation like this because I have never encountered people who felt threatened by the normalcy of public school function. It has also never crossed my mind that the idea of saying "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance would be a contradiction to the Constitution. Reciting something usually does not involve much thinking, and that was how I felt about the Pledge of Allegiance. I was just reciting something that I had memorized for all of my childhood, not something that I really pay attention to as I state it. Although, I see where the family is coming from, the fact that it is not required for the students to recite it makes it seem as though it should not have been escalated to such a huge ordeal. Looking at it from a Christian perspective however, I feel as though it would not be terrible if "Under God" was taken out because God will still be on the throne no matter what. I also don't base my faith on an allegiance to a flag.

[California McKay]

I believe, like you do Stewart, this is just a Media Attention Scheme!

If we had to change everything for everybody, every time, someone didn't like something, we would not be able to coexist in society. 

This group is only trying to attract attention, the same way Alice Paul did back in 1916, when her National Woman's Party chained themselves to the White House fence.

What about Majority Rule?

I went to school with a girl whose family was Seven Day Adventist.  They never made a seen. Each time we celebrated a holiday in the classroom,  her parents just came and picked her up and she got to go home early!

[Francisca Arenas]

I think creating a lawsuit scandal is crossing the line. I feel bad for the child of these parents who have nothing better to do than create drama. I am sure that the parents said the pledge of allegiance when they were in school, this should be something their child should experience as a part of childhood. I mean who doesn’t remember reciting the pledge of allegiance in school, it is like an American tradition. To this day I remember the pledge of allegiance and have great memories of it in school. I think that the atheist parents are over reacting for something that has been there for many years. It didn’t bother them all those years that phrase was in the pledge, I think it’s silly that now its inconvenient for them. This country has been established under God for a reason, and it is a part of history the way past presidents relied on God. These parents have no right to try to change anything that is historical to our country. The pledge of allegiance is an honor to say no matter if the name of God is said. There are other options that these parents can opt for their child instead of taking the school district to court. I think these parents are selfish in thinking they can change a historical American tradition just for them. I don’t agree with what they are doing and I stand for keeping the pledge of allegiance as a part of our American pride.

[Megan Tyson]

This is certainly an attention seeking scheme. Why is it that the parents couldn't have just taken the teacher aside and asked that their child not have to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance? There was no need to make a huge scene out of the ordeal. I'm sure there are parents who would prefer that their children were not being taught that we evolved from monkeys, but this is an issue that they most likely address at home. If people are super concerned with what their kids are learning at school than they can always homeschool them without causing a ruckus.

[00e7cvcmzr7yd]

It is interesting that two small words can cause such a ruckus in the public arena. Many liberals and activist groups call for tolerance from all people in all areas of life, but yet refuse to become tolerant themselves in trifling matters such as this.

[Bridgett Thiemann]

This is amazing that district leaders responded that state law mandate the morning pledge.  I grew up with the pledge of allegiance and Morning Prayer.  My children also, had the opportunity to experience this for a short while.  I believe that the reciting of the morning pledge promotes honor and respect for our country.  It also, denotes where our origins came from.  It does not mean that the person reciting the pledge be a believer in God but that our founders believed in God.  I can understand the Atheist fear, that perhaps this may cause conflicting messages to their child.  However, at some point they will have to make their own decision of what they believe.  This could be an opportunity to educate their child on what they beleive.

[kaitlyn]

I find this lawsuit quite ridiculous, to be completely honest. If the child and/or parents did not agree with the Pledge of Allegiance or the phrase it included, "Under God", then that child has the option to not participate in the pledge. This is one of the benefits of living in America...free will. The fact that the pledge consists of such a phrase, is nothing to be offensive but rather to declare what beliefs our Nation is founded upon. For this family to sue the school district because of the pledge is absurd. It is nothing to do with the New Jersey school district and everything to do with the state laws. In today's world, many people will come up with something to sue someone for, overall, creating more drama (as if our society needs more of it). The sole purpose for many of these cases is the possible outcome that would include a handful of money on their behalf. I am not accusing this family of suing strictly for money, but I would almost go the distance to say that it is a little unbelievable they would go to such trouble to sue a smaller school district for one little phrase. This small phrase may go against their beliefs, but that one little phrase is now costing them more than they may realize.