Judge: Pa.'s Pledge law violates First Amendment

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | August 20, 2004 | Associated Press Wire

[buzzyboop]

A federal appeals court on Thursday threw out a state law that required schoolchildren to either recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the national anthem daily.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the law violated the free-speech rights of students and the right of private schools to "free expressive association."

The Pennsylvania law, which was passed and signed into law in 2002, allowed schools to opt out of the requirement for religious reasons but not for secular reasons. It also permitted students to decline on the basis of religious conviction or personal belief, but required the district to inform the student's parents.

[steplock]

Why? When I first came to the US in the 4th grade in 1960 I remember the 'SHOCK' of the wording in the pledge to the flag and the reference to G_D and then the public prayers that were NOT of my Church.

To paraphrase the Words of Christ, "to Rome that which is Rome's - to GOD that which is GOD's" - in my upbringing that meant to not sully the name of G_D in secular venues.

Going a bit further on, when Jesus scolded the Pharisees on their PUBLIC DISPLAY of "godliness" admonishing them to pray in private.

The later statement of "where two or more are gathered in "My Name" and I will be there" (all paraphrased - I am NOT a Bible scholar) does not mean in a government forum. That is sacrilegious.

BTW - In school I refused to recite the the pledge because I give my pledge only to G_D and I do not pray in public either. I did stand and remain silent is RESPECT to the American Flag.

THAT is why this judge is correct declaring that the government cannot force a child to kneel in subjugation to a secular power.

[DustyMoment]

. . . I'm glad to see such an overbearing law struck down. Demanding a daily loyalty oath to the government is hostile to conservative principles.

You have an excellent point and I stand corrected. Starting today, I am going to start violating those overbearing laws requiring me to stop at red octagonal signs and red colored lights. Why should I? I am also going to start violating those laws that prohibit me from taking other people's property without their permission because they violate my conservative principles.

And I'm even going to start violating those annoying commandments against adultery and murder and all that other stuff that violates my conservative principles.

The fact is that laws of all sorts serve different purposes. This law doesn't, as you contend, demand loyalty to the government, it demands loyalty to the United States of America. Some laws serve the public good, some of them help us develop morals and ethics, some of them help us develop character and a sense of common needs and respect for the individual. Not all laws are good laws, but laws that cause no harm are not a cause celebre for retraction. What harm does it cause for a child to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the National Anthem? Sure, they may not want to, but they also don't want to go to school, do their homework or eat broccoli. Should we strike down those laws that require them to go to school because it forces them to do something they don't want to? Shall we strike down your authority to govern your children as you see fit and require them to go to bed at a certain time, or eat certain foods, or behave in a certain way? Where do you propose that we stop?

Too many people in those country feel no connection to the United States because we don't require their allegiance or that they sing our National Anthem periodically so that we don't violate their "rights". We expect these people to grow up into mature, honorable, patriotic adults while we continually send them messages that they don't have to do anything they don't want to. I don't want to pay my taxes every year, but the government has other ideas. I think it violates my "rights" and forces me to support government policies and programs I disagree with, what do you think?

[Lunatic Fringe]

I have to agree witht he judges on this one. No citizen should be required to recite an oath of allegiance. They very foundations of liberty are contrary to these types of laws.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Starting today, I am going to start violating those overbearing laws requiring me to stop at red octagonal signs and red colored lights. Why should I? I am also going to start violating those laws that prohibit me from taking other people's property without their permission because they violate my conservative principles.

This is such a leap of logic, it's beyond any attempt to define it.

[Flint]

Wonder how a modification of the law that says that in each class room in each school the plege will be recited would fly? Not that everyone must participate but just that it be recited and those who wish may join in?

[Flint]

Wonder how a modification of the law that says that in each class room in each school the plege will be recited would fly? Not that everyone must participate but just that it be recited and those who wish may join in?

[Libertina]

How about that "overbearing law" requiring those poor put-upon students to study reading and mathematics? Look, these kids can get a free public education and follow some basic rules, or "have it their way" and pay for a private school. And that goes for their piercings, hair, clothing, and other (potentially) disruptive garbage. If the schools / teachers have no authority, they cannot succeed.

[Hacksaw]

And aside from Constitutional issues, compelling loyaltly oaths to the state reeks of totalitarianism and is an affront to liberty in general.

Yep, paying respect to the nation you live in is one step away from Nazi Germany. Totalitarianism, by cracky.

[jimtorr]

Y'all might notice that Penn. allows anybody to opt out for religious or ideological reasons.

The form of the Penn. law has been upheld a number of times in other states and circuits. This panel of the 3rd Circuit will also be over-ruled, unless there are problems with the law not contained in the article excerpt.

[goldstategop]

Liberal Judge Alert!

[freeeee]

Yep, paying respect to the nation you live in is one step away from Nazi Germany

Paying one's respects can and should be voluntary. I have nothing against that.

Of course there's more to totalitarianism than just coerced loyatly oaths. Totalitiarian states disrespect the rights of their inhabitiants in a number of ways. However, coerced (the part you conveniently forgot to address) loyalty oaths are a defining characteristic of every oppressive state I can think of.

[freeeee]

Too many people in those country feel no connection to the United States because we don't require their allegiance

Allegience is earned, and by definition must be freely given.

Compelled allegience is a cheap euphamism for servile obedience.

[Ciexyz]

Paying one's respects can and should be voluntary.

I agree that children should be able to opt out for any reason if they so desire. But I see nothing wrong with the continuation of the tradition of requiring children to stand respectfully before the flag and say the Pledge. It reinforces discipline and order in the classroom and reminds children from whence comes their educational benefits and other benefits of a cooperative society.

[freeeee]

I agree that children should be able to opt out for any reason if they so desire.

I believe the final decision must rest with the parents.

I see nothing wrong with the continuation of the tradition of requiring children to stand respectfully before the flag and say the Pledge.

I think they should be given the choice of standing or leaving the room for the duration of the pledge. This equally serves the purposes of discipline and order in the classroom.

reminds children from whence comes their educational benefits

Seeing as how the pledge was written by an avowed socialist, you might have a point there.

[Hacksaw]

However, coerced (the part you conveniently forgot to address) loyalty oaths are a defining characteristic of every oppressive state I can think of.

There was an opt out clause. You people get upset about the silliest things.

[freeeee]

There was an opt out clause.

"The Pennsylvania law, which was passed and signed into law in 2002, allowed schools to opt out of the requirement for religious reasons but not for secular reasons".

All reasons for opting out, save "God told me not to" were not recognized by this law. A myriad of secular reasons, not the least of which are freedom of speech were deemed insufficient.

And that's a huge reason to get upset.

[Prince Caspian]

...the general jerk-offs...

Ah, yes. I'm quite familiar with this group.

[Hacksaw]

All reasons for opting out, save "God told me not to" were not recognized by this law. A myriad of secular reasons, not the least of which are freedom of speech were deemed insufficient.

Wrong. "It also permitted students to decline on the basis of religious conviction or personal belief, but required the district to inform the student's parents".

But feel free to be upset. I have no problem with it.

[ladylib]

PA might appeal it to the US Supreme Court. Then it's anybody's guess.

[freeeee]

Thanks for pointing that out. There appears to be a contradiction, or at least some vagueness in the article:

"The Pennsylvania law, which was passed and signed into law in 2002, allowed schools to opt out of the requirement for religious reasons but not for secular reasons"

"It also permitted students to decline on the basis of religious conviction or personal belief"

It specifically says secular reasons are invalid. Presumably this means free speech or simply an unwillingness of the participant, and its entirely possible these could have nothing to do with religous convictions. Then it says personal beliefs are honored. Given the previous exclusion of secular reasons, one might wonder if these personal beliefs must be religious or spiritual in nature.

If indeed students and their parents can opt out for personal beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, I have no complaint. That's all I ask.

I found this later in the article:

"On Feb. 6, 2003, one day before the law was to take effect, U.S. District Judge Robert F. Kelly signed an injunction barring it from being implemented. In July 2003, Kelly ruled the law unconstitutional, saying the threat of parental notification would coerce students into taking the pledge and thereby violate their right to free speech. The appeals court agreed."

This I don't agree with at all. These students are wards of their parents, and until the day they turn 18, the parents say is final. Your thoughts?