Barry

Presentation Info : The decision of Sherman v. Community School District 21 that a state may not compel any person to recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag was based on: 1. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette which states that no official may “force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein” as relates to any orthodox matters of opinion. 2. Wooley v. Maynard, which states that a state may not compel any person to display its slogan.

It is generally concluded that states may require school officials to lead the pledge but that students may not be required to participate. The possibility of there not being any school official or teacher who is willing to lead the pledge seems moot. General thinking is that someone will lead it and even if there are some students who do not participate, at least some will.

A corollary to this issue is a pupil who objects to the prescribed curriculum. The school does not have to change the curriculum to satisfy the needs of the student. Instead the student is free to find education elsewhere. To this end there are available an abundance of private schools as well as the possibility of home schooling.

There is a further issue of whether the “under God” clause in the pledge makes the pledge a prayer, which would constitute a violation of the first amendment. The ceremonial use of the word God is widespread in government is not generally thought to be specific to any religion, nor is it thought that that founding fathers felt to be so. The use of expressions such as “In God We Trust”, God save the United States and this Honorable Court” and “One Nation Under God” have become so overused that they are no longer thought to contain any religious meaning.

Paper Info: Minersville  School District v. Gobitis was a decision by the [|Supreme Court of the United States] involving the religious rights of public school students under the [|First Amendment to the United States Constitution]. The Court ruled that public schools could compel students to salute the [|American Flag] and recite the [|Pledge of Allegiance] despite the students' religious objections to these practices. The Jehovah's Witnesses pronounced a doctrine that declared saluting the flag to be a form of idolatry which goes against their religion. In 1935, in Lynn, Massachusetts, a third-grader and Jehovah’s Witness Carleton Nichols refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and was expelled from school. This incident received widespread media attention, and other Witness students soon followed suit. This decision led to increased persecution of Witnesses in the United States. The Court held that the state's interest in "national cohesion" was "inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values". The Supreme Court overruled this decision a mere three years later, in [|West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette]  in 1943. **West Virginia** **State** **Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)** In the case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, a decision by the [|Supreme Court of the United States] held that the Free Speech Clause of the [|First Amendment to the United States Constitution] protected students from being forced to salute the [|American flag] and say the [|Pledge of Allegiance] in school. It was a significant court victory won by [|Jehovah's Witnesses], whose religion forbade them from saluting or pledging to political institutions or symbols. However, the Court did not address the effect the compelled salutation and recital ruling had upon their particular religious beliefs, but instead ruled that the state did not have the power to compel speech in that manner for anyone. ** Abington **** Township School District **** v. Schempp **** (1963) ** Abington  Township School District  v. Schempp began when Edward Schempp, a [|Unitarian] and a resident of [|Abington Township, Pennsylvania], filed suit against the [|Abington School District] in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to prohibit the enforcement of a Pennsylvania state law that required his children, specifically [|Ellory Schempp] , to hear and sometimes read portions of the [|Bible] as part of their [|public school] [|education]. That law required that "[a]t least ten verses from the Holy Bible [be] read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day." Schempp specifically contended that the statute violated his and his family's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. On June 17, 1963, the Court decided 8-1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared school sponsored Bible reading in [|public schools] in the [|United States] to be unconstitutional. It was their position that the reading of the verses, even without comment, possesses a devotional and religious character and constitutes in effect a religious observance. The devotional and religious nature of the morning exercises is made all the more apparent by the fact that the Bible reading is followed immediately by a recital in unison by the pupils of the demonstrating the intention to introduce a religious ceremony into the public schools of the Commonwealth. ** Lemon v. Kurtzman **** (1971) ** Lemon v. Kurtzman was a case in which the [|Supreme Court of the United States] ruled that [|Pennsylvania] 's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were [|Catholic] ) for teachers' salaries, textbooks and instructional materials, violated the [|Establishment Clause] of the First Amendment. The decision also upheld a decision of the [|First Circuit], which had struck down the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act providing state funds to supplement salaries at nonpublic elementary schools by 15%. As in Pennsylvania, most of these funds were spent on Catholic schools. The Court's decision in this case established the " Lemon test ", which details the requirements for legislation concerning [|religion]. It consists of three prongs: If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the [|Establishment Clause] of the [|First Amendment to the United States Constitution]. ** Wallace v. Jaffree ** ** (1985) ** Wallace v. Jaffree was a [|United States Supreme Court] [|case] deciding on the issue of silent [|school prayer]. An Alabama law authorized teachers to set aside one minute at the start of each day for a [|moment] of "silent [|meditation] or voluntary [|prayer] ," and sometimes the teacher of the classroom asked upon a student to recite some prayers. Ishmael Jaffree was a resident of [|Mobile County], [|Alabama] and a parent of three students who attended public school school there. He brought suit against the Mobile County School Board, various school officials, and the minor plaintiffs' three teachers as defendants. Mr. Jaffree's sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction restraining the defendants from "maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services or other forms of religious observances in the Mobile County Public Schools in violation of the [|First Amendment] as made applicable to states by the [|Fourteenth Amendment] to the [|United States Constitution] ." At issue was two of his children had been subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination through school prayer on a daily basis. Because they would not participate in the prayers his children were ridiculed. Mr. Jaffree had repeatedly but unsuccessfully requested that the prayers be stopped. The [|United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama] allowed the practice and found in favor of the defendants. The [|United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit] reversed, holding the law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that the Alabama law violated constitutional principle. Lee v. Weisman was a [|United States Supreme Court] decision regarding school prayer. It was the first major school prayer case decided by the [|Rehnquist] Court. It involved prayers led by religious authority figures at public school graduation ceremonies. The Court followed a broad interpretation of the [|Establishment Clause] that had been standard for decades at the nation's highest court, a reaffirmation of the principles of such landmark cases as [|Engel v. Vitale]  ( [|1962] ) and  [|Abington v. Schempp] , ( [|1963] ). When the principal of Nathan Bishop Middle School in [|Providence, Rhode Island], Robert E. Lee, invited a Jewish rabbi to deliver a prayer at the [|1989] graduation ceremony of Deborah Weisman, her parents requested a temporary restraining order seeking to bar the rabbi from speaking. When the [|Rhode Island district court] denied the Weismans' motion, the family did attend the graduation ceremony, and the rabbi did deliver a benediction. After the graduation, the Weismans continued their litigation, and won a victory at the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The school district appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the prayer was nonsectarian and was doubly voluntary, as Deborah was free not to stand for the prayer and because participation in the ceremony itself was not required. Arguments were heard on [|November 6], [|1991] , and many court watchers thought that [|Justice] [|Anthony Kennedy] , who had been critical of the Court's previous decisions on school prayer, would provide the crucial fifth vote to reverse the lower court's ruling and deal a major blow to the twin separationist pillars of //Engel// and //Abington//. The 5-4 decision was announced on [|June 24], [|1992]. It was a somewhat surprising victory for the Weismans, with Justice Kennedy, far from joining the conservative bloc that favored rolling back restrictions on school prayers, writing the majority opinion that preserved previous Supreme Court precedents that sharply limited the role that religion could play in the nation's public schools.
 * [|Minersville School District v. Gobitis] ****  (1940)  **
 * 1) // The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose ; //
 * 2) // The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion ; //
 * 3) // The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion . //
 * Lee v. Weisman (1992) **