Renee


 * Renee's Page**

Presentation Info: In conclusion, no American child or adult can be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance as per the Barnette decision of 1943. Congress added the words "under God" to the pledge in 1954 as a way of differentiating our nation from the "godless regime" of the Communist Party then in the Soviet Union. During the last fifty years, the Supreme Court has cited Barnette with approval over and over again. In many decisions during the same period, the court has also referred approvingly to voluntary recitation of the pledge.
 * __Conclusion__**

In 2000, Reverand Dr. Michael A. Newdow, an atheist minister, dedicated to eradicating any governmental approval of religion. He objected to his five-year old daughter's being compelled to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her and her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that ours is "one nation under God."

Besides inviting children to recite the pledge, public schools should educate children about the freedom of every Americans to recite or refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. If the Supreme Court reaches consideration of the merits of Mr. Newdow's case, the court should hold that the constitution allows public schools to acknowledge what has een and still is one of the first principles of the traditional American political philosophy: "The People" created the government and "God" (unspecified) created the People -everyone- with unalienble rights.

.

Paper Info:

The Pledge of Allegiance has been a source of controversy for years. Some students and parents view the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance as government endorsement of religion under the Establishment Clause (as discussed later). This argument had failed in the Courts until 2002 when a panel of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that state-mandated recitations of the Pledge in public schools were unconstitutional because of the words "under God". The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is among the most predictable groups of jurists in the United States. This decision galvanized patriotic Americans as they rallied in supoort of the war on terrorism, as the United States was just months away from the worst terrorist attacks in history. Most legal experts agree that this ruling will be overruled because in a number of past decisions, the Court has viewed references to God in patriotic exercises and on our money as "ceremonial deism" that does not rise to the level of government establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment.
 * __Thesis Statement/Introduction__**

In the flag-salute case of West Virginia v. Barnette in 1943, the United States Supreme Court explicitly extended First Amendment protection to students attending public schools. The Barnette case began when several students who were Jehovah's Witnesses refused to salute the flag for religious reasons. School officials punished the students and their parents. The students then sued, claiming violation of their First Amendment rights. At the time that the students sued, Supreme Court precedent painted a bleak picture for their chances. Just a few years earlier, the Court had ruled in favor of a similar compulsory flag-salute law in Minersville School District v. Gobitis. As the Court stated in that ruling, "National unity is the basis of national security." However, the high court reversed itself in Barnette, holding that the free speech and free exercise of religious provisions of the First Amendment guarantee the right of students to be excused from the flag salute on grounds of conscience. Writing for the majority, Justice Robert Jackson said that the Supreme Court must ensure "scrupulous protection of constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principals of our government as mere platitudes."(1) The Court then warned of the dangers of coercion by government in oft-cited, eloquent language:

//If there is any fixed star in our Constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.(2)//

Clearly, the First Amendment applies to all levels of government, including public schools. Although courts have permitted school officials to limit the rights of students under some circumstances, the courts have also recognized that students, like all citizens, are gauranteed the rights protected by the First Amendment.


 * __The Establishment Clause__**

The First Amendment states that the government may not "establish" religion. The meaning of the Establishment Clause, often referred to as "separation of church and state", has been much debated throughout history. Dating back to 1801, Thomas Jefferson described in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists a "high wall of separation". In the last several decades, the Supreme Court has crafted several tests to determine when state action becomes "establishment" of religion. No one test is currently favored by a majority of the Court. Nevertheless, no matter what test is used, it is fair to say that the Court has been stricter about applying the Establishment Clause in public schools than in other government settings. For example, the Court has upheld legislative prayer, but struck down teacher-led prayer in public schools as in the cases of Marsh v. Chambers in 1983 and Engel v Vitale in 1962.(3) The Court applies the Establishment Clause more rigorously in public schools for two major reasons: Firstly, students are impressionable young people. Secondly, They are a captive audience required by the state to attend school.

When applying the Establishment Clause to public schools, the Court often emphasizes the importance of neutrality by school officials toward religion. This means that public schools may neither inculcate nor inhibit religion. They also may not prefer one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion. Therefore, neutrality means protecting the religious liberty rights of all students while simultaneously rejecting school endorsement or promotion of religion. Therefore, the Establishment Clause speaks to what government may or may not do. It does not apply to the private speech of students. School officials must keep in mind the distinction between government (school) speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause prohibits, and private (student) speech endorsing religion, which the free speech and free exercise clauses protect.

Establishment Clause concerns may be raised by student religious expression when expression takes place before a captive audience ( ie: in a classroom) or during a school-sponsored event (ie: before a football game). Students have the right to pray alone or in groups. They may also discuss their faith with fellow classmates as long as they are not disruptive or coercive. Students do not, however, have the right to force a captive audience to participate in religious exercies, to deliver a proselytizing sermon, or give the impression that their views are supported or endorsed by the school.

Enforcing adherance to religious requirements, such as diet, dress, and prayer, is the responsibility of parents and students, not the school. However, some religious requirements may conflict with school practices. In those cases, the school officials should try to accomodate the needs of the student. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses may ask that their children be excused from holiday and birthday parties. Teachers should honor this request. Orthodox Jews and other students should be granted the right to wear head coverings for religious reasons. Muslim students should be granted the request to pray in a designated area in the school to meet their religious obligations. In my school, the superintendent granted permission for a Muslim girl to pray in the principal's office during the student's lunch period.