The recent decision arising out of the Western Circuit Court regarding the phrase "under God" in the Pledge is by no means a new issue.
It had been handled before by the Courts and in my lifetime.
In 1954 (?),
Barnett vs. West Virginia Dept. of Education.
As you may be aware, it is a tenet of the Jehova's Witnesses faith to not engage in the Salute to the Flag and the recitation of the Pledge of Alligence.
In Barnett, The United States Supreme Court held, and in the words of that decesion :
Quote:
|
"If there is any star in our Constitutional firmament, is that no Government official, high or petty, can prescribe what is orthodox in matters of opinion or require the expression thereof''
|
--
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority opinion
The Schools of West Virginia would direct children who would not stand and salute the Flag during the mandatory Pledge to leave the room, mark them absent, and use absence as reason for administrative action against them. Hence, the Judicial challange by the Jehova's Witnesses.
In effect, the recitation of the Pledge
requirement, was already under Constitutional constraint per Barnett decision.
In 1957, at the height of the Cold War, a Resolution of Congress added the words .."under God" to the Pledge that had been already long in use.
This again revived the judicicial challange to the requirement of the Pledge, most notably where it was a practical matter-- public education.
One model of how this was resolved was in NYState where the Commissioner of Education was already required by the Education Law to promulgate rules for the daily recitation of the Pledge.
The Constitutional argument was hence advanced that its insertion into the Pledge rendered the requirement of the Pledge Unconstitutional.
An organization The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism or such was such a challenging group. Others not of the atheist pursuasion opposed the requirement on the theory that adding a religious concept ("under God") to the Pledge violated Constitutional language against "establishment of religion".
The NYS Court of Appeals ordered then Commisioner of Education Allan to promulgate rules wherein a child would be given the choice of one of four options:
1) leave the room, without penalty;
2) stand in Salute during the Recitation, but not recite;
3) recite the Pledge, but omit the words "under God".
4) recite the Pledge including the phrase "under God"
Fast forward to late 60's , early 70's: the words "with Liberty and Justice for All" already in Pledge became a matter of controversy by some. Era of Flag burnings--by some. Laziness on the part of School Administrators, IMO, to deal with "controversial issues" (Huh?)...
The NYS decision which dates back to late 50's, seems eminently fair--even "reasonable".
Those who want to Recite the Pledge can do so; those who do not want to, do not have to.
Now we have this silliness arising out of SF which can only have a devisive effect if it leads to judicial challanges on an already settled question. The timing--and I don't believe anyone need to have lived through 9/11 in the exact way New Yorkers did -- find this especially troubling, given the international threats to World peace.
Yes, America will survive this decision.
In many places, due to the lazinesss or cowardice of School Officials to provide for the Pledge in the first place--won't have any practical effect as the Pledge has already been ignored for years.
Instead of increasing the freedom of choice--this decision has diminished it. It seeks to take away choice #4 as per above.
Ironically, it may wake up people to start allowing for its Recital.
Very infrequently do I see patriotic ceremonies in in any public gathering.
God Bless America.
MegalosSkylaki
New York City
Linear Mode
