Case challenging 'Pledge of Allegiance' reaches Massachusetts' highest court

[BlueGin]

Here we go again.

*****************************************************************

A Massachusetts atheist couple’s challenge to the required recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school – specifically the phrase, “under God” – will reach the state’s highest court this week.

Religion News Services, or RNS, reports Massachusetts’ highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court , will consider Doe v. Action-Boxborough Regional School District on Wednesday, which is expected to rule whether the pledge violates students’ rights.

The verdict may reverberate around the nation.

Notably, the suit, which was lodged by attorneys for an anonymous atheist couple, will reportedly mark a departure from similar and previous challenges to the pledge – and the “under God” phrase – which have in the past reached as far as the U.S. Supreme Court.

“A win for us . . .would affirm that it is not discriminatory to have the words ‘under God’ in the pledge.”

- Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund

In this case, plaintiffs’ lawyers, according to RNS, will argue compulsory recitation represents an injury to the state’s equal rights laws, or the guarantee of equal protection for all concerned under those laws.

Read more: Case challenging 'Pledge of Allegiance' reaches Massachusetts' highest court | Fox News

 

[Mr. H.]

As a Brother Knight, I'm quite proud of this achievement...

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History

As for students choosing to not stand and recite the Pledge, I've got no problem with that.

When substitute teaching, I had a third grader announce to me that she and her family are of the Jehovah Witness sect and do not participate in such recitation. I told her that she may remain seated. No biggie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Given there is no compulsory recitation, as students may opt out, and where ‘under god’ does not manifest religious expression, the equal protection violation claim lacks merit, as the Superior Court judge correctly determined:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/system/storage/63/ee/7/3171/SJ_Decision_Partial.pdf

 

[R.C. Christian]

I despise atheists.

 

[Mr. H.]

I despise atheists.

I don't. But I do give more credence to atheists who ascribe wealth to dirt as opposed to dollars.