Does it bother you when some activist uses their child as grounds to file lawsuits designed to strip away our freedoms and rights? It does me. That’s what Madalyn Murray O’Hair did in 1963 when she sued her son’s school district for reading the Bible in public school. Years later her son says he never complained, but his mom used him to push her atheist agenda.
A number of other parents have been following O’Hair’s example since that time. The latest case involved the parents of 2 anonymous students in Massachusetts. In their school, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance was a regular ritual, but it was purely voluntary, meaning no student was forced to participate.
But that didn’t stop the parents of the two students, who are reported to be atheists and Humanists, from filing a lawsuit against the school claiming that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance constituted an endorsement of religion and that the students were feeling stigmatized and excluded by not participating. They also claimed that it violated the Massachusetts State Constitution and antidiscrimination laws because of the words ‘under God’.
The case, Jane Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District, went to the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2013 where it was revealed that the two students were not bullied or criticized for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The court took time to review the history of the Pledge of Allegiance, legal and social. They also looked at previous appellate court rulings and the 2004 US Supreme Court case of Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court stated that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:
“Is a fundamentally patriotic exercise, not a religious one.”
“… Significantly, no student who abstains from reciting the pledge, or any part of it, is required to articulate a reason for his or her choice to do so.”
“[T]he fact that a school or other public entity operates a voluntary program or offers an activity that offends the religious beliefs of one or more individuals, and leaves them feeling ‘stigmatized’ or ‘excluded’ as a result, does not mean that the program or activity necessarily violates equal protection principles.”
Chief Justice Roderick Ireland wrote in the court’s decision:
“The plaintiffs’ claim of stigma is more esoteric. They contend that the mere recitation of the pledge in the schools is itself a public repudiation of their religious values.”
It really bothers me to see the anti-Christian and anti-American views of a few people being thrust on the rest of us. They don’t like our ways so rather than dealing with it, they want to force the majority to bow to their ways. The whims of a few supersede the will of the many and that is not how America was set up.
I’m glad the court ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional. It does bother me that they ruled it to be a purely patriotic exercise and not a religious exercise. When our nation was founded, there was little separation between Christianity and patriotism as they both went hand in hand in making America what it was. Once you remove Christianity from the functioning of the government, the nation will deteriorate and collapse. We are seeing that happening now right before our eyes and it will continue to collapse the further away from God our nation goes.