Can it really be considered forced if they can get out of it with parental consent?

It's such a relief that we've got the ACLU on the job to protect the freedoms given to us by our mythical non-denominational omnipotent power figure.

Kinda gives me a warm fuzzy glow just to think about it. No, wait...I guess it was just a wave of nausea.

Actions have consequences. This baby moonbat wants to buck the system and show his Constitutional right to be disrepectful but he doesn't want to be "singled out."

I got my nic when a student asked me why he had to learn some concept and I replied, "Because I'n the goddess of the classroom, that's why."

I pray this suit gets tossed out.

I believe he ought to stand and at least respect the beliefs of other students. He has a right to abstain from actually saying the pledge, though. It's like when I go to a Catholic wedding: I stand and sit at the appropriate times during prayers, but I don't say the prayers with the congregation.

HOWEVER...

I went to school in Florida. Students and parents, last I checked, are still required to sign the Student Code of Conduct, which basically states that students give up all their rights when they enter school property. So the school could conceivably force the student to say the pledge; the fact that they don't is a kindness to those parents who believe their children shouldn't say the pledge.

Time and time again I hear young people say it's "all about respect." What they seem to mean is respect for themselves and their peers. What the larger society has to teach them is respect for all people and the nation they live in. The kid has no respect and needs tutoring in that area; maybe a day at marine boot camp would do the job. If not for the ACLU this youthful rebellion could be corrected with a bit of education. As it is, the kid's reputation will be tarnished regardless of the outcome of the case. The ACLU is just using this kid to advance it's own agenda.

Cameron said he hasn't stood for the pledge since the sixth grade. His mother, Christine Frazier, said he never had a problem until now. "This case is about him," she said. "It's about his rights as a U.S. citizen."

Its nice to know that his mother has taught him about his rights, maybe now she can take a few minutes and teach him about his responsibilities as a US citizen

Some of the early Pledge cases involve Jehovah's Witnesses, who have a religious ban on such things. Does the law make provisions for that sort of conduct?

--|PW|--

Here's hoping that the law of unintended consequences reaches out and 'splains to him why it would be a good idea to respect the rights of others rather than thinking it's *his* that are being maligned.

ME, ME
MY, MY
NO MORE FUN
CAMMY's GOT THE BLOOD UP OF EVERYONE.

Has this kid been checked for lice?

The Constitution is, and should be, the law of the land. I, however, have a problem with this kind of case. If you are not willing to pledge allegiance to the US, what allegiance does the US owe you? This is also my problem with illegal immigrants, you are here illegally but demand rights, F*** You!

can you invoke a "right" not to recite the pledge? i'm an attorney and i cannot conjure the rationale behind claiming a "right" under that which you do not abide. if your unwilling to pledge allegiance to the country, how then do you invoke the purported constitutional rights, offered by the country, to not assert your allegiance? actually, i think this is a question for the aclu and of course the u.s. senate and, the ninth circuit, et al.

Tim:

Check West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. The cite escapes me right now. I will freely admit that it's not totally on point for this case, but it does explain the Jehovah's Witnesses' excuse from reciting the pledge.

--|PW|--

Tim:

A follow-up: West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), reversed Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940).

It's more about the Jehovah's Witnesses than anything else, but the case may address your questions. I wish I could cite some of Barnette's progeny, but, alas, I lack access to Keycite and Shepherd's for now.

--|PW|--

On reflection, "reversed" may be too strong a word. Still, the Barnette principle shoudl answer Tim's question.

--|PW|--

Haven't we already established that minor students do not have guaranteed Constitutional rights in school the same way normal adults do?

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier both placed limits on students' First Amendment rights. Personally, I have a real problem with the latter case, but that's probably because I was on my high school's newspaper staff.

If the Supreme Court has already ruled against students twice so far, what makes you think they won't do it again?

As with other rule infractions (fighting, skipping classes, etc.) will the school suggest to the student that he find another venue for his education? - At his parents expense.

The commentary in the attached URL posits the notion of the Pledge saying "one white nation"; would that require standing "out of respect" for such a vile discriminatory declaration? Should the student stand "out of respect" for those who show him none? Bull. I, for one, will certainly never again stand nor recite the pledge until the "under god" declaration is removed and I am no longer a second class citizen.

As a veteran and as someone who proudly says the pledge I can but say one thing.

The boy and the ACLU are right. It is his Constitutional right to not say the pedge. It's his Constitutional right to make a show of disrepect and pretend it somehow makes him morally superior even if that morality is one of made of the same cloth as the emperor's clothes.

It is his right to set himself apart and be different and desire to seek some attention for doing so. I just think it's rather naive to expect not to be singled out for such behavior.

To put it another way, it's his Constiutional right to be an ass.....and it is our Constitutional right to treat him like one.

Faith, nobody is forcing him to say the pledge. They simply ask that he stand while it is said.

And as I've already said, SCOTUS has already ruled that students do not have the same Constitutional rights as everyone else.

Note: Tinker actually expanded the understanding of students' constitutional rights, saying that the black armbands were OK.

--|PW|--

"...but I am into the idea of orderly classrooms"

Of course you nor I were there, but how do you know it wasn't the teacher that created the confrontation and the disturbance, and thus the disorderliness in the classroom? I mean, its a simple issue that the kid wanted to remain sitting in his seat during the pledge. It takes some kind of overbearing, disorderly, power-hungry type of teacher to find an issue with that. Those kind of teachers don't belong in the classroom, because they're disrupting the educational process and in general making a mockery of our democracy.

in theory he should have the right to stay seated. in practice, he should stand and show respect.

im not american, and i think "good on him". america takes the patriotism thing too far. Why does the pledge need to be said at school every day? its almost some sort of propoganda.

That said, it is a fine line between his right to go against this, and showing respect for others beliefs and standing.Even though thats just due to the righteousness of a patriotic majority.

Why should he stand to "show respect"? He is the one being disrespected. In this situation, a command to "Stand and show respect" is the same as saying "bow down in subservience to our beliefs".

For those who believe otherwise, why don't YOU stand to "show respect" while I read from various sources extolling the virtue and necessity of church-state separation and freedom of speech?

the victim mentality has made its presence. many "non-americans," in theory and/or reality, cannot appreciate the pledge because it is unfortuntately a source of envy to so many. one desires the status. and the other has it but is loathesome of the wonder and greatness that it entails. they are rightfully confused as to how or why one with such a weak character is so deserving of the greatness that america represents and offers on a daily basis. be proud of your citizenship and role in the greatest country in history; or proceed through your life, guilt ridden about the have nots and unfortunate tragedies that exist everywhere. whatever path that you ultimately elect to travel, there is still no conspiracy or propaganda in pledging allegiance to such a wonderful country, no matter how much you desire it to be true.

I think what everyone forgets is that the Pledge arose as a result of "better dead than red" jingoistic patriotism in the early 1950's and that to somehow impart some mystical value to a pledge and flag that mean less to some and more to others.

To put it plainly, why in the fuck does anyone care that this young man has no interest in standing? Does it make you mad that he still is eligible for whats left of Social Security when he retires? Does it anger you that he still has rights as protected (and by the way, Tinker is quite clear in protecting forms of political speech in non-disruptive, non-violent manners) in the Constitution?

Why require underage (and therefore, citizens incapable of making a binding contractual agreement without parental consent) students to recite an anti-communist pledge to a FLAG (regardless of what it represents)? Duh! To create a new generation of stand in line, ask no questions, trust the President because he's the President sort of thinkers. And on a somewhat related note, if the flag is so stinking important, and is so worthy of pledging our undying allegiance to it, then why can't some people in our nation understand how emotionally upset people get when the stars and bars is unfurled atop a state capitol? You can't have your cake and eat it too, well...that remains to be seen, doesn't it?

i can't believe i am still on this issue, or for that matter that it is an issue. what is the genesis of the self loathing characters that must use every opportunity to disparage this country. if you hate what it represents, there are more than ample means of transportation to vacate the atrocious land upon which you currently reside. and is that what sitting during the pledge represents: political speech? and the message is: i'm a thinker! i question authority? no, probably not. say what you mean: those folks are either ignorant of the greatness that the flag symbolizes or hate the fact that flag is a symbol of our greatness. you're living in great times: "drink, be merry, it's a celebration, bitches!" rick james, circa 1984. what do you like about the country?!

Skelton, face it, this *is* a nation "under God", and separation of church and state is judicially manufactured artifact, not a constitutional mandate. The First Amendment (the relevant clause at least) reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now, I won't even mention the myriad ways in which your ilk like to ignore the second half of the clause, but what I will say is that the first half does not prohibit all instances of religion in government.

Here's a bit of history for you - the first mention of "separation of church and state" by an American was by Thomas Jefferson in a letter. It's worth noting that he wasn't even talking about a constitutional principle at the time. More important, however, is that Jefferson was not one of the Framers. He was not present at the Constitutional Convention in Philly, and had no direct input into the wording of the Constitution or the First Amendment (though he was a supporter of the Bill of Rights). The man who *was* at the Convention (and was in fact its presiding officer), George Washington, signed an executive order creating the national holiday of Thanksgiving. While I don't have the text of the E-O in front of me, I remember quite clearly that it designated Thanksgiving as a national day of *prayer* and thanksgiving for the *blessings* that *God* had bestowed on the nation.

Now, who is a better judge of what the Constitution means? A federal judge more than a century later, who first wrote an official opinion giving this artificial separation the force of law? Or the Father of His Country, our first President, who was *there* presiding over the Convention, and put his pen to the Constitution itself?

The Pledge only gained the words "under God" in the mid-1900s, but since the first US Mint, we've stamped our money - all of it - "In God We Trust", and even Jefferson, who as I mentioned, first wrote of the "separation of church and state", wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal *and endowed BY THEIR CREATOR* with certain inalienable rights."

Now, there's no reason you can't be an atheist in this nation. I have many friends who are atheists, and who simply aren't offended by expressions of religiousity. However, we *are* a nation "under God", and so there *will* be expressions of religion in all sorts of public and even governmental situations. If you can't live with that in your country, then live without it somewhere else.

YOu are all complete morons. Congratulations, the fact you are even mimicking your fellow American for NOT standing for is rights (so to speak) shows how unintelligent and conformist you are. Doesn't it bother you that none of you seem to have an opinion of your own but instead perhaps one of a zealous governmental party (REPUBLICANS) and with little knowledge only the basic understanding of their point you "back them up" with pure insults. This boy is an American citizen. He has the right to stand or NOT stand. In fact the mere thought that you wish to FORCE someone to stand shows how unpatriotic you all are. Congratulations, Hitler would be proud.

the angry little anarchist comes out of his bunghole and sees his opportunity to ridicule that which gives angry little heathens like himself the right to endorse feebleminded socialist ideals. you must feel like you're behind enemy lines - and you'd be right!

we are hitleresque because we appreciate and respect the flag that symbolizes this great nation. what do you believe in; what have you ever fought for; what do believe is worth fighting for; if your tired of being picked on, step up and act like a man - fake is till you make it!

Ha ha ha! When will you Nazis learn that you can't force people to say the pledge or worship your big Santa Clause in the sky?

I hope the teacher loses her home in the lawsuit, stuipid Nazi.

I'm glad we have the ACLU to protect us from you Christian Nazis!

Ha ha ha! Enjoy the lawsuit, and sleep tight.

jeff: you have the right to remain silent or continue to risk society gaining further knowledge that you're every bit as devoid of intellectual prowess and certainly legal process as you are of fundamental moral values. (Hint: the teacher is not being sued for civil damages and if she were her house would fall under florida’s homestead exemption and not be subject to levy, lien or execution, assuming she even owns one). however, I can’t recall having ever known of anyone, other than a liberal, to even attempt to offer a substantive point of view and at the same time invoke “hitler” or “nazi” analogies/references (or santa claus for that matter) while also laughing from beginning to end. (Ref: ha, ha, ha) you silly little people never cease to amaze one of the depraved levels to which you will sink. get back on the meds, don’t mix the medication with alcohol or other illicit substances and, borrow some self esteem until you’re able to develop some of your own. best of luck, son! xox - be good!

Actually, there is one "Nazi" angle on the pledge of which most people are completely ignorant:

1. Dr. Rex Curry showed that the USA's early Pledge of Allegiance (to the flag) used a straight-arm salute and it was the origin of the salute of the monstrous National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis). Dr. Curry helped to establish that it was not an ancient Roman salute, and that the "ancient Roman salute" is a myth. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html The myth is still repeated in modern efforts to cover-up Dr. Curry's discoveries about the Pledge's poisonous pedigree.

2. The original Pledge began with a military salute that then stretched out toward the flag. Historic photographs are at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html and at http://rexcurry.net/pledge_military.html In actual use, the second part of the gesture was performed with a straight arm and palm down by children casually performing the forced ritual chanting. Professor Curry showed that, due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the military salute led to the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended military salute. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html

3. Francis Bellamy (author of the "Pledge of Allegiance") and Edward Bellamy (author of the novel "Looking Backward") and Charles Bellamy (author of "A Moment of Madness") were socialists. Edward and Charles were brothers, and Francis was their cousin. Francis and Edward were both self-proclaimed National Socialists and they supported the "Nationalism" movement in the USA, the "Nationalist" magazine, the "Nationalist Educational Association," and their dogma of "military socialism," and Edward inspired the "Nationalist Party" (in the USA) and their dogma influenced socialists worldwide (including Germany) via “Nationalist Clubs.” http://rexcurry.net/bellamy-edward-german-connections.html The Pledge was the origin of the Nazi salute. "Nazi" means "National Socialist German Workers' Party." A mnemonic device is the swastika. Although the swastika was an ancient symbol, Professor Curry discovered that it was also used sometimes by German National Socialists to represent "S" letters for their "socialism." Curry changed the way that people view the symbol of the horrid National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler altered his own signature to use the same stylized "S" letter for "socialist" and similar alphabetic symbolism still shows on Volkswagens. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html

Anti-Constitutional fascist/liar: It's time for you to "face it". This is NOT a nation "under God". It appears nowhere in the Constitution, nor does "Christian nation" "Jesus" or any other Christian fascist crap. You can denigrate Jefferson all you want, but it's a foregone conclusion that he had a better handle on the mindset of his contemporaries and their intent to separate church and state than you ever will.

"Now, who is a better judge of what the Constitution means?" Someone who was alive when it was written. Most of the original colonies had established churches which dictated the accepted faith to practice, and institutional discrimination against those who refused. They didn't come to the New World to practice religious freedom, they came here to establish their own theocracies and persecute non-adherents as they were persecuted in Europe. The Founders took that lesson into account when writing the Constitution to keep church and state separate.

Your assertion about "In God We Trust" on our money is an outright LIE. It first appeared on coins around the time of the Civil War, and on paper currency in the late 1950s. I have a godless series 1960 10 dollar bill that proves you a liar. Plus the following:

Source: U.S. Mint - What was the first coin to bear the motto "In God We Trust?" The two-cent coin minted between 1864 and 1873, was the first coin to bear the motto "In God We Trust." Legislation approved July 11, 1955, made the inscription of "In God We Trust" mandatory on all coins and paper currency of the United States. Legislation approved July 30, 1956, made "In God We Trust" the national motto of the United States.

LIAR. LIAR. Oh, and did I mention, LIAR?

//Declaration of Independence, bla bla bla, and endowed BY THEIR CREATOR bla bla bla// My "creator" is a double helix of DNA.

"Now, there's no reason you can't be an atheist in this nation." Damn right. And there's no reason I ever have to be subject to, participate in, or in any way support ANY vile religious dogma.

"If you can't live with that in your country, then live without it somewhere else." Nope, sorry, I have served my country, and earned my citizenship and right to dissent. If you haven't served, then YOU get out.

mr. skeleton: how angry and/or lonely you must be to despise everything that so many americans have represented for nearly 250 years. anger has consumed you - exercise those demons. you cannot believe that represent the principles of our heritage. don't kid yourself. accept that you are just cut from a different cloth, but don't cloak yourself as a patriot. you lefties have played that out. your purported service to this country is laughable. when you take one step forward and two back, do you consider your journey fruitful?