Case Study 2: I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag

Introduction

America owns a loyalty pledge that is usually recited during national gatherings as well as different gatherings in the learning institutions. Politics and religious conviction have been major fuels for sensitive and worthy discussions in the society today. Recitation of the loyalty pledge normally strengthens allegiance in regard to the republic of America as well as the national flag. The initial pledge enactment occurred in 1922 but was later modified after a period of 30 years in order to incorporate the slogan under God (Ankeney, 2011). Although the loyalty pledge as grown to be a significant part of today’s American populace over the last years it has generated controversies in compound events in regard to the significance and necessity for the recitation of the pledge. Despite, the presence of several sentiments in regard to the American pledge its relevance is highly questioned by some individuals (Ankeney, 2011). In regard to Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, the American Supreme Court was subjected to a major question in the quest of establishing where the necessity to loyalty pledge recitation was constitutional. In addition, the court was objected on determining whether the slogan Under God was in any way constitutional (Jurinski, 2004). This paper will, therefore, examine the United States allegiance pledge via the eyes of the Supreme Court’s ruling in regard to the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow

Summary of Salient Points

The American Supreme Court held a hearing for a case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow in 2004 (Jurinski, 2004). The petitioner in this case Mr. Newdow was challenging the policy regarding school districts on the recital of the national pledge and the court sought to determine whether the policy was violating America’s first amendment. After the examination, the court refuted the general observation by the federal court in relation to the domestic issues as presented by Newdow given that a prevail had already been made by a family court in regard to protecting Newdow's child legal privileges (Jurinski, 2004). Elk Grove Unified School’s board, an educational institution in California had provided compulsory requirements for all learners attending elementary learning to generally recite daily the allegiance pledge (Jurinski, 2004). A young girl from the elementary institution whose father was the petitioner by the name Newdow was motivated by his religious beliefs as an atheist. Based on his religious affiliation, he had an issue with the general incorporation of the term Under God in the American allegiance pledge.

Newdow asserted that including the term in the loyalty pledge and the mandatory necessity of daily recitation by students violates individual’s religious privileges. He stated that the mandatory operation in which his child participated voluntarily constitutes of religion based indoctrination of the innocent child (Jurinski, 2004). On this basis, he had filed a case on behalf of his child acting as ‘’next friend’’ in California’s federal district court. Newdow held that the inclusion of the phrase primarily violated the American first amendment (Jurinski, 2004). However, the magistrate ruled that the pledge was constitutionally supported a statement that was embraced by the district court thus dismissing the petition. The case was reversed by the Supreme Court stating that the defendant was acting as the child’s parent in challenging the practice that interfered with the direct privileges of the child’s religious learning and that the policy of the institution violated the Clause's establishment (Jurinski, 2004). However, the child’s mother filed a contradicting case in dismissing the declaration holding that she held limited lawful custody under a court ruling and therefore as the single custodian, she felt that it was against the interest of the child to engage in the law suit filed by the father. However, the custody did not limit Newdow as based on Article III he held the right of exposing his child to his specified religious beliefs even though they opposed the mother’s view (Jurinski, 2004). However, reciting the pledge in a compulsory nature can be interpreted as a limitation to certain persons with different religious beliefs. In this case, it is apparent that despite the fact that the allegiance pledge reciting is not a religious matter it affects religious privileges but it is more of a patriotism matter.

Levels of the Court for the Case

The initial court level for the case is the California’s district court which was ruled by the magistrate by summing that the allegiance pledge was supported constitutionally and discharged the case. The respondent later headed to the Ninth Circuit in search of the District Court’s ruling reversal (Jurinski, 2004). The ninth circuit concluded that Newdow as the father had the right to challenge the pledge recitation based on his religious faith. Under the law observation, he had the right to expose the child to his religious faith as the father. However, based on the opposition suit by the mother as the sole custodian the case was moved to the Supreme Court. The court ruled against Newdow under the statement that he held no right to perform as the lawful representative of the child even as the father (Jurinski, 2004). 

Supreme Court’s Decision

After the case went through the mentioned court levels, the case was accommodated by the Supreme Court. However, based on the lawful custody of the child the court held that Newdow did not possess any privilege to perform as the Next Friend for the child (Bishop, 2007). In that as parents they held mutual child’s custody by that of the mother was more in regard to rights and raising the child (Bishop, 2007). Given that the mother was not against the pledge of allegiance recitation at the child’s school and the Under God terminology it was established that the father did not own the right to challenging the child’s deliberate participation in recitation (Bishop, 2007). The usage of the phrase which the defendant held to be a religious issue was established to be constitutional given that the use of the term is not strategic but as a symbol of patriotism.

Fundamental Impact That the Court Decision On American Society

The court’s decision in the case impacted the American society significantly. In that prior to the progression of the case, there were concerns in regard to a mandatory recitation in national ceremonies and in learning facilities which are still present (Marzilli, 2003). However, this case transformed the perception of most given that the pledge proved to be a patriotic issue rather than a religious one. The constitution respects every individual’s faith and for those that do not believe in God, it seems to violate this privilege (Maclure & Taylor, 2011). In this context, it creates concern on the interference of individual’s faith where most individuals tend to believe that the reciting in schools should be eliminated given that it violates the American first amendment. On the other hand, there are those that are not affected. The pledge should not be viewed through religious eyes but as a respect and patriotic symbol for America where unity is of the essence (Maclure & Taylor, 2011).

Whether Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance Is a Religious Issue or a Sign of Respect for the United States

I believe that reciting the allegiance pledge is not a religious matter but it is a major sign of respect for America as a nation. In that, the terminology Under God which is perceived by most as a symbol of religious prayer is insufficient as such given that it does not make any specifications. In other words, the phrase can best be categorized as a ceremonial or national observation for respect.  The pledge seeks to increase unity and affirms patriotism given that the American land is for all its citizens and therefore, it necessitates some respect (Maclure & Taylor, 2011).

Whether Public Schools Should Be Permitted To Recite the American Allegiance Pledge

    In my opinion, I do believe that public schools in the United States should be permitted to recounting the allegiance pledge. This is because despite the religious and political debates question the significance of the practice the pledge is objected to affirm individual’s loyalty to the nation as well as paying respect to the individuals involved in the fight to acquiring liberation. The pledge is a demonstration of patriotism as well as commitment for the American citizens (Brady et al, 2012). More so, it does not violates individual’s rights given that it seeks to enlighten and create a sense of incorporation.  In addition, it is a national peace, harmony as well as freedom symbol. It therefore seeks to strengthen the beliefs of the citizen in the Supreme Being as the founder of the universe. It does not therefore seek to alter individual’s belief rather it is a symbol of unity and respect for religion and supreme God. However, the pledge reciting particularly in the learning institutions should not be made mandatory given that it disrupts persons with distinct religious beliefs (Brady et al, 2012). Therefore, mandatory reciting violates individual’s privileges in regard to religious faith.

 

 

 

ReferencesTop of Form

Bottom of Form

Ankeney, K., & National Center for History in the Schools (U.S.). (2011). Bring history alive!: A             sourcebook for teaching United States history. University of California.

Bishop, R. (2007). Taking on the Pledge of Allegiance: The news media and Michael Newdow's Constitutional challenge. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Brady, K. P., Brown, F., Cattaro, G. M., Donahoo, S., Eakle, A. J., Eckes, S., Hunter, R. C., ... Thro, W. E. (2012). Debating issues in American education: A Sage reference set. Los Angeles: SAGE reference.

Jurinski, J. J. (2004). Religion on trial: A handbook with cases, laws, and documents. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-Clio.

Maclure, J., & Taylor, C. (2011). Secularism and freedom of conscience. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Marzilli, A. (2003). Religion in Public Schools. New York: Infobase Pub.