American Atheists, Inc. press release
NEW BUSH RULES FOR SCHOOLS PROMOTE RELIGION, "PRAYER BULLYING" 
Feb. 14. 2003

New guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Education concerning religious activity in public schools give a "green light for prayer bullying" and do nothing to protect students who do not wish to participate in such events, American Atheists charged today.

The new DOE rules go beyond previous guidelines by permitting teachers to participate in religious activities with students such as the "see you at the pole" gatherings, and mistakenly inform school districts that "student led" religious exhortations during official events are permissible.

"Students are going be under more pressure to join in religious activities, especially when they see teachers participating," warned Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists. "And the Bush guidelines say nothing about the problem of 'prayer bullying' in schools by religious students trained and unleashed on the student body by off-campus ministries."

Ron Barrier, National Spokesman for American Atheists, said that the new Department of Education regulations ignore Supreme court decisions the Bush administration does not agree with. "The court has struck down the bogus practice of so-called 'student led' prayer at high school football games and other athletic events," said Mr. Barrier. "And it is still highly questionable whether 'student led' prayer or other religious choreography  at official school ceremonies pass constitutional muster."

"With 350,000 churches, temples and other houses of worship in this country, religious groups have plenty of opportunity to practice their faith," added Mr. Barrier. "The push for religious expression in public schools is due to the fact that religious groups insist on turning our public schools not only into supernatural recruiting grounds, but religious battlefields also."

More about the new DOE guidelines can be found at http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/prayer30.htm 

Also available from American Atheists:
"Atheists Rights and Religious Expression In The Public Schools"

American Atheists is a nationwide movement which defends the civil rights of nonbelievers, works for the separation of church and state, and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.
 http://www.atheist.org
 http://www.americanatheist.org
P.O. Box 5733 - Parsippany, NJ  
(908) 276-7300

For more information, please contact:
Ellen Johnson, President   (973) 334-5110
Ron Barrier, Nat'l. Spokesman  (718) 967-6453

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Attention: Jeanette Lim
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20202

The SEA's submission should describe what investigation or enforcement action the SEA has initiated with respect to each listed LEA and the status of the investigation or action. The SEA should not send the LEA certifications to the Secretary, but should maintain these records in accordance with its usual records retention policy.

Enforcement of Section 9524

LEAs are required to file the certification as a condition of receiving funds under the ESEA. If an LEA fails to file the required certification, or files it in bad faith, the SEA should ensure compliance in accordance with its regular enforcement procedures. The Secretary considers an LEA to have filed a certification in bad faith if the LEA files the certification even though it has a policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools as set forth in this guidance.

The General Education Provisions Act ("GEPA") authorizes the Secretary to bring enforcement actions against recipients of Federal education funds that are not in compliance with the law. Such measures may include withholding funds until the recipient comes into compliance. Section 9524 provides the Secretary with specific authority to issue and enforce orders with respect to an LEA that fails to provide the required certification to its SEA or files the certification in bad faith.

Overview of Governing Constitutional Principles

The relationship between religion and government in the United States is governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which both prevents the government from establishing religion and protects privately initiated religious expression and activities from government interference and discrimination. [ 1 ] The First Amendment thus establishes certain limits on the conduct of public school officials as it relates to religious activity, including prayer.

The legal rules that govern the issue of constitutionally protected prayer in the public schools are similar to those that govern religious expression generally. Thus, in discussing the operation of Section 9524 of the ESEA, this guidance sometimes speaks in terms of "religious expression." There are a variety of issues relating to religion in the public schools, however, that this guidance is not intended to address.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. [ 2 ] Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." [ 3 ]

The Supreme Court's decisions over the past forty years set forth principles that distinguish impermissible governmental religious speech from the constitutionally protected private religious speech of students. For example, teachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible, or other religious activities. [ 4 ] Nor may school officials attempt to persuade or compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities. [ 5 ] Such conduct is "attributable to the State" and thus violates the Establishment Clause. [ 6 ]

Similarly, public school officials may not themselves decide that prayer should be included in school-sponsored events. In Lee v. Weisman [ 7 ], for example, the Supreme Court held that public school officials violated the Constitution in inviting a member of the clergy to deliver a prayer at a graduation ceremony. Nor may school officials grant religious speakers preferential access to public audiences, or otherwise select public speakers on a basis that favors religious speech. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe [ 8 ], for example, the Court invalidated a school's football game speaker policy on the ground that it was designed by school officials to result in pregame prayer, thus favoring religious expression over secular expression.

Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," [ 9 ] and the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." [ 10 ] Moreover, not all religious speech that takes place in the public schools or at school-sponsored events is governmental speech. [ 11 ] For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," [ 12 ] and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Likewise, local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, [ 13 ] but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against student prayer or religious speech. For instance, where schools permit student expression on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria and students retain primary control over the content of their expression, the speech of students who choose to express themselves through religious means such as prayer is not attributable to the state and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content. [ 14 ] Student remarks are not attributable to the state simply because they are delivered in a public setting or to a public audience. [ 15 ] As the Supreme Court has explained: "The proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated," [ 16 ] and the Constitution mandates neutrality rather than hostility toward privately initiated religious expression. [ 17 ]

Applying Governing Principles in Particular Contexts

Prayer During Noninstructional Time

Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.

Organized Prayer Groups and Activities

Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, and "see you at the pole" gatherings before school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities groups. Such groups must be given the same access to school facilities for assembling as is given to other non-curricular groups, without discrimination because of the religious content of their expression. School authorities possess substantial discretion concerning whether to permit the use of school media for student advertising or announcements regarding non-curricular activities. However, where student groups that meet for nonreligious activities are permitted to advertise or announce their meetings—for example, by advertising in a student newspaper, making announcements on a student activities bulletin board or public address system, or handing out leaflets—school authorities may not discriminate against groups who meet to pray. School authorities may disclaim sponsorship of non-curricular groups and events, provided they administer such disclaimers in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.

Teachers, Administrators, and other School Employees

When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students. Teachers may, however, take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities. Before school or during lunch, for example, teachers may meet with other teachers for prayer or Bible study to the same extent that they may engage in other conversation or nonreligious activities. Similarly, teachers may participate in their personal capacities in privately sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies.

Moments of Silence

If a school has a "minute of silence" or other quiet periods during the school day, students are free to pray silently, or not to pray, during these periods of time. Teachers and other school employees may neither encourage nor discourage students from praying during such time periods.

Accommodation of Prayer During Instructional Time

It has long been established that schools have the discretion to dismiss students to off-premises religious instruction, provided that schools do not encourage or discourage participation in such instruction or penalize students for attending or not attending. Similarly, schools may excuse students from class to remove a significant burden on their religious exercise, where doing so would not impose material burdens on other students. For example, it would be lawful for schools to excuse Muslim students briefly from class to enable them to fulfill their religious obligations to pray during Ramadan.

Where school officials have a practice of excusing students from class on the basis of parents' requests for accommodation of nonreligious needs, religiously motivated requests for excusal may not be accorded less favorable treatment. In addition, in some circumstances, based on federal or state constitutional law or pursuant to state statutes, schools may be required to make accommodations that relieve substantial burdens on students' religious exercise. Schools officials are therefore encouraged to consult with their attorneys regarding such obligations.

Religious Expression and Prayer in Class Assignments

Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school. Thus, if a teacher's assignment involves writing a poem, the work of a student who submits a poem in the form of a prayer (for example, a psalm) should be judged on the basis of academic standards (such as literary quality) and neither penalized nor rewarded on account of its religious content.

Student Assemblies and Extracurricular Events

Student speakers at student assemblies and extracurricular activities such as sporting events may not be selected on a basis that either favors or disfavors religious speech. Where student speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. By contrast, where school officials determine or substantially control the content of what is expressed, such speech is attributable to the school and may not include prayer or other specifically religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker's and not the school's.

Prayer at Graduation

School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech such as prayer. Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker's and not the school's.

Baccalaureate Ceremonies

School officials may not mandate or organize religious ceremonies. However, if a school makes its facilities and related services available to other private groups, it must make its facilities and services available on the same terms to organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate ceremonies. In addition, a school may disclaim official endorsement of events sponsored by private groups, provided it does so in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.

Notes:

[ 1 ] The relevant portions of the First Amendment provide: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . . ." U.S. Const. amend. I. The Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes these provisions applicable to all levels of government—federal, state, and local—and to all types of governmental policies and activities. See Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). 

[ 2 ] See, e.g., Everson, 330 U.S. at 18 (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them"); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001). 

[ 3 ] Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302 (2000) (quoting Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (plurality opinion)); accord Rosenberger v. Rector of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 841 (1995). 

[ 4 ] Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (invalidating state laws directing the use of prayer in public schools); School Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) (invalidating state laws and policies requiring public schools to begin the school day with Bible readings and prayer); Mergens, 496 U.S. at 252 (plurality opinion) (explaining that "a school may not itself lead or direct a religious club"). The Supreme Court has also held, however, that the study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education (e.g., in history or literature classes), is consistent with the First Amendment. See Schempp, 374 U.S. at 225. 

[ 5 ] See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 599 (1992); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985). 

[ 6 ] See Weisman, 505 U.S. at 587. 

[ 7 ] 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

[ 8 ] 530 U.S. 290 (2000). 

[ 9 ] Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). 

[ 10 ] Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995). 

[ 11 ] Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 302 (explaining that "not every message" that is "authorized by a government policy and take[s] place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events" is "the government's own"). 

[ 12 ] Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 313. 

[ 13 ] For example, the First Amendment permits public school officials to review student speeches for vulgarity, lewdness, or sexually explicit language. Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 683-86 (1986). Without more, however, such review does not make student speech attributable to the state.

[ 14 ] Rosenberger v. Rector of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995); Board of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981); Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 304 n.15. In addition, in circumstances where students are entitled to pray, public schools may not restrict or censor their prayers on the ground that they might be deemed "too religious" to others. The Establishment Clause prohibits state officials from making judgments about what constitutes an appropriate prayer, and from favoring or disfavoring certain types of prayers—be they "nonsectarian" and "nonproselytizing" or the opposite — over others. See Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 429-30 (1962) (explaining that "one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lay in the Government's placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services," that "neither the power nor the prestige" of state officials may "be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say," and that the state is "without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer"); Weisman, 505 U.S. at 594. 

[ 15 ] Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 302; Mergens, 496 U.S. at 248-50. 

[ 16 ] Mergens, 496 U.S. at 250 (plurality opinion); id. at 260-61 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and in judgment). 

[ 17 ] Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 845-46; Mergens, 496 U.S. at 248 (plurality opinion); id. at 260-61 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and in judgment). 

This regulatory document can be found at: 
http://www.ed.gov/inits/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html
This page last modified—February 20, 2003 

[I contacted the family. Here's their response: 

"As a matter of fact the UU churches in the area are already offering their support and help !!!  We thought we were going to be all alone in this and instead we've been receiving sooooo much Love !!

Keep in touch and thanx,

With Love and Laughter,
Sarajane Tracy]

Pagan Conservatives Respond
to Issues Raised by Prayer Bullying in Union County, TN 
By D'Arcy Matson

Pagans are politically and economically diverse, so when a Pagan Conservative message board discussed this case, their perspectives are interestingly different.

One said that they didn't mind that the kids went to this rally but what happened to the girl should not have been tolerated at all.
Another said that although zero tolerance definitely applies in this place, they have a slight problem with usage of common sense when applying zero tolerance to much lesser situations.

I find it extremely frustrating that people are still so intolerant when it comes to differences in religion and spirituality (or lack thereof), race, and gender. 

The school is saying they neither condone or oppose (I don't remember the exact words) this rally. Hmm, are they sending field trip permission slips home with the kids for their parents to sign? I'm pretty sure they are, and they probably have a little more advertisement on them then just your run of the mill "my child has permission to attend this fieldtrip" on them. This, to me, would be a form of advertisement, which means they not only condone it but they support it.

No, they don't pay for the buses, but you can bet they called to reserve these buses and got a good deal on the cost. I would say that's condoning it.

The kids get an excused absence for this two hour time period during these three days. Sounds pretty supportive to me.

Then I believe they made another oops. What happened to that girl, either they "weren't aware of it" or "it didn't happen." Well folks, which one is it? If they weren't aware of it, who dropped the ball? She said she told someone in authority. It didn't happen? I'm sure whoever said that has kept an eagle eye on that girl that they know what happens minute by minute in that school. Right.

My question here though, is, were the parents being advocates for their daughter when all this was happening? If they weren't able to advocate for her, for whatever reason, did they have a support group so someone else could have advocated and maybe enlightened the school board on some diversity issues? (Personally, my advocating would be more like a Mama bear enlightening someone who's doing harm to her cubs.) [Editor's note: Since the battering, at least, the mother contacted the local UUs who are now a support group for her and her daughter.] Do these people only single out Pagans, or are they the same way with Muslims, Jews, etc.?

Everybody has opinions, be it on religion or whatnot. And they do have a right to voice their opinions, that is in the constitution. But, when the opinions become threats, and the threats become physically harmful.... that is assault and battery, and assault and battery are criminal acts! And isn't a person that knowingly stands by and allows it to happen considered to be an accomplice? If kids today are not taught this by parents, peers, teachers, standers-by, whoever....this will not only continue, it will escalate. At 2-10 years of age we can tell them, "hitting is not ok." After that age, they need to know that it is not only "not ok" it is assault and a really hard way to learn about the court and legal system, and "time out" is now served with a bunch of really scary people that would love nothing better than to.... well, now I'm rambling.

Maybe it's time Pagans should barrage the Family, Children and Happy Place administration with an onslaught of letters, emails, etc. letting them know that we are Proud, we are Pagans, our children are in your (our) schools and we are not going to "fly silently into the night." It is time for them to act accordingly. We pay education taxes (and the levees), too. Talk about your Pagan Unity Campaign!

Sex Education

PLEDGING "under God"

Supreme Court hearing arguments on requiring teachers to lead willing students to pledge "under God"

In February 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the recitation of the Pledge with the words "under God" in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (see below).

The parties have been asked to brief this issue as well as to address an issue of legal standing. Michael Newdow, the parent who objects to his daughter's school policy of requiring the daily recitation of the Pledge, is not married to his daughter's mother, Sandra Banning, who had sole legal custody of the child at the time of the Ninth Circuit's rulings. Banning has said that she supports the school's Pledge policy. Because of the custody status, there is some question as to whether the father has a sufficient standing (stake in the outcome) to bring the case.

Briefs on the Merits

Petitioner Elk Grove Unified School District and David W. Gordon
United States in support of petitioner (PDF)

Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioner

American Legion (PDF)
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and Thomas More Law Center (PDF)
Center for Individual Freedom (PDF)
Christian Legal Society, et al. (PDF)
Citizens United Foundation (PDF)
Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Common Good Foundation, et al. (PDF)
Dirk Kempthorne, et al. (PDF)
Focus on the Family, Family Research Council and Alliance Defense Fund
George Allen, et al. (PDF)
Grassfire.Net and Hundreds of Thousands of Americans (PDF)
Institute in Basic Life Principles, Faith and Action, et al.
Joseph R. Grodin
Liberty Counsel, WallBuilders, and William J. Federer (PDF)
Knights of Columbus (PDF)
National Education Association (PDF)
National Jewish Commission on Law & Public Affairs (PDF)
National Lawyers Association Foundation
National School Boards Association (PDF)
Pacific Justice Institute (PDF)
Pacific Research Institute and Pacific Legal Foundation (PDF)
Rutherford Institute (PDF)
Texas, et al. (PDF)
Thurston Greene
United States Senate

Cert Briefs

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: Elk Grove School District (PDF)
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: Solicitor General (PDF)
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: Michael A. Newdow (PDF)
Brief in Opposition: Michael A. Newdow (PDF)
Reply Brief: Elk Grove School District (PDF)
Reply Brief: Solicitor General (PDF)

Other Resources

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Amended Opinion in Newdow v. U.S. Congress (PDF)
United States Supreme Court Docket

Articles, Editorials and Op-Eds on the Pledge Case

"Supreme Court to Hear Pledge of Allegiance Case March 24", Sacramento Bee, January 12, 2004
"An Allegiance to Dissent," The Washington Post, December 2, 2003
"Pious and Atheists, Take Note," USA Today, November 3, 2003
"Pledge of Allegiance: Original author left out mention of God," Grand Forks Herald, October 22, 2003
"Pledge of Allegiance Comes Before the Court," The Miami Herald, October 21, 2003
"Much Ado About Two Words," The Sarasota Herald-Tribune, October 20, 2003
"Parsing the Pledge," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 20, 2003
"One Atheist, Underwhelmed," The Washington Post, October 19, 2003
"Take the Pledge Out of the Cold War Chest," Newsday, October 16, 2003
"The Right Call on ‘Under God,'" The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 16, 2003

Articles on Justice Scalia

"Intellectual Capital: Well, Recuse Me!" Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Monday, October 27, 2003
"Religious Freedom Praised" (coverage of Scalia's comments at the January 2003 Religious Freedom Day Observance in Fredericksburg, Va.), The Free Lance-Star, January 13, 2003
"Is Scalia Too Blunt To be Effective?" The Washington Post, October 17, 2003
"Controversial Remarks Leave Scalia out of Religion Case," The Arizona Daily Sun, October 20, 2003

Proposed initiative would put Bibles in California public schools
 

January 6, 2004

There's an effort afoot to amend the California constitution to make California school systems give King James Bibles to every public school student, unless parents specifically filed an objection. These Bibles would then be used as textbooks in literature classes "without devotional or denominational purpose." 

If Matt McLaughlin collects 598,105 valid signatures by May 24, voters would then decide whether to amend the state's constitution authorizing the voluntary use of the Authorized or King James Version Bibles for classes in elementary, middle and high schools. This will cost the state and local school district about $200 million,.

McLaughlin, an attorney from Huntington Beach, claims to be chair of a group composed mostly of friends and family. He denied that the group was sponsored by any religious organization.

Is the average school teacher qualified to teach the Bible as literature to children grades 1-12?  Do they understand how to do so without representing the Bible as a devotion or denominational instruction? This is normally taught at the college level. Could the average high school student grasp the distinction?  How about the average first grader?

For more information, visit  www.kingjamestextbook.com

 

Supreme Court hearing arguments on requiring teachers to lead willing students to pledge "under God"

Press Release from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

Under God?  The Pledge of Allegiance Debate

The transcript from the Pew Forum's recent event, "Under God? A Discussion of the Constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, " is now available online. Featured speakers were Doug Laycock (Counsel of Record for 32 Christian and Jewish clergy, urging the Court to affirm the 9th Circuit's ruling) and Jay Alan Sekulow (Counsel of Record for United States Senators and Congressmen and the Committee to Protect the Pledge, urging the Court to reverse the 9th Circuit's ruling). E.J. Dionne Jr. moderated the discussion, and respondent Michael Newdow contributed comments.

The Pledge case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, was argued before the Supreme
Court [March 24, 2004]. The Associated Press's coverage of the oral argument is available on the Forum's site, as are a Pew Forum resource page and a non-partisan backgrounder (in pdf).

In February 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the recitation of the Pledge with the words "under God" in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (see below).

The parties have been asked to brief this issue as well as to address an issue of legal standing. Michael Newdow, the parent who objects to his daughter's school policy of requiring the daily recitation of the Pledge, is not married to his daughter's mother, Sandra Banning, who had sole legal custody of the child at the time of the Ninth Circuit's rulings. Banning has said that she supports the school's Pledge policy. Because of the custody status, there is some question as to whether the father has a sufficient standing (stake in the outcome) to bring the case.

Briefs on the Merits

Petitioner Elk Grove Unified School District and David W. Gordon
United States in support of petitioner (PDF)

Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioner

American Legion (PDF)
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and Thomas More Law Center (PDF)
Center for Individual Freedom (PDF)
Christian Legal Society, et al. (PDF)
Citizens United Foundation (PDF)
Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Common Good Foundation, et al. (PDF)
Dirk Kempthorne, et al. (PDF)
Focus on the Family, Family Research Council and Alliance Defense Fund
George Allen, et al. (PDF)
Grassfire.Net and Hundreds of Thousands of Americans (PDF)
Institute in Basic Life Principles, Faith and Action, et al.
Joseph R. Grodin
Liberty Counsel, WallBuilders, and William J. Federer (PDF)
Knights of Columbus (PDF)
National Education Association (PDF)
National Jewish Commission on Law & Public Affairs (PDF)
National Lawyers Association Foundation
National School Boards Association (PDF)
Pacific Justice Institute (PDF)
Pacific Research Institute and Pacific Legal Foundation (PDF)
Rutherford Institute (PDF)
Texas, et al. (PDF)
Thurston Greene
United States Senate

Cert Briefs

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: Elk Grove School District (PDF)
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: Solicitor General (PDF)
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: Michael A. Newdow (PDF)
Brief in Opposition: Michael A. Newdow (PDF)
Reply Brief: Elk Grove School District (PDF)
Reply Brief: Solicitor General (PDF)

Other Resources

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Amended Opinion in Newdow v. U.S. Congress (PDF)
United States Supreme Court Docket

Articles, Editorials and Op-Eds on the Pledge Case

"Supreme Court to Hear Pledge of Allegiance Case March 24", Sacramento Bee, January 12, 2004
"An Allegiance to Dissent," The Washington Post, December 2, 2003
"Pious and Atheists, Take Note," USA Today, November 3, 2003
"Pledge of Allegiance: Original author left out mention of God," Grand Forks Herald, October 22, 2003
"Pledge of Allegiance Comes Before the Court," The Miami Herald, October 21, 2003
"Much Ado About Two Words," The Sarasota Herald-Tribune, October 20, 2003
"Parsing the Pledge," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 20, 2003
"One Atheist, Underwhelmed," The Washington Post, October 19, 2003
"Take the Pledge Out of the Cold War Chest," Newsday, October 16, 2003
"The Right Call on ‘Under God,'" The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 16, 2003

Articles on Justice Scalia

"Intellectual Capital: Well, Recuse Me!" Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Monday, October 27, 2003
"Religious Freedom Praised" (coverage of Scalia's comments at the January 2003 Religious Freedom Day Observance in Fredericksburg, Va.), The Free Lance-Star, January 13, 2003
"Is Scalia Too Blunt To be Effective?" The Washington Post, October 17, 2003
"Controversial Remarks Leave Scalia out of Religion Case," The Arizona Daily Sun, October 20, 2003

Press Release from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
Under God?  The Pledge of Allegiance Debate

The transcript from the Pew Forum's recent event, "Under God? A Discussion of the Constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, " is now available online. Featured speakers were Doug Laycock (Counsel of Record for 32 Christian and Jewish clergy, urging the Court to affirm the 9th Circuit's ruling) and Jay Alan Sekulow (Counsel of Record for United States Senators and Congressmen and the Committee to Protect the Pledge, urging the Court to reverse the 9th Circuit's ruling). E.J. Dionne Jr. moderated the discussion, and respondent Michael Newdow contributed comments.

The Pledge case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, was argued before the Supreme
Court [March 24, 2004]. The Associated Press's coverage of the oral argument is available on the Forum's site, as are a Pew Forum resource page and a non-partisan backgrounder (in pdf).

ATHEISTS HAIL 9th CIRCUIT DECISION ON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CASE
FEB. 28, 2003

Press Release from AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.

American Atheists, a nationwide First Amendment watchdog group, applauded the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for denying a motion to rehear and overturn its earlier decision which found the "under God' portion of the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional.

Last June, in a lawsuit brought by California Atheist Michael Newdow, the court panel ruled 2-1 that Newdow's daughter should not be forced to recite or hear the words "under God" as part of a ritual at her public school.  That, ruled the justices, was government endorsement of religion.

"Today, a panel of the federal judiciary is taking a clear and principled stand on behalf of the separation of church and state, and civil rights for Atheists and other nonbelievers," said Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists.  "We especially appreciate the courts reasoning in rejecting arguments that public reactions to a particular case should be factored in when judging the merits of another hearing."

Ron Barrier, Communications Director for American Atheists, said that the Pledge of Allegiance should be "free of religious proselytizing and endorsement" -- as it was originally meant to be.

"The original Pledge didn't mention a deity; and government has no business telling anyone, including youngsters, that their patriotism is somehow tied to public professions of religious belief."

Barrier added that if the Bush administration seeks to keep the case alive by demanding a hearing in front of the Supreme Court, "it is squandering public tax money on behalf of sectarian religion."

"The Pledge should be something that brings Americans together, and doesn't divide us on the basis of religious belief or disbelief," said Mr. Barrier

(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for nonbelievers, works for the total separation of church and state, and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.)

http://www.atheists.org 
http://www.americanatheist.org 

Tract Wars:
The Radical Right's Propaganda Aimed at Youth
 

'Evolution' Back in Georgia School Curriculum
By Christa Landon

Georgia State Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox apologized for taking the word "evolution" out of Georgia's science middle and high school curricula. Critics included  the National Science Teachers Association, Gov. Sonny Perdue and former President Jimmy Carter, who said he was embarrassed for Georgia. Cox said she would recommend its restoration and claims that she had removed the word in an effort to AVOID controversey. 

But she did not commit to reinstating other deleted national teaching standards in the biology
curriculum, which scientists say are needed if Georgia students are to fully understand evolution. Good science requires more than merely replacing "biological changes over time" with the word, "evolution." 

Cox seems to advocate the teaching of "intelligent design," an idea that life came about through a planned sequence by a higher being, which dates from XIIIth century science. Intelligent design is code for "creationism."

Over the past year an advisory panel of teachers and scientists have been revising the state science standards and had recommended that evolution be taught thoroughly, in accordance with national teaching standards prepared by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

Cox deleted

> the word "evolution;"  
> a detailed explanation of natural selection --- how organisms with inherited
    advantages are more likely to survive and reproduce;
>"Life on Earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4
     billion years ago.   During the first 2 billion years, only single-cell microorganisms
     existed, but once cells with nuclei developed about a billion years ago, increasingly
     complex multicellular organisms evolved."

Cox's curriculum does not specify that Georgia teachers will discuss "intelligent design," which last week Cox called an alternative "scientific theory," or any other view of the origin of life; but comments about "intelligent design, about balance, and alternate theories"  seem to allow public school teachers to introduce other ideas to explain the evolution of living things.

Original story: February 6, 9, 2004 - The Atlanta-Journal Constitution

"Superintendent says her 'effort to avoid controversy' backfired"
By Mary MacDonald , with Patti Ghezzi and Dana Tofig 

http://www.ajc.com/print/content/epaper/editions/today/news_043254a734b8617100df.html

Teaching ABOUT religion is permitted in public schools, but drawing the line between academic teaching ABOUT religion and devotional teaching OF religion is problematic, especially since teachers are rarely trained to make such distinctions themselves. Such study is normally done at collegiate or graduate level, normally preceded by learning about religions utterly foreign to the community.

The 1995 Education Department guidelines state: "Public schools may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about religion, including the Bible or other scripture: the history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature, and the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries all are permissible public school subjects. Similarly, it is permissible to consider religious influences on art, music, literature, and social studies. Although public schools may teach about religious holidays, including their religious aspects, and may celebrate the secular aspects of holidays, schools may not observe holidays as religious events or promote such observance by students."

The test case came in 2002, when a role-playing course about Islam was held in a 7th grade class. Students took on Muslim names, acted out Islamic religious rituals and dressed up in traditional Muslim outfits. Parents sued Byron Union School District near Oakland, California, alleging that a role-playing exercise violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The case is still pending

Teachers are naturally concerned about how to develop curriculum which keeps within constitutional bounds.
ADL teaching about religion
Freedom Forum First Amendment Center
Religion and Public Education Resource Center
Teaching about Religion with a View to Diversity
TeacherServ from National Humanities Center

Pagan ACTIVIST News

PEACE Activism

TOOLS for Activists

Legal Rights Hub

Religious Liberties LAW

Discrimination in Employment

Religious Discrimination
& Child Custody
under construction

Libraries & Censorship