Editing Pledge of Allegiance (section)

== Controversy ==
{{Main|Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance}}
In 1940, the [[Supreme Court (United States)|Supreme Court]], in ''[[Minersville School District v. Gobitis]]'', ruled that students in public schools, including the respondents in that case—[[Jehovah's Witnesses]] who considered the flag salute to be [[idolatry]]—could be compelled to swear the Pledge. In 1943, in ''[[West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette]]'', the Supreme Court reversed its decision. Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]], writing for the 6 to 3 majority, went beyond simply ruling in the precise matter presented by the case to say that public school students are not required to say the Pledge on narrow grounds, and asserted that such ideological dogmata are antithetical to the principles of the country, concluding with:

{{Blockquote|If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.<ref>{{cite court |litigants =West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette|vol=319 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=624 |pinpoint=642 |court=U.S. Supreme Court |date=1943}}</ref>}}

In 2004, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|11th Circuit Court of Appeals]] held that students are also not required to stand for the Pledge.<ref name="SittingIsSpeech">{{cite court |litigants =Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland |vol=370 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1252 |pinpoint= |court=11th Cir. |date=2004 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5852851742040988222 }}</ref>

[[File:JapaneseAmericansChildrenPledgingAllegiance1942-2.jpg|thumb|First graders of Japanese ancestry pledging allegiance to the American flag (1942, photo by [[Dorothea Lange]])]]
Requiring or promoting of the Pledge on the part of the government has continued to draw criticism and legal challenges on several grounds.

One objection is that a constitutional republic built on freedom of [[dissent]] should not require its citizens to pledge allegiance to it, and that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] protects the right to refrain from speaking or standing, which itself is also a form of speech in the context of the ritual of pledging allegiance.<ref>''Lane v. Owens''; 03-B-1544, United States District Court, District of Colorado</ref><ref name="SittingIsSpeech" /> Another objection is that the people who are most likely to recite the Pledge every day, small children in schools, cannot really give their consent or even completely understand the Pledge they are making.<ref name="NJR">{{cite news |last1=Robinson |first1=Nathan J. |title=I can't believe they still make students recite the Pledge of Allegiance |url=https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2018/06/i-cant-believe-they-still-make-students-recite-the-pledge-of-allegiance |access-date=March 8, 2019 |work=[[Current Affairs (magazine)|Current Affairs]] |date=June 25, 2018 |archive-date=March 19, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190319145217/https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/i-cant-believe-they-still-make-students-recite-the-pledge-of-allegiance |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Olander |first=Herbert T.|title=Children's Knowledge of the Flag Salute |journal=The Journal of Educational Research |date=December 1941 |volume=35| pages=300–305|issue=4|jstor=27528245|doi=10.1080/00220671.1941.10881086}}</ref> Another criticism is the belief that a government requiring or promoting the phrase "under God" violates protections against the [[establishment of religion]] guaranteed in the [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment]].<ref name="Katu1">{{cite news |url=http://www.katu.com/news/national/87374952.html |agency=Associated Press |date=March 11, 2010 |access-date=March 11, 2010 |title=Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100316214405/http://www.katu.com/news/national/87374952.html |archive-date=March 16, 2010 }}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201205/the-dangerous-fallacy-ceremonial-deism|title=The Dangerous Fallacy of Ceremonial Deism: Governmental religious expressions are not harmless |magazine=Psychology Today|date=May 24, 2012 }}</ref>

In 2004, linguist [[Geoffrey Nunberg]] said the original supporters of the addition thought that they were simply quoting Lincoln's [[Gettysburg Address]], but to Lincoln and his contemporaries, "under God" meant "God willing", so they would have found its use in the Pledge of Allegiance grammatically incorrect and semantically odd.<ref name="LLog1">{{cite web |url=http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001089.html |first=Geoffrey |last=Nunberg |date=June 20, 2004 |access-date=May 3, 2007 |title=I Might Have Guessed Parson Weems Would Figure In There Somewhere |website=[[Language Log]] |author-link=Geoffrey Nunberg |archive-date=April 26, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070426021146/http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001089.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Llog2">{{cite web |url=http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001090.html |first=Geoffrey |last=Nunberg |date=June 20, 2004 |access-date=May 3, 2007 |title="(Next) Under God," Phrasal Idiom |website=[[Language Log]] |author-link=Geoffrey Nunberg |archive-date=April 26, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070426025531/http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/001090.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

In popular culture, the pledge has been mocked or altered by several movies and television series including, but not limited to, [[the Simpsons]]' inscription above the Springfield county courthouse's door of "Liberty and Justice for Most", first appearing in the [[Krusty Gets Busted |twelfth episode of the series]] in 1990.

=== Legal challenges ===
Prominent legal challenges were brought in the 1930s and 1940s by [[Jehovah's Witnesses]], a denomination whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power other than God, and who objected to policies in public schools requiring students to swear an oath to the flag.<ref>[https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993016#h=42-47 ''Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom'', Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1993, pp. 196–197] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200616161314/https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993016#h=42-47 |date=June 16, 2020 }}.</ref> They said requiring the pledge violated their [[freedom of religion]] guaranteed by the [[Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment]]. The first case was in 1935, when two children, [[Minersville School District v. Gobitis|Lillian and William Gobitis]], ages ten and twelve, were expelled from the [[Minersville, Pennsylvania]], public schools that year for failing to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Rosenberg |first1=Ian |title=The Fight for Free Speech: Ten Cases That Define Our First Amendment Freedoms |date=2021 |publisher=NYU Press |location=New York |isbn=978-1479801565}}</ref> The issue was finally settled in favor of the Witnesses by the 1943 Supreme Court ruling, ''[[West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette]]''.

In a 2002 case brought by atheist [[Michael Newdow]], whose daughter was being taught the Pledge in school, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] ruled the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism when the Pledge was promoted in public school. In 2004, the [[Supreme Court (United States)|Supreme Court]] heard ''[[Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow]]'', an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school-sponsored recitation. On January 3, 2005, a new suit was filed in the [[U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California]] on behalf of three unnamed families. On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge [[Lawrence Karlton]] ruled in their favor. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an order stating that, upon proper motion, he would enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God."<ref name=Kraveats2005>{{Citation |url=http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/religion.cfm?ArticleID=2273 |title=Federal judge rules Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional |first=David |last= Kravets |date=September 16, 2005 |access-date = March 31, 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060111132924/http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/religion.cfm?ArticleID=2273 |archive-date = January 11, 2006 |newspaper= [[The Chicago Defender]] }}</ref>

In 2006, in the Florida case ''Frazier v. Alexandre'', a federal district court in Florida ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First]] and [[Fourteenth Amendment (United States)|Fourteenth Amendments]] of the U.S. Constitution.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Frazier v. Alexandre |vol=434 |reporter=F.Supp.2d |opinion=1350 |pinpoint= |court=S.D. Fla. |date=May 31, 2006 |url=http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Legal%20PDfs/Frazier.pdf }}</ref> As a result of that decision, a Florida school district was ordered to pay $32,500 to a student who chose not to say the pledge and was ridiculed and called "unpatriotic" by a teacher.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nsba.org/MainMenu/SchoolLaw/Issues/StudentRights/RecentCases/FraziervAlexandreNo0581142SDFlaMay312006.aspx |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110315120026/http://www.nsba.org/MainMenu/SchoolLaw/Issues/StudentRights/RecentCases/FraziervAlexandreNo0581142SDFlaMay312006.aspx |archive-date=March 15, 2011 |title=Frazier v. Alexandre, No. 05-81142 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006) |date=March 15, 2011 |publisher=[[National School Boards Association]]}}</ref>

In 2009, a [[Montgomery County, Maryland]], teacher berated and had school police remove a 13-year-old girl who refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom. The student's mother, assisted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, sought and received an apology from the teacher, as state law and the school's student handbook both prohibit students from being forced to recite the Pledge.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022303889.html |title=Pledge of Allegiance dispute results in Md. teacher having to apologize |last=Johnson |first=Jenna |date=February 24, 2010 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=February 25, 2010 |archive-date=August 5, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110805063311/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022303889.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

On March 11, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of ''Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District''.<ref name="Chea">{{cite web|url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j81tOd_mKmXaTFAGfXyGHHUbRloQD9ED0HJO0 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100315150650/https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j81tOd_mKmXaTFAGfXyGHHUbRloQD9ED0HJO0 |archive-date=March 15, 2010|title=Fed. appeals court upholds 'under God' in pledge|last=Chea|first=Terence|date=March 12, 2010|publisher=Associated Press |access-date=March 12, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants =Newdow vs. Rio Linda Union School District |vol= |reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint= |court=9th Cir. |date =March 12, 2010 |url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf}}</ref> In a 2–1 decision, the appellate court ruled that the words were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and did not constitute an establishment of religion.<ref name="Chea" /> Judge [[Stephen Reinhardt]] dissented, writing that "the state-directed, teacher-led daily recitation in public schools of the amended 'under God' version of the Pledge of Allegiance... violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution."<ref name="latimesappellatecourtruling">{{cite news |url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/12/local/la-me-pledge12-2010mar12/2 |title=Pledge of Allegiance's God reference now upheld by court |date=March 12, 2010 |newspaper=LA Times |access-date=January 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110116223228/http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/12/local/la-me-pledge12-2010mar12/2 |archive-date=January 16, 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

On November 12, 2010, in a unanimous decision, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]] in Boston affirmed a ruling by a New Hampshire lower federal court which found that the pledge's reference to God does not violate non-pledging students' rights if student participation in the pledge is voluntary.<ref>{{cite court |litigants =Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Hanover School District |court=1st Cir. |opinion= |date=November 12, 2010 |url= http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-2473P-01A.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110429035804/http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-2473P-01A.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date= April 29, 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Court OKs NH law allowing 'God' pledge in schools |first=Denise |last=Lavoie |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/15/court_upholds_nh_law_allowing_pledge_in_school |newspaper=The Boston Globe |publisher=Christopher M. Mayer |location=Boston, MA |date=November 15, 2010 |access-date=November 16, 2010 |quote=The constitutionality of a New Hampshire law... |archive-date=November 19, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101119032620/http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/15/court_upholds_nh_law_allowing_pledge_in_school/ |url-status=live }}</ref> A [[United States Supreme Court]] appeal of this decision was denied on June 13, 2011.<ref>{{cite news |title=High court spurns atheist's 'under God' challenge |first=Bob |last=Egelko |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/15/BA261JTO2B.DTL |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |publisher=Hearst Corporation |location=San Francisco, CA |date=June 15, 2011 |quote=A Sacramento atheist's challenge to the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance...}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1214.htm |title=Freedom From Religion Foundation, Petitioner v. United States, et al. |author=Supreme Court of the United States |date=June 13, 2011 |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |access-date=June 15, 2011 |archive-date=September 4, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904064031/http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1214.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>

In September 2013, a case was brought before the [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]], arguing that the pledge violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the [[Constitution of Massachusetts]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/us/massachusetts-pledge-of-allegiance/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 |title='Under God' part of Pledge of Allegiance under review in Massachusetts |publisher=CNN.com |date=September 4, 2013 |access-date=October 23, 2013 |archive-date=November 5, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105145629/http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/us/massachusetts-pledge-of-allegiance/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 |url-status=live }}</ref> In May 2014, Massachusetts' highest court ruled that the pledge does not discriminate against [[Atheism in the United States|atheists]], saying that the words "under God" represent a patriotic, not a religious, exercise.<ref>{{Cite news|title = Massachusetts court rules 'under God' in pledge does not discriminate against atheists|url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/massachusetts-court-rules-under-god-in-pledge-does-not-discriminate-against-atheists/2014/05/09/62e93ca2-d7b8-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html|newspaper = The Washington Post|date = May 9, 2014|access-date = February 13, 2016|issn = 0190-8286|language = en-US|archive-date = April 25, 2015|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150425190422/http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/massachusetts-court-rules-under-god-in-pledge-does-not-discriminate-against-atheists/2014/05/09/62e93ca2-d7b8-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html|url-status = live}}</ref>

In February 2015 [[New Jersey Superior Court]] Judge [[David F. Bauman]] dismissed a lawsuit, ruling that "… the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the rights of those who don't believe in [[Religion in the United States|God]] and does not have to be removed from the patriotic message."<ref name=Spoto>{{cite web |url=http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/02/under_god_is_not_discriminatory_and_will_stay_in_p.html |title='Under God' is not discriminatory and will stay in pledge, judge says |website=NJ.com |date=February 7, 2015 |access-date=June 12, 2015 |archive-date=June 13, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150613232314/http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/02/under_god_is_not_discriminatory_and_will_stay_in_p.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The case against the [[Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District]] had been brought by a student of the district and the [[American Humanist Association]] that argued that the phrase "under God" in the pledge created a climate of discrimination because it promoted religion, making [[Irreligion|non-believers]] "second-class citizens." In a 21-page decision, Bauman wrote, "Under [the association members'] reasoning, the very constitution under which [the members] seek redress for perceived atheistic marginalization could itself be deemed unconstitutional, an absurd proposition which [association members] do not and cannot advance here."<ref name=Spoto/> Bauman said the student could skip the pledge, but upheld a New Jersey law that says pupils must recite the pledge unless they have "conscientious scruples" that do not allow it.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.northjersey.com/news/hearing-under-god-in-pledge-of-allegiance-does-not-violate-rights-of-atheist-students-nj-judge-rules-1.1332137|title=Hearing 'Under God' in Pledge of Allegiance does not violate rights of atheist students, NJ judge rules|first=Salvador|last=Rizzo|website=NorthJersey.com|access-date=February 29, 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310061721/http://www.northjersey.com/news/hearing-under-god-in-pledge-of-allegiance-does-not-violate-rights-of-atheist-students-nj-judge-rules-1.1332137|archive-date=March 10, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/maureensullivan/2015/02/07/judge-refuses-to-kick-god-out-of-public-schools/#11e06914435f|title=Judge Refuses To Kick God Out Of Public Schools|date=February 7, 2015|magazine=[[Forbes]]|access-date=February 29, 2016|archive-date=February 29, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160229082828/http://www.forbes.com/sites/maureensullivan/2015/02/07/judge-refuses-to-kick-god-out-of-public-schools/#11e06914435f|url-status=live}}</ref> He noted, "As a matter of historical tradition, the words 'under God' can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words '[[In God We Trust]]' from every coin in the land, than the words 'so help me God' from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787."