I am going to withhold my personal opinion on this matter, but I will say I have been expecting this kind of lawsuit to be filed by someone, somewhere. I am surprised it's taken this long.

I wonder if the school district is bound by contract to use specific attorney(s) to defend itself against this action or whether a pro bono offer from a qualified individual would be considered. (No, I don't have anyone in mind.)

The phrase 'under god' was added in 1954, at the height of the cold war, to contrast the US with the 'godless communists' of the USSR. The judges in various court cases since then have varied in their opinion about whether having this as a pledge in schools violates the separation of church & state. What I don't like about it is that it breaks the power of the previous phrasing: "one nation indivisible", with its echoes of our civil war heritage. I'd rather see the 'under god' phrase removed, but not being an atheist or a student, it doesn't impact me either way. It does seem to me that those that like to make group pledges to God have plenty of other opportunities to do so. School doesn't seem like the right place for it - it puts the teachers and school officials in the position of claiming the existence of a single deity that excludes believers in all other deities and excludes those who do not believe in any deity.

just heard it has cost the school district (& taxpayers) $10,000 in legal fees already. Surely, as parents this couple would share the view that this money would be better spent on our children than a frivolous law suit?

Intresting that you should mention money. You know, those pieces of paper that say "In God We Trust;?

This should be a simple, open-and-shut equal protection case. As Jim Snyder-Grant said, "under God" is a recent invention and has absolutely no place in a country with religious freedom in general and an Establishment Clause in particular. (Nor does "In God We Trust", incidentally.) Ironically, in the 1954 Pledge, "indivisible" comes right after the very divisive "under God." Anybody who thinks this lawsuit is frivolous should imagine their view on the matter if the Pledge instead said "under Allah" or "under Satan".

I think atheist families with children should also be able to pledge their allegiance to the flag, without that silly 'under god' part. It doesn't help that the kid is 'allowed' to not recite the pledge, cause maybe they are patriotic and want to be included in what it means to be an American, without being disingenuous about their belief in god.

The family is a bunch of cowards and Americans stand proud. Tell us your name if you are proud Americans.

Dave, cowards? Jessica Ahlquist in RI won a First Amendment civil rights case recently. She's been receiving death threats. It's a sad statement about Christians when someone has to fear for their and their family's lives because they stopped an unconstitutional act.
-- Scott

"Under God" is clearly unconstitutional. Most of us wouldn't bother to spend the time or money to challenge this, because we can ignore it, or it doesn't personally bother us.

But for this family, it is obviously a different story.

While $10,000 is a lot of money, the more important lesson here is that citizens can challenge the government and be heard. That is worth the expense.

I'll draw an analogy to OJ Simpson. We say "it is better to let 10 guilty people off the hook than to jail an innocent person."

It is better to spend $10,000 on "frivolous" lawsuits than to deny citizens the right to address what they see as unconstitutional laws.

It doesn't hurt their cause that they also happen to be correct.

I have recieved an education with these thoughtful comments. My first reaction was shock, since I am very "God" oriented. But I realize the depth of my feelings for my country or God is not in the slightest bit compromised by the words "under God" not being in the Pledge.
In my elementary years, there was no recognition or compassion for kids who were not Christian. Christmas was celebrated in the schools. Not being Christian, I felt at the young age of 6 that my school was a hostile place that did not care about me. I would hate for any child now to feel that way in their school.
It is very difficult for those who are "comfortable" with the status quo to understand the feelings of those who are different from them. It is an excersize in moral character to do so and well worth it.

I support the families right to challenge the pledge, but why name Acton as the defendant? It is a STATE law that the pledge will be presented in school. I don't think Acton can change or violate that law. Nor can Acton change the words of the national pledge (can they?). To sue a party that has little or no control over the issue being challenged seems like a waste of resources for all involved.

Hi Tom,

That's a great point and why we have professional lawyers. Their lawyer presumably reseached the law and felt this was the appropriate venue for their complaint. If the lawyer filed against the wrong party, shame on him.

But I am surprised at Superintendent Stephen Mills' reaction to this. "I would prefer to spend the money on textbooks."

Funny how people always mention funding for textbooks, as if Acton has a school funding problem. We just gave out over $1 million a year in raises to Acton teachers over three years. That is a total increase of $6 million in salaries over that period of time. Historically, teachers have been getting 6-9% annual raises. Why would Mills' be so concerned about $10k when he expresses no concern about large, unsustainable salary increases during our recession?

Protecting the rights of individuals to challenge the government is very important for democracy, even if it can sometimes be inconvenient.

It's hypocritical that atheists want to make changes like taking out the "under God" part of the pledge because they are, after all, trying to use the law to impose their religious beliefs on someone else. Atheism is a religion, after all, it's just that its a BELIEF system which has a god count of zero and, like any other religion, it is just as unprovable.

I agree with Tom W. who asked, above, why these people are targeting the town. They should be taking this to the state legislature or to Congress.

1) The United States of America is not a democracy. It is supposed to be and was founded as a Constitutional Republic. Simply recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It refers to our country as a Republic. The word democracy is not mentioned at all in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

2) No where in the Constitution does it say anything about separation of church and state. The phrase is derived from Thomas Jefferson's letter to a church in CT which he stated "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

3) One could recite it and realize that it does not ask anyone to pledge allegiance to any God, but the nation under God. So it could be interpreted differently to some folks.

4) I think it is hypocritical that one group feels they are being forced to recognize something by another group (although they could opt-out) yet they have no problem forcing everyone else to recognize their position. It's a dicey situation, but one that I personally feel is non-threatening and a complete waste of my hard earned tax money.

Incorrect, Sir.

1. The Amendments are part of the Constitution and they are interpreted by the Supreme Court. The First Amendment prohibits "the establishment of religion" and that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply to states and to prohibit promoting one religion over another.

So to say that "No where in the Constitution does it say anything about separation of church and state" would only be correct if the Supreme Court agreed, and they do not.

2. The Pledge concludes "with liberty and justice for all." I would propose that the plaintiffs in this lawsuit feel they are seeking "legal justice" in trying to control the power of the state. They are doing exactly what the pledge allows them to do!

Are you arguing that citizens do not have the right to challenge the government when "you personally" are not threatened or when "you" feel it is a waste of your "hard earned tax money"?

Let's say you had a grievance against the government that others did not share. Would you want people to pressure you into dropping it because your pursuit "costs them tax dollars"?

Would you have given such advice to women denied the right to vote or any number of groups since then with similar grievances?

Either we put up with the occasional lawsuit with which we may disagree, as the price we pay to have a free and open legal system, or we potentially limit all of our rights to challenge what we think is unjust (and unpopular to challenge).

Although there's the usual riff-raff of uninformed trolls, I'm proud of a lot of the commenters here. :)

I am sorry about the legal costs but glad this is getting raised. It has always perturbed me, feeling that it was language that didn't represent everyone's views. I like the "indivisible" alone. Hey, how about skip the legal costs and just agree and take the word out.

The Constitution allows for Freedom Of Religion - not freedom from religion. If you don't like the word 'God' - don't use it.
It's a travesty that so many in this country feel the automatic answer to their particular dilemma is to sue. We're the most litigious country on Earth and it's gotten far out of hand. It's time for judges to throw out these ridiculous lawsuits that have no merit. Are these children truly going to be scarred for life by hearing the Pledge with the word, 'God'? How will they ever survive the remainder of their lives if they ever hear that word in their day to day dealings with so many others who don't have a problem with it? Are they going to sue everyone they come in contact with over the course of their life because they don't agree with someone else's view? What are these parents teaching their children? This lawsuit is totally nonsensical and a waste of everyone's time and precious resources.

Hi Cathy,

Freedom "of" religion and freedom "from" religion are the same thing to atheists.

There are plenty of countries that have religion as part of the government. I wouldn't want to live in those countries, especially if my religion were different from the majority.

I agree that we are lawsuit happy in the U.S. But I don't see an easy solution to solve that problem.

You talk about individuals suing each other. They can do that now. What makes this particular case important is not that individual A is suing individual B, but that someone is taking on "the government" (in this case, the school system.)

You and I may not feel this lawsuit has merit, and we wouldn't do it, but I believe we need to respect the rights of people to sue the government. If that isn't an important fundamental right, then what is? How else can citizens challenge any government rule?

As I said far above, we used to have some pretty terrible laws--but laws that were supported by the majority. It was only because people were willing to stand up to change them that society changed. If this lawsuit were about women's rights, and the vast majority of people thought women shouldn't be allowed to vote, would you be making the same argument?

So what is today's "waste of everyone's time and precious resources" is tomorrow's right to vote, freedom of speech, or civil rights.

Hi Michael,

Unfortunately, Patch will not allow me to reply to your comments above (perhaps they have a limit on the number of responses per post.)

So briefly, the Constitution does not say a lot of things, especially about modern society. Would it be your position that because the Constition does not mention words like "radio," "television," and "Internet" that there is no right of free speech or the press in these mediums? All I am saying is that the court has interpreted that these right exist in the Constitution even though the words are not written there.

So your assertion of going back to the text to find specific wording is not relevant. Nor is going back to 1810 and quoting some of our founding fathers. They probably didn't envision a world like we have today, and that is why we have courts.

2. Do you really think that an individual suing "the state" (in this case, the school system) is an example of a bully? Really?

Unless the individual has the money of Bill Gates, I would have to disagree.

3. Why is suing the federal government rather than the local schools not costing you any money? It is. It may be less, but it is something.

As I said above, we have professionals to deal with issues like venue.

And you have not explained why your judgment matters in this case. When a citizens feels wronged by the state, they have a right to have the courts address their grievances. You seem to agree with this, but you just don't want to have to pay your share as a taxpayer. Sorry, that's the price of a free society. There are other systems of government where citizens don't have this right and you wouldn't have to spend any of your tax dollars defending the government against all these "bullies."

4. Your point here is completely wrong.

The "tax dollars" that you spent was for the town to deal with you and your complaint. Let's say John Murray and all others at Town Hall are paid $50 per hour. You "wasted" dozens if not hundreds of hours of staff time dealing with your issue. What you spent on your end is irrelevant.

So my question to you: If I don't think staff time was worth it in your dispute, should I be upset that you pressed your issue, "wasting" all of the town's valuable resources?

(I am not.)

5. You are only saying this because it is obvious to us all now that women should be allowed to vote. It was not so obvious in the 1800s and early 1900s. Who is to say that this lawsuit doesn't spark a movement that removes "in God we trust" from our currency?

Again, this isn't about you. It is about this family. Do they have a right to address their grievances with the government, if they use their own money to pursue their case? I think the answer is yes. Your feelings about this case are irrelevant and if people put public pressure on citizens to not address grievances that are truly bothering them, then how do you propose society deal with these issues?

Isn't our court system how society has chosen to do so?

6. I guess anything is possible

What if we have a law that guarantees free speech? Won't we have Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois, making people feel disgusted and perhaps unsafe?

This isn't about an individual suing another individual (which, of course, is allowed now.) This is about an individual suing the state. That is totally different.

As far as I'm concerned, atheism is also a religion, like Wiccans, Christians, Muslims, etc. If you don't like the pledge, don't say it. It's that simple. This is a cowardly couple wasting precious tax dollars and man power on a personal head trip. But this is how the atheism religion works... instead of taking it to the supreme court where it belongs, they needle and poke and drain small school districts. To the cowardly couple who's hiding behind their attorney and doesn't want to come forward: you are a disgrace to your cause. At least be man enough to stand up. If you aren't willing to put your name out there, you and your case shouldn't be given the time of day. I personally plan on visiting the courthouse to find out who you are. That's the least I can do if you're going to waste my tax dollars.

I discussed this "issue" with my two young children who are in the Acton school system this morning. Of interest was the comment made by my 8-year-old who said what Mr. and Mrs. Anonymous are doing is called bullying. We have the right to say the Pledge of Allegiance, we also have the right to not say it. For Mr. & Mrs. Anonymous to try and shove their view down everyone's throat is in fact bullying. I encourage the Town of Acton and Dr. Mills to fight the case. Bullying, whether forthright or anonymous, is unacceptable.

Well said Karen.

To My Flock,

As if the schools in Acton didn't have enough to deal with. What a luxury for parents in a school district... litigating the Pledge of Allegiance.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

>> Atheism is not a religion, it is the lack of religion.

Wrong. I am an agnostic. *I* lack religion because I don't know what to think or believe about god. Atheism, on the other hand, makes a very definite statement about god, ie that god does not exist. That statement is just as unprovable as theistic believer's statement that there is a god.

You should meet some of the Atheists I have met who are just as insistent and overbearing as the worst of the religious fundamentalists I have also met. When you listen to someone like that it becomes clear that they BELIEVE in an unprovable and that, by definition, is faith, the basis of religion. Atheists like that are religious people. If Atheists had an "aBible" to wave around quote ad nauseam like fundamentalist Bible thumpers do, would it then be clear that Atheism is a religion?

How about the schools offer the pledge twice, the first time with the words under god and the second time without.

Hi Jeff,

As I said above, go back and re-read the previous post by John Davis. Having no religion (atheist or agnostic) is not a religion, it is lack of religion. Are atheists "like" religious people in that they have a strong, unprovable beliefs? Yes. But that doesn't mean they are religious, it just means they are opinionated.

This is obviously well off topic, but let me make one more point if I may. I think it is important what atheists believe, not what label you want to give them. Isn't it obvious that most atheists would say "they are not religious"? I think it is up to them to decide whether the label fits, not you or I. But the clearest, most straightforward answer is that religious beliefs are based on a belief in God. There are many other things people take on faith (lets say the speed of light is as fast as something can ever go) that no one would call a religious belief, even though many people believe them wholeheartedly and would wave around a book (in this case, a physics textbook) to prove their point.

>> Bullying is someone with power abusing those with less power. That is not the case here. Perhaps you could explain this to your 8 yr old.

A number of people have presented this case as individuals going up against the government, as righteous underdogs vs big bad government.

But there is another way to look at this case, that is as a couple of Atheists trying to force their beliefs on hundreds of children via a lawyer-driven, judicial fiat imposed upon the schools. THAT sounds like bullying to me.

If the the Pledge is indeed in need of updating or elimination, then address the issue in the state legislature or in Congress where The People can make themselves heard rather than having this decided by judges listening to bickering lawyers.

Interesting discussion, but it is loosing track of the main problem (for me) with this lawsuit : the school department is the wrong target, they did not write the Pledge and may not be able to legally change it even if they tried. The Anonymouses should direct their complaint at Congress, perhaps join others who are already doing the same.

"In God We Trust" appears on all US currency. Would the Anonymouses sue Roche Brothers for using it ?

Charlie Kadlec
Acton

>> Are atheists "like" religious people in that they have a strong,
>> unprovable beliefs? Yes.

Thank you.

>> But that doesn't mean they are religious, it just means they
>> are opinionated.

What separates one religion from another is differing sets of beliefs. A religion is a particular set of beliefs about god. A belief that there is no god is a specific belief about god. It is a religion.

The fact that some Atheists are less ardent than others is irrelevant. Some Christians are less ardent than other Christians, but you would not say Christianity is not a religion because not all Christians believe exactly the same thing.

>> There are many other things people take on faith (lets say the
>> speed of light is as fast as something can ever go) that no one would
>> call a religious belief, even though many people believe them
>> wholeheartedly and would wave around a book (in this case, a
>> physics textbook) to prove their point.

Bad argument. A good physics textbook will not only tell you the speed of light but it will also tell you how to measure the speed of light. Then you can go out, get the equipment, and measure the speed of light for yourself. On the other hand statements about god in, say, the Bible cannot be verified. You are comparing apples to metaphysics.

>> If someone does not believe, we call them atheists.

No, we call them agnostics. I know about them since I am one.

Belief is a different sort of animal than opinion; belief is often the push behind opinion. As an agnostic I lack belief about god and therefore lack opinion about god. [ Obviously I do have certain strong beliefs, tho, and have strong opinions driven by said beliefs. By now you might have noticed. :-) ]

Our experience sets are evidently different. In my past I have been subjected to Atheist proselytizing every bit as obnoxious as what I've also gotten from Bible thumpers. Experiencing Atheists like that made it quite clear to me that Atheism is a religion with as a wide range of intensity of belief as any other religion, and that the people at the extremes of either have basically the same personality type. If you have missed out on such experiences then I am happy for you.

>> Not sure why this is such a sticking point...50 comments later!

You've been hanging right in there with me, Allen, so you might ask yourself the same question. As for me, I have a problem with extreme religiousity -- no matter what the religion or its god count -- when it starts to impose itself on others.

Hi Jeff,

1.Being a member of a group or related to another group does not make you an automatic authority. How you feel is just that, a personal feeling. That is not "proof" of your position.

2. In our 50 (now 100) thread discussion, I think we are digressing on a very small and basically irrelevent point. I don't think the "lack of belief in God" is a religion and you do. Fine, we disagree. I don't know what this has to do with a family who sues the schools. I guess your point is that they are acting with a religious ferver? And I would say they have strong beliefs or opinions. Either way, they have a right to sue (obviously, because they have done so).

I have come to believe something else in this discussion. Many well-meaning members of society would use "shame" to discourage this type of behavior. If someone stands up for their rights (in this case, the right to sue) and members of the public disagree, they will attempt to publicly humiliate them. (Talk about bullying!)

We may individually disagree about what this family has done, we might not take the steps they have taken (obviously, they are the first, so none of us has taken these steps), but they clearly have the absolute, Constitutional right to do so. As we all know, anyone can sue anyone in our society.

Michael,

You wrote: "Forcing one's beliefs on others is a form of bullying. Students are not forced to say the pledge right now are they? Perhaps they will take "under God" out and those students who want to say it can opt-in if they feel strongly about it."

So it is your position that anytime someone goes to court to enforce the law, and (let's imagine) the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff is a "bully" because they have used the courts to "force one's beliefs on others."

Hmm, interesting. So perhaps in our attempt to be politically correct about bullying we can remove the court system entirely. Why do we need it? I mean, it just allows bullies to run rampant over the rest of us. Let's just let the politicians decide everything because that is "democracy" and "we can vote politicians out of office."

Then we have those pesky "activist" judges who impose their will on the rest of us. They are unelected! They can't be removed when they make poor decisions! How awful!

What bullies!

I am skimming this discussion on and off and glad we live in a place and time where we can have it.

>> 1.Being a member of a group or related to another group does not
>> make you an automatic authority,

But being a member of a group (or not) does not automatically invalidate my observations regarding that group.

>> How you feel is just that, a personal feeling. That is not "proof" of
>> your position.

I reported my observations accurately. I have drawn conclusions based on my observations. I don't need proof to present those conclusions.

>> 2. In our 50 (now 100) thread discussion.

Actually it's 59 including this post. I had my computer count the names of the people who posted. The top scorers are:

21 Allen Nitschelm
8 Michael Krol
8 Jeff Barry (including this post)

Thought you'd want to know.

>> Many well-meaning members of society would use "shame" to
>> discourage this type of behavior. If someone stands up for their rights
>> (in this case, the right to sue) and members of the public disagree,
>> they will attempt to publicly humiliate them. (Talk about bullying!)

We still have a Constitutional right to state our opinions on matters affecting us whether or not others dislike what we have to say. How is that bullying? If some adult might feel shamed for their actions we are supposed to not address their actions so their feelings aren't hurt?!

As I've said all along: This matter should be handled openly by lawmakers with full public input and not left to lawyers and judges.

Get over yourselves! If you don't like it here then go buy an island and create your own system/way of life and live there. And by the way...don't use our money anymore either...God is on it...so don't use it to buy all the items that bring happiness into your life. As for the children....home-school them if it offends you. That's the beauty of America...."Let Freedom Ring"! They are not forced to say the allegience. They are not forced to believe in God. They are not forced to live here. We have Freedoms that people fight for! Stop your darn Belly-aching. Use your freedoms to bring up your family the way you want. We don't stop you from being an athiest....that's freedom. You are welcome to live in America...that's freedom. We don't force you....that's FREEDOM baby (Austin Powers) lol...enjoy it and stop looking for special treatment.

“In God We Trust”… Adopted as the official motto of the U.S. in 1956. On most U.S. currency since 1864 and on all U.S. currency since 1954 (Eisenhower admin) when also added to the U.S. pledge of allegiance. Reaffirmed by the U.S. Senate on its 50th anniversary in 2006. Similar language in the Star Spangled Banner. References: U.S. Treasury: http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx ; Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust White House: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060727-12.html

Legal and religious challenges before? Many. Successful to date? No. Could change under U.S. or even State law or constitution? Sure. Arguments to do so? Of course and those against.

But who’s issue is it? Acton Public Schools? Change the U.S. pledge and motto? Stop taking U.S. currency in the cafeteria and book stores? When did Acton PS get jurisdiction?

Despite 30+ years of swearing to uphold the U.S. constitution (has “Lord”) and two state constitutions that guarantee freedom of speech & right to access to the courts, I just don’t get it. No reason for Acton PS to work this issue. And exercising the right of anonymity is unconscionable.

Just stop. Withdraw the suit. Call or write John Kerry, Scott Brown or Niki Tsongas. Or sue the U.S. not APS.

Paul Henrion for ACLI http://www.facebook.com/pages/Acton-Community-Leading-Initiatives/224227354327760

The Acton pledge case is about to get to the MA supreme court. Overview article here: http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/local/ci_22025460/sjc-hear-pledge-allegiance-case