Why don't you get out of MY country? In my country, we don't have government endorsement of sectarian religion at the behest of Catholic fraternal organizations. No one is trying to forbid anyone from worshiping or praying to anything or anyone. What is unacceptable is when religious organizations like the Knights of Columbus push the government to equate patriotism with religiosity.

Imagine you're a parent in the Soviet Union, and they have a national pledge that they strongly encourage all the children to recite in which they announce their allegiance and devotion to their country. Not too bad so far. Now imagine in that state pledge, which every child feels peer pressure to recite regardless of their convictions or the convictions of their parents, it says that being a good Soviet citizen means not believing in any gods. Disturbing, right?

Thankfully, that would be unconstitutional in the United States. Why? Because the government can't endorse or inhibit religious expression. The same goes for Christianity. Our government is secular. It is not pro- or anti-religion. That means our government can't tell its citizens, and especially not our children, which religious convictions to hold. You would certainly be disturbed if the government tried to get your children to recite a pledge saying God doesn't exist or that Allah is the one true god. Why can you not see how hypocritical you are?

You clearly do not understand how our legal system works, Charlie. Cause lawyers look for plaintiffs who are willing to litigate cases all the time. That's what happened here. Sure, AB was only doing what it was obligated by law to do, but the school didn't have to spend $10,000 defending itself. It could have easily chosen to hire a cheap attorney and wait for another interest group to step in with a more expensive lawyer should they choose to.

And yes, legally they can remain silent. But that wasn't always the case (see Minersville School District v. Gobitis). It was thanks to litigation like this that children are not legally bound to say the pledge in the first place. I suggest you learn some more about U.S. history before making such ignorant remarks.

That's not how the American legal system works. The American Humanist Association doesn't have standing, so they needed someone who had standing in order to file the lawsuit. Because of bigoted people like yourself, the family chose to remain anonymous. Nevertheless, the real plaintiff in the suit is the AHA. Also, America has a long history of overturning well-established law that is discriminatory through the courts, usually losing at first as well. This case isn't unique in that regard.

No because it's the school district that's enforcing the law on the students (hypothetically, speaking). In a better system, the American Humanist Association might be able to sue the federal/state government directly without the Acton family or the school district getting involved, but we do not live in that system.

First of all, only one view is right. While it's not necessarily mine, if two people have contradicting views, at least one of them is wrong, if not both.

Secondly, my comments are in response to the "bullying" coming from the original comments. For instance, PPMcrevice said, "My suggestion to the "Jane Doe" who filed this frivolous case that wasted 10K+ of Acton taxpayer money: Leave. If you do not like the Pledge of Allegiance, go find another country to live in." Therefore, I suggest PPMcrevice is the one who should leave. But who needs to understand context or make meaningful points when it's so much easier to just troll?

Since the comment about you being bigoted seems to be what touched a nerve with you, I'll explain. When minorities have challenged discriminatory laws and practices in our country, they have frequently faced retribution in their communities. Therefore, many choose to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation from ignorant, hateful people who want to take out their anger on them. Just look at what happened to Jessica Ahlquist. Many local Christians threatened her and her family after she initiated a similar, but successful, lawsuit against her school district.

Let me ask you why exactly you want to know who in Acton filed this lawsuit? Do you realize what kind of retaliation they and their children would face from people like you? Again, look up the Jessica Ahlquist case. There's a reason our courts allow people to file lawsuits anonymously, and it's to protect them from people like you.

"Also, your stance on "only one view is right" is jaw droppingly appalling."
Really? Because my view is that there is only one right view, while your view is that multiple, contradicting views are right. If your position is true, then my view is correct, just like everyone else's.

"For you to pronounce there is only "one right one" makes me think that the next words out of your mouth will be: " ...MINE!!""
Uh, clearly you can't read very well, Mr. Fleming. "First of all, only one view is right. While it's not necessarily mine, if two people have contradicting views, at least one of them is wrong, if not both." People's personal experiences, schools, backgrounds, parents, etc. lead them to have views that ARE wrong. If you are raised by racist parents in a small, all-white town down South and you end up believing black people are inferior to white people, your views aren't as right as someone who does not believe those things. Not all points of view are equally valid.