New Jersey
Judge David F. Bauman recently dismissed a case orchestrated by
a
student, his parents, and the American Humanist Association and ruled
that hearing the words "under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance does
not violate the constitutional rights of atheist students. In his
decision released Monday, Bauman brilliantly laid to rest the notion
that the phrase can, or should, be erased from America's history.
“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,”
the judge wrote in his decision.
Bauman added, “The Pledge of Allegiance, in this historical context, is
not to be viewed, and has never been viewed, as a religious exercise."
The student's lawsuit, filed last year, argued against the phrase being
recited during school hours because he felt it singled out atheists and
non-believers, making them feel like "second-class citizens." His
attorneys argued that hearing the pledge would cause atheist students
to feel "just as America’s Jews, Hindus, and Muslims would feel
excluded, marginalized and stigmatized if they were told by their
government on a daily basis that the United States is one nation ‘under
Jesus.’”
However, Judge Bauman didn't see it that way. He explained that the
various references to God in the nation's history, documents, and
practices indicates no endorsement of a specific faith, but simply a
recognition to the importance religion has played in the founding of
America.
The unnamed student tried for equal protection under the New Jersey
state constitution, only to be reminded by Bauman that it also
references "Almighty God:"
Under
plaintiffs’ reasoning, the very constitution under which plaintiffs
seek redress for perceived atheistic marginalization could itself be
deemed unconstitutional, an absurd proposition which plaintiffs do not
and cannot advance here. Protecting students from viewpoints and ideas
that may offend or upset them is not and has never been the role of
public schools in America.
Judge Bauman advised the student to remain silent during the Pledge of
Allegiance if he so chooses. There are no plans to appeal the
decision.
[FULL]
Here's
where we're at. If the voters in that school district don't force
change, then they have condoned this ridiculousness. The
kid made
himself vulnerable by refusing a "lawful/unlawful" demand by some
lawman. Again, the citizenry have smack-down power; a.k.a. "good
men
doing something." 
