LOS ANGELES, November 10, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Student government of Orange Coast College in California, voted 3-1 this week to eliminate recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance from its weekly meetings.
According to news accounts, student Board member Jason Ball, a self proclaimed atheist, called the flag salute” irrelevant to the business of the student government, and referred to a 2002 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on a possible “church-state conflict.” Ball, wearing black boots, a beret and a hammer-and-sickle pin, was quoted as saying, “Nationalism is something that divides people.”
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan; commented, “It is outrageous that some students see no reason to pledge any loyalty to this nation while American soldiers are sacrificing their lives for the freedoms these students enjoy. The God-given freedom recognized in the Pledge is what protects Mr. Ball’s right to express his opinion there is no God. Further, it is shameful and disrespectful for Orange Coast College to act in such a manner during the same week as the 231st birthday of the Marine Corps and our national Veteran’s Day holiday.”
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, in a case brought by Michael Newdow on behalf of his daughter against the Elk Grove Unified School District, had an opportunity to determine the constitutionality of voluntary recitation of the Pledge by school children. However, the Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds leaving the issue for another day. That case involved a 2002 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that it was unconstitutional to have school children voluntarily recite the Pledge.Â
Justice Thomas, dissenting in the Elk Grove case, stated, “Through the Pledge policy, the State has not created or maintained any religious establishment, and neither has it granted government authority to an existing religion. The Pledge policy does not expose anyone to the legal coercion associated with an established religion. Further, no other free-exercise rights are at issue. It follows that religious liberty rights are not in question and that the Pledge policy fully comports with the Constitution.”
After the 2004 Elk Grove decision, Newdow filed a second lawsuit in a California federal district court challenging the Pledge, and was successful in obtaining a favorable ruling. The district judge ruled that that 2002 Ninth Circuit decision still had a binding effect on the merits, which he was bound to follow. His decision has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where the Thomas More Law Center has filed a friend of the court brief, challenging the lower court ruling. Chances are this case will also reach the Supreme Court.
Continued Thompson, “Simply because the Pledge contains the phrase ‘One Nation Under God,’ does not represent an establishment of religion. Hopefully, this time the Supreme Court will decide the Pledge case on the merits in accordance with Justice Thomas’ legal analysis so that ‘separation between church and state’ will no longer be a pretext for government anti-religious policies.”Â