Introduction
The implementation of legislation in any country is primarily meant to formulate ways in which the citizens and governance go about their everyday businesses. Moreover, policies exist to ensure that the rights of individuals are not in any way violated or they do not go against highlighted laws. While systems provide that laws and order are maintained, some of them have resulted to an imbalance in the way cases are decided due to the disparities they bring about that in most cases are viewed as discriminative to some instances and individuals. For example, the First Amendment which highlights the American’s freedom of speech and expression raises the debate on whether the law interferes with the beliefs and values of a person especially when they are expected to recite the pledge of allegiance in institutes like schools, government offices or workplaces. The law states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Considering that it has some clauses within, the First Amendment places government institutes like the judiciary in a position that promotes contradictions. Moreover, it sets imbalance on other implemented constitutional policies.
It is the right of every American citizen to freely express themselves both in speech and actions for as long as they are still in line with the constitution and are not violating the rights of fellow countrymen. On the contrary, some tendency in expressing oneself goes beyond the limits of the policies applied creating loopholes on what is to be done to ensure there is balance in all that is highlighted. Besides allowing citizens to practice their right of expression freely, the tendency of dictating what citizens should say, when, where and how to some extent violates the civil right to speech. For instance, most government institutes, schools, and workplaces among others require individuals to recite the pledge of allegiance before commencing any activity within the premises in question. According to Scott Bomboy (2017), the oath of allegiance has posed immense legal challenges since its inception in 1892, composed by Francis Bellany. Besides identifying oneself as a patriot, the pledge of allegiance emphasizes the need for citizens to stay true in being Americans. Hence, as an oath, the pledge of allegiance has to be adhered to at all times. The contents of the allegiances stat: “I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands – one Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.’’ The pledge became more controversial when the composer who was an ordained minister proposed the inclusion of the phrase – ‘under God.’ Considering that most Americans practice different religions, beliefs, and values, the phrase under God to some extent pushes individuals who have no belief of a god to forgo their values and engage in a practice that does not suit them in any way. Moreover, the phrase ‘Under God’ poses the question of which God is being addressed due to the existence of various religions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The inability of some citizens to recite the pledge allegiance has resulted to them to lose their work positions or face discriminative punishments. It is for these same reasons that the First Amendment keeps coming up every other time when such incidences emerge within our organizations. All policies implemented in a country cannot satisfy everyone at the same time. People have different perspectives, values, faiths, beliefs, and cultures that affect their way of lives and dictate the way they think, act and talk. For this reasons, the First Amendment as observed has been a legal challenge over the years because of the disparities in the way people embrace issues. Therefore, even in the way the legislation debates when passing laws, it is the side with the highest votes that determines which path shall be followed and what the people will be required to adhere to. Therefore, whether or not the law passed favors certain individuals or not, they have to be adhered to, to the latter.
As in the case between the petitioner - Elk Grove Unified School District and W. Gordon and the respondent – Michael A. Newdow (2004), whose daughter claimed that she was forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the father asserted that it was against what he intended the child to embrace and believe. Unlike most cases that touch on the First Amendment and the freedom of speech and expression of individuals, the petitioner lost the case because the court found out that he had no full custody for the daughter since he was divorced from the mother. Hence his claims that the pledge violated what he desired his daughter to practice were considered unsubstantial. The court never reached any constitutional rulings primarily because of the petitioner’s lack of standing and the fact that matters concerning domestic responsibilities and relations where aspects that dictated the flow and possible decisions of the case. Despite that, three Justices, Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist came up with entirely different concurrences from the rest of the jury highlighting that the process of teachers leading students into reciting the pledge is highly constitutional. If the case was to reach final rulings, teachers’ practice of leading students into reciting the pledge of Allegiance highlights the needs to emphasize patriotism even in the young Americans. On the other hand, the court’s Ninth Circuit highlighted that the First Amendment was violated by the Congress addition of the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. Following the attacks that have been taking place on the soil of America in the past decade, having measures that can be used to enable young persons who understand very little of the politics and governance, to embrace patriotism and loyalty to the country’s laws shall enhance the grooming of citizens who will protect their country at all cost. Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is one of the tools that enable American persons to engage in a direct practice of love for the country. It is possible that through frequent utterances of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools before any activities may enable students to respect every element of the country including the government, laws, and the history among others resulting to the existence of peace and unity. While some may view the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance as a usual norm, internalizing it and uttering the words from heart promote the desire to engage in what is right and expected by the government. Moreover, students and individuals in the workplaces develop an immense love for their country which on the other side ensures they participate in the country’s safety through keeping off malicious activities that may put them on the wrong side of the law.
As mentioned earlier, the First Amendment dictates that individuals or officials lack the authority to formulate any opinions or perceptions that can dictate citizens to follow the official’s religious beliefs, political stand or culture. As affirmed by David Hudson (2017), Justice Robert Jackson observed the First Amendment as a concrete policy that ensured official never misused the powers bestowed to them to misguide citizens, oppressor entice them in any way. The remarks of the Justice Robert were: “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.” As highlighted by Justice Robert, citizens are safeguarded from any form of manipulation hence protected under the law and most especially by the First Amendment.
The issue of whether or not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school was first heard in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education versus Barnette in 1943, (Skelton, 2018). During this time, lots of students were sent away from school due to their refusal and unwillingness to participate in the activity of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The core reasons like in the present day included religious conflict and practices. For instance, some students who were identified to be unwilling in the practice of Pledge Allegiance recital were of the Jehovah Witnesses faith. According to their arguments, their faith deters them from overlooking the laws of God who is higher and supreme and practicing secular laws that are created by mere men, an unacceptable exercise. Moreover, the witnesses are expected not to create images of any kind around the universe and worship or bow before them in submission. In the Pledge of Allegiance, an individual commits themselves to respect the country’s flag which according to the Witnesses, is an image, hence their unwillingness to recite the Allegiance.
Before an individual gets a position in an organization as an employee, business partner or colleague of any sort, a contract and agreements are outlined to ensure that the parties involved adhere to the requirements outlined. In case one is not satisfied with what is required of them, they can either request amendment or decide to forgo the agreement. It is at this point that violation of an individual’s rights of expression, speech and acts can be looked into before it takes place. For instance, in the case between Goldman- the petitioner and Weinberger-the respondent (1986), the violation of the First Amendment emerged at the workplace due to the inability of a staff member to freely dress as their religion dictated while on duty. Goldman is identified as a commissioned officer working in the United States Air Force. Besides his position in the Air Force, Goldman is an ordained rabbi, an Orthodox Jew. His religion demands that he puts on his yarmulke which is a cap that is worn by the Orthodox Jewish men. On the contrary, one of the regulations of the Air Force is the need for all personnel to put on their uniform without any other additions like headgears. Therefore, the contradiction of whether or not Goldman had a right to wear his yarmulke alongside his Air Force uniform during his time on duty did not in any way violate his rights of freedom to expression allocated in the First Amendment. The United States Air Force troops are trained under strict and high standards for purposes of facilitating efficiency and discipline while in their line of duty. Dress code is just one of the regulations that have to be put into consideration in making sure that they do not overlook the rules outlined. On the other hand, the military is expected to perform their duties with commitment, obedience, unity and esprit de corps. Therefore, Goldman’s moral demands to put on his yarmulke are unacceptable under the regulations of the military forces. Furthermore, liberty for individuals to freely express themselves through the dress code would deny the Force uniformity amongst its members and defy the dress regulations of the Air Force. Concerning the requirements of personnel and students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, work, and school regulation are always outlined before one accepts the offer to be a part of the institute. Moreover, it is the right of an individual to negotiate on rules that do not fit their ways of lives to facilitate understanding between the parties and avoid possible issues arising in the future.
According to David Hudson (2017), the quest to ignite the citizens of America’s spirit of patriotism enhanced moves by various States to facilitate ways in which they would participate in combating violations against the country and its people. For instance, in 2002, the State of Colorado implemented legislation that compelled students in public schools to recite the Pledge of Allegiance except those that had objections from their religious practices or parental demands for their children not to participate in uttering the oath. The law was challenged by Colorado’s American Civil Liberties Union in the Federal Court resulting to the revision of the statute whereby individuals were allowed to participate in reciting the pledge voluntarily. Contrary to this, Annika Hamerschlag (2016) highlighted the principal who forcefully demanded students to stand up while the National Anthem was being played. According to a First Amendment attorney, Lawrence Walters, it is considered a violation of freedom of speech when someone is coerced to stand and show respect to the country’s flag. Unlike the cases where most petitioners were persons who felt they were violated by being asked to recite the pledge emphasizing on the issue of reverence for the flag and the mention of the clause ‘under God,’ the principal’s strict demands for students to stand during the national anthem is an aspect that has never been heard of.
In support of the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, most First Amendment lawyers like Lawrence Walters argue that teachers are constitutionally wrong when they lead students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance even with the provision of excluding ‘under one God’ or allowing students to opt out. The issue of whether or not teachers had the right to lead students in reciting the pledge has never been addressed fully in the courts. Albeit, the constitution is clear on what teachers are expected to do or not, no Court has been able to fully help the public and institute to understand teacher’s role in the Pledge of Allegiance recitation. For instance, the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992) presented before the Supreme Court was decided in favor of the respondent because the jury outlined that the government involvement in school ceremonies enhances ‘a state-sponsored and religious directed practices in public institutes.’ Therefore, the petitioner’s (Lee) move to invite a Jewish rabbi to conduct a school ceremony violate the student’s rights elaborated in the First Amendment by coercing them to stay calm and listen to prayers and religious invocations without the student’s liberty to opt out. The decision by the jury led by Justice Kennedy indicated that the school indirectly coerced students psychologically despite the fact that none of the students were compelled to take part in the religious practice with any legal entities.
Disciplinary measures applied to persons who refuse to comply with the requirement of the institutes in question violate the victim’s rights and freedom of speech and expression. For instance, most of the schools that strictly followed the need to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before starting school activities punished students who adamantly refused to participate in the recitation of the pledge. For example, in the Minersville School District v. Gobitas case (1940), the respondents, William and LilianGobitas faced expulsion from the school because of their refusal to participate in the school’s practice of reciting the pledge and reverence for the flag. The respondent’s argument to the case was that they were religiously not allowed to place anything or anyone in the place of their God since it was Biblically unacceptable. Unlike other decisions made on similar cases presented before the Supreme Court, the jury ruled in favor of the petitioner with the argument that it was the interest of the State to promote national cohesion which is inevitable for both government officials and civilians to follow suit. Moreover, the court highlighted that the flag represented the unity in the country hence is symbolic in enhancing national security as an aspect that should be inflicted in school going children with the intention of facilitating national cohesion without violating religious practices of persons involved. In other instances, students would be suspended for a specified period primarily because of their adamancy not to recite the pledge. On their other hand, absenteeism in most schools is punishable, making suspension a serious issue. While the students are away from school, depending on the regulations, both the parent and child are required to comply with the school’s demands due to absence. Therefore, the suspension from school is an indirect way of punishment since the student is required to adhere to the school’s requirements of participating in classes without fail unless they had a situation that would be considered acceptable like the occurrence of sickness.
On a personal level, the Pledge of Allegiance does not in any way intimidate or force persons to adhere to a life that interferes with the perceptions, beliefs, religious and political stand. Every country implements strategies and measures that are not only suitable for its people but the governance too. Therefore, the composition and allowance of the Pledge of Allegiance were and still are tools used to enhance the pride of being Americans. While people have varied religious beliefs and political stands, it is beautiful to embrace each other’s differences through sharing a common denominator, of which the pledge is an ideal one since it engages persons by citizenship. On the other hand, a country’s harmony is identified on the fact that citizens can respect each other’s differences by participating in activities that unites them emphasizing on national cohesion. For instance, the Pledge of Allegiance is mostly recited in schools where students of different backgrounds, cultures, and values are enhancing cohesion amongst them and teachers.
Conclusion
The First Amendment protects American citizens from the violation of being compelled to engage in speech and actions that do not comply with their beliefs or political stands by any government officials. Despite the protection through the First Amendment, the Pledge of Allegiance is considered a form of coercion by institutes on specific individuals whose religious practices highlight particular rules. The Pledge of Allegiance is a tool used to emphasize on the country’s patriotism amongst its citizens and build on national cohesion. Albeit its purpose is explained, some individuals find it violating their religious beliefs mainly on the need to salute the flag and pronounce under one God. Despite the differences, it is essential for citizens to find common ground to relate and unite as people.
References
Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow. (2004). Oyez . Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1624
Goldman v. Weinberger.(1986). Oyez . Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1097
Hammerschlag, A. (2016, September 15). First Amendment lawyers: Lely can't force students to stand during national anthem . Retrieved April 10, 2018, from Naples Daily News: https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/education/2016/09/15/first-amendment-lawyers-lely-cant-force-students-stand-during-national-anthem/90426840/
Hudson, D. L. (2017, September 18). Pledge of Allegiance . Retrieved April 9, 2017, from Newseum: http://www.newseuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/k-12-public-school-student-expression/pledge-of-allegiance/
Lee v. Weisman. (1992). Oyez . Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-1014
Minersville School District v. Gobitis. (1940). Oyez . Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/310us586
Skelton, C. (2018). West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, . Retrieved April 9, 2018, from JUSTIA US Supreme Court: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/case.html
Sterbenz, C. (2014, June 14). Why 'Under God' Was Added To The Pledge Of Allegiance . Retrieved April 10, 2018, from Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/under-god-added-to-pledge-of-allegiance-2014-6?IR=T
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. (1943). Oyez . Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624
Willingham, A. (2017, August 8). The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you think it does . Retrieved April 9, 2018, from CNN Politics: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-explainer-trnd/index.html
