A New Jersey superior court judge ruled earlier this month that the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance does not infringe upon the rights of those who do not believe in God and can thus remain in the patriotic passage. While dismissing a lawsuit that was filed against Matawan Aberdeen Regional School District, Judge David Bauman said the Godly reference in the pledge is only a declaration of patriotism and not religious belief. He also noted that the word God plays an important role in New Jersey’s constitution, which is why it has become synonymous with the state’s history and not its religion.
“The Pledge of Allegiance, in this historical context, is not to be viewed, and has never been viewed, as a religious exercise,” Bauman wrote in his 21-page decision issued on February 4, while asserting the purpose of the pledge is to transmit core values of honour, duty, pride and loyalty to the United States.
Bauman’s ruling comes after American Humanist Association sued Matawan Aberdeen Regional School district on behalf of an atheist family that wishes to remain anonymous, alleging the phrase “Under God” infringed upon the protections guaranteed to atheists and other Americans who do not believe in religion. This is the sixth time that American Humanist Association has lost its attempt to have the contentious phrase removed from the Pledge of Allegiance by filing suits in both federal and state courts.
American Humanist Association argues that the contentious phrase was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, despite the original passage being authored in 1892. Thus, in his ruling, Bauman pointed out the irony of the humanist organization’s argument by referring to New Jersey’s constitution, which makes several references to God.
“Under (the association members') reasoning, the very constitution under which (the members) seek redress for perceived atheistic marginalization could itself be deem unconstitutional, an absurd proposition which (association members) do not and cannot advance here,” Bauman wrote.
Bauman, who sits in Freehold, also explained that students at school are not compelled to recite the pledge. Thus, even if the student, whose family had a problem with the phrase, was made to feel marginalized, that does not qualify as sufficient reason for “Under God” to be removed from the pledge.
“Subjective feelings ... do not and cannot serve as a constitutional litmus test for equal protection,” Bauman wrote.
David Rubin, attorney for the school district, said he was happy with Bauman’s decision but was also expecting American Humanist Association to make an appeal.
“We are grateful for the time (Bauman) took to write a very thoughtful and well-informed decision,” Rubin said.
Rubin also explained that this was a test case for American Humanist Association in New Jersey, as the state has a longstanding history of interpreting its constitutional provisions more broadly than several other states. Yet, he said, Bauman was not particularly liberal while interpreting the religious clauses in the state’s constitution.
David Niose, who is the attorney for the humanist organization, was not available for comment.
Photo Credits: IDD Company
