A bit further down in that same article we read: "Some legal experts said the mother's revelation that the girl herself willingly recites the pledge in class could cast doubts on the legitimacy of the case. Courts can only hear cases in which there is an injured party, and if there is no injury there is no grounds for a case, said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor who follows the 9th Circuit."

So, is there an injured party? No one is actually forced to recite the pledge and if some people need to excuse themselves from reciting it on purely religious grounds, is there an injury? Well, if partaking in a patriotic pledge has value, then it certainly follows that a person unduly deprived of the chance to take part is unduly deprived of a value.

It should go without saying that the only reasonable barriers to a citizen taking the pledge should be a lack of patriotic conviction or contrary religious conviction, not anything having to do with race, gender, creed, etc.

Are school children injured? For most, that is moot, but what about those kids unlucky enough to find themselves caught in a religious tug-of-war between their parents and their atheistic (or other non-monotheist) upbringing on the one hand, and their teachers and government, with their "under God" affirmation, on the other? If the kid winds up believing that there is a single God who the nation is "under," did the government win because they pulled the kids out from under the parents?

If the kids lose respect for their upbringing and their families in the process, then who wins? But what if the kid loses respect for their teachers and ultimately their government in the process, who wins then? Wouldn't the kid lose something in either case?

If a parent does not want a religious idea inculcated in his/her child, is it an injury in the legal sense when that idea gets inculcated anyway, at the government's insistence? Who should change to prevent this conflict? Should everyone join a monotheistic religion, or should government accept a religiously neutral role in life?

In light of the strong political and emotional undercurrents involved, the Executive and Legislative branches of government can hardly be trusted to give this matter a fair and impartial consideration. The Judicial branch has generally corrected similar conflicts in the past. Where the Constitution fixed the value of certain people at 40 percent that of others, did not consider women as full citizens, and granted no voting rights to non-landowners, later judicial rulings held these ideas to be mere artifacts of the worldview prevailing during the time of the Founding Fathers, while upholding the Constitution's most essential values.

These essential values of liberty and justice for all have guided our nation over the years, and have stood the test of time. They have held us in good stead and have paved the way toward successive stages of national soul searching in terms of the equal rights of each person, without respect to race, gender, creed and etc. This is once again an issue for the Judiciary to decide.

[John Norman has held odd jobs and often lived homeless since graduating from college in 1981. This is the author's first published article; as he sees it, since the mainstream news is failing society miserably, someone has got to speak up.]

John Norman encourages your comments: johnnormansp@yahoo.com

YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction must identify the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.