Parental Rights and the Pledge of Allegiance
Tag(s): Constitutional Amendment • Danger to Parental Rights • parental rights • parents • school stories
A Palm Beach County case on parental rights reached the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday. The case started with Boynton Beach High School student Cameron Frazier, an eleventh grader who refused to say the pledge of allegiance with the rest of his class in 2005. The following year a district court judge handed down a ruling that minor children possess “autonomy” from parents to decide whether or not to say the pledge of allegiance.
The district court ruling directly contradicts Florida law, which seeks to protect the rights of both students and parents by requiring parental consent for students wishing to “opt out” of saying the pledge. But Frazier, his mother, and the ACLU were intent on striking down the state law and altering the state education policy which allows parents to make crucial decisions for their children regarding attendance of certain classes, or, in this case, determining whether or not to say the pledge of allegiance. In comments praising the district court’s decision, Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida said, “It was long past due for this unconstitutional law in Florida to be struck down and the conscience and rights of young people to be respected by school officials.”
Who decides?
This reasoning raises some frightening questions. Should the rights of children really supersede the rights of parents within the public school system? Should the decisions of minors, which can be influenced by any number of factors within a school setting (not to mention varying levels of maturity), actually be considered superior to a parent’s prerogative to oversee the education of their child?
According to Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, the district court’s ruling confuses the issue by targeting parents. “Certainly, students possess a constitutional right not to be coerced by government to recite the pledge,” he writes in a commentary for the Palm Beach Post. “That right, however, must not be confused with an effort to prevent parents from making a decision to have their children learn and participate in the pledge.”
Cameron Frazier and those behind him are insisting that the rights of students within public schools are independent — even superior — to the rights of parents. But Florida’s education policy strongly reflects the Supreme Court’s view in the 1979 case of Parham v. J.R., that “parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions.”
Protecting the Child-Parent Relationship
This is why the district court’s ruling in the Frazier case is so troubling. As Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum points out, “Supreme Court precedent holds that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their children. While the Supreme Court has correctly upheld certain rights of children in public schools, these protections are targeted to protect them from coercive governmental policies, not from their parents.”
McCollum is right. A ruling honoring the rights of students while simultaneously protecting the fundamental rights of parents is what is needed from the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The Florida written parental permission requirement accomplishes something that Frazier’s concept of child rights cannot: initiating productive discussions between children and parents. Let’s hope that this time, the court will seek to honor a child’s perspective without trampling on parental rights.
Help us reach 10,000 Petition Signers by the end of the week!
You can play a crucial role in seeking to amend the US Constitution to permanently protect the fundamental right of parents. Just over 9,000 people have signed the Parental Rights petition to date. And now, we’re asking you to help us reach 10,000 Petition Signers by the end of this week. We need your help in accomplishing this goal. Maybe you’ve already signed the petition. If so, we encourage you to visit our new and improved Tell a Friend page and inform your friends and family of the crucial need to protect parental rights. With your help, we can reach this goal.
Together we can fight to guard the essential role that parents play in the lives of their children.
SOURCES
Bill McCollum Commentary (Palm Beach Post)
I am in full agreement with protecting parents rights, I signed your pledge upon learning of it, I would join in membership with you if you provided a way to pay for it without credit cards or mailed me something, and I agree we need a constitutional amendment to address the modern day threat to parents, children and families; however, there are some legitimate issues/cases that cross the line of the authority of even parents. This incident concerning the high schooler refusing to say the pledge is not a parental right issue and fundamentally has nothing to do with parental control of “education.” It is a faith issue, and every human being, child or not, has a “right” to exercise their own faith, even if that faith is contrary to the parents. To force anyone to say a pledge, any pledge, against their will and conscious, is not right, is not moral, and is not anyone’s “right.”
Jan 26 at 12:44 pm
I believe as long as the student is a minor and the parents have a legal responsibility to be responsible for the student till their 18th birthday as most state agencies love to point out, that what the minor does is up to the parents not the state. The Pledge has nothing to do with religion but love of country. If you can do that, then truly why even be a citizen of this great country.
Jan 29 at 8:27 pm
*edit* If you can’t do that, then truly why even be a citizen of this great country.
Jan 29 at 8:29 pm
you can’t legislate ‘love of country.’ you can only encourage it, and that doesn’t come from coercion.
no one of any age should be REQUIRED to recite the pledge. learn about it? sure. study it. discuss it.
but no enforced declarations of jingoism.
Jan 29 at 10:33 pm
‘I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ is what Francis Bellamy originally wrote. He was a Christian Socialist, adhering to teachings and beliefs similar to those who, 100 years later, espoused the “Liberation Theology” of the early postmodern church. Further, both scholars and Bellamy descendents have indicated he would have likely objected to the additions and changes subsequently made (ie,”of the United States of America” and “under God”) So why do we as Americans insist on making a patriotic litmus test of reciting a socialist’s mantra? And why, on earth, do Christians pledge allegiance to anything other than the Lord God our Saviour? By the way, I understand the real issue in question is parental rights. But there are real threats to those rights in play everyday in government schools. This is not one of the more pressing. And if government administrators of education can’t prevent a child from praying in school (for you cannot…sorry…prayer is just as effective when silent…take that!) I imagine that same administrator will be hardpressed to make him speak when he wishes to be silent!
Jan 29 at 11:18 pm
Parents rights are priority and must not be violated. The issue goes much deeper than the pledge of allegiance. There are those in Government and the education system that think that the
state should have complete control of
the students education. That kind of thinking is communistic. Those people will destroy our freedoms if they get their way. They think that parents should not have any rights over their own family. Well, maybe the students shouldn’t be forced to recite a pledge that they don’t believe in. If a student dosn’t believe in the pledge of allegiance, then I wonder what they are being taught at home. If parents are not commited to this country and protecting our freedoms, then I suggest that they take the whole family and find another country to live in. When I went to school I had no problem reciting the pledge of allegiance…including “of the united States of America” and “under God”.
This country became the most powerful nation in the world because it was founded on Judao Christian principles.
The more this country (government) denies God the weaker we get. Just look at our history, and compare it with other nations. We must all do what we can to preserve our freedoms.
We can no longer sit back and expect
others to do it. How many men in the begining of this country and since, have died to keep this nation free.
We must ALL speak up and tell our leaders what we want, and that is for our leaders to act according to the constitution of the United States, and protect our country from those that would destroy our way of life.
Jan 30 at 2:30 am
Brett,
Thank you very much for your support of ParentalRights.org! You can mail a check to our P.O. Box which can be found on the “Contact Us” page at the bottom of every page of the website.
I’m going to write in more detail on the other questions and points you raise and post it as a new blog post.
Thanks for your input,
Rich Shipe
Jan 30 at 11:09 am
Given the current state of the Pledge, my 16 year old daughter, and I, think that saying the Pledge should be optional. God has no place in a public school setting in this country.
When I was a small child, many years ago, I always wondered why my grandfather - a WWI Vet and staunch Republican farmer - finished the Pledge before I did. It turned out that he did not have as many words to say as the Pledge I learned in school. Ironic, since he believed in God, and I do not.
Most people do not have objections about the Pledge itself, rather they are questioning whether being required saying a pledge to a country whose policies they disagree with is reasonable. It is a form of civil disobedience, or political dissent - depending on the laws of the state where they are not saying the Pledge.
Should parents be allowed to override the reasoned decisions of their quasi-adult children - of high school age, who are statistically using drugs and engaging in regular sexual activity - to not say the Pledge? No. If it is not heartfelt, it is not valid.
Should the same children be encouraged to show a reasonable degree of respect for their country - regardless of the political realities - by saying the Pledge? Yes. There is a difference between support a country and a way of life and supporting the current political manifestation.
But if those children still choose to use withholding the Pledge as a form of silent protest against the adult world, let them. Essentially they have no other vote or voice in the political process.
If it makes it to the Supreme Court, so much the better. Children are a disenfranchised population in our society, often with more actions being perfromed against them than for them.
Jan 30 at 5:18 pm
“Children are a disenfranchised population in our society, often with more actions being performed against them than for them.”
That’s quite a statement. You are calling into question the parenting of all parents. If parents are mostly bad to their kids than I guess we should intervene and question every decision the parents make.
Reality is that parents are the best and greatest influence on their children. Children need their parents more than anything else in their lives. Study after study and expert after expert agrees with this obvious truth. As a society we should be protecting and supporting that relationship.
Sure, reasonable people can disagree on things like the pledge of allegiance but we’ve got to agree on the role of parents in the lives of their children. If parents are pushed aside the biggest losers are going to be children.
Jan 30 at 5:49 pm
Interesting…
All of the comments pro and con. I personally do not say the pledge because I pledge allegiance to no one but God. I informed my children, 15,13,12,10 and 8 of this and they have no problem with it. I think the pledge should be voluntary…respect of Mom and Dad required. The parental issue here is moot anyway since the mom in the case agrees with her child. The law should read that parents have control over the education and the process of the education not the mind of the child. If an 11th grader doesn’t know why he/she is or is not saying the pledge and can’t articulate that…they may need to be homeschooled…Just a thought
Jan 30 at 6:35 pm
The question here is not about eroding parental rights, but about a conflict between the ninth amendment right of the parent and the first amendment right of the child.
The right of the parent is conditioned on the assumption that the parent is in the best position to protect the rights and well being of the child, which would include the obligation to protect the child’s right of conscience embodied in the various clauses of the first amendment.
When a parent fails to protect the child either through neglect or abuse, it is right and proper for the state to step in parens patriae and protect the rights of the child. Is this not also true of abuses of other rights belonging to the child?
On the other hand, the parent is responsible for the moral and ethical training of the child, and the very concept that embodies the first amendment would preclude the state from assuming this role (though there are those who would favor such a statist solution). How then is a parent to discharge this duty if the parent is prevented from requiring the child participate in religious or social functions designed to instill a sense of moral obligation and appropriate ethics?
The answer must be two fold: first the parent must have the right to instruct the child, and to determine what instruction the child is to be subjected to, but the parent may not require the child to subscribe to the parent’s beliefs. Second, the parent’s authority is at its maximum when the child is youngest, and authority decreases as the child approaches majority.
So, I can, should I choose to do so, teach my 5 year-old the Pledge of Allegiance, and instruct him in what each phrase means. I can even have him memorize it and repeat it. My 17 year-old, on the other hand, and if I’ve done my job correctly, should have the skills and knowledge necessary to interpret the pledge for herself, and decide for herself whether to participate in its recitation or whether to adopt it as part of her personal creed. I may be sad if she chooses other than as I would have her choose, but I must protect her right to make her own choice.
Jan 31 at 3:02 pm
Well said Todd. I pledge allegiance to God alone as well. By default, that allengiance naturally carries over to my family and self as that is what we are meant to do, as designed by God, Worship but one God, loving thy neighbor as thyself - that’s the allegiance that God/Jesus has mandated. I, as a Christian, and nevertheless as a human being, strive to follow that mandate.
Countries are human made, not God made, and I agree ours is great, but it is great because we have the freedom to live here agreeing or not agree with others/government and act peacefully in expressing ourselves.
M. Gray, should I have to leave this country if I don’t speak certain words? If I don’t recite these certain words, does that mean that I’m not committed to this country? And are you the one deciding what “committed” means and what it means to protect our freedoms?
If you answered yes to any of those questions then one, that’s pretty scary and two, you’ve missed the whole point of our country “The United States of America” and the freedoms upon which it was established.
This past summer I rocked and screamed at my third Toby Keith concert and then the next morning I went to worship at an unprogrammed Quaker Meeting (”liberal” branch of Quakers) and honey, if that ain’t America, I don’t know what is.
This is not a parental issue; it’s about mind control. Parents can (and should) teach their children out the wazoo, meaning they pass down their morals, religion, values by discussion and most importantly by example. However a person, parent or not, cannot control or decide, what another person thinks. It’s not even possible. Jesus did not control anybody’s mind. He taught and showed by example. He didn’t force anyone to say words.
Back to M. Gray, here…now think about the terms you are throwing around, “communistic”, hmmm…
L. Chin, I can love this country and still not say the Pledge, see above.
Rich, I didn’t read anyone’s opinion that parents are mostly bad to their children The “disenfranchised” statement by C. Delfin did not say that either.
If, in fact, children are disenfranchised in this country, it would seem to be a matter of course set by the state of our society, of which parents are a part. Not that parents maliciously set out to remove children’s rights.
If we’re less determined to be pointing and accusing here, we might stop and think a bit more reasonably.
Jan 31 at 11:50 pm
Wow! This is an interesting decision. Can I now bring a class action suit in favor of the babies who are being murdered during the abortion of their mother? Somebody should be have authority to speak for those who have no voice yet. I think the judge said the woman has no right to speak for her opinion contrary to the opinion of the human being who is being killed. The normal responce to attempted murder is self-defense, as proven by DNA under the victim’s fingernails.
Feb 2 at 2:31 pm
The right not to salute the US flag has already been heard and decreed by the Supreme Court based on a case brought by Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1943 in the fervor of WWII. Their view is pledging allegiance to any country–not just the United States of America–is a form of idolatry that precludes allegiance to God as being foremost in their lives. Many had already lost their lives for not saying “heil Hitler” in Nazi Germany and for not saying other allegiance slogans in other countries during nationalistic emotion.
W.Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0319_0624_ZS.html
Feb 24 at 3:41 pm