#minersville v gobitis

[flying-potato2]

fun fact! It is unlawful for any public institution to require individuals to stand or recite the pledge of allegiance to the united states of america since the 1943 supreme court case of West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette, which ruled that such actions constituted a violation of the first amendment.

The case was started by several Jehovah's Witnesses, who in 1936 were informed that saluting the flag and reciting the pledge would be considered idolatry and baptised JWs who commited such actions would be breaking their covenantry with god. This resulted in a number fo children of JWs being expelled from their schools for refusing to recite the pledge.

In 1942, West Virginia passed a regulation making the pledge mandatory for all schoolchildren, and that refusal to do so could result in jail for the parents for up to thirty days. This resulted in the expulsion of many JWs from schools across the county, including the Barnett family children. The Barnetts soon went to court, claiming that such requirements violated "equal protection" under the 14th amendment and freedom of religion and speech under the 1st amendment. The District Court enjoined the Board's regulation, and they appealed to the supreme court soon after.

The court was required toconsider the precedent they had set just three years prior with Minersville v Gobitis, in which they ruled that the enforcement of saluting the flag in public schools was not in violation of any laws or rights, and further that the enforcement of such displays was necessary for the national unity and continued security of the united states. This time around, seeing that the issue at hand would not infringe on the rights of others, the court ruled that it was an infringement on free speech for the state to compel any individual to take such an oath or perform such actions. The court stated in its opinion,"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters." in reference to the Nazi regime, and that "To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds."

i dont really have a way to end this i just think it's cool. that even in 1943 the supreme court was able to recognize that encouraging "national unity" by removing freedoms was and always will lead directly into facism, even if it took the jehovahs witnesses raising (SEVERAL!) complaints to get them to that point.

[todaysdocument]

Letter from Hellen Odle, 1/30/1951

“[D]id [SCOTUS] declare . . . that flag saluting was not legal on the account of freedom of (worship) worship?”

Partly true: 319 U.S. 624 found that kids in public school can't be required to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

File Unit: Case File for Minersville v. Gobitis, 1792 - 2017

Series: Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files, 1792 - 2017

Record Group 267: Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1772 - 2007

Transcription:

Justice

Port Orchard, Wash

Jan, 30, 1951

Secretary to the President

White House

Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

Want you to

set me right, did the

Supreme Court of the United 

States declare that on June

14, 1943, that flag saluting 

was not legal on the

account of freedom of (worship)

worship?

Had a Jehovah Witness

woman to tell me that

& just wanted to know

-2-

In school & since (cut off)

been grown, have a(cut off)

saluted the flag, for, we

was taught in the school,

that, that, was our heritage

to our country.

So, set me right, if, I

am wrong, & let me

know if the Supreme

Court made that decision.

Yours for our Country

Mrs. Hellen Odle,

Box 985

Port Orchard Wash.

[spanky606]

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette LAW CASE WRITTEN BY:  The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 14, 1943, that compelling children in public schools to salute the U.S. flag was an unconstitutional violation of their freedom of speech and religion. On the heels of Minersville School District(Pennsylvania) v. Gobitis (1940), in which the Supreme Court upheld (8–1) the school district’s expulsion of two students for refusing to salute the flag on the basis of religious grounds (the children were Jehovah’s Witnesses), West Virginiaenacted a rule in 1942 that required students to salute the U.S. flag. Walter Barnette, a Jehovah’s Witness in West Virginia, sued in U.S. district court and won an injunction against state enforcement of the rule. The state school board appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were held on March 11, 1943, and the ruling was issued on June 14. In a 6–3 decision the court overturned the Gobitis ruling. The majority opinion was written by Justice Robert H. Jackson, who had voted with the majority in Gobitis. While the earlier decision had focused primarily on claims of freedom of religion protections in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, the Barnette ruling invoked both freedom of religion and an individual’s freedom of speech—and that freedom of speech included the right not to be forced to speak against one’s will. Jackson’s opinion underscored the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority: “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.” And, attempting to capture the essence of the Bill of Rightsprotections, Jackson wrote: The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal princip

[nightwing8782]

Salute the Flag, Harlan Stone, and Gobitis

Salute the Flag, Harlan Stone, and Gobitis

My Country – You Don’t Have to Salute the Flag On June 3, 1940, the Supreme Court held that a Jehovah’s Witness must salute the flag if required by statute. In Pennsylvania, a state law required school children to salute the flag. A child claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. We discussed both of the cases when we talked about oaths. However, we get a better understanding of…

[marymosley]

Syracuse University Warns Students That They May Be Punished For Not Acting To Confront “Bias Motivated” Speech or Conduct

The law has always drawn a line between malfeasance and nonfeasance in considering unlawful acts, but Syracuse University is about to eradicate any real distinction in newly proposed rules by Professor Keith Alford, the university first diversity an inclusion officer. Under the new rules, students would be punished for simply witnessing “bias-motivated” incidents and “acts of hate.” The change was demanded by the #NotAgainSU which demanded expulsion for “individuals who witnessed the event or were present, but did not take part.”

Alford sent an email warning that students:

“The Code of Student Conduct has been revised, based on your input, to state that violations of the code that are bias-motivated—including conduct motivated by racism—will be punished more severely. The University also revised the code to make clear when bystanders and accomplices can be held accountable. The code will be prepared and distributed for students to sign in the fall.”

It does not go as far as the student group demanded in requiring expulsion, the rule also does not clearly state how silence or inaction will be judged in any given circumstance. It appears left up to the investigators. That uncertainty will prompt many to guarantee compliance by speaking or acting to avoid even the chance that they might be subjected to a highly damaging bias charge.  The school also warned that new cameras were being installed in “first-floor lounges,” “public areas,” and within residency hall elevators. Thus, any student who failed to immediately act would be observed and presumably at risk of being investigated or charged under the new rule.

Courts have long distinguished between malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance. In Bell v. Josselyn, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 309, 311 (1855),  the court explained “Nonfeasance is the omission of an act which a person ought to do; misfeasance is the improper doing of an act which a person might lawfully do; and malfeasance is the doing of an act which a person ought not to do at all.”).  This distinction can be lost in some cases like corporate law or prosecutorial ethics where duties come with a duty to act in a particular fashion.

The concern raised by the Syracuse rule is that there remains controversies over vague universities standards on bias or race motivated violations including microaggressive language or actions.  Recently, a student writer at Syracuse was sacked for simply questioning the basis for claims of institutional racism. What is viewed as bias-motivated speech for some is viewed as political speech by others. The new rule would suggest that even students who do not agree that an incident is “bias-motivated” must still act to avoid scrutiny or punishment. Students could feel an obligation to prove that they are not racist by immediately and openly opposing such acts, lest they could be next to be accused.

Given the rising concerns over the erosion of free speech on our campuses, the punishing of students for nonfeasance for merely being witnesses or passive adds a new chilling element to speech. It is not just silencing those who now fear expressing their views on campus. It would now require speech and action to avoid possible discipline.  For those students, the new rule creates a “prove you are not a racist” (or biased) burden.

The Supreme Court has long treated compelled speech cases as some of the most serious denials of free speech. In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), Jehovah’s Witness family challenged the mandatory Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court struck down the rule as a denial of the students’ “freedom of mind” by forcing them to “declare a belief.” It stressed:

“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.”

The Court has repeatedly overturned compelled symbols or speech that “invade[] the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.”  Minersville District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 642 (1940).

While nonfeasance penalties may find acceptability in some legal areas, it has long been anathema to free speech.  While Syracuse should be commended for seeking to strengthen its policies and programs fighting racism and other forms of bias, it should rescind this form of nonfeasant misconduct.

Syracuse University Warns Students That They May Be Punished For Not Acting To Confront “Bias Motivated” Speech or Conduct published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[meekspaceng]

Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States:

1930s and 1940sEdit

During the late 1930s and the 1940s, Jehovah's Witnesses attacked the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations so vigorously that many states and municipalities passed laws against their inflammatory preaching.[8]

World War II

During World War II, Witnesses experienced mob violence in America because they were perceived as being against the war effort.[9]

Pledge of AllegianceEdit

Main articles: Minersville School District v. Gobitis and West Virginia v. Barnette

Mandatory flag pledges in public schools were motivated by patriotic fervor in wartime America.[citation needed] The first known mandatory flag pledges were instituted in a number of states during the Spanish–American War. During World War I, many more states instituted mandatory flag pledges with only a few dissents recorded by the American Civil Liberties Union. It was not until World War II was drawing to a close that the practice was officially challenged in the court system.

In 1935, Rutherford proscribed flag salutes, stating them to be a form of idolatry "contrary to the Word of God."[10] This stance drew mob violence against Witnesses[clarification needed] and many children of Witnesses were expelled from public schools. The Witnesses' apparent lack of patriotism angered local authorities, the American Legion, and others, resulting in vigilante violence during World War II. Men, women and children were injured and in some cases killed in mob attacks.[citation needed]

In 1940, the case of Minersville School District v. Gobitis received publicity in a lower federal court. The US Supreme Court ruled in an 8–1 decision that a school district's interest in creating national unity was sufficient to allow them to require that students salute the flag. After the court's decision in the Gobitis case, a new wave of persecution of Witnesses began across the nation. Lillian Gobitas later characterized the violence as "open season on Jehovah's Witnesses." The American Civil Liberties Union recorded 1,488 attacks on Witnesses in over 300 communities between May and October 1940. Angry mobs assaulted Witnesses, destroyed their property, boycotted their businesses and vandalized their places of worship. Less than a week after the court decision, a Kingdom Hall in Kennebunk, Maine was burnt down.[citation needed]

American Legion posts harassed Witnesses nationwide. At Klamath Falls, Oregon, members of the American Legion harassed Witnesses assembled for worship with requests to salute the flag and buy war bonds. They then attacked the Witnesses and besieged the meeting place, breaking windows, throwing in stink bombs, ammonia and burning kerosene rags. The Witnesses' cars were disabled and many were overturned. The governor was compelled to call the state militia to disperse the mob, which reached 1,000 at its peak.[11] In Texas, Witness missionaries were chased and beaten by vigilantes, and their literature was confiscated or burned.

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt appealed publicly for calm, and newspaper editorials and the American legal community[who?] condemned the Gobitas decision as a blow to liberty.[citation needed]Several justices signaled their belief that the case had been "wrongly decided."[citation needed] On June 16, 1940, in an effort to dispel the mob action, the United States Attorney General, Francis Biddle, stated on a nationwide radio broadcast:

Jehovah's witnesses have been repeatedly set upon and beaten. They had committed no crime; but the mob adjudged they had, and meted out mob punishment. The Attorney General has ordered an immediate investigation of these outrages. The people must be alert and watchful, and above all cool and sane. Since mob violence will make the government's task infinitely more difficult, it will not be tolerated. We shall not defeat the Nazi evil by emulating its methods.

In 1943, after a drawn-out litigation process by Watch Tower Society lawyers in state courts and lower federal courts, the Supreme Court reversed its previous decision, ruling that public school officials could not force Jehovah's Witnesses and other students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.[12]

[thegloober]

Battles Over Patriotism, Pledge of Allegiance In Schools Span A Century

When a California school principal called controversial quarterback Colin Kaepernick an “anti-American thug” for his protests during the national anthem at NFL football games, passions were inflamed anew over whether patriotism should be taught in America’s schools.

As our new book “Patriotic Education in a Global Age” demonstrates, such debates are longstanding in American history.

ADVERTISEMENT

Posting schoolhouse flags

Seventy-five years ago, at the height of America’s involvement in World War II, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that guaranteed public school students’ right to refuse to stand in patriotic salute.

Featured Video

Loading Video Content

Barnette’s origins go back to the late 19th century when patriotic societies such as the Grand Army of the Republic – a Civil War veterans’ organization – and the Woman’s Relief Corps – the organization’s women’s auxiliary – launched a campaign to place a flag in every public school classroom. “The reverence of schoolchildren for the flag should be like that of the Israelites for the Ark of the Covenant,” the organization’s commander-in-chief William Warner enthusiastically declared at a rally in 1889.

Three years later, in 1892, the schoolhouse flag movement received a huge boost when The Youth’s Companion – one of the nation’s first weekly magazines to target both adults and their children – hired minister-turned-advertiser Francis Bellamy to develop promotional strategies to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Columbus’ voyage to America. Bellamy’s national Columbus Day program involved assembling millions of students at their local schools to recite a pledge in salute to the American flag. The magazine profited from flag sales leading up to the event. The United States didn’t have an official pledge of national loyalty, however. So Bellamy composed his own: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Over the course of the next 40 years, the pledge underwent three revisions.

The first occurred almost immediately following the Columbus Day celebration when Bellamy, unhappy with the rhythm of his original work, inserted the word “to” before “the Republic.” Between 1892 and the end of World War I, this was the 23-word pledge that many states wrote into law.

The second modification occurred in 1923 when the American Legion’s National Americanism Commission recommended that Congress officially adopt Bellamy’s pledge as the national Pledge of Allegiance. Fearing, however, that Bellamy’s opening phrase – “I pledge allegiance to my Flag” – permitted immigrants to pledge allegiance to any flag they desired, the commission revised the line to read, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Over time, schools adopted the revision. Finally, in 1954, after the federal government included the pledge as part of the U.S. Flag Code during World War II, Congress reacted to the so-called godless communism many believed was infiltrating U.S. public institutions by adding the phrase “under God.”

Mainstreaming the pledge

Throughout the early 20th century, states across the nation passed laws that required student recitation as part of a morning flag salute so that by the time the United States plunged into World War I against Germany in 1917, pledging allegiance to the flag had become the standard beginning to the school day.

This explains why, in October 1935, 10-year-old Billy Gobitas and his 11-year-old sister Lillian were expelled from school after they refused to salute the flag. As Jehovah’s Witnesses who believed that venerating the flag violated God’s prohibition against bowing to graven images, the Gobitas family argued that the flag salute infringed the children’s First Amendment rights.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Supreme Court eventually heard the case Minersville School District v. Gobitis – a misspelling of the respondent’s surname – and decided for the school district. “We are dealing with an interest inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values,” Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote for the court’s 8-1 majority, as France was overrun by Hitler’s army: “National unity is the basis of national security.”

Court declares rights

Controversy ensued. Throughout the country, newspapers reported on debates over the flag salute.

Acts of violence were committed against the Jehovah’s Witnesses. These included beatings acts of arson and even a case of tar and feathering.

ADVERTISEMENT

At least partly because of the public’s reaction to the decision, the court agreed to hear another case that involved the flag salute just three years later. This time the case was brought by the families of seven Jehovah’s Witness children expelled in Charleston, West Virginia. Surprising many, the justices decided 6-3 in favor of the families and overruled Gobitis.

On Flag Day, 1943, Justice Robert Jackson delivered the majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. “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,” Jackson declared. “If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”

Although the Barnette decision held that students could not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the pledge has remained a mainstay of U.S. public education. Meanwhile, parents continue to oppose the pledgeas a violation of their children’s constitutional rights.

Consequently, legal challenges persist. One of the most recent cases challenged inclusion of the phrase “under God” in the pledge. In this case – Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow – the court did not rule in the matter because the plaintiff who brought the suit lacked standing. Since the case did not address the underlying issue of religious freedom, future challenges are likely.

ADVERTISEMENT

Similarly, Barnette did not address other pledge-related questions, such as whether students need parental permission to opt out of the flag salute. Cases that address this question, among others, continue to be pursued.

Whatever unresolved issues may remain, Barnette established as a matter of constitutional law and fundamental principle of American public life that participation in rituals of national loyalty cannot be compelled. The Supreme Court that rendered that decision clearly understood that non-participation can be well-motivated and should not be construed as a sign of disloyalty or lack of patriotism. The court was also clearly troubled by the vicious attacks on Americans who exercised their constitutional right not to participate.

We should be equally troubled now when we see public school leaders harshly condemn Colin Kaepernick – or any protester, for that matter – for how they choose to exercise their constitutional right to demand equal liberty and justice for all. Kaepernick decided to take a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality against African-Americans. The question we would pose to Kaepernick’s critics is this: How is taking a knee to affirm our country’s highest ideals anti-American?

This article was originally published on The Conversation by Randall Curren, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Rochester, and Charles Dorn, Professor of Education at Bowdoin College. Read the original article here.

ADVERTISEMENT

Source: https://bloghyped.com/battles-over-patriotism-pledge-of-allegiance-in-schools-span-a-century/

[dylanscheuerreligion-blog]

Peaceful Protest

Collin Kapearnick began a peaceful protest to protest police brutality against African Americans. This protest started quietly in the 2016 NFL season. It was a respectful way to show dissatisfaction in our government and its policies, many took this out of proportions by saying that this is meant as disrespect to our military and government. This form of protest however didn’t begin in 2016 as many ignorant Americans believe, it began after World War 2 when the Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to be involved in patriotic ceremonies. In 1940 the courts decided that everyone should be forced to salute the flag and participate in patriotic ceremonies in the case Minersville School District v. Gobitis. This led the witnesses to protest for their rights. This protest met similar opposition as it did today except back in the 1940’s witnesses were brutally beaten and killed for their refusal to salute the flag. Eventually the ruling was overturned with West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. Despite this protest being legal it doesn’t stop people from doing everything in their power to try to illegally and unethically stop these protest. Including the vice president Pence spending millions in tax payer money to protest this protest by showing up to the game and leaving after the anthem. The reality of the situation is that this is more American than apple pie. Apple pie is a delicious treat but if America was founded on one thing then that is protecting every group especially minorities. Most immigrants wanted protection of their religious views that were underrepresented in their society. America is great because America looks out for minorities, and doesn’t give birth to false Idols and sustaining the vast majority of xenophobes in our country. Collin’s protest had a simple goal but it went about it in a very educated respectful way. The protest was done very respectfully, and yet half the country hated him, why you ask? They love this country more than anyone or anything. Rather than people or God they worship an idea fabricated in propaganda, because if we are being honest with ourselves we’d admit that America was never so great, but maybe it will be when we remedy the lack of equality in our system. I am sure that the protest wasn’t as successful as Collin hoped for but it got people talking and hopefully people got much needed education on America’s history, ideology, and circumstances. I personally have been kneeling since 2016 when the protest started, I do it number one for equality, number 2 to protest Xenophobia, and number 3 because I don’t worship this country, I love its people but I love all people and as long as they don’t have rights I feel like I don’t have rights either. I’d also like to give a special shout out to the witnesses that gave their life for their views so that we could express ours. Remember every time you blindly salute that flag you salute to not only the good things but also the atrocities and genocides.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/sports/colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-protests-and-NFL-activism-in-quotes/?utm_term=.959ec64eff12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v._Gobitis

[anonymous-otter97]

During lecture we learned that Jehovah’s Witnesses have always had a strong voice when it comes to mingling with politics. This can be traced all the way back to World War 2 when they took a firm stance against the Nazi Party and their treatment of Jews some going so far as to even share the same fate. In America Jehovah’s Witnesses would exercise their first amendment rights and fight back against mandatory flag salute in schools. The first court case Minersville School District v. Gobitis would find that it was in the school boards constitutional right to force school children to pledge allegiance to the flag. This would be reversed in the West Virginia v. Barnette case in 1943. This case was argued by Witness attorney Hayden C. Covington and rightfully revisited the issue of mandatory flag salute. An important belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that the are peaceful and are against war. Many in America sign up for the draft but when the time comes they may not chose to serve in order to remain in adherence to their religion. However it is not even necessary for Jehovah’s Witnesses to be apart of the draft in countries like Finland. They have a specific law that makes Jehovah’s Witnesses exempt from the draft. However that is to soon change as according to the article “In a crucial ruling, a Finnish court found that exemption from military service currently enjoyed by Jehovah's Witnesses was "discriminatory" in that it penalized other "total objectors" who are jailed and regarded "prisoners of conscience" by Amnesty International.” This sets up another fight for Jehovah’s Witnesses and their right to follow their religion. I believe there will be some backlash from the Witnesses community after this ruling and perhaps even a few court cases trying to reverse the ruling. It seems as though not many have accepted Witnesses practices until recently but even now we are seeing that the community will have to continue to fight for their religion.

[ncfcatalyst]

Take a knee, Manatee! Manatee students press Board of Education for the right to kneel

Take a knee, Manatee! Manatee students press Board of Education for the right to kneel

“Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard,” the Supreme Court said in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, a famous case for students’ rights. It was overruling a previous one, Minersville School District v. Gobitis.   Minersville School District v. Gobitis stated public schools could force students to salute the flag and recite the pledge…

[trumpnewsus-blog]

Does Trump’s National Anthem Outrage Ignores Supreme Court Ruling?

New Post has been published on http://trumpnews.center/trumps-national-anthem-outrage-ignores-supreme-court-ruling/

Does Trump’s National Anthem Outrage Ignores Supreme Court Ruling?

Trump’s national anthem outrage ignores decades of Supreme Court rulings

When San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick chose to remain seated during a pre-game national anthem in protest against racial injustice and police brutality last year, his action caused widespread controversy. Now Donald Trump has reignited that controversy by suggesting at a rally that National Football League (NFL) players who take similar action should be kicked off their teams:

Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say ‘get that son of a b*tch off the field right now, he’s fired? He’s fired!’

The fallout was immediate. Stephen Curry, player for the Golden State Warriors, responded that he did not want to attend an event at the White House honouring the team’s success. Trump fired back by publicly withdrawing the invitation. In response, teams, players, and managers across the country (and at the London-based NFL games) followed Kaepernick’s example and kneeled, or stood, with arms locked in protest as the anthem was played before their games.

And so the debate rages on. But if anyone defending the players’ right to kneel (or #TakeAKnee) needs some backup for their arguments, there’s an obvious place for them to look: the judgements of the US Supreme Court, which has heard a number of major cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance and the treatment of the American flag, all touching on the obligations of patriotism and the right to refuse to participate in national rituals. And more than that, the court is generally supported by the people it serves – even when they disagree with its decisions.

So as the Trump-NFL national anthem controversy continues, let’s look at some of what the court has said on this subject over the decades.

Compulsory unity

In January 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor and America’s entry into World War II, West Virginia’s State Board of Education adopted a resolution requiring the state’s children to salute the flag as part of their daily school activities. Much as did Trump in his recent tweets about players’ refusal to stand for the national anthem at sporting events, the board argued that the salute would “honour the nation represented by the flag” and that refusal to participate would be “regarded as an act of insubordination”.

The board’s actions were inspired by a ruling two years earlier. In Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940), it was found that a compulsory flag salute and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance did not violate the constitutional rights of Jehovah’s Witness children, who objected to the actions on the grounds that it violated their faith’s requirements not to worship graven images. The fallout from that decision included laws and resolutions similar to West Virginia’s, increased reports of physical assaults on Witness children, and threats to send non-conforming children to reformatories.

Photo by bkusler

But the backlash wasn’t long in coming, and in 1943, the court reversed its decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, holding that such compulsory activities did violate the US Constitution.

The court recognised that the flag symbolised adherence to the government and that national unity was an important value: “National unity as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example is not in question.” It also noted that the case involved an emotional issue and was difficult “not because the principles of its decision are obscure, but because the flag involved is our own”. But the court also argued that “to sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind”.

Recognising that the Board of Education had acted in good faith, the court nevertheless issued a stark, eloquent warning:

Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men … Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

The justices also had a message for those who saw the children’s refusal as a threat to American patriotism and unity: “To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.”

Individuals might disagree with the actions taken, the court argued, but that does not mean such actions threaten the nation’s future, strength, or unity. In fact, the freedom to disagree is at its strongest when such disagreement touches on the most controversial issues.

Protecting contempt

Those most upset about players who choose not to stand for the national anthem might also do well to revisit a 1990 case, Texas v. Johnson, in which the court struck down a Texas law banning the burning of the American flag.

In concurrence with the decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed his difficulty with the case:

The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result. And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases.

“I agree,” Kennedy continued, “that the flag holds a lonely place of honour in an age when absolutes are distrusted and simple truths are burdened by unneeded apologetics.” But, he argued, “it is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt”.

Kennedy’s words have a particular message for those who see the players’ actions as an affront: sometimes those same American values demand you accept actions of which you don’t approve. You don’t have to like the decision to kneel during the national anthem, but you do have to accept that people have the right to do so without fear of retaliation.

The court has time and again recognised that the American people think differently about issues, and that they can express those differences so long as others are not prevented from exercising their own right to reply. Those caught up in the current debate should take heed.

Emma Long, Lecturer in American Studies, University of East Anglia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Related Trump News

Trump’s New Cyber Security Order

What would Mark Twain Think of Trump?

Take Away Trump’s Nuclear Football

Trump’s Trade Policy

Can President Trump Pull Money From His Businesses...

.yuzo_related_post imgwidth:130px !important; height:120px !important; .yuzo_related_post .relatedthumbline-height:15px;background: !important;color:!important; .yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb:hoverbackground:#fcfcf4 !important; -webkit-transition: background 0.2s linear; -moz-transition: background 0.2s linear; -o-transition: background 0.2s linear; transition: background 0.2s linear;;color:!important; .yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb acolor:!important; .yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb a:hover color:!important;} .yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb:hover a color:!important; .yuzo_related_post .yuzo_text color:!important; .yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb:hover .yuzo_text color:!important; .yuzo_related_post .relatedthumb margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; padding: 5px 5px 5px 5px; jQuery(document).ready(function( $ ) //jQuery('.yuzo_related_post').equalizer( overflow : 'relatedthumb' ); jQuery('.yuzo_related_post .yuzo_wraps').equalizer( columns : '> div' ); )

#LatestTrumpNews, #TrumpArticle, #TrumpNewsToday, #TrumpPolitics, #TrumpRecent #TrumpDomesticPolicy, #TrumpGovernment, #TrumpPolicies

[rare-vos-in-socks]

Okay, so this actually relates to my favorite US Supreme Court case ever: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624

A religious family in Pennsylvania had gotten into a kerfuffle with their local school board (Minersville School District v. Gobitis) and the court established that religious freedom would not stop a school from kicking students out if the students (and/or their families) tried to use religion to get out of strictly secular affairs... in this case, the flag salute.

Something similar happened in West Virginia, but this time the Supreme Court ruled rather differently. The minority opinion was basically, "What about Gobitis?!?" However, the case made to the court hadn't been framed as a separation of church and state issue (ala Gobitis), but as breach of basic rights of all belief - including secular. The majority opinion is masterclass on the role of public of public education within a nation-state:

"Here, however, we are dealing with a compulsion of students to declare a belief. They are not merely made acquainted with the flag salute so that they may be informed as to what it is or even what it means. The issue here is whether this slow and easily neglected route to aroused loyalties constitutionally may be short-cut by substituting a compulsory salute and slogan."

"Free public education, if faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and political neutrality, will not be partisan or enemy of any class, creed, party, or faction. If it is to impose any ideological discipline, however, each party or denomination must seek to control, or, failing that, to weaken, the influence of the educational system. Observance of the limitations of the Constitution will not weaken government in the field appropriate for its exercise."

"National unity, as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example, is not in question. The problem is whether, under our Constitution, compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for its achievement. Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."

"

Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. 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. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."

[meekspaceng]

Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States:

1930s and 1940sEdit

During the late 1930s and the 1940s, Jehovah's Witnesses attacked the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations so vigorously that many states and municipalities passed laws against their inflammatory preaching.[8]

World War II

During World War II, Witnesses experienced mob violence in America because they were perceived as being against the war effort.[9]

Pledge of AllegianceEdit

Main articles: Minersville School District v. Gobitis and West Virginia v. Barnette

Mandatory flag pledges in public schools were motivated by patriotic fervor in wartime America.[citation needed] The first known mandatory flag pledges were instituted in a number of states during the Spanish–American War. During World War I, many more states instituted mandatory flag pledges with only a few dissents recorded by the American Civil Liberties Union. It was not until World War II was drawing to a close that the practice was officially challenged in the court system.

In 1935, Rutherford proscribed flag salutes, stating them to be a form of idolatry "contrary to the Word of God."[10] This stance drew mob violence against Witnesses[clarification needed] and many children of Witnesses were expelled from public schools. The Witnesses' apparent lack of patriotism angered local authorities, the American Legion, and others, resulting in vigilante violence during World War II. Men, women and children were injured and in some cases killed in mob attacks.[citation needed]

In 1940, the case of Minersville School District v. Gobitis received publicity in a lower federal court. The US Supreme Court ruled in an 8–1 decision that a school district's interest in creating national unity was sufficient to allow them to require that students salute the flag. After the court's decision in the Gobitis case, a new wave of persecution of Witnesses began across the nation. Lillian Gobitas later characterized the violence as "open season on Jehovah's Witnesses." The American Civil Liberties Union recorded 1,488 attacks on Witnesses in over 300 communities between May and October 1940. Angry mobs assaulted Witnesses, destroyed their property, boycotted their businesses and vandalized their places of worship. Less than a week after the court decision, a Kingdom Hall in Kennebunk, Maine was burnt down.[citation needed]

American Legion posts harassed Witnesses nationwide. At Klamath Falls, Oregon, members of the American Legion harassed Witnesses assembled for worship with requests to salute the flag and buy war bonds. They then attacked the Witnesses and besieged the meeting place, breaking windows, throwing in stink bombs, ammonia and burning kerosene rags. The Witnesses' cars were disabled and many were overturned. The governor was compelled to call the state militia to disperse the mob, which reached 1,000 at its peak.[11] In Texas, Witness missionaries were chased and beaten by vigilantes, and their literature was confiscated or burned.

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt appealed publicly for calm, and newspaper editorials and the American legal community[who?] condemned the Gobitas decision as a blow to liberty.[citation needed]Several justices signaled their belief that the case had been "wrongly decided."[citation needed] On June 16, 1940, in an effort to dispel the mob action, the United States Attorney General, Francis Biddle, stated on a nationwide radio broadcast:

Jehovah's witnesses have been repeatedly set upon and beaten. They had committed no crime; but the mob adjudged they had, and meted out mob punishment. The Attorney General has ordered an immediate investigation of these outrages. The people must be alert and watchful, and above all cool and sane. Since mob violence will make the government's task infinitely more difficult, it will not be tolerated. We shall not defeat the Nazi evil by emulating its methods.

In 1943, after a drawn-out litigation process by Watch Tower Society lawyers in state courts and lower federal courts, the Supreme Court reversed its previous decision, ruling that public school officials could not force Jehovah's Witnesses and other students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.[12]

[meekspaceng]

Supreme Court Cases Involving Jehovah's Witnesses by Country:

United States

In the United States, numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946.[citation needed] Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone once quipped, "I think the Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."[28]

The most important U.S. Supreme Court legal victory won by the Witnesses was in the case West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943), in which the court ruled that school children could not be forced to pledge allegiance to or salute the U.S. flag. The Barnette decision overturned an earlier case, Minersville School District vs. Gobitis (1940), in which the court had held that Witnesses could be forced against their will to pay homage to the flag.

The fighting words doctrine was established by Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire(1942). In that case, a Jehovah's Witness had reportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching "You are a damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest, thus establishing that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

On January 15, 1951, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of a lower court in convicting two Jehovah's Witnesses lecturers of disorderly conduct of conducting public speeches in a city park of Harford County in Maryland without permits. The Supreme Court stated that the initial conviction was based on the lack of permits that were unconstitutionally denied, therefore convictions were not able to stand. The initial conviction was declined for review by the Maryland Court of Appeals under its normal appellate power, and further declined to take the case on certiorari, stating that the issues were not "matters of public interest" which made it desirable to review. Chief Justice Fred Vinsondelivered the opinion of the Court, stating that rarely has any case been before this Court which shows so clearly an unwarranted discrimination in a refusal to issue such a license. It is true that the City Council held a hearing at which it considered the application. But we have searched the record in vain to discover any valid basis for the refusal.[29]

On March 9, 1953, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned and remanded the Supreme Court of Rhode Island's affirmation of the conviction of a Jehovah's Witnesses member for holding a religious meeting in a city park of Pawtucket. The opinion of the court was that a religious service of Jehovah's Witnesses had been treated differently from the religious services of other denominations. The court stated that the city had not prohibited church services in the park, as Catholics and Protestants could conduct services there without violating the ordinance.[30]

In 2002, Jehovah's Witnesses refused to get government permits to preach door-to-door in Stratton, Ohio. The case was heard in the U.S. Supreme Court (Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton — 536 U.S. 150 (2002)). The Court ruled in favor of Jehovah's Witnesses, holding that making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the first Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.