As of this writing there are twelve children participating in our First Day School:
3 are Homeschooled, 5 attend Quaker school, and 6 attend some form of public school, whether a day care, preschool, elementary or high school.
We, the Committee for Care For Our Youth, would like to create a letter for those students who are trying to uphold their Quaker Testimonies in a non-Quaker environment. This letter would contain a brief summary of some of our Testimonies, and what the school might expect from a Quaker student. If a Parent in our Meeting feels the need to contact their child’s school the secretary would then send a letter to the school administrator and homeroom teacher.
The following is a revised draft of the proposed letter presented at the 4/6/08 Business Meeting:
Dear Principal/Teacher:
__________________ , a student in your school, is a member/regular attender of Medford Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, in Medford, NJ.
What follows is a brief outline of some of the Friends’ Testimonies and what you might expect from a Quaker student. Please keep in mind that the Testimonies are a shared view of how Quakers relate to God and the world. They are not a formal creed or doctrine.
Our Testimony of Peace means "we utterly deny all outward wars and strife", therefore a Quaker student might not wish to participate in displays of reverence for the Military. They might express discomfort in writing letters of enthusiastic support to soldiers overseas or singing songs that glorify war. They might not submit their names to Military Recruiters, enroll in Selective Service or register as Conscientious Objectors. While Friends support soldiers as people, we are troubled by the use of agents of destruction.
Our Testimony of Equality means that we believe the presence of God exists in each person, and that no one deserves more respect than another. Physical symbols such as flags and crosses are seen as placing institutions and objects before God, and are not consistent with Friends’ teachings. This testimony would mean that a student might not wish to participate in saying the Pledge of Allegiance, standing for the Pledge, or saluting the flag. Our belief in equality also means that a Quaker student might be uncomfortable using titles of rank. If the student refrains from using Mr. or Mrs. they may address you by first and last name, or with the prefix, Teacher. Also, some Quaker students might not remove their hats for anyone or anything, except in prayer. We believe only God warrants such an act of respect.
Our Testimony of Integrity means telling the truth and choosing to follow the leading of the Spirit despite the urgings of our peers and those in authority to do otherwise. Pledging to the flag, or saying oaths in contrary to the spirit of this testimony.
We understand that in a public school these leadings may be difficult to sustain, but if the students are called to do so, we hope that you will support their convictions. If the teacher feels it necessary, an explanation of the student’s beliefs could be given by the teacher or the student‘s parents, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and tolerance.
Thank you for your patience and assistance,
Signature
The following are excerpts from various law journals and Friends writings discussing the pledge & the flag:
from Pledge of Allegiance statutes, state by state
By Peyton Cooke
Contributing writer
06.19.06
New Jersey:
The Pledge is to be said each day by all students, standing with hand over heart. Those with “conscientious scruples against such Pledge” may opt out, as may the children of foreign representatives to whom the United States extends diplomatic immunity. Boys are required to remove all forms of headdress. N.J. Stat. Ann. §18A:36-3(c).
from Friends Council on Education, "Patriotism, Pledge of Allegiance, Flag Display"
Tom Hoopes
Central Philadelphia Meeting
PYM Education Coordinator
The Pledge of Allegiance requirement clearly contradicts Friends' historical refusal to take oaths. As Thomas Farquhar wrote on behalf of Westtown School, "We must remain faithful to the example of the first generation of Friends, who suffered persecution in English prisons rather than swear an oath of allegiance to the crown. Our allegiance is to God, and we believe that God's truth can be learned better through inward reflection than through outward ritual."
Enthusiasm for the flag as our national symbol intensifies at times of military engagement. Friends feared that obedience to the requirements of this legislation could easily be confused with support for a war that many of us could not support, as a matter of conscience and religious principle.
Friends Select School
Response to Pennsylvania Legislature Act 157
Friends Select School affirms our exemption from the recent legislation requiring the display of the American flag and mandatory recitation of the pledge of allegiance as it is in direct conflict with the religious principles and commitments of the Religious Society of Friends, on which the school is based.
The Friends Select School community understands and values citizenship. Part of being a U.S. citizen is to incorporate the values of freedom, democracy, respect for others and responsibility and to express those values in direct ways both individually and collectively. A key belief of Friends is that the presence of God exists in each person and Friends have historically sought to honor God before honoring human institutions. Physical symbols such as flags and crosses or verbal symbols such as oaths and pledges are seen as placing institutions before God, and are not present in Friends' meeting houses or schools.
Pledge of Allegiance In the Legal Spotlight
Education Week
July 10, 2002
“Pledge of Allegiance In the Legal Spotlight”
By Rhea R. Borja
Under a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, students cannot be required to recite the pledge.
Quaker schools, which are attended by students whose religious backgrounds range from Christian to Muslim, actively discourage the practice. And most Quaker schools don't fly the American flag either, said Irene McHenry, the executive director of the Friends Council on Education, based in Philadelphia.
Quakers see such practices as competing with the allegiance owed only to God. Quakers, many of whom were conscientious objectors during World Wars I and II and the Vietnam conflict, also refuse to take oaths and don't use religious symbols such as crucifixes. "We feel that the Pledge of Allegiance is profoundly un- American," said Tom Hoopes, the education coordinator for the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. "It contradicts long- standing Quaker practice and Quaker spiritual teachings."
Friends Seminary - excerpt from Heads' letter to community, January 15, 2002
A parent called and wondered why we were not flying the American flag out front or why we didn't have flags in the classrooms or require the pledge allegiance to the flag. These are not easy questions to explain, but they do fit into the general Quaker testimonies (certainly shared by more than Quakers) mentioned above. Friends Seminary does not normally fly the American flag outside - it has in the past few years flown the school banner designed for its bicentennial - nor has it ever, probably, flown the American flag in the classrooms. Not to fly the flag should not be considered anti-American - it merely means that a flag institutionally flown engenders a danger of thinking through too narrowly the options for peaceful solutions and seeking restraint. Quakers from their inception have been skeptical of emblems of power, such as flags or crosses or other icons symbolizing institutional or, on a greater scale, imperial presumptions of loyalty. Such icons inhibit discourse and "finding the way" through a collective openness to truth no single individual - or no single power - can embrace. It is also the Quaker's reluctance to require the repeating of public oaths or pledges of loyalty - indeed to repeat public prayers such as the Lord's Prayer or the Apostles' Creed as many religious schools do - because of the fear that the power of the institution supersedes the individual's right to question the validity of the statement, or to question and explore a wider range of loyalties and commitments than the symbol to which one pledges might encompass.
PYM letter to Senator Rhoades re: PA H.B. 592, November 29, 2001
Friends refrain from taking oaths, even in courts of law. We avoid the use of symbols such as crucifixes and altars in our places of worship. Our religious practices do not include the outward administration of sacraments, which we also see as symbols and unnecessary in our relationship with God. And we hold that we may rightly pledge allegiance only to God, not to a man-made symbol representing a human institution. We believe that to compel all schools and all teachers and supervisors to participate in displaying and pledging allegiance to the flag violates the guarantee of the free exercise of religion set forth in both the Charter of Privileges granted by William Penn in 1701 (providing that no one in Pennsylvania could be "compelled to frequent or mentaine any Religious Worship place or Ministry contrary to his or theire mind or doe or Suffer any other act or thing contrary to theire Religious perswasion") and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Likewise, we believe that compelling students to participate in such practices unless they and their parents formally request exemption is contrary at least to the spirit of this guarantee. For these reasons, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends minutes its opposition to House Bill 592 and strongly urges the Pennsylvania Senate Education Committee, committee chair James Rhoades, and all members of the State Senate, to strike this and any similar provision from any legislation that the Senate might consider.
Yours in faith,
Chris Mahon
Clerk Interim Meeting of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
Larry Boggess - State College Friends School, September 18, 2001
Dear Friends School Families,
Where is the American flag at Friends School? You may have noticed the school does not fly the American flag or display flags in classrooms. Nor do we pledge allegiance to the flag. In our current mourning for those killed last Tuesday and our country's deepening patriotism this week, why not fly the flag at Friends School? It is not because Quakers don't care about those who have perished. It is not because Quakers are unaffected by the senseless violence. It is not because Quakers don't love their country. I will not assume I speak for all Quakers, but I will share my understanding of this issue with the hope our school community might understand a little more about the Quaker perspective. From early colonial days, Quakers made a point to honor God before honoring human institutions. The name "Quaker" was originally an insult thrown at members of the Religious Society of Friends because they literally quaked with the spirit of God. You may remember the painting depicting the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. Only one person refused to remove his hat in honor of that solemn gathering. He stands in the background of the painting, wearing all gray. He is the Quaker, removing his hat only to God. Quakers maintain that same spirit to this day. Friends de-emphasize symbols, preferring direct experience and participation in the experiences the symbols represent. Some Quakers will not remove hats in public buildings, fly flags, or say the pledge of allegiance as matters of principle. They are not disloyal Americans. Indeed, as pacifists, Quakers work for the government and in our public schools; they are active in local and national politics, they provide relief services, and some even serve in the military as non-combatants. Quakers will pledge allegiance to God but not to a cloth symbol representing a human-made, political institution only occasionally dedicated to peaceful resolution of conflicts. As a Quaker, I know this belief is counter-cultural and unconventional, but it stems from spiritual and historical roots. Three hundred years ago, Quakers emerged through a radical expression of their spirituality. Their direct and sometimes mystical relationship with the Light Within seems no less radical today. Our school will inevitably use the tragedy before us as an extended teachable moment, respecting the rights and customs of non-Quakers even as we Quakers attempt to articulate what it means to be a Friends School in the 21st Century. Our school's core beliefs, Equality, Community, Simplicity, and Harmony, will guide us through an unknown future.
Peace.
Larry Boggess
Head of School
from Fager, Charles E. "The Quaker Testimony of Simplicity". Quaker Religious Thought, Vol. 14, #1. Summer, 1972.
Honorific titles, even Mr., Mrs. and Miss were often avoided by early Friends. Instead Friends tended to address each other by first and last name with no title. This often holds true among Quakers today. In many Quaker communities, children address adults by their first names, and in many Quaker schools teachers are called by their first names as well. This practice is now considered more a part of the Testimony of Equality than a part of the Testimony of Simplicity. Early Friends also objected to the usual names of the days and months in the English language, because many of them referred to Roman or Norse gods, such as Mars (March) or Thor (Thursday) and emperors, such as Julius (July). As a result, the days of the week were known as "First Day" for Sunday, "Second Day" for Monday, and so forth. Similarly, the months of the year were "First Month" for January, "Second Month" for February, and so forth (though researchers should remember however that before the Gregorian calendar was adopted, "First Month" was March rather than the current January). Many Friends organizations continue to use the "simple calendar" for official records. Additionally early Friends did not, and many modern Friends do not, swear oaths, even in courtrooms (a choice that has been allowed in Britain since 1695, and is protected in the United States by the Constitution, and one that can be problematic elsewhere). Instead they "affirm" that they are going to tell the truth. This was considered an aspect of simplicity because it was simply telling the truth rather than embellishing it with an oath, which is not necessary if one is supposed to always tell the truth. In a similar manner Friends avoid haggling over prices. They simply set a fixed price that was fair, which went against the custom of earlier times, but was simpler and more honest (this practice is generally considered more a part of the Testimony of Integrity than a part of the Testimony of Simplicity).
from quaker.ca/intro.html
Equality was an important issue. In those days the custom was to take off one's hat, and bow, and use the respectful 'you' instead of the familiar 'thee/thou' with those of higher social rank. This Quakers refused to do. Nor would they use titles in addressing or referring to others. Rich, poor, old, young, men, women, educated, uneducated, privileged, oppressed - all were treated equally and simply called by their full or first names. There was an emphasis on simplicity and plainness of speech and dress, which became rigidly entrenched as time went on. When brought to court, they refused to swear oaths on the Bible, stating firmly that there are not two standards of truth, and following literally the biblical commandment to 'swear not at all.' We still do not use titles. We still espouse simplicity, though we no longer dress differently than anyone else. We 'affirm' rather than take an oath in court. But perhaps we have mellowed, and the authorities have mellowed, for we no longer seem to be so often put in jail.
from http://www.lawrev.state.nj.us/anachr/flagM050707.pdf
TO: New Jersey Law Revision Commission
FROM: Staff
DATE: May 7, 2007
RE: Flag salute
The Third Circuit opinion holding unconstitutional the requirement that students
stand during the flag salute is attached. The unconstitutional provision can be excised as
follows:
18A:36-3. Display of and salute to flag; pledge of allegiance
Every board of education shall:
(a) Procure a United States flag, flagstaff and necessary appliances
therefore for each school in the district and display such flag upon or near
the public school building during school hours;
(b) Procure a United States flag, flagstaff and necessary appliances
or standard therefore for each assembly room and each classroom in each
school, and display such flag in the assembly room and each classroom
during school hours and at such other time as the board of education may
deem proper; and
(c) Require the pupils in each school in the district on every school
day to salute the United States flag and repeat the following pledge of
allegiance to the flag: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," which salute and pledge of
allegiance shall be rendered with the right hand over the heart, except that
pupils who have conscientious scruples against such pledge or salute, or
are children of accredited representatives of foreign governments to whom
the United States government extends diplomatic immunity, shall not be
required to render such salute and pledge or to stand during it but shall be
required to show full respect to the flag while the pledge is being given
merely by standing at attention, the boys removing the headdress.
#Page 2 United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Deborah LIPP, a minor, by her father, Michael Lipp, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. Harry MORRIS, Robert Lautensack, and William F. Hyland, Defendants.
Appeal of William F. HYLAND.
No. 77-2435.
Argued June 9, 1978.
Decided July 18, 1978.
Action was brought on behalf of student by her father against principal of high school,
president of board of education and Attorney General of State of New Jersey challenging
constitutionality of New Jersey statutory provision requiring school students to stand at
attention during pledge of allegiance. The United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, H. Curtis Meanor, J., declared the provision unconstitutional and
defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals, held that the provision is an
unconstitutional requirement that students engage in form of speech and may not be
enforced.
Affirmed.
*835 Constance Hepburn, East Windsor, N. J., for plaintiff-appellee.
William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen., Stephen Skillman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mark D. Schorr,
Deputy Atty. Gen., Trenton, N. J., for defendant-appellant.
James J. Plick, Rockaway, N. J., for amicus curiae.
Before ROSENN, and HUNTER, Circuit Judges, and KUNZIG, Judge.[FN*]
FN* Honorable Robert L. Kunzig, Judge, United States Court of Claims,
sitting by designation.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM: This case involves the constitutionality of a New Jersey statute requiring
school students to stand at attention during the salute to the flag. The appeal brings
before the court two questions: (1) Did the District Judge abuse his discretion in
declining to abstain because the New Jersey statute involved here is clear and
unambiguous, and (2) Is the statute unconstitutional because it compels an affirmation
of belief or punishes protected activity in violation of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
District Judge H. Curtis Meanor held for the plaintiff, severed the following language of a
New Jersey statute (N.J.Stat.Ann. s 18A:36-3(c), and declared this segment to be
unconstitutional: [FN1] . . . but shall be required to show full respect to the flag while
the pledge is being given merely by standing at attention * * *.[FN2] We affirm.
FN1. Judge Meanor also dismissed Robert Lautenstack as a defendant.
The question of dismissal was not raised on appeal.
FN2. N.J.Stat.Ann. s 18A:36-3 provides in part:
Every board of education shall:
#Page 3 (c) Require the pupils in each school in the district on every school day
to salute the United States flag and repeat the following pledge of
allegiance to the flag: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, which salute and pledge
of allegiance shall be rendered with the right hand over the heart, except
that pupils who have conscientious scruples against such pledge or
salute, or are children of accredited representatives of foreign governments to
whom the United States Government extends diplomatic
immunity, shall not be required to render such salute and pledge but
shall be required to show full respect to the flag while the pledge is being
given merely by standing at attention, the boys removing the
headdress.
Plaintiff, Deborah Lipp, a 16-year-old, alleged that because the statute directed that she
stand during the recitation of the pledge of allegiance to the flag, compelling her to
make what she termed a symbolic gesture, it violated her rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. The action was brought under 42 U.S.C. s 1983 (1970).
Plaintiff was a student at Mountain Lakes High School, New Jersey. Defendants were
Harry Morris, principal of the high school; Robert Lautenstack, president of the board of
education; and William F. Hyland, attorney general of New Jersey. Plaintiff emphasized
that in her belief, the words of the pledge were not true and she stood only because she
had been threatened if she did not do so.
Defendant argues first that the district court should have abstained from ruling on the
constitutionality of the New Jersey statute to permit a New Jersey court to construe the
law and thereby avoid a decision on federal constitutional grounds. The clearest answer
to this argument is the statement of the District Judge which we adopt: I can only do
that (abstain) where the statute is open to an alternative construction which would
avoid the Constitutional issue. This statute permits no such construction. It's plain,
simple, blunt English. As the U. S. Supreme Court said in Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S.
241, 251 n.14, 88 S.Ct. 391, 397, 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967):
We have frequently emphasized that abstention is not to be ordered unless the state
statute is of an uncertain nature, and is obviously susceptible of a limiting construction.
*836 Here we hold that the statute is not of an uncertain nature and, therefore, the
case does not qualify for application of the abstention doctrine.
Secondly, defendant asserts that being required to stand while others engage in the flag
salute ceremony is in no way a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The
attorney general of New Jersey argues that mere standing does not rise to the level of
symbolic speech. Defendant suggests that standing silently is the same as just
remaining seated, and that by the simple act of standing, the plaintiff in no way
engages in protected activity.
Citing Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628
(1943); Goetz v. Ansell, 477 F.2d 636 (2nd Cir. 1973), and Banks v. Board of Public
Instruction, 314 F.Supp. 285 (S.D.Fla.1970), [FN3] Deborah Lipp urges that her right to
remain silent and not to be forced to stand springs directly from the precise First
Amendment right against compelled participation in the flag ceremony recognized in
Barnette.
FN3. Banks originated as a three-judge case. It was reversed and
remanded for a fresh decree by the Supreme Court. 401 U.S. 988, 91
#Page 4 S.Ct. 1223, 28 L.Ed.2d 526 (1971). Upon remand, the district judge
entered an order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law of
the three-judge court pertaining to the unconstitutionality of requiring a
student to stand during the pledge of allegiance. The Fifth Circuit
affirmed. 450 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1971).
Banks and Goetz are precisely on point. They interdict the state from requiring a student
to engage in what amounts to implicit expression by standing at respectful attention
while the flag salute is being administered and being participated in by other students.
Cf. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977).
In the words of Judge Meanor: I find this statute to be severable, that is, the portion
thereof attacked as unconstitutional may rationally be severed from the remainder of the
statute. * * * This mandatory condition upon the student's right not to participate in the
flag salute ceremony is an unconstitutional requirement that the student engage in a
form of speech and may not be enforced. The unconstitutionality of this severable portion
of the statute is declared at this time. We concur.
Accordingly, after consideration of all submissions of the parties and the amicus curiae,
and after argument, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
C.A.N.J.,1978.
Lippv.Morris
579 F.2d 834
