X

ProCon.org Feels Free, But It Isn't

You can always expect thoroughly researched pros, cons, and related information on today’s hottest topics at ProCon.org. Your tax-deductible donations keep this service free and ad-free for 25+ million students, teachers, journalists, and regular folks.
ProCon.org Feels Free, But It Isn't

You can always expect thoroughly researched pros, cons, and related information on today’s hottest topics at ProCon.org. Your tax-deductible donations keep this service free and ad-free for 25+ million students, teachers, journalists, and regular folks.

ProCon.org is needed now more than ever before. These are divisive times. Emotions are heightened. It’s harder to have respectful conversations and to find common ground. ProCon.org gives everyone an unbiased exploration of important issues to encourage understanding and critical thinking. We can all heal the increasing divide and ground conversations with facts. Millions use our site every year, but few give. We’re going to start changing that with your help. Thank you for making a donation today and for sharing ProCon.org with others.
SUPPORT PROCON.ORGX






Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow, Esq., whose lawsuit to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance was dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 for a "lack of standing," has joined two anonymous parents to file a new lawsuit on the same matter in New Hampshire.

The Oct. 31, 2007 lawsuit (PDF 666KB), officially called The Freedom From Religion Foundation; Jan Doe and Pat Doe, Parents; Doechild-1, Doechild-2 and Doechild-3, Minor Children; v. U.S. Congress, U.S.A, Hanovers School District, The Dresden School District, and School Admin Unit 70, stated:

"By placing the religious words 'under God' into the Pledge, Congress not only interfered with the patriotism and national unity the Pledge was meant to engender, but it actually fostered divisiveness ... in a manner expressly forbidden by the Constitution ...

[E]ndorsing the religious notion that God exists [creates a] societal environment where prejudice against atheists -- is perpetuated ...

Plaintiffs, generally, deny that God exists, and maintain that their constitutional and statutory rights are abridged when the school district defendants participate in making the purely religious, monotheistic claim that the United States is 'one nation under God'...

By endorsing the religious notion that God exists, the now-religious Pledge creates a societal environment where prejudice against atheists – and, thus, against Plaintiffs here – is perpetuated ...

The rights of the Doe Plaintiff parents to instill in their children the religious beliefs they find persuasive – free from governmental influence – has been abridged by Defendants' practices....

It should be noted that Plaintiffs are making no objection to the recitation of a patriotic Pledge of Allegiance. The government is certainly within its right to foster patriotism, and it may certainly make the determination that recitation of a Pledge of Allegiance serves that purpose. However, government may not employ or include sectarian religious dogma towards this end....

By placing the religious words 'under God' into the Pledge, Congress not only interfered with the patriotism and national unity the Pledge was meant to engender, but it actually fostered divisiveness . . . in a manner expressly forbidden by the Constitution."
Oct. 31, 2007 Freedom From Religion Foundation, et al., vs. U.S.A., et al. (PDF 666KB)