The Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts ruled on Friday that the Pledge of Allegiance does not discriminate against atheists, Boston.com reported.
"The daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate Article 1 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights," wrote Chief Justice Roderick Ireland.
The case was brought on by an atheist family with children in the Acton-Boxborough Regional School District. They claimed their kids would be unfairly considered "unpatriotic" for not reciting the pledge, but Ireland did not buy their argument.
"There is no evidence ... that the Doe children have ever been subjected to any type of punishment, bullying or other mistreatment, criticism, condemnation, or ostracism as a result of not participating in the pledge or not reciting the words ‘under God,'" he wrote.
Due to the lack of evidence, the court said they could not eliminate a voluntary practice just because an individual disagreed with it.
"The fact that a school or other public entity operates a voluntary program or offers an activity that offends the religious beliefs of one or more individuals, and leaves them feeling ‘stigmatized' or ‘excluded' as a result, does not mean that the program or activity necessarily violates equal protection principles,'' Ireland wrote.
The court also wrote that there is simply no way for a school to determine how patriotic a student is.
"Reciting the pledge is a voluntary patriotic exercise, but it is not a litmus test for defining who is or is not patriotic,'' Ireland wrote. "The schools confer no ‘privilege' or ‘advantage' of patriotism ... to those who recite the pledge in its entirety.''
However, Justice Barbara Lenk wrote in a concurring opinion that the court could determine "under God" as unconstitutional in a future case, despite the Acton couple failing to prove their argument this time around.
"A reference to a supreme being, by its very nature, distinguishes between those who believe such a being exists and those whose beliefs are otherwise,'' Lenk wrote. If it is shown that "the distinction created by the pledge as currently written has engendered bullying or differential treatment, I would leave open the possibility that the equal rights amendment might provide a remedy.''
