Read as much as you want on BostonGlobe.com, anywhere and anytime, for just 99¢.

SJC considers suit to ban Pledge of Allegiance in schools

A family asked Massachusetts’ highest court Wednesday to ban the daily practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, arguing that the words ‘‘under God’’ in the pledge discriminate against atheists.

In arguments before the Supreme Judicial Court, a lawyer for an atheist Acton couple who sued on behalf of their three children argued that the reference to God suggests that ‘‘good patriots are God believers’’ and nonbelievers are less patriotic or unpatriotic.

Continue reading below

David Niose, an attorney representing the family and the American Humanist Association, rejected the argument that because the pledge is voluntary, it does not discriminate against atheists.

‘‘The exercise itself still discriminates. It defines patriotism a certain way,’’ Niose told the seven justices.

A lawyer for the Acton-Boxborough Regional School District argued that the pledge is not mandatory and students can opt out by either leaving out the reference to God or by not reciting the pledge.

‘‘There is no religious bias in the statute,’’ said Geoffrey Bok, an attorney for the school district.

Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told the justices that the phrase ‘‘under God’’ has a long history as an expression of a ‘‘political philosophy’’ and is not a religious declaration.

‘‘It’s always been used to limit first the power of the king and now the power of government,’’ Rassbach said. ‘‘It’s not a religious statement . . . no one is getting up there and saying a prayer when they say the Pledge of Allegiance.’’

Last year, a Massachusetts judge found that the words ‘‘under God’’ in the pledge did not violate state law or the school’s antidiscrimination policy. Judge S. Jane Haggerty found that including ‘‘under God’’ in a voluntary patriotic exercise does not ‘‘convert the exercise into a prayer.’’ The family appealed the ruling.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by the couple in 2010. Their name was not disclosed.

The original pledge was adopted by Congress in 1942 and did not contain the words ‘‘under God.’’ The phrase was added in 1954.

The justices peppered Niose with questions about how far the ban on the pledge should extend.

Loading comments...
Subscriber Log In

You have reached the limit of 5 free articles in a month

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com