"I may have (falsely) claimed that you are a convicted child molester. However, I did not require you to say that you are a convicted child molester, so you cannot say that you were harmed by my actions."
This form of argument can be found in the majority opinion of Newdow v. Rio Linda, where they looked at the question of whether the defendants had standing to challenge the 1954 Amendment to the Pledge that inserted the words "under God."
The dissent argued that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge this law, but the majority disagreed.
Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the 1954 Amendment because no federal statute requires plaintiffs to recite the Pledge. Even under the School District's Policy, children "may choose not to participate in the flag salute for personal reasons" or they can simply omit any words they find offensive.
Using this logic, Jews would have no right to complain or object to changing the Pledge of Allegiance to say, "one Nation, without Jews" so long as Jews were not forced to cite the offensive words.
Similarly, a pledge of allegiance to "one white Nation, indivisible . . ." would not give blacks any legitimate claim to have been harmed by such a law - even after showing that in the shadow of such a law 99.99% of all elected officials in the country were white, and national polls showed that, in the opinion of white Americans, blacks were the least patriotic of all social groups and considered "the group least likely to share American values."
This is not a posting on what the law says. I am not a lawyer and it is not my interest or intention to provide a judgment on what does and does not count as standing. It may well be true that black people would have no legal standing to challenge a law changing the Pledge of Allegiance to "one white nation."
This is a moral blog, and it is certainly the case that blacks would have the moral standing to condemn such an amendment and to assert that no good person would support it. Jews have a moral standing to object to a Pledge of Allegiance to "one nation without Jews" and to assert that no good person would support it. Atheists have a moral standing to object to a Pledge of Allegiance that defines atheists as unpatriotic, and to assert that no good person would support it.
Yes, it would be one level of wrong for the government to force you to state that you molest children, even though it is blatantly false. However, this wrong is not made right by the government encouraging everybody else to say that you molest children, but grants you the right to refrain from saying the offensive words. You are still going to suffer the harms that come from the attitudes that the government is putting in the minds of everyone else.
You would have solid moral grounds to accuse the government of libel and slander.
Just as atheists have the moral grounds to accuse the government of libel and slander when it decided to teach the American people, and in particular its young children, that a patriot is defined as a person who supports 'a nation under God' - and those who do not support such a proposition are not patriots.
In fact, allowing atheists to refuse to say the pledge does not make the situation better. It makes it far worse. Now, as if to emphasize the assertion that only those who support a nation under God are patriots and those who do not support such a notion are not patriots, we have a scene where those who support the notion pledge allegiance to the United States while those who do not remain seated and refuse to do so.
The government's lesson could not be more clear and forceful if it were to simply post a sign in every school and other government building, "No good American is an atheist, and no atheist can be a good American."