and I'm a Jewish Agnostic humanist.
Not only does it waste everyone's time and money, it runs the chance of stiffing up ill-will (at a rather sensitive time.)

Wouldn't want to do what's right if it's going to make someone angry.

AND I still say, this is a foolish waste of resources.

"This is a Christian nation! 'Under god' is in our pledge! God is on our money!"

Foolish is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess.

they chose to ignore, or never knew, about what went on at the founding, and what the founders thought and believed.

Pledge and money matters came much later, and were mistaken then, and foolish now.

You can call others foolish for pursuing state-church separation. I'm not going to.

Ridiculous.

Every one of these battles must be fought, none are too trivial. No one is asking you to take part, you can pick your own battles. These people have chosen theirs.

There are parents that feel very strongly about this and I think it's their right to not have their children recite something that they don't believe and are even actively opposed to.

My connection is too slow to get the decision to open, but I am wondering on what basis the court ruled against this.

and there is no Equal Protection violation. It goes through the history and legislative intent behind the Pledge pretty thoroughly.

My daughter hasn't said it since fourth grade, not because of "under God" but because of its jingoism. "It's just a piece of cloth, why should I have to pledge to it?"

Pennsylvania had passed a mandatory recitation after 9/11 which the Third Circuit overturned on free speech grounds, holding, essentially, that coerced speech is prohinted under the First Amendment.

I think that's where it stands now. As long as it's voluntary the schools can recite it.

is really murky to me.

Your daughter may be in a school where she has some support for not participating, but what about those that are not?

The law, as you explain it, makes sense, I just question its real application.

Her fourth grade teacher had a son in Iraq and made an issue of it briefly but she understood and backed off.

What's interesting about this case is the court ruled it is not a prayer. So, that leaves the question, what of schools or school children, or communities that want to have an overtly patriotic recitation at the beginning of school? Should it be forbidden?

I think the objections to the god language are legitimate, though.

My parents objected to the pledge, iirc, but I was in a suburban school outside Washington, DC at the time and it would have been impossible for me not to have joined in.

I do not like the flag pledge in principle let alone the "under God" clause.

As all government employees know well, including all public school teachers. Nobody gets hired before they swear a pledge of allegiance... to the US Constitution.

The history of the pledge to a flag is an interesting one. It was first proposed by the publisher of youth magazine at the turn of the 20th century. It went through several changes before it was adopted, IIRC in the 1920's. Finally, the insidious words "under God" were added in the midst of the McCarthy era, the early 1950's, the same f*cking era that the loonies put "In God We Trust" on all our money.

By the way, the guy that wrote the first pledge was a socialist and a Democrat.

and then refused to say it for decades

Swearing allegience to a piece of cloth? What's up with that?
We have liberty and justice for all here? Oh, really? Since when?

Nowadays, at those rare times when I recite the pledge, I simply leave out the "under G-d" nonsense

Of course, when I play "House of the Rising Sun," I do the original folk version from the POV of a woman, not the lame rock version from the POV of a man. Never been into changing lyrics of folk songs to suit myself or my times.

and never once felt it was voluntary. Of course, at the time, I had no reason to suspect it should be. I was one of the majority so eff all you non-believers.

And that's why it's wrong.

Under god only makes is slightly more terrifying.