The pledge is in the news again.
This time, the same guy who got it in the news last time (and who was rebuffed by the SCOTUS on a technicality) has done it again. And, as usual, both sides get it pretty much wrong.
The issue is not the words in the pledge itself. The Constitution says the government can not establish a religion, and the wording of the pledge doesn't do that. You don't have to say the words if you choose.
The key, here, is the use of force - and that is what the judge ruled (correctly, assuming the report is accurate). If the state requires the recitation of the pledge, it is violating the Constitution. Frankly, I think it more a free speech issue than a freedom of religion issue, but whatever.
I think the more important point to make is the recitation of the pledge by youngsters is essentially meaningless to them, and just one more part of the indoctronation to statism.