Seems to me that the real problem here—whether you’re atheist, agnostic, or devout—is the idea that we’re forcing school kids to take a loyalty oath to a swatch of cloth. If the argument is that they’re pledging allegiance to the country the cloth represents, that’s pretty creepy, too.And from Kuznicki's response:
Maybe the most remarkable aspect of my fellow citizens’ pledge to exclude me is the sheer fact that they mostly wouldn’t do it of their own prompting. But pass a law, and look at the difference! They all line up to ostracize, even the ones who, ordinarily, are better than this. Stanley Milgram would be proud. Or ashamed. Or both, I guess. [ . . . ] “Under God” is a symptom of a much greater problem. That’s why I applaud the atheists who fight the words “under God,” even though I know that removing it wouldn’t fix the problem itself. In part, I too feel the bite of these words. And in part I applaud the atheists’ efforts because they help expose the error of compulsory unity. I’d like it if more people, besides just atheists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, complained about the Pledge.Good points, each. Perhaps for those fighting "under God," there is an understanding that these battles can only be won one at a time. More likely, though, is that little thought is given to the grander purpose of the Pledge: the "compulsory unity" it implies.