I'm admittedly synthesizing the logic and arguments I've seen elsewhere, but it's late and I'm too lazy to provide the appropriate links, except one - Sam Heldman - who I think provides the basic background.
I don't think there is any good argument that including 'under God' can in any way be constitutional. It shouldn't be. Period.
The secondary argument, therefore, seems to be that this is a fairly trivial issue so why is anyone pursuing it?
I can sympathize a bit with that argument. There are more important issues out there. But, who is really taking this argument that seriously? I mean, sure, I think it's serious and I agree with it. But, the religious right is apoplectic about this. They're the ones taking it seriously. They're the ones, in their incarnation as the Knights of Columbus, who injected those two words back in 1954.
Coerced religious indoctrination in public institutions, including 'under god' in the pledge, has no place in a secular government. Period.
