I respectfully disagree.
The push by a Congress with no appeal from the public to institute the phrase "under God" when the SCOTUS had years before ruled that such a Pledge was an unconstitutional violation to force children to adhere to, was a specifically religious minded bent against the Soviet Union, whose so called atheistic universe only applied to the early years but was quite clear by the time of Stalin to have adopted the Orthodox Russian Church as the only applicable religion for the people to support, clearly shows that the U.S. Congress circumvented the first amendment to apply a respect for a religious establishment.
So those of us, like myself, who oppose the Pledge do so because it was a clear cut move of propaganda by the US Congress. I would also impose upon the respect of others in stating that the common public belief that the pledge is an honorary for our troops is also misleading. The common argument is that the Pledge supports our troops which have died for our freedoms. Any basic survey of U.S. history would show that the vast majority of US military engagement is not for our freedoms. The US military was not involved for the freedoms of African Americans and other minorities. They certainly played a role in that the the US government preceded the Civil Rights movement in integration but that leaves out the women's rights movement which the US military had no role in playing. Also, given this fact, that the US military besides the War of 1812 and World War II was not engaged in the protecting the American people from an outside aggressor in taking away our freedoms it is rather absurd to believe that the US military protects our freedom in active military engagements.
I do respect the military. I tried to join but they denied me upon physical health grounds which was probably for the better given my mental health grounds. I do not respect the pledge in any sense. I grew up in a generation in which my friends and out fathers served in Vietnam. Nothing from that war serves to the notion that we should respect the Pledge based upon the common argument that it respects our troops. One friend had an abusive step-father who suffered severe PTSD from Vietnam and proceeded to disfigure his mothers face permanently. Another had a father who refused to discuss his role as a Medi-Vac pilot because it disturbed him too much. He has a flag flying outside his house at all times and proceeds with proper flag protocols but is a devout Democrat who opposes such nonsense as a Pledge in schools. The rest of us grew up with fathers who are just happy that they served there obligatory military time in a time frame in which they were out before the Vietnam War or did not have to serve.
Given the relatively few instances in which our troops have actually served to protect our freedoms, namely against an aggressive British Empire which nobody today remembers or WWII, all the other military actions were not for our freedoms.
So why should I, or anyone else, consider that giving a pledge which most other nations do not have because they find the notion ridiculous an appropriate display of patriotism when I believe that arguing that the people of our nation fight against a government which has deemed it necessary to erode our civil rights and send our troops off to fight foreign wars a far more exemplary display of patriotism?