Judge Fernandez, the disenter in the case, made a good point. the object of the separation of church and state is to prevent a state establishment of religion. The prhase "under God" cannot do that. He uses the de minimis doctrine:
De minimis non curat lex.
The law does not care for, or take notice of, very small or trifling matters. The law does not concern itself about trifles. Provision is made under certain criminal statutes for dismissing offenses which are "de minimis." See, e.g., Model Penal Code § 2.12.
And he proves its application by simply stating the phrase was put in over 40 years ago and has not cause a state establishment of religion to date.
Therefore no injury, including you. He did send a personal message to you however:
"Some people may not feel good about hearing the phrases recited in their presence, but then others might not feel good if they are omitted."
PLease go somewhere else to declare your hatred of the very Spirit that give you life and consciousness.
"The law does not care for, or take notice of, very small or trifling matters. The law does not concern itself about trifles."
If the matter is "very small or trifling"...given the fact that "under God" was INSERTED into the Pledge of Allegiance by Congress--more than 60 years after the Pledge was first conceived--no one should mind that the court has ruled its insertion by Congress was invalid.
Unfortunately, conservatives don't seem to consider the matter to be "very small or trifling." (They spend time and effort on 2 words in a meaningless Pledge, while ignoring that the Constitution is in tatters.)