This ruling will likely mean merely a small change to the pledge so that it doesn't affect or infringe on the rights of non-believers. The ruling affirms the idea that government can't place a manger scene in a courthouse lawn, and it shouldn't be able to force its citizens to pledge to a religious belief.There's no force involved because the Supreme Court has long since ruled that kids can't be forced to say the Pledge in public schools (a decision a few districts probably need to review). The problem is the words "under God", which do actually tie monotheistic belief to patriotism.
IMO, no principles not in the Constitution should be tied to patriotism. Flushing the entire pledge is rather stupid, though.
-Eric