You seem to avoid the fact that the term God within the context of the Pledge is generic and applies to anyone who has an ounce of religious belief. The Establishment Clause to the U.S. Constitution has been skewed by Liberal U.S. Supreme Court rulings since the 1940's. The simple fact of the matter is that the term separation of Church and State appears no where within the text of the U.S. Constitution.
Where in the text of the U.S. Constitution does it say that the U.S. Government is supposed to be an adversary of religion? Acknowledging the existence of God does not estalish any one particular religion, nor does it establish the religion of secular humanism, which is what you are espousing on this thread.
The role of the U.S. Government in respect to religion is that it should not favor any one particular religion over another. The Pledge of Alligence does none of the above. You seem to have forgotten that America is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas and that it is impossible to expect Americans to keep religion in their homes and not be able to express their religiosity publically.
You misinterpret the Establishment Clause and do not seem to understand that the term Separation of Church and State came out of a letter that was written years after the U.S. Constitution was already written.
The U.S. Supreme Court always has the power to revoke past rulings and perhaps it is time to mend flawed rulings of the past, which use as the Constitutional basis for its ruling, the text of an informal letter, written years after the U.S. Constitution was already written.
The role of the U.S. Government in respect to religion is that it should not favor any one particular religion over another.
I agree absolutely - which is why I am opposed to the 'state' expressing an opinion in favor of the pledge in its current state. Check the Boortz article currently posted, he expresses the same thing quite well (last couple of paragraphs).
the term God within the context of the Pledge is generic and applies to anyone who has an ounce of religious belief
No, it does not. I refuse to accede to your name for a deity, precisely because of your propensity to leap to absurd conclusions as to what is meant by someone else's words. If I said 'God', you couldn't help yourself but wrap up your own version/interpretation of that word, and then impute those beliefs to me, simply because I used the same word.
I doubt seriously you'll ever begin to see my point, just as you won't about that ridiculous assertion about 'secular humanism'. Lack of a reference to religion is simply that, a lack of reference -- no implications, no inferences, no hidden agendas, no mention, pro or con. That's all it means.
Conversely, a specific reference to religion, instigated by a state-sponsored/mandated institution, constitutes an endorsement of religion, and in this case, a particular flavor of religion.
"Congress shall make no law...". Just because it's been abridged, squeezed and stomped on before is no reason to continue.