No you haven't. I have yet to hear any of you explain how religion is established by two words "under God", or how the First Amendment was violated by its inclusion, I've merely heard your assertion that you believe both to be true. You can say "the words 'under God' establish religion" until the cows come home but
(1) that doesn't make it true. I can argue just as long that they establish nothing at all. If the words were "one nation under the clear blue sky" they have not established the atmosphere.
(2)Even if you were able to prove that religion were established by those two words, it is not unconstitutional to recite them in school or in a government office. It simply isn't. You may argue "fair or unfair", but that is a different matter altogether than "unconstitutional". Make new law. If you want the mention of the word "God" in any government-related or taxpayer-funded setting to BE unconstitutional, you'll have to finally pass that Separation of Church and State amendment.
In this asinine attempt to remove the two words, however, the First was bent out of any recognizable shape or meaning. THAT is what bothers me, and should bother you.
By the way, I don't have kids, but if I did, and had a problem with the curriculum, I would go about resolving it in a way other than whining to a court to invent a mythical right for me where none exists.
"I have yet to hear any of you explain how religion is established by two words "under God", or how the First Amendment was violated by its inclusion, I've merely heard your assertion that you believe both to be true."
OK, I'll try one more time: The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Here's one of the definitions of "religion": "Recognition of God as object of worship" or "recognition on the part of man of a controlling superhuman power entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship." Look it up yourself in a dictionary.
When the American people are forced by taxation to pay for government-run schools and by truancy laws to send their children there, and then government representatives (called "public school teachers") lead those children in a pledge of allegiance to "a nation under God", the gov't is indeed establishing "a recognition of God as an object of worship" (i.e. religion), and it is indoctrinating children in that belief.
This is not about "fairness". I could care less about "fairness". It IS about constitutionality. The First Amendment is supposed to protect us from government intrusion on our religious beliefs. If one believes that there is no "God", but the gov't attempts to convince his child that there is a "God" and that our nation is beholden to this entity, then the gov't is indeed establishing religion (i.e. recognition of God as object of worship).
I can't make it any more clear. You don't have to like the Court's decision. (The judge has already caved in to mob rule). But you have to admit that the argument is a compelling one.