[NEWwoman]

I don't think the pledge is unconstitutional.

But I'll get it a shot of what the other side is thinking.

1. That was then, this is now.
2. Revisionist history omits all the history mentioned in the post. Or the old excuse, these white European males had slaves back then and women were not allowed to vote and that was wrong. So they must be wrong about mentioning God and we must be tolerant.
3. No desire to be accountable to any Supreme Being, other than themselves. (Doing what is right in their own eyes.)
4. Above everything, we must be tolerant.

Side note: I recall saying the pledge every day as a child. There were some kids of particular religious beliefs, which it was forbidden to say the pledge. (JWs) They stepped out in hall as we said it, so it wasn't mandatory. I wasn't aware that any suffered harrassment for not saying the pledge.

[Dimensio]

I have a somewhat less paranoid view of the "opposition". Mind you, this is only a description of a subset, not everyone who has a problem with the "under god" wording.

The believe that by having a national "pledge" with a reference to a deity in it that the government is implying that said deity exists. They would rather that the government remain silent on such matters rather than endorse one god or a position regarding the existence of gods -- in other words, they would also object to a government pledge that implied something to the effect that no gods at all exist.

Hope that helps.