When I realized what this thread was about, I thought to myself, "Oh here we go again". That's because the vast majority of people in the United States (or so it seems) are strongly in favor or keeping the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The posts I've seen here, especially from C8 and JimH, are a very nice surprise.
The words "under God" should absolutely be removed from the pledge.
Of course, Christians tend to want those words to remain. This is not surprising.
But to those people, I ask: What if the wording was "one nation, without God..."? Would that be OK with you? Of course it would not.
And why is that? After all, the wording "without God" does suit a lot of people in the United States who are either atheist or who belong to a non-theist religion. You've had a wording that fits your beliefs for 50 years; can we have it suit ours for the next 50 years? "Absolutely not!" comes the reply.
So why is a wording that favors your beliefs acceptable, but one that does not favor your beliefs unacceptable? Are we less important? Should the majority have absolute power?
And why would a wording that favors neither not be the best solution?
There is no possible good answer to that. None. The best people have managed to do is to come up with vague references to the "founding fathers", and the "religious tradition" of the United States. But they fail to tie this flimsy argument into the idea that atheists, Buddhists, Humanists, and others should be force-fed views which they do not agree with.
They don't explain why the children of those people should have to go to school every day and recite--or at least hear--a pledge that explicitly says that their parents are wrong about their spiritual beliefs.
There is no defense to melding religion and state, no matter the degree. Absolutely none. To say "it gives me a warm fuzzy", which is basically what people do, is extremely callous and dismissive of the views of the minority, and actually runs counter to the true principles of liberty.