Under God in the Pledge

The establishment clause is interesting to me, personally, because I feel that the clause is as vague as it is precise. The establishment clause states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, however by not respecting an establishment of religion, you can in turn be respecting an establishment of another religion. In the case Newdow vs. US Congress, The Ninth Court revealed that the sole purpose of inserting ‘under god’ was to advance religion, to differentiate the US from other nations under Communist, or godless, rule. Religion is defined as “a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views…”; to believe in no God most certainly falls under the category of religion, therefore both removing and keeping the ‘Under God’ portion of the Pledge either respects the belief systems of both those who believe in a God, and those who do not. This religious power struggle is the source of our conflict.
I personally believe that the inclusion of ‘Under God’ should remain in our Pledge, for the simple fact that the majority of our population are believers in a God. I believe that this inclusion becomes unconstitutional when it becomes mandatory for a student to recite this Pledge, being that there will be exceptions with children who do not wish to recite the Pledge for religious-conflicting reasons. An example of this unconstitutionality is the Engel v Vitale case, which included a New York law that required every public school student to recite a non-denominational group prayer written by the State. The prayer written by the State, though non-denominational, is highly suggestive of an inferiority to a higher being, which may often times conflict with those of a Godless belief system. Although the simple requirement of its recitation made it unconstitutional, I believe that the requirement to recite that “we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee [God]…” is controversially immoral, as this recitation not only addresses that