>
I'm leaving all the other stuff out, so that I can focus on the key issue here. The case was about the Pledge being recited in school. As you note, kids have been allowed to opt out for a long time. (If I remember correctly, that took a Supreme Court decision.)
>

The case you are referring to is :

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 63 S.Ct. 1178 That case held:

"Resolution of state board of education requiring children, as prerequisite to continued attendance at public school, to salute American flag and give pledge, is invalid as applied to children of Jehovah Witnesses since it denies "freedom of speech" and "freedom of worship" in that it transcends constitutional limitations on board's power and invades sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the Constitution to reserve from official control. "

>However, the remaining issue is the one of a representative of the state (the teacher or principal) leading the students in language that asserts God's authority over the country. It's not enough to just allow students to opt out of saying it. When the government representative in authority leads it, it's a mandate.
>

Is a teacher a representive of the state? I don't know this to be the case and at this point, don't know if the SCOTUS has held a teacher to be as such or if a state statute exists.

>
From my perspective, this is no different than the teacher or principal leading the Lord's Prayer, which, fortunately, has been prohibited for a long time. However, I know that you and I disagree on that issue as well, so I doubt we'll find agreement on this one.
>

FWIW, I agree with you here...

>
Having said all this, I should add that while I agree with the court decision, and have left out "under God" for many years when I recite the Pledge, I think this particular issue is minor, in the ultimate scheme of things.
>

That is the beauty of our country: you have the freedom to disagree and dissent!!