Matthew Yglesias, despite being an infidel, find the phrase "under god" fairly benign.

The "under God" line never struck me as particularly important or offensive. It's essentially making a factual claim about the nation (i.e., that it exists under God) that I reject but that is accepted by an overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens and that carries no real theological content. I wouldn't have written it that way, and given the opportunity, I'd like to see the congress change it. Still, it just wasn't that big a deal or, as I'd read it, anything like an establishment of religion.

The bigger point, rather than that it's making a factual claim about our nation, is that it's making a factual claim about the existence of god. Thus, it very obviously contains religious content, and it's really to assert otherwise.

I'm happy to bow to the democratically-expressed view of my fellow citizens that this country is, in its self-conception, "under God" in some innocuous sense.

Well obviously I wouldn't. And I wouldn't want my children or anyone else's compelled to do so. If the majority of Americans want to perceive of this country as being lorded over by a deity, that's their right. But I shouldn't have to assent to the collective perception, or in this case pledge an oath that includes that ideal.

Yglesias doesn't perceive it as an establishment of religion, and all along I've argued that it's more a violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment than the establishment clause. It's undue influence from the State. Would Yglesias, I wonder, have a problem with teacher-led prayer, as long as it was non-denominational?