Kalypso
Smash Journeyman
Pantheism doesn't work in your quotes place, because 'God created the universe' translates into 'The universe created the universe' and thus doesn't work in a pantheistic frame because something doesn't just create itself. Also, pantheism isn't a religion, it's a religious concept.
Again, abstractions don't work in the 'God created the universe' construct nearly as well as in the 'One nation under god' construct.
Another thing to keep in mind is the context of the phrase itself. If a teacher made an offhand comment that 'God created the universe,' and it was not in any way interpreted as teaching material but as opinion, it would not be offensive, and it's not illegal. I've had teachers express their religious beliefs, they just made sure that everyone understood it was their opinion, not something they were teaching the class. The context of teaching is rather important to whether or not presenting 'God created the universe' is offensive or not.
If not presented in any kind of teaching context, and presented from someone who doesn't imply a certain specification to the word 'God' (Someone garbed in pope vestments saying the words is very different from someone in non-distinct t-shirt and jeans saying them), most of the abstractions and symbolisms can apply to it as apply to 'One nation under god.' The biggest problem is the teaching context you presented it in, and presenting the words from a neuter source.
The difference between the writer of the pledge mattering and the speaker of those words mattering seems clerical, but it is vital to the interpretation of the phrase, and its impact.
Very few people who recite the pledge know its origins, and many fewer still know what its intentions were. It is recited from a very vague, symbolic place, and there is no direct connotation to its meaning. If you were to research the origins inside and out, it wouldn't matter in the context of this argument, because almost no one does that, and the vast majority of Americans are ignorant of these origins. What matters are the words themselves, because that's all anyone hears.
When you talk about a person saying something, there is no vaguery or ignorance about it. If I say 'God created the universe,' people who know me know that I am either talking in abstraction, I'm making fun of religion or I have converted to a religion. Probably about 10% / 89.9% / .1% respectively. However, if someone who is a member of a religion says it, it is almost 100% certain that they are referencing their religion. This is very different from the pledge, because the sources and intentions behind the words are very well known, assuming you know basic facts about the person. The actual facts of the persons life don't matter as much as what the interpreter thinks of that person.
Complicated example-
Borat says 'Jews are evil'
With the words alone, you only see their immediate meaning.
From the standpoint of the character 'Borat,' you see the words presented, but they are presented from someone who you perceive as ignorant, so the words are funny, making fun of ignorance, instead of a persecution of the Jews.
From the standpoint of someone who knows Sacha personally, it's even funnier, because he is, himself, Jewish.
The interpretations of the words, intention of the words and impact of the words vary WILDLY when you have them presented directly from a person.
That is not true in the case of the pledge, which is presented as just words with no author. It's all in the presentation.
