Good point.

It appears to me that Red was pretty good at history and the Constitution. But, there is no doubt that he had a traditional religious background.

My favorite Red Skelton line:
"Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly's to the bone."

If it was the flag of the constitution or of reason, then I'd agree with it. Subjecting it to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's whims is foolishness.

Mostly.
Got to make clear what that higher law is. Some suggestions might make a good topic.

I understand your point, and it's a good one! But I have to reiterate that pledging allegiance is not the same as saying you support and idea or are an ally of a concept. It's root is in the concept of a liege lord, someone or something to which you give unquestioning obedience. No one and no thing has my allegiance. They have my support only so far as they can argue for it, and only on a case by case basis.
Allegiance, in the way that it not only was originally conceived but historically has been used, is the same as unconditional love in this respect. Unconditional love destroys the concept of love altogether, because to love is to value and valuing a virtue and a vice equally defies the law of cause and effect. It raises the vice and destroys the virtue.
If I am to take a pledge, it will be this:
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I shall never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
That is a promise that I will make. Not to a country, a Country, a republic, a Republic, etc.

It is a pretense at patriotism. Oaths, flags, most patriotic celebrations, etc. are not patriotism. Most of those are because of what some who would want to rule you, say you should do to be patriotic. Really, almost none are patriotic. Here is an article which might be closer to what patriotism is:

https://fee.org/articles/the-true-mea...

See my comment to Herb above.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

I am also an atheist, but I have no problem saying the words "under God."

If, for some reason, the flag changed - which it did, many times - would that revoke your previous pledges.

The changes then were just a rearrangement of the stars. (You see them in cowboy movies: http://creativeroots.org/wp-content/u...

But what if it completely changed? Would that revoke your pledge to the flag. (I accept that you also pledged allegiance to the republic for which the flag stands. However, the conjunction there is "and". Both must be true for the statement to be true.

I agree that ideas and intents can change over time! You make a great point Carl. But I still stand by my point that it is a pledge of "allegiance" which means unquestioning fealty, and specifically the very next line is "and to the republic for which it stands." The flag, according to the text of the pledge, stands for the republic, which itself is the government and the state.
This is very similar to the entire concept that John F. Kennedy promoted of "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." In this scenario, both requests or demands are wrong. "The country" does not exist as a source of goodies for us, and we do not exist to serve it.
I guess the point I'm trying to get across is that a pledge to anything other than ones self creates a duty to others, an unchosen obligation to them. We cannot pledge allegiance to an idea because ideas are not conscious and therefore cannot have values, needs, or interests. Allegiance implies taking actions towards the ends desired by that to which you are pledging such allegiance. We can only take actions to support things that have real physical existence. That is why the "war on terror and "is such a failure. You cannot fight ideas, only those who follow them. When you pledge allegiance to an idea, you were pledging allegiance to those people who control (or possibly follow) that idea. If the idea is "the republic" then what is being requested of you is unquestioning fealty to those who run the republic.

And one final thing, which I feel with much less conviction then the rest of what I said before, but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway is that I do not agree that "many of us" changing the way we feel about the pledge will actually erase the original meaning of the pledge. Just like many people feel differently about the meaning of the Second Amendment, but that does not change its actual meaning. Like I said, this is a much lesser point, but I thought it was worth mentioning my opinion.

Actually it was due to a preacher who did not think people were patriotic enough back in the late 1800s. Then came the flag in every school movement. The original salute to the flag was the same as the Nazi salute and changed when the Nazis came into power because it did not look patriotic in that political climate. None of that stuff was actually patriotic, just a way to rid people of patriotism, just as today with flags as big as football fields, and all the other trappings put upon the people by some who like to pretend that they are in control.