This article talks bout how neither the girl in the Pledge of Allegiance case nor her mom thing that there is anything wrong with the "Under God" bit of the Pledge. They show a lot of quotes to support this, including one from the girl, "'that's OK, Mom, because even if they do change the Pledge of Allegiance, I'll still say "under God," and no one will know that I'm breaking the law."
The fact that the mom is a Christian and the father an Athiest complicates the issue, however the basis for the whole thing is that for better or worse, parents are supposed to be able to freely advocate whatever religion and/or system of morality they want to their children. The fact that the mom happens to be a Christian does not make it okay for the state to help her out in that regard! The mom may happen to have custody, but regardless, it's a matter for the parents to deal with, but not for the state to advocate one side or the other!
Furthermore, and i'm overstating things a bit here to make my point, the fact that the brainwashing worked does not justify the brainwashing!
I wish the media, the politicians, _someone_ would get a fucking clue about what this case is supposed to be about!
I don't know what the dad is thinking, but he's stated that this case is for himself, and not his daughter. So i would suspect that he feels, or at least that he should argue, that he's having a tough enough time imparting his own religion (or lack of it) to his daughter given that the mom has custody and disagrees with him, without the state also throwing it's weight in. What the mom feels or what the daughter feels does not fucking matter! He has the right to pass on his beliefs, to the extent that his daughter will listen, without the state getting involved and trying to convince her otherwise!