The American Pledge of Allegiance is hardly what one would call martial. Instead, it represents an affirmation of the values that we aspire to make constitutive of our country. Its text, for those who are unfamiliar, is:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The “under God” part, as is well-known on these boards, is an innovation dating to the early Cold War (in 1954, eleven years after Barnette forbade compulsory recitation by students) and added to make it distinctly American (and in contradistinction to the godless Communists). Whatever you make of that rationale, and I certainly feel it leaves a lot to be desired, that’s how it got in.
The rest of the Pledge, however, is not about taking up arms or resisting to the uttermost. Instead it is a promise to abide by the values of democracy/small-r republicanism, unity, liberty, justice, and equality. Which, candidly, it seems to me are promises perfectly appropriate to extract from American government employees and perfectly appropriate to inculcate in American schoolchildren under the rubric of civic virtue.
I think Barnette was correctly decided. I think Wooley v. Maynard was correctly decided. I am conflicted by Pruneyard (which has a compulsory element vis-a-vis the shopping center owner, but I also recognize that these locations have become the modern-day public square, in part become shopping mall developers want them to be that because it means more money for them and their tenants). In short, I have little affection for compelling the speech of civilians.
However, the government (and some of us even cling to the quaint idea that that means “we the people”) is certainly allowed to stake out a position and advocate for it. And that’s what this is: the government speaking through one of its employees.