On the books, possibly.
Constitutionally, no. A state may grant greater civil liberties than the Federal Government is required to provide, but may not further curtail them (and burning a flag, as we know, is protected speech.)
Flag “honoring”, to my mind, is idolatry pure and simple. If not, I’d like to know what’s different. I’m sure the local ministry does not encourage this.
Yes, arson. Because in order to burn the paint, you will have to burn down the rest of the barn. 
Actually, the situation is quite the opposite. Fundamentalist ministers seem to be wholly in favor of inserting “Under God” into everything that school children do. The words “under God” were inserted into the US pledge during the 1950’s to differentiate we God-fearing Americans from the evil Communists. “Under God” was added to the Texas pledge to differentiate we God-fearing Texans from ----- Oklahoma Sooners?
In churches that I have been to around here, they have even extended these pledges to the “Christian Flag”. There is a pledge that goes with the Christian Flag that clearly parallels the US Pledge of Allegiance. Pure nonsense, IMHO.
bolding added
That part is not true at all. The application of the concept of “freedom of religion” to the actions of state governments, via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with federal funds. It has to do with the notion of “liberty” having been defined by the courts since the mid-40’s to include certain of the freedoms we already cherished vis a vis the federal government since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the “freedom of religion” has been selectively incorporated into the notion of “liberty” such that any state action that deprives you of your freedom of religion, absent due process, is prohibited. Due process, in the case of freedom of religion, involves having a really, really good reason to do it, without causing lots of bad things to happen and avoiding entagling the state in religion too much (the wording in the opinions is a bit more, um, fancy and precise, but that’s the gist).
You are, of course, absolutely correct.
In rereading my post, it was absolute nonsense and I apologize for it. However, there is often the insinuation of Federal rules into state sovereignty that is done via Federal funding. For example, the age 21 drinking laws are uniform (mostly) across fifty states because Congress ties transportation funds to enacting those laws. I completely incorrectly and without any real basis tied the first amendment to this concept and it was completely out of place.
The Texas pledge still stinks, though.
I graduated last year, so I never had to do the under god bit, but the pledge was there for I think 3 of my years. The Texas pledge and moment of silence in my physics class were considered a good time to quickly cram. Disrespecting the US pledge wasn’t done, though.
Never heard of it either. Albuquerque Public Schools in the 90s sure wasn’t inflicting that on us. My hatred of many things APS did includes the pledge of allegiance (and the rest would make a fine Pit thread indeed) but never heard of this thing Santo Rugger speaks of.
I have no problem with reciting the US pledge of allegience, or at least being respectful during it’s recitation (in school, at war with the “Under God” part myself, I would stand resepectfully with my arms behind my back, at parade rest). Of course, I suffer from what some would consider the ludicrous state of having national pride.
A state pledge seems very… Articles of Confederation-ish, to me. hehehe