I don't see what your point is. To the extent you're making an argument about what people subjectively meant when they said "God," I've addressed that above. Further, to the extent you're trying to argue that the "Daughters of the American Revolution" are the sole speakers whose understanding of "God" matters, it's unclear why.
We're a country of more than 300 million people, after all. That one person means one thing when they say "God" in the pledge, does not mean that their subjectively intended meaning generalizes to the other 300 million plus of us. I am trying to avoid straw-manning your point, but your argument really lends itself to that kind of caricature.
Again, I don't see what your point is. I said the United States does not compel its citizens' allegiance any more than it compels recitation of any pledge --- which is the case.
You are talking about a presidential oath of office, or other oaths to officiate a person's assuming an elected (or appointed) position. Those peoples' assuming those roles are done so on a voluntary basis; not out of compulsion. The oath they take is likewise voluntary. Further, Ilhan Omar used a Koran for her ceremonial swearing-in to Congress. I'm sure others have as well, or other religious/significant books/publications. So it is not as if the Bible is the only work of scripture suitable for that purpose.
So your argument in which you endeavor to conflate the pledge and an oath of office is unavailing. They are qualitatively different things, just as an elected official is not merely a citizen.
That is presumably because you are familiar with exactly two events in the history of US-Iranian relations, the first taking place in 1953 and the second in 1979. Of course, there's more to the story than just the alleged coup in which Mossadegh was (justifiably) removed from power and the (calamitous, preventable and inexcusable) so called "Iranian Revolution."
It turns out that there's a long history of strong bilateral relations with Iran and the United States dating back to the 19th century. Though I'll focus only on some of the more interesting highlights, such as when Iranian constitutional reformers drew inspiration from the United States in forming the Iranian constitutional movement in the early 20th century. Or when the United States and Iran established trade relations shortly after that time, leading to one of the most significant periods of growth Iran's economy would experience since the end of the Persian Empire.
We might also recall the goodwill generated between Iran and the United States during the Wilson years. As you may not have been aware, England was during that time undertaking to make Iran a British Protectorate. Wilson was having none of that, to the point that pro-American riots against the British were seen in Tehran's streets in 1919. Until World War II, relations between Iran and the United States remained cordial. As a result, many Iranians sympathetic to the
Persian Constitutional Revolution came to view the US as a "third force" in their struggle to expel British and Russian dominance in Persian affairs. American industrial and business leaders were supportive of Iran's drive to modernize its economy and to expel British and Russian influence from the country.
To give you some idea of how closely Iran was allied with the United States and Western powers in general, consider what it meant that in 1943 the United States, England and Soviet Union held a strategy conference that would eventually mark a turning point in WWII, the Allies' victory and the United Nations' formation. The
Tehran Conference not only reaffirmed the allies, general, and the United States' specific alliance with Iran at that time; but served as the context in which the broad contours of the United Nations were first articulated between Stalin and Roosevelt.
At the end of WWII, Iran was arguably the United States' strongest ally in the region. The plan, shortly after Israel's formation in its current iteration, was for the United States to triangulate power projection through both Iran and Israel; to ensure peace throughout the Middle East and the Muslim World in general. While, of course, preventing a British or other monopoly forming on global oil supplies. Of course that did not last long, due in large part to Mossadegh's election and the Shah's lack of aptitude in dealing with that problem.
People often do not appreciate how close the United States and Iran once were, because they only know the post-1979 Iran we all regard with trepidation and animosity. Or whatever version leftists want to blame the CIA for creating, that version of which is mostly complete nonsense. Though this context is not really relevant to the question, it's something I care about a lot. It's part of why I hate Jimmy Carter more than almost any other president, and why I blame him even more than Sykes Picot for screwing up the Middle East. He failed to prevent the disaster that was 1979, even though he had no shortage of warning it was coming. As far as I am concerned, that is the single most egregious foreign policy disaster the United States had made since before WWII. It is a loss that continues to haunt us, so many decades later.
A tragedy of tragedies, to be sure.
