Defending Public Religion
Jared Leland, an attorney at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, defends the 'under God' addition to the pledge in today's FindLaw Commentary. His argument is along the lines of Rehquist's, so no need to replay the themes. One graff sticks out, though.

The phrase "under God" was added at the height of the Cold War to highlight this generally-recognized conviction and to distinguish the nature of rights in America from that in Communist Russia. In 1954, Congress explicitly sought to draw a distinction between the "natural rights" philosophy shared by our Founding Fathers -- on which the Constitution is based -- and the Soviet contention that rights are endowed or withheld at the pleasure of the State.

Thus, "under God" does nothing more than affirm the foundation of the very individual liberties we enjoy today.

Mr. Leland might touch on the hub of our differences with this line: the problem of "natural rights." My hunch is, after a long and honest discussion, dissenters of "under God" will identify this as a troubling symptom of a state too willing to entwine with religion, while supporters of 'under God' will stand on this as a central thesis.
For the former- the problem of natural rights is the problem of "who's rights?" You have heard that argument before. For me, the problem is more complex. In fact, I (and I wager many of those that deny it) tend to believe natural rights exist. But, the state should refrain from identifying the source.

Hmmm...that last line needs work- but I'm off to lunch. I'll chew on it.