Endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights...

Pat Boone commented on the case that has been brought again by atheist Michael Newdow to rule the phrase "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional and therefore removed from the Pledge. Boone speaks about how ridiculous such a move is, especially when it isn't unconstitutional and there are various national references to God, even in our own founding documents:

Most Americans honor the phrase "under God" and want to keep it in the Pledge. The fact is it's among our few instances of governmentally inscribed homage to the Almighty – which actually are very few. You can listen to the National Anthem at a thousand ball games and never risk hearing of God. After "In God We Trust" on our currency, we can count certain traditional ceremonial moments like "God save the United States and this Honorable Court" and certain inscriptions on marble and … that's it!
"Their Creator" was in the Declaration of Independence, but our present government didn't enact that; a previous arrangement of British colonists did. For our part, yes, our cherished First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But today's righteous rebels against public religiosity always seem to leave out the second part. ...
Why, then, is it so important to have "under God" in that pledge? Because "under God" is the key to the lock that any governing individual or insiders group may place on human rights or personal liberty! And no future generation of Americans should be put at risk of neglecting this recognition: Ours is the only country in history that has said your personal rights come from God. They come to you directly from your Creator, and some of them get loaned to the government by consent of the governed.

America will be at heart either one nation under God or one nation indifferent to God. Where will our highly evolved co-equal rights and powers as individuals come from if we keep God hidden in our public life? In their unending drive to do just that, the Michael Newdows of the world ultimately put human rights and personal liberty at increased risk.

It is amazing how the minority of America push so hard to make the majority take on their views, and how they find certain judges who will rule from the bench in their favor, even at the risk of ruling something erroneously unconsitutional to suit their own views. Even the Supreme Court sheepishly dismissed the first case because Newdow had no legal standing to bring it forward, but did not have the wherewithall to rule whether it was unconstitutional or not. If this goes to the Supreme Court again, let's hope they take a more courageous stand and rule what is constitutional: that such a phrase is allowed in our Pledge of Allegiance.