I concur that there was no intent to motivate us to run in circles. At the same time, it is relevant to acknowledge that even those among our founding fathers who are today accused of being atheists (usually Deists in fact) recognized that the Republic would not long survive unless we remained a "religious and moral people". Morality cannot be arbitrary. I don't think it is the belief in God that is absolutely essential but we must be able to agree on a system of values which define what is right and wrong. That, as a minimum, is non-negotiable.

It is written, "faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the assurance of things not seen". I have faith in God, His Son, and to a lesser extent, others who claim the title of Christian. I am a retired Marine. I believe Marines who served around me were/are dedicated to a common cause. I trusted them but trust is not the same as faith. I could see their actions in the flesh. Faith involves believing what is not seen or sensed and acting on what my spirit (Glen calls it gut) tells me is right.
Our government was based not on faith in man, but the reality of man's fallibility. That's why the Constitution strictly limits those actions the federal government may properly undertake. The founders were familiar with the fact that governments throughout history tended to accumulate power to themselves. I second Glen's recommendation that you read "The 5000 year leap" and gain a greater appreciation of just how great a leap our founders made. Nothing like it in
recorded history. I hope that answers your question.

You either could not or would not respond to my request that you explain your opinion. If there be another option, explain it to me. I am teachable and- even if I disagree- will respect your opinion if you will just be so kind as to state it.
To restate my position, I believe our rights either come from our Creator. If they come from somewhere else, what or whom is the third option you wrote about?

It is a completely transparent and honest question. If the existence of God is denied, what is the basis of believing that people have any inherent "rights"? Where did they come from? Who bestowed them? Why cannot the government (acting within existing laws) take them away (ex: '30's Germany- Hitler came to power "legally")?
The crux of all political discourse relies on a moral basis. Either a Creator gave us liberty and power to exercise in the pursuit of justice or all rules are made by men and can be changed or abolished by men.
If I am wrong, please explain your opinion.

It seems the numerous comments about "religion" miss the point. The central question is: If there be no God, what is the source of the rights we hope to defend? A majority vote? SanFranNan and her friends? Acorn?
The founders were not interested at all in establishing a national-approved denomination but there has to be a reason why the cornerstone statements of the Declaration and Constitution declare that the government hasn't given freedom and therefore can't take it away.
We can disagree about doctrinal trivia but this is foundational: the source of our freedom is Someone higher in authority.
If atheists wish to support this movement, I welcome them. I just don't understand their justification for resisting the idea that our duly elected representatives can do whatever they think is right.

I'm new here but the recent discussion misses at least one vital point, "I believe this truth to be self-evident; that all men are created..." Deny the Creator and you deny the source of those "rights" discussed in our Constitution. If you believe the government blesses us with freedom, you are sadly ignorant of the history of governments. If you deny the Creator, Mr anonlib, what can possibly be your standard of right or just? History shows us that either we will not be able to agree on such a standard or some standard will be forced upon us at the point of a bayonet. Finally, my Bible states that anyone who denies the existence of God is either a fool or a liar; which are you?