Or, let's look at our forefather's thoughts that they placed in the Declaration of Independence to see how long "God" has been in the History of the US:
-"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. "
The part I bolded is, in my opinion, very intriguing. It says here, "the laws of nature, and of nature's God." This doesn't imply the Theism of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. In fact, "nature's God" would tend to imply either Deism - reason based faith as opposed to revelation based, or Pantheism.
Likewise, in the same document:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator"
Their creator, not The Creator, not God, not Yaweh, not Jehovah. Again, I'm assuming that *their* means the citizens of the colonies/States. I think it would be reasonable to assume that by using "nature and of nature's God," along with "by their Creator," the founding fathers - in essence - laid a precedent stating that their reference was to each individual's personal creator/belief, or lack thereof.
"Nature's God" was clearly the God of deism in all important ways. That Jefferson included God in the "Declaration of Independence" is very significant because it helped lay the foundation for a civil religion in America. Paul Johnson addressed the civil religion begun by the founders in his article, "The Almost-Chosen People," saying that the United States was unique because all religious beliefs were respected. People were more concerned with "moral conduct rather than dogma." So Jefferson helped create a society in which different religions could coexist peacefully because of the emphasis on morality over specific belief."
( http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html )
Further, "laws of nature," implies that under natural law, there are certain unalienable, natural rights (or human rights). The Declaration was simply stating that the citizens of the colonies had the naturalright to their rights, because they existed outside of government.
As I stated, "nature's God," to me, implies Deism; however, there is a Christian Natural Law - so I feel that while the founding father's were leaning heavily toward implying a reason based faith, I feel they were aware enough to know that there wasn't just reason based faith.
"The term "nature's God" refers to that which responsible for human (and the rest of) nature being what it is. It is a way of speaking of God insofar as God is knowable by human reason. In other words, our minds, unassisted by divine revelation, can figure out that there is such a thing as human nature, and that there are laws or rules that we must follow if we are to live justly and well. Reason can see that if we violate those laws, we will suffer such evils as death, slavery, or misery. A New England preacher explained the concept in this way: "The law of nature (or those rules of behavior which the Nature God has given men, . . . fit and necessary to the welfare of mankind) is the law and will of the God of nature, which all men are obliged to obey. . . . The law of nature, which is the Constitution of the God of nature, is universally obliging. It varies not with men's humors or interests, but is immutable as the relations of things." (Abraham Williams, Election Sermon, Boston 1762.)"
(Oddly enough, a number of our founding fathers were Deists, who when they put together our founding documents, etc. - knew full well that they based it off of the Enlightenment; which btw has basis in Deism.Coincidently, when Thomas Paine - my all time favorite writer and founding father - wrote The Age of Reason, there was for fact, a Deistic revival/surge. Though it was brief, i feel it gives credence to the possibility that (some of) the Colonists found basis in reason, versus revelation.)
I am also not fond of stripping culture and unity just because it's more PC to do so.
I'm curious then, as to your view on the consistant attempt to divide, both by religious and non-religious? What do you see as being stripping of culture? BTW, one person's PC is another's infringement of speach; you can just as easily be PC about Christianity (or Judaism, Isliam, Hinduism...) as you can about anything else.