God is constitutional, atheism is not

Since the days of Clarence Darrow and the Scopes Trial nearly a century ago, God has been under attack in the United States of America for simply being Himself.
The assault against the Supreme Being escalated during the counterculture revolution of the Sixties. But God has never been in more danger of being outlawed than He is right now.
Atheists and agnostics alike are intensifying their efforts to remove any and all public references to God. They are trying to eliminate Him entirely from public awareness. And when I say "public awareness," I mean to say out of sight and, eventually, out of mind.
The most notorious of these efforts has come from atheist activist Michael Newdow, whose exploits include a crusade to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance by declaring it unconstitutional by virtue of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Newdow is not merely an avowed atheist; he’s an itinerant, practicing humanist who has even gone so far as to promote the atheist belief by establishing it as a religion, complete with his own formal church and congregation. He is the founder of the First Atheist Church of True Science (FACTS). Not to mention he is also a classic triple threat: an ordained minister of Universal Life Church, an attorney, and a doctor of emergency medicine.
The first thing that rubs me the wrong way about Newdow is that he comes across as a know-it-all. I suppose that is inevitable when one is a practicing attorney, physician and clergyman. I think he’s probably got too many advanced, professional degrees for his own good. It is no wonder that the guy is a professed atheist. He thinks he knows everything about human origin, human function, human behavior, human nature, and even human destination. He’s got all the answers, after all.
But I don’t take issue with Newdow’s atheism. He is free to subscribe to whatever beliefs he wants to, and practice those beliefs in whatever way he chooses. What I do contend with, however, is his premise that God is unconstitutional. Therefore, all public references to God—in particular “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency and “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance—should be removed.
As the basis for his argument, Newdow cites Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution and the specific clause that begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
The fundamental flaw in this argument is the notion that “God” is a religion.
He is not.
Religion is a belief system both in process and organization. It functions as a body of members that follow organizational laws and rules.
God, on the other hand, is a being. He is an individual to those of us who believe in Him. He may be pluralistic to those who believe in more than one god. He may even symbolize and represent the self for those who believe that they are their own gods.
So, to argue that invoking “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance or on U.S. currency violates the Constitutional provision prohibiting an establishment of religion is fundamentally flawed.
The being of “God” may be the object of worship for several world religions, but He is not Himself a religion.
Furthermore, Newdow contends that “God” as invoked on our currency and in the Pledge refers to the Judeo-Christian deity. Therefore, public reference to “God” is the same as endorsing Judeo-Christianity.
He cannot prove this.
While he can make the case that the nation’s founders and legal framers were referring to the Judeo-Christian God in their writings, there is no proof that exists establishing that “God” as named on the currency or in the Pledge is the same Judeo-Christian God. Such an assumption can be made and implied; but one cannot prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that a generic reference to “God” is the same Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.
Quite a few of the founders were self-described deists, who believed in the existence of God, but did not necessarily subscribe to Judeo-Christianity. Theirs was more of a philosophical belief in a Supreme Being responsible for intelligent design.
Certainly American Muslims don’t see God the same way that Judeo-Christians do. To Islam, God is Allah and His Word is the Quran.
To many American Indian tribes, God is the “Great Spirit” of the Earth, and His Word is contained in the stories and legends passed down from generations of tribal elders.
To Buddhists, who worship the self, “God” is the self. When one reaches nirvana or enlightenment, then one is essentially one’s own God.
Hindu, Shinto and other polytheistic religions may worship more than one god, but they defer to these gods in proper nomenclature of “Gods” out of respect for them and their powers.
Even atheism, which professes belief in no god, tends to endorse the idea of the self as God. By denying the existence of any being more supreme than the human mind, atheists propel human beings to a level of supremacy and divinity, to God-like stature. So, to the atheist, “God” may just as well refer to oneself.
The people of the United States of America subscribe to a plethora of different belief systems. The generic, but proper nomenclature of “God” pays homage to the spiritual and religious diversity that exists in our country because it is inclusive rather than exclusive. To invoke “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and on U.S. currency is to include the beliefs of many; not just a few.
So, if Michael Newdow wants to erase “God” from the public consciousness, he will end up offending much more than just the Judeo-Christian population; he will offend every religious or spiritual person in the United States of America because, by removing “God” from any and all public declarations, Newdow would essentially be forcing his belief in no God(s) upon everyone else.
That’s right: Newdow’s insistence on getting his way is tantamount to forcing everyone else to accept his belief system (atheism) while publicly forfeiting their own.
This is religious intolerance in its clearest form, and for Newdow to insist that the U.S. Supreme Court rule in his favor would be for the United States government to adopt the atheist point of view and force everybody in America to accept his belief that there is no God(s).
In and of itself, Newdow’s very own argument is unconstitutional. He wants to push his belief system (atheism) on the rest of us by means of federal force.
And make no mistake: Atheism is a religion to Newdow and to the congregants of his very own atheist church.
Therefore, because Michael Newdow has his own religion (atheism) and is trying to get “God” removed from public consciousness in order to conform to his own belief system in no God at all, he is in direct violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
Newdow wants the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in his favor, thereby compelling Congress to enact legislation that supports his religious point of view of no God(s).
I don’t know how one can be more blatantly in violation of the First Amendment than that…or more intolerant of other religions or spiritual beliefs.
The credibility of this man is suspect, because he insists on the one hand that having a public awareness of "God” violates his rights, while on the other hand, he is willing to force his beliefs onto the rest of us through government action.
Sorry, Michael, but you can’t have “God” removed from public reference and still call that constitutional, because such a ruling would be “respecting an establishment” of your religion.
God isn’t a religion; atheism is by virtue of Newdow's own established church. Ergo, God doesn’t apply to the First Amendment, but atheism does.