The Logical Case For God In The U.S. Founding Documents

First of all, this isn't a discussion to promote the religious concept of a grandfatherly deity.  This doesn't presume to insist that anyone needs to even have a religious affiliation or even believe in any deity by any name.

What it does do is to point to conceptual agreement that in order for men, in the "human" context, to appreciate that no other man has the ability to hold dominion over others because the rights of all men come from a source that is above and beyond the ability of men to overrule.

To use the term "God given Rights" as presented in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, is to say that some authority is the source of said rights that cannot nor should not be interrupted by other men.

Call them "Natural" rights if the terminology "feels" better but give respect to the idea that there is a recognized source of those basic human rights that no government, religious or social organization or any conclave or individual man can interfere with.

Be atheistic, agnostic, spiritualistic, religious all you want, but recognize that neither you or any group of people, regardless of majority, can cancel, veto or negate any individual's basic human rights.  They inherently lack the authority to do so.

For many, if not most, people there is an acceptance of some type of supernatural relationship to a sentient, intelligent creator or force typically referred to as "God" or many other names.

Lacking any supernatural recognition, it is still reasonable to accept that wherever or however mankind has come about, the general force of Nature in and of itself has provided that each person is born their own person and that no one has an inherent right to dominion over any other.  For convenience and discussion's sake let's call that force "God" it serves the same purpose of identifying a source beyond that of mankind.

Personally, I don't give a rat's patoot what you refer to that source as, as long as it is fundamentally recognized.  Without that recognition and acceptance, there cannot be liberty.