As best as I am able to determine by researching various resources and documents, it appears reasonably clear that the Founding Fathers and Patriots of the United States were of a "Deist" mind set and not bound to the Christian interpretation of "God."

The term "Deist" does not necessarily imply that one believes in "multiple gods" although it can encompass that realm. In the context of the "Founding Fathers" none of them expressed any belief in "multiple gods"; many however, professed "non-acceptance" of the "Christian" churches of that time.

English, unfortunately, is a very contextual language and is even more so in these modern times. Part of the corruption of the matter is the apparent "forced" interpretation of the language (English) to assume that the term "God" applies only to the Judeo-Christian definition of the term. It is the claim of the French that the French language is more definitive and less ambiguous; maybe they are correct, English has a problem.

It is somewhat ironic that those who came to America to find "Religious Freedom" seek to push their views upon others through this apparent "forced" interpretation of the term "God." One must note that the clauses, "In God we trust" and "under God" are of recent time and are not the language of the Founding Fathers.

The Supreme Court of the United States could easily settle the matter of "God" clauses in state and federal documents by estabishing the opinion that the term "God" is not limited to the Judeo-Christian use of the term. Consequent thereunto, there would be no need to remove such aforementioned clauses from the currency of the nation or from the pledge of allegence.

We are a nation of many ethnic backgrounds and of many religions; the Founding Fathers maintained a great respect of that multiplicity. It is imperative then that the law of the land recognize that the term "God" is not limited to the Judeo-Christian vision thereof.

With this issue of explicit and utter separation of religion and state, one has to ask "What are they a patriot of?"...'a nation under God,' or a nation that protects the right for each individual to pursue their own spiritual path, as a member of an organized religion, or not. From the Constitution's point of view, all spiritual paths are equal. Modern day References to God in state speeches, pledges, and currency, favors monotheism just because it is the apparent majority. This favoritism dissolves the equalization of all spiritual paths. Majority rule works in state operations, but not in religious vision and expression. Religious or spiritual vision is held as an individual inalienable right by the Constitution, and is explicitly relegated to the private sector on an individual basis. The dissolution of this equalization is motivated by religious tyranny, market share, and political endearment; these people put the Constitution aside for their own agenda. How can they be regarded as patriots of the U.S. Constitution?

Those who cannot see the plight of Dr. Michael Newdow do not see the point of the inalienable right of one to follow their spiritual path. This is easily understood because religious articles of faith require that the congregation believe that its faith is the "one and only" true one. Unless a state constitution enforce religious freedom by holding that it is an inalienable right for each and every individual to pursue, there would be constant strife or war in a world polarized by various populations of unbelievers. To uphold this inalienable right, the Constitution must see all religious spiritual paths as equal, and protect all, but only by having no favoritism to any one of them.

Redefining the term "God" so it in effect becomes meaningless seems like one tactic to solve the problem.

All religious references in state speeches, protocols, pledges, and currency should be deleted.

Those who oppose this have a religious, business, or political agenda...not a patriotic one.