Even if you don't believe in God, believe in your rights.
I will freely admit that much of what I write here is essentially preaching to the converted. I like writing articles that express my thoughts and feelings, but rarely do I consider writing for an audience that may be hostile to my way of thinking. Nevertheless, if there are any atheists reading this, I want to make an argument in favor of widespread belief in God in the United States, and why that belief is useful to securing your individual rights as a citizen.
You may have heard the argument that the concept of God is a useful legal fiction. Essentially, it goes like this: in American legal discourse, the concept of God is necessary because it sets up a legal recognition of a theoretical powerful being, or force that effects change, who is responsible for our existence. This being or force or what-you-will possesses greater legal strength and authority than that represented by all of humanity. So why would an American atheist want to back such a legal fiction? Because it protects her rights. The drafters of the Declaration and of the Constitution spoke of "inalienable rights" of human beings, given them "by their Creator." In legal terms, the authority of a theoretical God to give certain rights takes precedence over the authority of mankind. No rights that are said to be "given by God" can be capriciously taken away by human beings, whether working singly or as a group.
Alternatively, consider what happens when we base our founding documents on purely secular terms, changing every reference to Deity into "The People" or "The State." See any problems? If you've ever read the Chinese Constitution—all 135 articles—you will note some interesting differences between the paper "rights" of Chinese citizens and the real freedoms they are allowed to enjoy. Article 36, for instance, claims: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration." Try telling that to the students at Tiananmen Square. Oh, wait, you can't—they were gunned down in the streets by the Chinese military, right in the middle of exercising their freedoms of speech, assembly, procession and demonstration. I guess when China says its citizens "enjoy" certain freedoms, it is using an obscure definition of that word.
Likewise, the French Revolution produced an enlightened, reason-based constitution where all rights sprang from The People rather than from any fictitious God. Within a handful of years, Robespierre and his cronies had managed to convince The People that "treasonous" aristocrats and other undesirables of the new Republic deserved death; thousands of innocents were guillotined or drowned in this state-sanctioned "purging."
The point is, whenever a right is said to originate from The People or from The Nation, then it can also be modified or removed in the name of The People or The Nation. When a right is said to originate from God, it cannot be taken away by human beings without due process of law. It doesn't matter whether God exists, it only matters that in legal terms, rights which come from "God" are specially protected. This concept is as useful to atheists as it is to people of faith, because it protects the rights
of believers and skeptics alike.
"Ah, but what about state executions?" you say. "Doesn't that violate your idea of protected rights? After all, if life and liberty are given by this theoretical God, where do we get the right to put people behind bars or execute them for crimes?"
Yes, we do this—but only in very specific cases, and then only after due process of law, in an attempt to protect the rights of others. Our legal documents recognize that occasionally society must deal with an individual who represents too much of a danger to others to remain free and on the streets. If he takes the God-given right to life away from someone else, for example, he will be placed on trial to determine whether that right, in turn, should be taken from him. Execution or imprisonment is done not out of a need for retribution, but to keep a killer from killing again. But our laws specifically forbid the mass destruction of lives of "inconvenient" citizens by their own government, such as the bloodbaths that occurred at Tiananmen and during the Reign of Terror.
"But why use God at all?" I hear you cry. "Why not use some other theoretical legal fiction, like Santa or the Tooth Fairy?"
Well, let me put it another way—why do we bother to use paper currency? It's no longer backed by a gold or silver standard, so it has no absolute value, and it's expensive to print, with numerous security features that don't seem to work. Why not go to some simple method of exchange, like using purely electronic credit, or even simpler, rocks or leaves or feathers? Because our currency system only works when the majority of the people believe in it, and support it. If we start using some unrecognized form of exchange, the whole house of cards falls apart.
Likewise, we require the use of God in legal discourse. The majority of Americans have at least a tenuous belief in God, or acknowledge some higher power. If we switched to another term to represent a theoretical authority over and above humanity, it would not carry the full force of tradition and belief that "God" does.
This is why we use the generic term "God" rather than "Jehovah" or "Jesus Christ" or "Krishna" or "Allah" or some other easily-recognizable deity. All people of faith are thus free to recognize the word "God" on their own terms, as representing the specific deity (or deities) they revere. If government moves to take some right away which has previously been defined as God-given, Americans who believe in God—any God—can be expected to rise up and demand retention of this right given them by their Creator, however they personally define that word. If you erase the widely-believed concept of God and substitute a clearly fictitious concept such as the Tooth Fairy, you're back to the same issues that arise when you use "The People."
Perhaps you're principled enough to exclaim, "I don't care whether the concept of God is useful to me or anyone else. Why should we let the government continue to use it if it's wrong? God doesn't exist, so why bother to pretend He does in an official capacity?"
Because you care about your rights. Whether or not you believe in God, there is no other known method whereby your rights can be secured.
You cannot trust government to protect your rights. Governments throughout history have shown a terrifying willingness to slay their own people whenever they deem it necessary. Likewise, you cannot trust "The People" as a legal concept to protect your rights, because too often government uses the so-called "will of The People" to impose horrors on its citizens, as shown above. Use of God as a legal term is a way of admitting that human beings are imperfect, unstable and power-hungry, and a way of keeping those darker human impulses at bay by invoking a force greater than humanity.
I can understand a certain amount of frustration on the part of atheists and agnostics in being asked to accept and support widespread belief in a concept they decry as vain superstition. Nonetheless, attempting to expunge God from American law is akin to sawing off the branch on which you are standing. You cannot remove the legal concept of God from America without damaging or destroying the foundation upon which all its laws are based. And if you want a world of reason and fact rather than chaos and destruction, you will seek to uphold the law. Even if that means upholding the notion of God.