Carol:

That in worshipping God we avoid worshipping humans.

I disagree with the idea that this one fits the criteria of a secular point. For one thing, there may be religions that involve worshiping people. But also, using myself as an example, I don't have a concept of "worship" in my spiritual belief system. That word has no meaning to me. Same with any attempt to define divinity. According to my own spiritual beliefs, to define divinity is to limit it. And in my belief system, divinity is not something that can be limited. Worshipping something requires some degree of definition of what is being worshipped. Also, according to the what I believe, to worship something is to create a separation between the self and the thing being worshipped. In my spiritual beliefs, there is no separation between the self and divinity. So the use of the word "worship" violates my spiritual beliefs.

Carol: I understand your point, however in positing the idea of a God that is 'NOT' you or I and thus enables us to be equal we create the secular world.

Even if the rest of your paragraph is meant tongue not in cheek I think you are going to an interesting semantic place to come up with a verb that violates your beliefs. It is not necessarily unconstitutional for someone to feel violated in their own mind so long as you are not violated in the common law. For instance, I genuinely abhor the existence, concept, and use of licorice, but that doesn't mean I won't see it at the candy stand and i can't legally remove it because it deeply offends me.
(I hope you don't think of this as a run-around).