These two notions seem at odds with one another. What were the founding fathers and the architects of state constitutions around the land thinking? It's possible that the nation was founded on the political balderdash that is commonplace in Washington DC, but perhaps not. Perhaps there was an idea that we are commonly misunderstanding today.
Indeed, at least in the case of the founding of the United States, the notion of Darwinism and secularism were unheard of when the original constitution was composed. As a consequence, everyone, just everyone believed in God. The problem in those days was that everyone worshipped God differently and, based on these differences, people killed each other. Yep, pretty barbaric. Fortunately, the colonists, for all of their faults, had a better idea. They put down the sword (or musket) and said "freedom of worship."
The modern argument is that any mention of 'God' involves religion and hence, by definition, impinges on the freedom of worship. This idea of people objecting to even the mention of God was impossible for the writers of the constitution. Permitting this extra constitutional logic into the laws of our land has had the following effect:
As a nation we do not expect "God to be watching." Our national life does not involve any discussion of what is pleasing to God. Our national life has lost the "Fear of God," the reverence for God that is the ancient hallmark of men and women of moral character.
Although a longer discussion of the common values of the founding Fathers as "Deists" those who settled religious differences by referring to their common God not as the God of the Hebrew, Christians or Muslims, but as the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth -- The God of Nature... would shed light on many of the relativst dramas of our day, the simplicity of the commonly held biblical values have been torn to shreds.
The main idea behind this series of blogs is to investigate modern issues in terms of this Deist logic. Why? Not because I am a Deist, but as a political voice, each person seeks an area of widest appeal. I suppose even a Transcendentalist or two could get into the act. Finally, not because I'm a Darwinist, --indeed, the fight for "true science" is central to the tenets of "Deists" in the public arena for a free nation-- but because the Darwin theory of natural evolution is the most widely accepte theory of nature, this theory will be the one primarily referenced. Perhaps we can get even a few hopeless athiests to come along for the ride.
Posts
