Evidently there was some snafu at the Democrat’s Convention over what to include in their platform. I do not know the specifics. One of the issues was a reference to God. They apparently took it out, then sort of passed a voice vote resolution to put it back in. Videos seem to indicate the voice vote was a draw. Some delegates booed the decision to declare the motion passed. See for yourself:
Even though the process was dubious, I personally applauded the effort by the Democrats to remove references to God from their platform. The way some conservatives see government, not as a protector of naturally endowed and inalienable rights, but as an instrument of a rather intolerant strain of a particular brand of Theism, makes me uncomfortable. Alas, the foolish Democrat leadership quickly took steps to reassure us that they are not godless. Moreover, they rammed through re-inclusion of references to God; the voice vote was clearly evenly divided. Some of the delegates booed the process; which true to form, conservatives spun as “booing God.”
I reject the notion that godlessness is somehow a pejorative, equivalent in meaning to evil. Buddhism, for example, teaches the cultivation of moral goodness and wisdom through devotional and contemplative practices. Meanwhile, the Buddha explicitly refused to comment on the existence of a creator, since, in his view, specific metaphysical beliefs lack any redemptive value. The Buddha went even further; he warned against excessive emotional attachment to any kind of fixed views, since those can actually impede authentic spiritual insight. That makes sense to me.
My own experience has taught me that religious practices can be effective in cultivating wholesome and constructive mental states; such as kindness and compassion, self restraint and tolerance, and clarity of thought and objective wisdom. However, excessive emotional attachment to particular brands of religion seems to counteract these positive effects; it elicits hatred and anger, self indulgence and intolerance, and clouded or confused thinking
Meanwhile, I have actually heard conservative commentators assert or imply that the words ‘Creator’, ‘in God we trust’, and ‘under God’ appear the Constitution of the United States. They claimed this reflects the theistic views founding founders. The alleged references are cited as evidence that the founding fathers intended to found a Christian nation.
However, there is actually no reference to God or a Creator in the Constitution, and the people asserting otherwise should know better. The only reference to religion in the main body is a clause prohibiting any religious tests to hold public office under the United States. In addition, the First Amendment of the Constitution prevents the United States government from either establishing a national religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In addition, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to make the First Amendment, and by extension, the No Religious Tests Clause, binding on the States.
A little background: The US Constitution had a number of authors. James Madison is sort of considered the primary author. Madison also drafted the Bill of Rights - the first 10 Amendments. Also, the 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War.
The word Creator actually appears in the Declaration of Independence; which was authored by Thomas Jefferson. While Thomas Jefferson was not directly involved in the framing the Constitution or Bill of Rights, his views were without a doubt, a major influence The use of this word does not appear to reflect an endorsement of Theism. It was most likely carefully chosen to be inclusive of Deism. Even if it were intended to be an endorsement of Theism, it is still no more a part of the Constitution itself than the .”Wall of Separation between Church and State” phrase found in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, written in 1802. Still, I think both The Declaration and Jefferson’s letter are useful in understanding the consensus viewpoint of the Founding Founders.
The most important point is that ‘rights’ are not granted by any government; instead governments are rightly organized to protect inherent rights. In the 1802 letter, Jefferson actually mentions natural rights. There is really no need for a Creator to grant them; our rights are naturally endowed and inalienable. Indeed, if we accept the notion that they were granted by an omnipotent creator; then that creator could revoke them; they would not be inalienable.
The phrase ‘In God we trust’ has nothing to do with the founding fathers. It was first printed on US money in 1864. It was adopted as the motto of the USA in 1956. The words ‘under God’ appear in the “Pledge of Allegiance”; which was written by a socialist in 1892 and adopted by the US Congress in 1942. The words ‘under God’ do not even appear in the original; they were added in 1954.
It is also popular in current conservative circles to refer to the United States as a Judeo-Christian nation. They like to talk about Judeo-Christian values, ethics, and heritage. From what I gather, this use of Judeo-Christian in American politics dates to the 20th century, and the nuance of meaning has shifted a number of times.
My own view is that the cultural and intellectual founding of the United States was actually rooted more in the ideas of the 18th Century Enlightenment; which was a move away from religious superstition and intolerance, toward reason and science. There may have been some founders who wanted an Established Church, but they were persuaded this would corrupt both church and state.
One more thing; prior to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, sovereign states were allowed to mix church and states. Some once had an establishment of religion and religious tests for public office. Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights only protected the ‘self evident’ inherent rights of humans from usurpation by the Federal Government. The No Religious Tests Clause only applied to Federal Office. The 10th Amendment allowed the respective states to make their own mistakes.
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment specifically makes 5th Amendment protections applicable to the states. Interpretations of the Equal Protection and enforcement clauses Clause have made other parts of the Bill of Rights binding and on the States and made the Federal Government the de facto guarantor of individual rights. While the extent of this expansion of the Bill Of Rights is still being debated, the 1st Amendment and, by extension, the Religious Tests Clause, are included. Therefore, any references to the All Mighty, and so on, in State Constitutions, is moot.
I suspect James Madison might approve. After he retired from public office. Madison wrote:
… practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both …