How could such brilliant men that crafted such a brilliant document to the world be so stupid as to believe so firmly in God?
Who here has suggested that they were stupid to believe in a god? That is your strawman. The Deists of the enlightenment did not have the information that became available later which showed mechanisms by which complex systems could arise from simpler preceding systems. They assumed, due to normal characteristics of human psychology, that complexity had to be designed by some conscious agency. They didn't believe this because they were stupid, they believed it because it was the best model they could devise based on the information available to them. They were no more stupid than those who once assumed that the passage of time was a universal constant.
"Nature's God.. created.. endowed by their Creator.. appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.. with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."
That's quite an emphasis on God in the founding document from the fathers of the nation.
As has been pointed out previously, the DOI is not a founding document of the United States of America. It was a work of political rhetoric, intended more to rally Colonials to the cause of independence than to persuade the British government of anything. It was an appeal to emotion as well as a means of nullifying the "divine right of kings".
Do you object to this? Would you favor a vote or document which declared a national renouncing of any faith in or reliance on God?
I would prefer an actual legal document like the Constitution of the United States, which makes zero mention of, much less appeal to, any supernatural power, and states in the very first amendment that government is not to involve itself in religion at all.
Would you consider their faith in God, even if you personally disagree, a good thing or a bad thing?
First of all, there are many of them who I would not characterize as having faith in a god at all. To a deist, God was not something that answered prayers or intervened in the lives of humans. Secondly, I would characterize their belief as irrelevant simply because they obviously felt that it was irrelevant, seeing as they chose to leave it out of all consideration when crafting the laws of the United States.
Do you believe that expunging their faith from the nation, as much as reasonably possible, would make for a better nation?
The founders envisioned a nation in which every person was free to worship or not worship according to his or her conscience without threat of harassment by people using the government as a religious cudgel, as had been happening in Europe for so long. Wanting to preserve that separation between church and state is not equivalent to wanting to expunge the nation of religious beliefs. You are just beating on another strawman.
Are Americans better now than they were then?
Define "better". It's certainly true that participation in the governance of the U.S. is no longer limited to white, property owning males. That is certainly a better situation for Americans. It is true that human beings can no longer be owned as property. That is certainly a better situation, would you not agree?
