|
Actually, the morality of equality relates back to some things in Locke's second treatise. And, yes, it is theistic, as many of our founding philosophers were. Locke's morality based on theology is that you own yourself. In his view, once you mix yourself with the land through your labor, you own the fruits of such labor, as it is a product of yourself. That's his justification for property ownership.
From that justification for property ownership, we move into a philosophy of equality, based on the notion that no one, especially the government, should interfere with your ownership of yourself and your subsequent ownership of the fruits of your labor.
But, these men were religious, living in a time when most men were religious. The fact that an underlying truth of the human condition is revealed through or via a religious notion does not change the fact that it is an underlying truth. That's how I see it.
Anyway, you asked for a take on the language referencing "The Creator" in the Declaration. From my point of view, as an aetheist who recognizes that the universe is infinite and barely understandable, it is my view that the universe is the Creator. And, in my view, regardless of who or what the Creator is, equal treatment of the people by the government is an underlying concept that transcends any religious notion.
In my view, logic alone, sans religion, can justify the notion that the government ought to treat all people equally.
__________________
 
|