RDs believe that the goal of all humans should be to have children. For Religious Deists, this does not need to be explained
and seems like the most self-evident thing in the universe. But for others, especially people who are not yet parents, an
explanation is probably needed and in order. As humans, RDs believe that it is our most natural and God-given right and obligation
and that it is also part of the most obvious and natural cycle of life. And, to do deny the positives and benefits of this cycle, as
a child, as an adult/parent, and as a grandparent - seems terribly arrogant and misguided to us. Religious Deists recognize
parenthood to be the most selfish and most selfless action imaginable and something that cannot be replicated in any other human
action, something that cannot be understood vicariously as a friend of the family or even an uncle or aunt. Parenthood is the essence
of being human and the greatest gift that God gives us, and RDs would argue as great as the gift of life itself. And in the responsibility
of raising children is the greatest responsibility that God does and can give us, to effectively act as the caretaker in all things and
therefore the de facto god to our children until these children are able to grow into adults and parents themselves. Any parent will tell
you that being a parent is the greatest thing that they have ever done in their lives, and anyone you says differently clearly has
their priorities in disorder.
Religious Deists find it hard to understand how such a large part of society today does not accept this as a natural human reality
and priority. Some people would argue that this statement is inappropriate since some people cannot have children. The solution in that
case is that they can and should adopt, one of the noblest things that anyone can ever do. Others would try to argue that it is better
if drug addicts or abusive people should probably not have children especially if they are not interested in having them. And, in general,
that it is probably true that anyone who does not want to have children should not become a parent.
However, these people are missing the point. The goal of having children is an absolute in the sense that RDs believe that we
should be raised to believe that children are essential in the context of our humanity, our humanism and for RDs in the context
of their theology. Without a doubt, some people probably evolve into human beings who would not be good parents and maybe who should
consider not having children. However, RDs believe that the idea that we should not have children or that we should not judge if
people should or should not have children is one of the worst and most destructive forms of relativism. This attitude allows people
to believe that it is ok not to have children and that we should teach as a societal norm that not having children as a goal is ok.
For RDs and Christians, this belief is inappropriate and immoral. For classic deists, agnostics and atheists, this relativism results
in what should be an unacceptable denial of our biological and social humanity and the very essence of our humanness.
RDs feel that parents should raise their children by providing them with the time and the example for the type of parent that
they should be and, via their theology, emphasize that life on earth without children is unacceptable, against the most obvious
tenants of human nature, clearly out of step with what God wants from us and what He wants us to understand and learn from in the
human experience. As alluded to above, RDs believe that someone who has children and raised them appropriately, independent of any
and all financial, social or professional failures is a big picture success; and, on the other hand, someone with financial, social
and/or professional success who decided against children or who had children but did not make them a priority, is without a doubt a
failure in the big picture. If someone came up with a cure for cancer but neglected their children, they would be a failure in the
eyes of Religious Deism.
In that same vein, Religious Deism would consider John Adams in this same category despite the fact that he was one of the most
selfless people responsible for securing American independence and ensuring the survival of the United States during its first 50 years.
However, to achieve these very selfless goals, he chose to be away from his wife and more importantly away from his two youngest sons,
both of whom were failures in life. And, they most likely failed because of the lack of a father in their lives during their formative years.
John Adams was everything that was good in the American Revolution and post-Revolutionary time. And, everything seems to indicate that
he was a dedicated husband to Abigail and a dedicated father to John Quincy. However, his sacrifice for country, selfless though it probably
was, was at the cost of his other children and that is something that a Religious Deist can NEVER justify or rationalize, not to guarantee
the forging of the United States of America nor for the most charitable act imaginable to help achieve heaven on earth. While it is
important to help others and our theology is important to ensure we stay on the path to righteousness and to heaven, there is nothing
more important than children. And, as a result, we can judge whether we are successful in life not by career or possessions but by
the children that we raise and the extent to which we have guided them towards recognizing the importance of children and family,
helping others, and maintaining a contradictionless theology.
It is incredible how if you asked people individually whether they agreed with the statement that the goal of all humans should be
to have children, how the great majority would say of course. Nonetheless, if you ask about people in particular or when faced with societal
pressures, society generally refuses to stand behind that statement. And, it is incredible or maybe not so incredible
how everyone who has ever had children believes that children were the greatest thing they ever did in their lives. Likewise, even
though it is never discussed and even though they might deny it, it is difficult to believe that people who did not have children do
not eventually come to accept that this decision was the worst, most misguided decision of their lives. The childrenless couple that
lives in denial of this truth but who are of an age to still raise children is sad. The childrenless couple that comes to realize
this too late is beyond sad. Only God knows how this most unfortunate inaction, for whatever bad or relativist reason, will be
considered during the reckoning that God carries out for all of us.
So, we ask, why does society fight this self-evident, human truth? Because society today is dominated by relativism and people who
either want the easy way out and/or who are simply selfish. And, relativists do not judge others maybe because they think it is
wrong but certainly because they do not want to be judged. Such a mentality is ultimately selfish and cowardly and against everything
that Religious Deism stands for.
In relation to the issue of “raising loving families”, we make the following statement that probably sounds at least initially as a
controversial statement. While all Christians and many classical deists, agnostics and atheists believe that having children and maintaining
ties with family are important, RDs take this to another higher level and make this a priority on par with belief in God and the afterlife.
Without needing to elaborate, obviously a pro-family agnostic or atheist would place children above these issues. However, RDs base this
belief in the absolute truth about the importance of having children. Meanwhile, Unitarians, secular deists, agnostics and atheists would
not insist that having children have to be a priority for all people and that it is a decision for each person in the context of the conscious
and relativism that these groups maintain as the truth.
On the other hand, while Christians believe that all married couples should have children is an absolute truth, some Christian relativists
would argue against that point. Also, most Biblical Christians would describe their dedication to having and raising children to be below that
of their belief in God and in the divinity of Jesus and against what they refer to as a parent´s potential “worship” of their children over and
above their worship of God. In this case, Christians would claim that it is inappropriate for a parent to love their children more
than they love God.
In two important respects, RDs would disagree with this Christian position. First, RDs would argue, in the context of their beliefs in our "humanness"
and their reason-based theology, that it would be inappropriate to love God more than their children. How and why? First, if RD theology is not based
on primary knowledge of God and if it insists that God is not personal in our lives on earth, then to place the love for this earthly "impersonal" God above that
of our children would be virtually inhuman. A benevolent and all powerful God has a perfect plan for an imperfect humanity and if that plan suggests His
absence from our earthly existence, then effectively God prescribes that we should love our children, who are present and personal on earth, more than
our God who on earth is absent and impersonal by design.
Second, loving your children more than an earthly impersonal God does not imply that the love of that child could not coincide with theological
or imply this, in fact, these goes hand in hand. So, yes, RDs would put the love of their children above their love for God. And no, in general
and as humans, RDs would not love God or their theology more than their children. RDs would assume that despite what Christians might say, deep
down, Christians do not love God more than their children. In fact, doesn’t it make sense that we should love our children like God loves
humanity – and can anyone argue that a perfect and benevolent God would love something more than it loves humanity?