An argument that stands contrary to objectively verifiable evidence, and without any evidence offered in support of it is irrational. You can submit your belief in something based on feelings and emotions, but those feelings and emotions do not constitute evidence that it is true. True rationality is a matter of consesus. It is irrational to say the sky is green, when we can all see that it is blue, and given the right tools, measure exactly how blue it is.
Is it government that decides what is rational or rationally premised? Is belief in the Creator rational?
No government that operates by the consent of the governed assumes to decide for them what is and is not rational. It would be self-contradictory. A authoritarian government based on dogmatism will. That is the nature of dogma - it is declared to be self-evident truth by decree, and becomes the litmus test for rationality. Questioning it is irrational, because believing it is the standard of rationality. This is the kind of power the left seeks to wield in declaring and imposing "political correctness".
As far as believing in the Creator being rational, I believe it is, but that is a subjective determination. In a political context, I believe the debate over the propriety of religious tests was hashed out and decided long ago.
"Rational" arguments contributed what exactly to the cause of freedom?
For starters, Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason helped bring about the public support for the American Revolution.
Now, what there do you take exception to, and what evidence do you submit in defense of those objections?
As I review postings in general here in my opinion I would say there is a disconnect here between moral Conservatives and Libertarians in two areas:
The first area might be considered the moral natural or moral common law which includes such things as marriage etcetera. These "things" open to the moral free market of ideas have been defined by society as valuable while other things have been deemed of no value and or harmful. One can find no rational basis for many of these "things" -these declarations.... If comparing the free market of moral ideas with the economic free market we see many similarities with values being determined by participants, with both success and failure being determined by and within the free market (society). Looking for instance at the value of an SUV automobile or a fine piece of artwork or lets say an IPOD -where is the rational basis? Do you see where I am going here? I am suggesting that the premise itself that all things require a rational basis is a flawed premise... This flawed premise in essence cedes authentic individual liberty to a higher authority. In the case of Libertarians it would seem they choose to sacrifice what they consider irrational social order for government imposed social order... e.g. they prefer a government controlled 'neutered' moral free market... This neutering premised in rational requirement flies in the face of what the Founders established by guaranteeing freedom of Religion for the very reason that the free market of ideas should be free... One could say that the requirement for no "religious test" is is being trampled by a government that imposes a 'rational' test that by default establishes a secular humanist state religion...
The second area might be considered the unalienable/inalienable. Again, these have no rational basis... If one was sat down in front of a judge and had to argue that he is endowed with freedom form the Creator he could not prove it -he could only point to the Constitution... One might then say WELL does the Constitution grant this freedom -if so, then what if we revoke it? What it comes down to is principles and what they are premised upon. One could say that moral Conservatives have principles founded upon something that goes beyond and transcends that piece of paper that Libertarians defend while at the same time discounting that which premises it... This paradox seems odd to me and as well dangerous as repeatedly I have stated this equates to a political entity with moral relative principles that van be swayed in any direction like leaves blowing in the wind...