Well the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. So how about we do look at a legally binding document -- a treaty.

Specifically the Treaty of Tripoli or to be more accurate "reaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary. It was signed by President Adams (the drafting of the treaty started with President Washington.

The US Senate approved this treaty on 7 June 1797 and it was ratified by the Senate and signed by President Adams on 10 June 1797. Let's look at Article 11 of that treaty.

Seems pretty clear and one can't get any more official than a ratified treaty.

SS, is this the same Jefferson who talked out of both sides of his mouth ie, being vehemently opposed to the slave trade, yet who owned over 100 of them?

Is this the same Jefferson who penned this enlightened thought?

"The blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distant by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both body and mind"

or this gem about interracial coupling:

"Their amalgamation with the other color produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character can innocently consent."

Had Jefferson been a bit more "christian", who knows how things may have turned out ;) Though I would love to check out a few of his psalms in his version of the bible.

Love debating you since you provoke thought.

Though the very basis of the Declaration is grounded in the fact that man is endowed by his Creator, to be alive, to be free and to pursue happiness.

Christianity was the only show in town once it came to revolutionary America. Therefore, when one speaks about God back then it is grounded in the christian faith.

I will leave you with this little nugget.

Justice Josiah Brewer wrote on February 29, 1892, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” [Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226. (1892).]

Actually I just accidentally posted a counterpoint to your argument. ^

You are absolutely right that Declaration of Independence is not a binding document, but we based our constitution on the principals it set forth. I am not making a leap in logic, just climbing up that slippery slope.

The same Jefferson who felt his slaves had no chance at all of surviving if freed, yet tried on more than one ocassion to get Virginia to outlaw slavery.

Early in his career, yes. On the other hand, Jefferson's letter to mathematician Benjamin Banneker shows that he was capable of modifying his position. But I was commenting on your claim that the founders were all Christian, and you seem to be trying to change the subject.

Further, Benjamin Franklin refers to the Creator, yet absolutely denied Christ.

As for owning slaves, so did Washington and Madison.

Not even closely true. The grounding of the Declaration is an explanation of why we were currently at war with our Mother Country, and seeking separation. I've already explained the use of the word "Creator" in its proper context. Also you call it "the fact", when it is only opinion. A fact is something that can be shown as evidence. Not necessarily explained or understood, but shown. Therefore "his Creator" is not fact at all, just a belief. Also those words were composed by the same Jefferson you attempted to discredit. Are his words to be taken as proof of belief on the one hand, but dismissed as worthless on the other, at your convenience? My point is that the founders were not all Christians, or even mostly Christians, and you have yet to approach that. And I showed that the use of certain terms were common among Deistic followers of the Enlightenment.

This is true, but the question remains of whether the authors of the founding documents were adherents to that faith, or merely using terminology that would be acceptable to their fellows. And as to whether those fellows, like their modern counterparts, were actually followers or merely following what they grew up with as accepted practice.

Nice, but was Brewer an impartial judge or was he a devout Christian trying to prove a point with what was really only his opinion? Until you can show his lack of bias, his claims are as suspect as those of any modern Christian apologist, and his writings were more than 100 years after the fact.

Actually you didn't. John Adams not only signed the treaty, but wholly endorsed it. Adams was a regular churchgoer, but it was a Unitarian church and Adams himself claimed a belief in God, but denied that Jesus was divine. So Adams too was no Christian.

Actually both are firmly rooted in the writings of John Locke, the father of the enlightenment, and the writings of Greek and Roman philosophers and of more recent French adherents of Locke. There is nothing in either document that can be linked even indirectly to the teachings of the Bible.

Rebellion against kings, leaders and others placed in authority does seem to be a christian principle or excuse. However it is NOT a biblical one.

The proof that I pointed out was for Platapus, sorry.

The point I was trying to make is that people are influenced by what they are taught, their experiences and the like. My question therefore is why did they mention God if they were attempting a completely secular movement?

John Adams:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


John Adams belonged to the Unitarian church. Unitarianism is a, Christian theological movement, therefore Christian.

An aside: reason I picked out flaws in TJ is that you originally brought him up. He was very contradictory in his thoughts.

When you speak of context of "Creator" here we have Jefferson's original version of that line:

Adams original version:

Somewhere somehow it got changed to "their Creator."

Thousands of theories abound about why.

Franklin:

It cannot hold that Franklin was a Deist, it sounds that would have come from a christian.

I would bring up the other two but my eyes are dead tired.

Maccabean Revolt

The Revolt of the Ten Tribes

Sorry about the emphasis.

Maccabean Revolt had much to do with Gentiles being in a place they had no business being in and attempting to make Jews worship strange gods. So the Gentile was rightfiuly shown the door by force.

The so called lost ten tribes revolted but they in essence revolted against God Himself. Big No No so they were eventually defeated and dispersed by the Assyrians. But in the end there is good news for some of them Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

The above verses describes many of those in the ten tribes coming home again.

Anyways I guess what I really want to say is just because rebellion is recorded in the Bible. It shouldn't be automatically assumed to be permissible for any and everyone. Usually those that do rebel end up paying a heavy price for it.

You bring up a fabulous point. It boils down to having faith or a belief in what you are doing is morally right. One is an example of what one might consider righteousness and the other hubris.

[QUOTE]In the context of the era and location, the Judeo/Christian God was the only show in town. Just because they did not use "Lord" or "Messiah" or the "Divinity" does not make it any less christian. Considering 90 something percent of the people that lived in the colonies were of one or another denomination of christianity.

Natural law is derived from Divine Providence, not separate from it. It's acknowledged as fact when they grant that there are certain unalienable rights endowed by their Creator. Which as to my understanding is man cannot grant nor take away these privileges from another man. They also say it as such in the last sentence of the Declaration.


Please point out the gospel that points to rulership or how to govern.

Again in the context of time and place, I will argue that divinity was taught via Christianity, not Plato or Aristotle.

If it was the only show in town what show were the missing 10% at?

In the context of time and place you are looking at the boom in the classics

It is probably closer to 100% but I wanted to hedge my bets, lest be pounded on my semantics.

Yes, the classics were being circulated in larger numbers, but again time and place, the majority had very little time for leisure activities, reading something other than the bible being one of them. Literacy rates, collectively are close to what they today in the US. Though the southern colonies were lagging behind the northern counterparts.

But you are not talking about the majority, you are talking about basicly the landed "gentry" and the educated merchant classes.
It doesn't matter what some ditch digger got as was called an education, it mattered what was the scope of education the signers and draughters recieved...which with all that deist enlightenment thingy was going for inclusion of the classics.