NationStates Jolt Archive

The US declaration of independence say this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, considering the fact that humans were not created (we evolved, just as a reminder for those people who haven't noticed yet!), one might assume that declaration is null and void! :D

US declaration of independence invalid?
no.

One could argue that we were created by nature through the process of evolution.

Well, we were created. All life was created from primordial ooze.

The questions is, WHO is this creator and why did he give me such a small bladder?

brb, potty break

The US declaration of independence say this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, considering the fact that humans were not created (we evolved, just as a reminder for those people who haven't noticed yet!), one might assume that declaration is null and void! :D

By starting "we hold", they have framed it as stating their personal beliefs. Kind of tough to dispute at this late date if that really was their opinion or now.

Ok just to inform you. A great majority of America has a religion. Me personaly am Mormon. If you read the bible you will note that through adam and Eve we exist not through "evolution" which is what the decleration of idenpendence pretty much states. That is why you have freedom of church listed in the same paragraph. If you still don't believe this please look into the bible for answers or even the book of mormon if you wish.

Sorry didn't mean to get all churchy on you guys and no offense to those of you that believe in evolution either.

You're dumb. Not to mention, the Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document. It's propaganda.

The US declaration of independence say this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, considering the fact that humans were not created (we evolved, just as a reminder for those people who haven't noticed yet!), one might assume that declaration is null and void! :D
Definitely! We should start over. :p

No it is not invalid, it is still a valid document that serves a valid role in America.

It also puts more then a small dent in the "Seperation of Church and State" bullshit.

the acutal words of an indepence speech is just meant to give the impression the people want to be free and maybe and what kind of government will come. The only thing that makes an indepenence declaration valid is if the country can back it up with the power to stay free.

which america tries as much as possible to do. However you have to expect them to get more strick with laws and excetera after september 11'th.

Well, George III certainly thought it was invalid.

Ahm... but saying "we hold these thruth" followed by a FALSE is odd, ain't it?

If you think about the time period it was written in these are the hopes and dreams in which america was founded on. Who would of known what would happen in the future. Maybe one day America will be a free place.

Definitely! We should start over. :p
I would change "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" for "Beer, Rock'n'Roll and the pursuit of Really Hot Chicks".

It's valid in the fact that we kicked those panzy redcoats out of our country twice. I could say we hold conquats in high regards so get out Brits & it would be valid because we declared out Independence from GB & it happened.

We hold these thruths to be self-evident, that all men derive from one species and that they consider behaving in some ways better for their own dna-safety

The Declaration of Independence was not propagande, nor is it a document that is upheld by law.

The Declaration of Independence was a formal declaration of war against the British Empire. That's where the whole taxation without representation and all that good stuff comes into play.

I would change "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" for "Beer, Rock'n'Roll and the pursuit of Really Hot Chicks".

That idea is straightforward. I like it! :D

The US declaration of independence say this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, considering the fact that humans were not created (we evolved, just as a reminder for those people who haven't noticed yet!), one might assume that declaration is null and void! :D

You're either a moron or a fucking genius.

I think its important to mention that the Framers had a lot of policies we don't use now. They had slaves, they wouldn't let women vote, and so forth. I'm not saying belief in a creator was/is wrong, but the fact that one of their beliefs is no longer unilaterally held is not revocation of ALL their beliefs.

If I say 2+2=4 and 1+9=15 in the same paper, they are not both thus false, only one is. Also, the Declaration included several accusations of Native Americans as being brutal murderous savages with no respect for "the rules of war", something that I'm sure many atheists would believe is untrue. We still wouldn't necessarily trash the rest of the ideas in the Declaration.

Anyway, I can't imagine the Commonwealth would even want the U.S. back at this point...

The Constitution is an archaic document well over 200 years old. It was designed to suit the needs and the parameters of America, the recently free colony rather than America, the world's current super power. For example gun owners will always leap to their constitutional right to bear arms. The only reason that is in there at all is because of fear of a British counter attack. Are the British going to counter attack today? Is ANYONE going to launch a land assault on the USA today? No I think not (although I would be the first to sign up if the Queen and the British government did declare war). In the end the Constitution is like the Bible - it contains a great many ponts that are no longer valid to modern society. As such it requires extreme modification.

The Constitution is an archaic document well over 200 years old.
<snip!>
In the end the Constitution is like the Bible - it contains a great many ponts that are no longer valid to modern society. As such it requires extreme modification.
Pssst! Pssst! It's not in their Constitution...

The US declaration of independence say this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, considering the fact that humans were not created (we evolved, just as a reminder for those people who haven't noticed yet!), one might assume that declaration is null and void! :D

Well, if you don't really need any rights, I'll be glad to take them.

The Declaration of Independence is a legal document and declaration in line with the Charter of English Common Law, ie, the Magna Carta.

It provides legal sanction and lists of offenses, whereby under the Common Law, the colonies could legally declare their independence from the crown; and thereby, on their own behalf formulate new government (IE the Constitution)...

Now, your problem with consideration of the "Declaration" as invalid, means the legal validity of the US Constitution is also null, and therefore there is no "First Amendment" for this document to violate, as that Amendment is invalid; thereby meaning the Declaration is once again valid, being under no contest from law...... That is, the Declaration validates the legal ability of the Constitution to exist, and thus, the constitution cannot invalidate the Declaration, without invalidating itself in law.

However, all this hinges upon whether or not the primary means of use of the word "creator" suffers illegitmacy against the first clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution... It is obvious from your own words, that you consider this document as being in violation of this clause...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Now, it is well documented that Thomas Jefferson of Virginia was the one tasked to write this document. It is also known that Mr. Jefferson's religious convictions were that of deism.

Now, the question is, was invalidation commited in the act of this declaration?
We know that this declaration is representative of the feelings of the Continental Congress at the time (Pre-Constitutional).

So the first question arises:

Q:Was the signing of the declaration of independance illegal under the first clause of the First Amendment to the US Consitution?

Firstly, does the Declaration of Independence specifically violate the first principle clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." ? Did the declaration create or endow any particular religious establishment? It is obvious it did not... The words "creator" do not seem to be in connection and diety in particular; in fact there is no mention of what or who this "creator" is... It is a very neutral term, the "creator" is that person or force which "created" mankind in general. And that it is known, that however this "creator" operated in force or reason, rights were granted as such in lieu of their existance, as enumerated in this Declaration.

So, the second principle clause? "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... Is there any barment in this document from the lawful and legal practice or lack thereof of any particular religious affiliation or thought? Once again no... The language is very neutral.

The next question:

Q:Given that the declaration of independence was signed by the representatives of the several english colonies, meeting in Philidelphia in 1776... Can legal penalty be applied to their acts before such time when the legal power of the constitution was enacted in 1788?

We know again, no... The Constitution specifically bars the federal power from the creation of "ex post facto" (after the fact) laws... That is, illegalizing particular actions which occured before the passage of the law which illegalizes it.

So, if even in violation, The constitution specifically bars the powers to cause the declaration which was enacted prior to the enactment of the US Constitution (and thus the law which could even invalidate it) be applied to it, as it is "ex post facto". Thus it is understood that said document does not need to conform to any constitutional restriction; and is thus still a valid claimed legal document establishing the colonies independence from the crown...

Thus, the argument is over.

"Extreme modification"...well, we prefer amendment by ratification of the States. Also, many contemporary gun owners own weapons not out of fear of British attack, but out of fear of an increasingly totalitarian government. I don't personally own any weapons, but I don't think the gun guys are worried about red coats, more like black suits. I could be wrong, though, I'm not them.

Tekania makes a highly salient point, though.

The Declaration of Independence was not propagande, nor is it a document that is upheld by law.

The Declaration of Independence was a formal declaration of war against the British Empire. That's where the whole taxation without representation and all that good stuff comes into play.

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America was substantially more then just a declaration of War towards England. It was a declaration that the states where to become a single, united entity. This is actually a much more important act then one may thing, it was what made the difference between us being just a two bit rebellion and being a standing Nation in the international community that had the right to declare and wage war, make treaties with other nations, regulate trade, etc, etc... It was a declaration to the world that a new nation was being formed.

Back then the kings in Europe still claimed power by the idea of "divine right." America claimed that their authority to be a free nation was thusly...

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

They cited God and Natural Law as their authority to instate self government. The scope of the president set by this is amazingly profound.

Perhaps some of you are familiar with the law of charters (today known as "corporate law.") A charter is a document that brings an organization into existence. The King of England chartered the colonies to enable them to function as distinct legal bodies. Companies received charters from the crown as well. The equivalent in modern corporate law is called "articles of incorporation." Just as the king granted charters in the past, today state government grants articles of incorporation. When America rejected the authority of the King of England, we had to solve the problem of the lack pf a charter for our nation. The Declaration was conceived to serve as our charter. It became the legal document that brought our nation into existence and declared the principles upon which our government was based.

In corporate law lawyers advise clients to list only the most essential rules for the corporation in the articles of incorporation. The day-to-day rules for running a business contained in a separate document called the "by-laws." Like a corporation, the United States has both of these documents. The Declaration is the charter and the Constitution is the by-laws. In corporate law the by-laws are always required to be interpreted consistently with the articles of incorporation. Similarly our Constitution should be interpreted to be consistent with the Declaration.

Today, some may argue that the Constitution makes no references to God's law and argue God's moral law is not constitutionally proper. However, the Constitution MUST be consistent with the Declaration which clearly states that there very authority for HAVING a constitution is what the "laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them" and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." These "certain unalienable rights" are further explained (in accordance with corporate law) in the Constitution.

To sum all that up, we got our charter for America from God. Don't like that? Then kwitcherbitchin foo! :D

The US declaration of independence say this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, considering the fact that humans were not created (we evolved, just as a reminder for those people who haven't noticed yet!), one might assume that declaration is null and void! :D

Actually evolution hasn't been 100% fully proven. Neither has that humanity was made by God. So in retrospect, we just don't know for sure. At the time this document was written, the theory of evolution wasn't even in existence yet, hell Darwin wasn't even alive yet. Our Founding Fathers believed in God but in the sense that he is a clockmaker. He made the world and left it to run by itself. At the time, in the world, an overwhelming majority believed in God, much more than in this current day and age.

Albeit, this declaration is for my country and I am biased towards it, but can't you find something else to nitpick about it than that? I am sure there are other valid things in there to nitpick than something as miniscule as that, especially when, even in this current day and age, some 70% believe in God. That's definitely an overwhelming majority. Maybe one day us Agnosticcs will be 70% ;).

To sum all that up, we got our charter for America from God. Don't like that? Then kwitcherbitchin foo! :D

As mentioned, the charter authors believed in God. And slavery and the inferiority of women. Fortunately, after the Declaration, a subsequent document made clear that you can believe in your God, and I can choose not to believe in him, and I can "bitch" (as you put it) about anything I'd like. Still, I'll remember "kwitcherbitchin foo!" as your idea of humor and/or freedom of speech.

Seriously, I think its reasonable to say "we got our charter from people influeneced by belief in a God". But to say "we got our charter for America from God" is a little demeaning to America and God, if he exists.

As mentioned, the charter authors believed in God. And slavery and the inferiority of women. Fortunately, after the Declaration, a subsequent document made clear that you can believe in your God, and I can choose not to believe in him, and I can "bitch" (as you put it) about anything I'd like. Still, I'll remember "kwitcherbitchin foo!" as your idea of humor and/or freedom of speech.

That charter was exactly what they used to abolish slavery and extend sufferage to women bub.

Seriously, I think its reasonable to say "we got our charter from people influeneced by belief in a God". But to say "we got our charter for America from God" is a little demeaning to America and God, if he exists.

Are you at all familiar with The Fundemental Orders of Connecticut?

That charter was exactly what they used to abolish slavery and extend sufferage to women bub,



Are you at all familiar with The Fundemental Orders of Connecticut?

abolishing slavery and extending sufferage were human-driven amendments, "bub", so evidently God's work requires human correction.

As to Connecticut, yes it says "Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his divyne providence so to Order.." and so on. I already said the Framers believed in God. Believed. He didn't personally sign it, thats the difference I'm illustrating.

abolishing slavery and extending sufferage were human-driven amendments, "bub", so evidently God's work requires human correction.


Human-driven yes, but if you want to put it in the Constitution you have to be damn certain it belongs there. Again, the charter was used.

As to Connecticut, yes it says "Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his divyne providence so to Order.." and so on. I already said the Framers believed in God. Believed. He didn't personally sign it, thats the difference I'm illustrating.


Know anything about the man behind it?

Human-driven yes, but if you want to put it in the Constitution you have to be damn certain it belongs there. Again, the charter was used.

Know anything about the man behind it?

You're not addressing the point. The original charter did not remove slavery or allow women to vote. These are flaws. You say it came from God, God thus delivered a flawed object. To say "the charter was used" doesn't address the point.

As to "the man behind it", I'll assume you mean Thomas Hooker, and yes, as a Reverend, he BELIEVED in God. You're either being deliberately obstinate or you're purposely using a shell game of references to avoid addressing the issues. Either way, its specious.

EDIT: To be clear, the distinction I'm making is that saying something was influenced by a belief in God is different from saying the charter came from God. You pointing out historical people who believed in God only proves that such people existed and were influential, which is not in dispute. Its like somebody is spoonfeeding you your evidence to use, but you don't know how to use it.

No it is not invalid, it is still a valid document that serves a valid role in America.

It also puts more then a small dent in the "Seperation of Church and State" bullshit.

Bit tough for this view that the phrase "wall of separation of Church and State" came from the drafter of the Declaration of Independence, isn't it?

I used to like religous people. The ones I knew in school lived their lives, tried to set an example of their beliefs when they could, and let everybody else live their way.

Now, religious people say "Separation of Church and State is bullshit".

Well, Church is religious belief chosen individually and State is government applied to all. So, if you DON'T want those two separate, then a priori, you want your religious belief to influence the way I have to live my life. And that's all the way wrong.

One could argue that we were created by nature through the process of evolution.

the point is that the declatation was not recognised by British law and since the US was a colony and its "declaration" was invalid then technically it's still a colony

The Declaration is valid, in that it's a declaration of war.

Slavery in the formation of the USA is a whole nother ball of wax.

the point is that the declatation was not recognised by British law and since the US was a colony and its "declaration" was invalid then technically it's still a colony

:headbang:

Cute, but wrong. It doesn't matter if British law didn't like the idea, we backed it up in warfare. The British gave up at Yorktown, and recognized America's freedom.

The Declaration is valid, in that it's a declaration of war.

Slavery in the formation of the USA is a whole nother ball of wax.

You're right about it being a separate issue from the thread, I did stray from topic. I realize not every one of the founders was a slave holder or against women's rights. I was simply taking issue with Ekland saying "we got our charter for America from God. "
by pointing out that the charter was a human document, and I was trying to point out a few of what I believe are flaws to show that it wasn't literally "from God". I acknowledge the presence and influence of religious ideology in its formation, I just feel its unfair to say "we got our Charter for America from God".

The US declaration of independence say this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, considering the fact that humans were not created (we evolved, just as a reminder for those people who haven't noticed yet!), one might assume that declaration is null and void! :D

Life came from somewhere. you needed a start point. As long as there were no government established religious services, no, the Founders didnot violate the spirit of the First Ammendment.

The Constitution is an archaic document well over 200 years old.

So, old means useless? The Magna Charter is much older. LEts scrap that, too.

It was designed to suit the needs and the parameters of America, the recently free colony rather than America, the world's current super power.

It was designed to create a free society based on the philosophy of the Locke, Hobbes etc etc.

For example gun owners will always leap to their constitutional right to bear arms. The only reason that is in there at all is because of fear of a British counter attack. Are the British going to counter attack today? Is ANYONE going to launch a land assault on the USA today? No I think not (although I would be the first to sign up if the Queen and the British government did declare war). In the end the Constitution is like the Bible - it contains a great many ponts that are no longer valid to modern society. As such it requires extreme modification.

The Second Ammendment was written to defend against a tyranical government. Either from without or within.

And why is it any less valid today than Freedom of the Press?

The US declaration of independence say this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, considering the fact that humans were not created (we evolved, just as a reminder for those people who haven't noticed yet!), one might assume that declaration is null and void! :D

You need to update it.

It was designed to create a free society based on the philosophy of the Locke, Hobbes etc etc.


Sry, but Hobbes wrote "The Leviathan" which was used as a legitimation for absolutism. Therefore you should better remove him ;)

You need to update it.

Actually, I think you could challenge evolution as being unconstitutional, and not in the vision of the founding fathers.

That comment was sarcastic, so if I get any irate replies telling me that science isn't ruled by the constitution, be warned- I'll think dark thoughts about your lack of intellectual prowess.

Actually, I think you could challenge evolution as being unconstitutional, and not in the vision of the founding fathers.

That comment was sarcastic, so if I get any irate replies telling me that science isn't ruled by the constitution, be warned- I'll think dark thoughts about your lack of intellectual prowess.

I'm not chock full of intellectual prowess, I admit. But remember, there are people on this board that post things like that, and they actually mean it. Is there a "sarcasm smiley" or something to substitute for the vocal inflection and facial expressions that often indicate sarcasm in person?

oh no...my ears are starting to bleed, someone is projecting dark thoughts at meeeeee....araragghghghgh....[sarcasm smiley]

I'm not chock full of intellectual prowess, I admit. But remember, there are people on this board that post things like that, and they actually mean it. Is there a "sarcasm smiley" or something to substitute for the vocal inflection and facial expressions that often indicate sarcasm in person?

oh no...my ears are starting to bleed, someone is projecting dark thoughts at meeeeee....araragghghghgh....[sarcasm smiley]

:rolleyes:

If you think about the time period it was written in these are the hopes and dreams in which america was founded on. Who would of known what would happen in the future. Maybe one day America will be a free place.


Oh I don't know, I am not in chains, nor am I restricted in my religious beliefs, nor am I silenced from prattling on about the government's idiocy, nor am I prevented from going where I please, doing as I please, and with whom I please.

What definition of unfree are you laboring under?

Sry, but Hobbes wrote "The Leviathan" which was used as a legitimation for absolutism. Therefore you should better remove him ;)


Oops. I was scrambling for my Age of Enlightenment thinkers and he jumped to mind.

The US declaration of independence say this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, considering the fact that humans were not created (we evolved, just as a reminder for those people who haven't noticed yet!), one might assume that declaration is null and void! :D

this will just turn into another debate about evolution and creationism

Well, we were created. All life was created from primordial ooze.

The questions is, WHO is this creator and why did he give me such a small bladder?

brb, potty break
a sith with a small bladder........

a sith with a small bladder........

Darth Puddler? ;)

Look if the rights were granted by the government then the government could also take them away, if your rights are granted by God what man can take that away? This garuntees our freedom.

Look if the rights were granted by the government then the government could also take them away, if your rights are granted by God what man can take that away? This garuntees our freedom.

If rights are granted by God (or those claiming to represent him/her), can they can be taken away by those who have power + claim to represent God?

Thing is, if God grants rights, why are they enforced differently for different countries, and why are they enforced unequally? To grant a right is meaningless unless you uphold it, but rights are generally upheld by the people or not at all.

Unless I misunderstand, and you were portraying the Founders as hoping that ascribing the rights to God would make them more resilient.

If rights are granted by God (or those claiming to represent him/her), can they can be taken away by those who have power + claim to represent God?

Thing is, if God grants rights, why are they enforced differently for different countries, and why are they enforced unequally? To grant a right is meaningless unless you uphold it, but rights are generally upheld by the people or not at all.

Unless I misunderstand, and you were portraying the Founders as hoping that ascribing the rights to God would make them more resilient.

Well, the purpose of subscription was to place them upon "creator" this does not necessarily mean "god" in the traditional sense (the primary writer was a deist afterall).

Magna Carta (English Common Law) 1297
"We have granted also, and given to all the freemen of our realm, for us and our Heirs for ever, these liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of us and our Heirs for ever."

Each of the provisional charges made by the Declaration upon the British Crown, were actions the King commited against the Common Law of england, which was held in 1297, and henseforth set the law even that above the crown.

The British Crown insisted on the precept of operation, and still does to this day under the theological prinicple, as espoused in the CofE and elsewhere of Divinus Vox Rex (The Divine Right of Kings)... In addition to the Common Law which placed the law above that of the King, and thus made the king applicable to the english common law.

In charging violation, the appeal was towards the "creator"; that is the force, divine, of that of God or the Creator, and as such placed the King in violation of God in his place of "Divine Right"... Thus appealing to the law, under the english legal system, to assert the right of the colonies to formulate its powers under the "Great Charter" in formation of their own rulership...

IOW: The language of the Declaration was the british legal language of the time... Asserting the foundational source of right under the Common Law code. And thus hold the crown in accountability... And thus provide right to the colonies to enter into war with the crown in enforcement of their "rights" under both the "written" and "unwritten" law...

Thus the declaration provides the colonies with the power to break with the Crown under the "Law of the Land" (English Common Law), and then the subsequent formation of the a new legal charter under the Articles of Confederation (1777) and subsequent US Constitution (1788).

Regardless of its language in connection with the Constitution, it is still a valid document, as it formulated the legal power of the colonies to write and form the US Constitution (1788), and it's subsequently copied "Bill of Rights" [which were pulled from Virginia's Constitution, Article I (written June 12th 1776) when it asserted its own independence prior to the signing of the declaration, thus forming the first sovereign state in the American colonies)...


A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free Convention; which rights do pertain to them, and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the publick weal.

4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of publick services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge, to be hereditary.

5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good.

7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favour, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers.

9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

10. That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.

11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.

12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotick governments.

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

15. That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

Well, the purpose of subscription was to place them upon "creator" this does not necessarily mean "god" in the traditional sense (the primary writer was a deist afterall).
**big snip**
Regardless of its language in connection with the Constitution, it is still a valid document, as it formulated the legal power of the colonies to write and form the US Constitution (1788), and it's subsequently copied "Bill of Rights" [which were pulled from Virginia's Constitution, Article I (written June 12th 1776) when it asserted its own independence prior to the signing of the declaration, thus forming the first sovereign state in the American colonies)...

Sounds completely reasonable, it just feels like Ekland and others are ascribing the Declaration and the formative "charter" of the U.S. as coming "from God", and I still feel that they came from people who were influenced by a belief in God. Ultimately, I don't think we should rely on God or religion to legitimize or uphold rights. A nation of complete atheists or religious pluralists (which I realize the U.S. is not) should be able to form a cogent charter without need of Divinie ratification or deliverance.

The US declaration of independence say this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, considering the fact that humans were not created (we evolved, just as a reminder for those people who haven't noticed yet!), one might assume that declaration is null and void! :DNoticed what exactly? Did you prove that God does not exist when nobody was looking? You probably think you're a lot smarter than us whim-worshipping idiots, but you don't sound so bright when you make bold baseless unprovable statements.

Sounds completely reasonable, it just feels like Ekland and others are ascribing the Declaration and the formative "charter" of the U.S. as coming "from God", and I still feel that they came from people who were influenced by a belief in God. Ultimately, I don't think we should rely on God or religion to legitimize or uphold rights. A nation of complete atheists or religious pluralists (which I realize the U.S. is not) should be able to form a cogent charter without need of Divinie ratification or deliverance.

What they are doing is called "Christian Revisionism"; that is ascribing the founding fathers as Christians, and thus rewritting and re-interpreting the entire context to conform to their beliefs, to justify operating against the actual prinicples of the law. That is, to "re-invent" the US as a "Christian Nation"... it doesn't take too much work to look through the founders own writting to see how Revisionist stance is nothing but a attempt at defrauding the people of the US of their rights.


Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.



When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.



Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth.



During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.



That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.



Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions.


And to put a nail in the coffin...


The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

To Tekania: Alrighty, I'll buy that (especially Franklin). So, should I feel at risk as a secularist or not? My wife is a Christian, and she might hide me in the attic when the U.S. Department of Christian Compliance comes, but she'll only hide me until I forget to pick my socks up, then I'm off to the Faith Re-education Retreat.

To Ekland: I'm sorry if I'm misstating your position. Let me ask it this way: Do you have any problem living next door to a completely non-religous person? Do you believe that laws and government should be defensible in a purely secular context? Help me understand your position better.

To Tekania: Alrighty, I'll buy that (especially Franklin). So, should I feel at risk as a secularist or not? My wife is a Christian, and she might hide me in the attic when the U.S. Department of Christian Compliance comes, but she'll only hide me until I forget to pick my socks up, then I'm off to the Faith Re-education Retreat.

I wouldn't too much....

The Christian Revisionists (call themselves Reconstructionists) are a "vocal minority".... That is, a majority of Christians do not buy their deception.

The typical leaders of this movement are Pat Robertson (And the Christian Coalition) and Jerry Falwell (and the 'The Moral Majority')... Their entire argument helps them cement in the political motivations espoused by their dispensational eschatology (End-Time views)... It is to note, while those subscribing to dispensational eschatology (The whole "Tribulation" and "Anti-Christ" view)... The majority of Christians are opposed to their movements, being either Covenentialists (Amillenial/Postmillenial) or Preterists.

Dispensationalism is almost exclusively attached to the Pentacostals, Baptists and certain inter-denominational churches... the minority....

Wereas Amillenialism (Presbyterian, Reformed, Reformed Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopalian Anglican, Lutheran, and Messianic Jews); Postmillenialism (Presbyterian/Reformed) and Preterism (Independent Reformed) make up the actual bulk of Christians in this country, and across the entire planet.... We just don't spend all our time rapping other christians for money to support massive Television campaigns and funding "food flight" to pull diamonds from our slave-operated mines in Africa, to attract as much attention as this "Moral Majority" and "Coalition".

I myself am Presbyterian.. and Amillenial..... So I do not buy their bulk of new-age christian heresies.