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. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Liberty: freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
If you are of a certain age, you probably read these words in school, but didn’t dwell on them much. If you are younger, you likely didn’t read them in school, or only did so in a perfunctory fashion, because the popular and widespread view is that this document is “a dead letter” with no operative legal meaning or authority in this day and age. While popular, this view is one that purposely marginalizes the ideals that this document embodies. And that isn’t an accident.
Perhaps the greatest lie pinned to this document, and its modern interpretation, is that this document is not a Christian document.
I know. It is shocking. I just spoke in contradiction to one of the greatest dogmas of our day…the belief that the man credited with the inflated, magnified, and the much misapplied “wall of separation between church and state” was a deist at worst, but more likely an atheist, thus justifying its application to religious (and specifically Christian) observances by activist jurists who have chosen to insert it in to a Constitution that never knew it.
I would refer you to the collection on Jefferson which speaks with the most authority, as it is the collection of his own words. Thomas Jefferson: Writings. Pay particular attention to his letters to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, Dr. Benjamin Rush, and Peter Carr. An accurate reading of these and his other writings outline a man who believed in God, and admired what Jesus said, but felt that those who came after, peddling religion, corrupted teaching meant to edify mankind and provide a morality superior to all others. He despised sectarianism, but wasn’t hostile to the morality set forth in its pages.
The reason why it matters is that the liberty refered to in the Declaration of Independence takes on a meaning best understood through the context of Christianity.
The Founders were all very familiar with the Bible. It was a text book. It was the only book in many homes. Church attendance was the rule and not the exception in that era. And the word “liberty” appears no less than 25 times in the King James Version of the Bible.
Christian liberty concerns the freedom from the bondage of sin. It makes men free in the liberty that Christ provided. But it was also about having enough restraint to keep from abusing that liberty and leading others astray. The men in Philadelphia who sought to take possession of the liberty that their Creator gave them understood that Liberty was the freedom to live without restraint, yet they also knew that man needed some restraint and boundaries to keep one’s exercise of liberty from encroaching on the liberty of others (as set forth in 1 Corinthians 8:9—“But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to then that are weak.” or 1 Corinthians 10:29 “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?”) while understanding that an unfettered liberty was an invitation to ruin by the wickedness that dwells in every man (2 Peter 2:19 “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same he is brought in bondage.”
Liberty has always been the ideal of this nation. Wise men seek the balance that applies just enough law to preserve the most freedom for people by regulating the outside boundaries of human behavior. However, wisdom is in short supply, and morality is not studied or sought, as people have fallen under the spell of their own understanding. In a climate of moral ambiguity, or laziness, more regulation becomes necessary, and as people are taught out of the traits which allow them to govern themselves, more regulation becomes necessary, and more desirous to the few in whom authority is vested…until liberty becomes a hollow word, the meaning and knowledge of which is foreign to the people who invoke it as an incantation with other words squeezed of meaning, like freedom, or justice, all of which become eclipsed in the growing corruption that enslaves all who must live in that place.
Just something for you to think about this July 4, as people celebrate “freedoms” that liberate wickedness and corruption, being rooted in the flesh, but do nothing to edify the spirit or the soul of man.
And as an aside, the Declaration of Independence is a charter, and an explanation of why we declared independence, but the real declaration of independence actually occurred on July 2, 1776.
Taxes, Stupidity, and Death 
“What is freedom? Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice and the exercise of choice a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing.” — Archibald MacLeish
“Keep clear of the dupes that talk democracy
And the dogs that bark revolution,
Drunk with talk, liars and believers.
I believe in my tusks.
Long live freedom and damn the ideologies,”
The gamey black-maned wild boar
Tusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain.
— Robinson Jeffers, “The Stars Go Over The Lonely Ocean”
BiW, I hesitate to do battle with you while under duress but I think you’re off base twice in this post.
First, the notion that kids no longer learn the Declaration of Independence in school is utterly preposterous. As is the notion that it gets only a cursory review. Your paranoia is getting the best of you. And your memory of your education and those older than you (like me) is also faulty. The DoI was never taught as a Christian document in public schools nor should it have been. Public schools have always taught and still do teach the DoI as a statement of individual liberty and equality and a break with tyranny. No change there.
The only thing that has changed is the desire of you and your allies to change our country into a theocracy which is incredibly offensive particularly in light of your parallel paranoia over Sharia law, etc.
If a Mexican runs a Chinese restaurant it doesn’t mean you’re going to find Mexican food there. Just because devout Christians wrote the DoI and that Christian values informed their perspective does NOT make the DoI a Christian document.
BiW, I hesitate to do battle with you while under duress but I think you’re off base twice in this post.
I’m not “under duress”. I think you were looking for “Distress”, but don’t sweat it. I understand that your command of history is based largely on what other people have told you…and out of those, only the ones you chose to agree with. I think I can handle it.
First, the notion that kids no longer learn the Declaration of Independence in school is utterly preposterous. As is the notion that it gets only a cursory review.
You forget that I have school age children myself, and have taken Amercican History courses at university. When the “educators” themselves are indeed hostile to the concepts and notions that informed the authors of the document, yes, it is either not taught, or treated in a very perfunctory manner.
The DoI was never taught as a Christian document in public schools nor should it have been.
I’m sure you have some proof to back that dubious assertion up? No?
The only thing that has changed is the desire of you and your allies to change our country into a theocracy which is incredibly offensive particularly in light of your parallel paranoia over Sharia law, etc.
Do you ever tire of embarrassing yourself? Seriously. What classes did you take at Haaaaavvvvaaaaaddddd? Either you didn’t pay attention in your Western Civilization Class, our it failed to take. Judeo-Christianity was the basis of a moral and legal code that made this event and society possible. It was not a “theocracy” (hyperventilized or otherwise), nor is it what I advocate for now. However, your breathless assertions are evidence of your own naivity and paranoia. As for my hostility to sharia, I understand (and apparently you do not) that it is hostile to every important tenant affirmed by western civilization, and that the MO by which it is advanced is predictable and unchanging. One need look no further than the tragedy unfolding in western Europe right now to see what the gameplan is, and one need look no further than the “politically correct” philosophy that is hamstringing society today to know that there are those who would gladly assist them.
If a Mexican runs a Chinese restaurant it doesn’t mean you’re going to find Mexican food there. Just because devout Christians wrote the DoI and that Christian values informed their perspective does NOT make the DoI a Christian document.
Your homework, should you choose to accept it, is to study the legal concept of a charter, then consider the place of Christianity in society at that time. Until you do, you simply have no basis upon which to have this conversation, as you obviously believe that this moronic analogy is clever.
Rutherford I have to take exception to your position on BiW post.
First in the post he didn’t attack the education system and you fail to refute his charges and reality when in the comments he does. You also fail on that in your own misguided post.
In your marginally correct comment regards how the DoI has been taught you pretty much show some intelligence that in fact many educators are hostile to the importance and context of the Declaration.
Lastly if you go to a Chinese food at a place run by a Mexican yes indeed it will be Chinese food….it will suck too.
The continuing Progressive crusade to turn America into a secular state and marginalize morality continues, as do their efforts to revise history. Without close attention to truth in regard to historical events and a moral base from which to influence government policy, the door is wedged wide open for the advocates of totalitarian rule to ascend to positions of power.
Accept their overtures at your peril.
Rutherford, where is theocracy argued? Seriously. It is you and your allies whisch tirelessly attempt to rewrite history. If you can’t understand the context wtihin which the declaration was made, the underpinnings upon which the founding father’s formulated their view of government and free society, it’s no wonder application of the Consitution, notions of liberty and limited rather than expansive gvernment so completely elude you. You simply deny the inescapable truth about the role of christianity in the formation of this country.
Theocracy is not a threat and that’s not what’s being argued. It’s the modern left’s desire to return to a monarchy that’s the threat. Liberty is a concept foreign to libs. The left’s religion is government.
If you can’t understand the context wtihin which the declaration was made, the underpinnings upon which the founding father’s formulated their view of government and free society, it’s no wonder application of the Consitution, notions of liberty and limited rather than expansive gvernment so completely elude you.
^^^THIS.
[…] of independence from Great Britain I stumbled upon two articles. The first, written by my friend Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere starts off looking like a reminder that our founding fathers associated liberty with a warning […]
Rutherford is only passionate about evil….he’s continually on the wrong side of the equation of anything of importance if you haven’t noticed.
Doesn’t matter the subject. God, faith, politics…if it is good,
Rutherford is against it. The closer to the perfection of good, the more hostile Rutherford is towards it.
Good article as always BIC.