Declaration of Independence and National Renewal
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/natrnew.html
[excerpt]
by William Einwechter
Among Christians there are various perspectives on the Declaration of
Independence. Some believe that the principles of the Declaration are
rooted in the Bible and a Christian worldview,1 while others consider it to
be the product of Enlightenment thought as expressed in Deism.2 Still
others would argue that the Declaration is neither an explicitly Christian
document nor a Deistic one, but contains elements of both.3 The practical
issue at the basis of the debate over the Declaration is whether or not it
is an essential (or useful) instrument for Christians to use in their
efforts to arrest America's slide into moral chaos and tyranny, and to turn
the country back to its Christian foundations.
The Nature of the Declaration
The Declaration is important in American history, but it should not be made
into something that it was not. Some would make the Declaration into the
fundamental statement of the principles upon which America was founded.
Others contend that it is a legal document having the force of law. In line
with this, there is a popular view today that states that the Declaration
is related to the U.S. Constitution in the same way that an organization's
articles of incorporation are related to its by-laws. Thus, they would
accord the Declaration a legal tie to the Constitution and an authoritative
standing in the interpretation of the Constitution.
But the Declaration of Independence was not specifically any of these. It
was a political instrument designed to achieve some very distinct purposes:
1) to sever the political bonds between the colonies and England, and to
justify such action to the nations of Europe (so as to secure their aid in
the coming struggle with England); and 2) to unite the colonies through a
carefully worded affirmation of political principles. As Gary North states:
"The Declaration had two primary goals: to serve as a unifying statement of
principle for the diversified thirteen colonies, and to serve as a
propaganda tract for foreign policy."4
The language used to state the principles of government in the Declaration
needs to be understood in its historical context. North gives an excellent
analysis of the wording used:
...Jefferson chose language that could be interpreted in both
traditional and liberal ways, satisfying conservative Americans and foreign
monarchs, as well as the liberal European literati, whose influence was
growing in European political affairs. The terms were universally
acceptable and recognized by all intelligent readers: nature, reason,
natural law, human rights, injustice, and equality. These were slogans to
catch the support of Christians at home and Deists abroad. These slogans
were the universal language of the eighteenth century.5
In other words, the language of the Declaration was chosen to appeal to a
wide variety of political and religious persuasions. General terms were
used so that each could supply his own interpretation as to what the terms
signified. (Incidentally, this is why the wording of the Declaration in
regard to political philosophy remains so popular today; liberals and
conservatives supply their own presuppositions and claim the language in
support of their particular political beliefs. In American history, radical
abolitionists, Marxists, the ACLU, and Christian conservatives have
appealed to the principles of the Declaration to justify their own
political agenda.)
Therefore, to make the Declaration of Independence into a fundamental
statement of the political philosophy upon which the United States was
founded is both misguided and futile. It was written with the practical
purpose of uniting men of differing religious and political presuppositions
for the cause of independence, and language suitable to that end was
chosen.
Furthermore, the Declaration, as a political document designed to secure
independence and unity, is not the "true preamble to the Constitution," nor
is it a part of statutory or constitutional law. As North observes:
A third myth is that the Declaration has, or once had, some sort of
legal standing in American law. It never had the force of law. It was a
very superior piece of wartime propaganda, but it was no more legally
binding than one of Thomas Paine's pamphlets.6
And that the "broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the
principles set forth in the Declaration" never seemed to occur to James
Madison and Alexander Hamilton. In their defense and explanation of the
Constitution, The Federalist Papers, they only made two brief references to
the Declaration (in paper No. 40).7 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
(1779-1845), who served on the Court from 1811 to 1845, barely mentions the
Declaration (except as the instrument that secured our independence) in his
A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. In his
discussion of the Preamble to the Constitution, Story does not make any
reference to the Declaration.8
The Use of the Declaration
Many conservatives, and particularly Christian conservatives, believe that
the Declaration of Independence with its statements regarding a Creator and
the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God provides a powerful and effective
tool for turning the nation back to its Christian roots and the rule of
law.9 However noble and sincere their beliefs and efforts are in using the
Declaration, they have chosen a weak reed to lean on. Why? Its language is
too vague--deliberately vague so as to appeal to a variety of political
persuasions--to delineate an explicit and convincing argument for a
particular political philosophy. When your ideological and political
opponents can appeal to the same document in support of their own views,
its time to choose a sharper sword. North states:
...it is today impossible to determine a person's political persuasion
simply by his willingness to appeal to the terms of the Declaration of
Independence. It was written to act as a unifying document of the
Revolution, signed by men whose theologies and politics were as varied as
Benjamin Franklin and the Rev. John Witherspoon's. It was a fusionist
document, and its success is indicated by the fact that for a century and a
half (1860-1976 [and to 2000--W.E.] all good citizens, left or right, have
found aspects of the Declaration that impress them and repel them.10
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
