More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
May 24, 2019 - January 24, 2021
3
Declaring Independence from Judeo-Christianity
Christian nationalists often argue that the Declaration of Independence embodies Judeo-Christian principles.2
The Declaration of Independence gave voice to the most important shift in political thought in history, but it did not establish a new nation, a government, or a legal system.
It was a justification, and as part of that justification it laid out a political philosophy. That philosophy was not new, but Jefferson’s formulation of it was more beautiful, simpler, and more powerful than any previously, and perhaps since, written. The central pillar of this political philosophy—that governments are instituted for and by the people—had never been put fully into practice. But it would be enshrined in the first three words of the Constitution eleven years later and then carved into the American mind forever: “We the People.”
The Declaration of Independence had several purposes, but above all, it was written to persuade.
The bulk of the Declaration’s 1,300-plus words is dedicated to listing the grievances against the king. But before Jefferson indicted George, he described the logic and the political theory on which the case against George would rest.
These two philosophical prongs, rebellion and self-government, line up nicely with the Declaration’s primary purposes—severing political ties and uniting the colonies.
Major Premise Because governments are instituted to protect citizens’ rights, people have a right and a duty to throw off despotic governments and to create “new guards” for those rights.
Minor Premise The British government is despotic, as the following 28 charges show.
Conclusion Therefore, the American people have a right and a duty to t...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
“Most of the delegates to the Continental Congress regarded the Declaration as a ceremonial confirmation of what had already occurred,” writes Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Joseph J. Ellis, adding, “its chief practical value, apart from publicizing a foregone conclusion in lyrical terms, was to enhance the prospects of a wartime alliance with France, and all the revolutionary leaders understood the French alliance to be the urgent issue at the time.”
If Patrick Henry did, in fact, proclaim “give me liberty or give me death,” he was right: the choice was to win or die.
King George III was not only the titular head of the Church of England, but also a faithful and active supporter.29 Ecclesiastical debates raged in England during the 1770s, and they helped to bind George’s religiosity to his political views, particularly with respect to the American colonies.
George conflated morality with “the ideal of a Christian people led by a Christian king,” according to biographer Jeremy Black.
Black explains that George “took his role and God-given responsibilities as Supreme Governor of the Church very seriously.”34 He was devout, was known for his personal piety, and thought that his god intervened in this world, so he governed according to what he saw as his god’s will.
The more religious a monarch, the more likely he would be to think a god had assigned him his rightful place as ruler.
The idea that all people are created equal is not a religious idea; the idea that some people are special or chosen is one that various religious groups have embraced throughout history.
Religion promotes elitism, no...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
In the Declaration, Jefferson wrote that when a government becomes despotic, “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.” But, despite the Christian nationalists’ arguments to the contrary, sel...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
If Jefferson and the other revolutionaries had been devout Christians, they never would have rebelled, the Declaration would never have been written, and America’s political relationship to the United Kingdom today would resemble Canada’s.
The Christian bible stands directly opposed to the Declaration’s central ideas, including that it is “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [their government], and to institute a new Government.”
Paul could not have been clearer. Rulers, like King George III, must be obeyed as a matter of conscience.
In the Christian bible we learn that the biblical god must be obeyed first and earthly rulers second: “We must obey God rather than any human authority.”40 But that god is also telling followers to obey earthly rulers.
President Donald Trump’s closest evangelical advisor, Paula White, reiterated these passages to diffuse the constant and justified criticism that Trump is vulgar and undignified: “They say about our president, ‘Well, he is not presidential.’ Thank goodness…he is not a polished politician. In other words, he is authentically—whether people like it or not—has been raised up by God. Because God says that He raises up and places all people in places of authority. It is God who raises up a king. It is God that sets one down. When you fight against the plan of God, you are fighting against the hand
...more
John Adams put it with his customary bluntness in Article 7 of the Massachusetts Constitution’s Declaration of Rights: “The people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same.”43 Not a god, but the people alone.
Robert Boucher was an Anglican minister and a Maryland loyalist who moved to England before independence. Like Paula White, he relied on the bible to support the divine right of kings, writing that it is “the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures, that it is under the deputation and authority of God alone that kings reign…far from deriving their authority from any supposed consent or suffrage of men, they receive their commission from Heaven; they receive it from God, the source…of all power.”45 And he relied on the bible to argue against American independence.
According to Boucher, the bible never even discusses government except to say that it must be obeyed, not rebelled against: “The only circumstance relative to government, for which the Scriptures seem to be particularly solicitous, is in inculcating obedience to lawful governors.”48
Religions, particularly established religions or religions to which a majority of the population ascribe, will nearly always oppose revolution because revolution upsets the status quo in which they are powerful. This also means that religions will usually fight progress, as can be seen across history, from flat-earthers to geocentrists to young earth creationists; from the index of prohibited books to book burnings to declaring one—and only one—book the book of truth; from outlawing pain relief during childbirth to banning contraception to preventing women from taking control of procreation;
...more
Franklin’s unholy invention was a blessing to humanity from the mind of a man, and religion fought it at every step.
Scientific, political, and social progress all threaten religion, which is why the bible demands blind obedience—“do not revile the king, even in your thoughts”56—first to its god, and then to the state. God, even as only an idea, is a millstone around the neck of society, not an engine of progress.
People give the government power and legitimacy, not gods. The Constitution and the Declaration directly contradict Christian principles of governmental authority. The Declaration emphasizes people while minimizing the divine or supernatural. The first sentence alone proves the Declaration’s concern for humanity:
Robert Boucher, the Anglican minister opposed to independence, chastised his godly brethren for this crime: “Let a minister of God, then, stand excused if…he seeks not to amuse you by any flowery panegyrics on liberty. Such panegyrics are the productions of ancient heathens and modern patriots: nothing of the kind is to be met with in the Bible.”
4
Referrals: The Declaration’s References to a Higher Power
Not a single reference mentions Jesus Christ, Yahweh, or a specifically Christian god. The references specify, at most, a broad deism or, possibly, a narrow theism in the “Supreme Judge” reference.
Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin and the Continental Congress could have chosen to root the entitlements, endowments, appeals, and protections in Jesus Christ or any other specific god, but they did not. Instead, they carefully selected references that do not specify any religious denomination or sectarian belief.
As University of Chicago constitutional scholar Geoffrey Stone put it, “in acknowledging Nature’s God, the Creator, and Divine Providence, the Declaration carefully and quite consciously eschewed any invocation of the Christian religion.”6
That was the only mention of Christianity in the whole document—that the Christian king is a slaver while “infidel powers” loathe the slave trade. This effectively chastises Christianity’s monopoly on morality, with handwritten emphasis on its shortcomings. It’s the only explicit reference to Christianity, and it is highly critical.
Indeed, appealing to a higher power may have been necessary to change the devout king’s opinion. After all, if you believe a god put you on earth to rule, to whom would you answer but a god? One constitutional scholar, Jeffry H. Morrison, has aptly labeled these added references “strategic piety.”
The founders left the task of capitalization to the engrosser, Timothy Matlack, and to printers John Dunlap14 and Benjamin Towne.
First Reference: “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”
With this language, Jefferson invokes natural law, not the Judeo-Christian god.
Blackstone was not only anti-republican, but had “done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man than” Napoleon Bonaparte, wrote Jefferson in 1814.26
The Declaration invoked natural law because the founders needed a legal basis to justify revolting against the positive law imposed by Parliament and George III. Natural law demands the abolition of inequality and privilege, so it is perfect for arguing against oppressive positive law.27
But which natural law did Jefferson invoke in the Declaration: natural or supernatural? According to Alan Dershowitz, “‘Natural Law’ based on divine revelation—the source of Christian natural law for Aquinas—was anathema to Jefferson.”29
“Questions of natural right are triable by their conformity with the moral sense & reason of man. Those who write treatises of natural law, can only declare what their own moral sense & reason dictate in the several cases they state.”
Rights are not bestowed, not even by kings. Rights are asserted, not given. Rights come from human nature, not divine nature. Most of all, natural law is a product of “liberal and expanded thought,” not of divine revelation.
Jefferson relied on Mason’s charter for the Declaration’s opening, and it also influenced the Bill of Rights more than a decade later.
The First Continental Congress published its “Declaration and Resolves” on October 14, 1774. It too rested on natural, not supernatural, law:
