Did you know that the purpose of the resolution of the united colonies of July 1776 was to unanimously declare that God exists, and all rights come from Him?<\/p>\n
Yeah, neither did I. I kind of thought the point was, oh, Independence<\/i> or something catchy like that.<\/p>\n
Not that the Declaration of … yeah, Independence, it was, is silent about God. As Barton correctly points out, it does discuss humanity as a creation of God, and the rights of humanity (I'll broaden the term beyond what the Founders used, since they were sort of particular about who fell under the category of "man" in this context) derived from God.<\/p>\n
But the Declaration is about declaring all of that, as much as using that as the premise for the idea that humans get to rebel against authorities that screw around with those rights too much (see: long list of offenses by the British Crown).<\/p>\n
Barton makes a big deal here about how this was a "unanimous" declaration by the colonies, but says that the unanimity was about this whole Creator thing, whereas the discussion and debate (and compromise over which offenses were, or — in the case of slavery — weren't sufficiently evil to revolt against) were on the subject of independence.<\/p>\n
Not to say that the Founders weren't largely theists of one stripe or another, or that most of them weren't fairly orthodox Christians. But they didn't pass on the Declaration of Unanimous Creation by a Creator as their legacy. That was an assumption of the time.<\/p>\n
More tellingly: so what?<\/p>\n
The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. (If you disagree, try asserting the "Pursuit of Happiness" in most courts, liberal or conservative). It is, at best, a philosophical piece, propaganda, an essay on the basis of rebellion against authority, a statement of Enlightenment principles. But it's not a legal document here in the US.<\/p>\n
Barton handwaves over this. The Founders, as he summarizes, identified two dozen or so "rights" straight out of Genesis 1-8. They only had room to list three in the Declaration (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness — though Barton repeatedly says "property" for that last one), so they took the rest of them and slapped them into the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.<\/p>\n
Um …<\/p>\n
Unlike the Declaration, the US Constitution is a profoundly secular<\/i> document. There is no shout-out to a Creator, let alone Jesus (except in the "Year of Our Lord" date, which is like claiming that a reference to the month July meant the founders were actually Roman pagans). The only references to religion are that religious tests are not to be required for public office, and (with the amendments) the famous bit about Congress not establishing a church or preventing the free exercise of religion.<\/p>\n
But that's it. There is no grand statement of Creator-endowed rights. There is no invocation of God as standing behind the Constitution, or any of the protections of rights in either the main document or in the amendments passed afterwards. God is completely absent from preamble (the Constitution is written by "We the People").<\/p>\n
The Articles of Confederation, written in 1778, only two years after the Declaration itself, has hardly any more. There's a reference at the very end: "And whereas it hath pleased the great Governor of the world to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation …" God's role is relegated to cheerleader for the Articles, which seems a bad call on His part as they took years further to adopt and then were shortly thereafter tossed out in favor of the (People-written) Constitution.<\/p>\n
Both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are presented as the work of the men involved in writing them, not as derived from the mouth of God, let alone from specific. Nor is Genesis invoked in the Bill of Rights, nor (in the resolution that presented them) any mention of God. And it's worth noting that, for a document that Barton presents as some slam-dunk transcription of a bunch of clearly identified rights from Genesis, the actual hammering together of the Bill of Rights (including rights that were changed dramatically from first draft, and others that were voted down) was a lengthy and contentious effort.<\/p>\n
Again, the lack of specific religious call-outs (including footnotes to Scripture) in these founding legal documents doesn't mean that most of the crafters of those documents weren't theists of some style, mostly (though not all) Protestant Christian. It's just that it seems absurd for Barton to present to a wide-eyed and nodding Glenn Beck a tidy historical picture of a common religious tapestry across these documents, and a clear derivation of rights from the Book of Genesis that somehow escaped Christendom's notice until the 18th Century (and which somehow didn't include any of the constitutional amendments after<\/i> the first Ten).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \n View on Google+<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\n
\n<\/a>
\nDavid Barton: The Declaration Of Independence And Bill Of Rights Came Directly Out Of The Bible<\/a><\/span>
\nGlenn Beck brought right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton onto his television program last week so that he could deliver another one of his “history” lessons to Beck’s audience about h\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
