Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Biblical Truths in the Declaration of Independence

Most "secular un-nationalists" will argue that the Declaration of Independence is a document that is free from religious connotation, or at least neutral in its sentiments on deity. This is not the case. The Declaration of Independence is a document that incorporates a large number of biblical beliefs. But don't take my word for it, see it for yourself:

Case #1: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

Biblical truth: Moses 6:6 "Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments."

***Just as the Lord was able to free the children of Israel from the bondage of Egypt, so too was he able to grant freedom and independence to the American colonies over the British.

Case #2: "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..."

Biblical Truth: Genesis 1: 29-31 "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

***Despite the ridiculous claims of secularists, the God of Nature is simply the God of creation. He is not a neutral God, nor is he a God for the Deists and Unitarians. The God of nature is the Christian God pure and simple.

Case #3: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

Biblical Truth: Acts 10:34 "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons."

Case #4: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Biblical Truth: Acts 22:28 "And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born."

Case #5:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Biblical Truth: Romans 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

Case #6: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Biblical Truth: 2 Samuel 11:25 "Then David said unto the messenger, Thus shalt thou say unto Joab, Let not this thing displease thee, for the sword devoureth one as well as another: make thy battle more strong against the city, and overthrow it."

***As was the case with David, the Founding Fathers understood that they had no other choice but to rebel against the established government of their land.

41 comments:

Lindsey Shuman said...

Interesting angle, but I can't agree with it for this reason: you could take a bunch of verses from the Bible to prove or disprove anything. That is what the slaveowners and abolitionists did. I think that we could end up doing the same thing here. My guess is that those who oppose you will be able to provide a number of biblical verses that counter your argument.

I guess my point is that we cannot rely on scripture to make a historical case.

Jonathan Rowe said...

It's worse than that Lindsey. If the Framers actually told us these verses were the source of the Declaration's ideas, he might have a point. But they didn't. He's just playing a mix and match game where he looks at the DOI and does his best to go back and match it to the closest biblical verse. You could find "biblical principles" in a car warranty using this method.

Dan Atkinson said...

I am not simply picking and choosing verses as Jon ridiculously suggests. Sure there are multiple verses to prove what I am saying here, but I like these best. You cannot debate that the Bible was the premiere book of the 18th century. Enlightened or not, every gentleman read and understood the Bible. The Bible's influence on our founding documents is immense. It would be inconceivable for the founders to create what they did without the Bible.

I laugh at the ignorance by which some on this blog suggest that one could use a "car warranty" in the same way as the Bible. Didn't you just recently do a posting on context, Jon???

Pinky said...

.
Hold on, there, Dan.
.
So, what if the Declaration was a product of thinking that was influenced by ideas that can be found in the Bible? What does that prove?
.
You seem to be saying that in as much as ideas in the Declaration of Independence can also be found in the Bible, that we all should all accept that America would not exist if it weren't for the Bible? That's a far stretch considering that some highly reknowned theologians claim the Founders were committing the sin of disobedience by way of the Declaration. The facts are, according to these scholars, that we would still be under the rule of the British monarchy--rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's--if we were a Bible based society.
.
It looks to me as though you're out to prove a presupposition.
.
.
.

Dan Atkinson said...

Sorry Pinky, but your reasoning has no ground on which to stand. First, it matters a great deal if the founders used biblical truths in the establishment of the U.S.A. It means that we are in fact (and that there is no ground to dispute) a Christian nation.

As for the ridiculous notion that the Bible stood in defiance to the American Revolution (and I have heard this argument dozens of times) how do you explain Moses, David, Esther, etc.? There are a number of examples in which rebellion to a wicked government was sanctioned by God.

Now, I know that Jon and Brad (and probably Pinky as well) will throw out the typical Romans 13 argument. Don't bother because this completely misses the point. Paul was admonishing the church to be submissive to the government of its day. THe American Revolution was something different. It was an entire people (religious and not religious) that rose up in rebellion.

So as you can see, Pinky, your argument doesn't hold.

Pinky said...

.
I don't have an argument here, Dan. I don't have enough knowledge to come to any conclusion. Not yet, anyway.
.
My connotation was to men like John MacArthur and Romans 13 as well as Mark 12:17 among other selections.
.
One thing I learned--at least I thought so--when I was in collitch had to do with correlations. I don't think it is possible to conclude with any certainty whatsoever that America was created to be a Christian nation based on the single notion that some of the ideas in the Declaration are also found in the Bible. They can be found in other places as well.
.
You know, that Western Civilization was just beginning to break free from the age old idea that all government was necessarily co-joined at at the spinal cord with one religion or another. The facts more easily point to the idea that America was created as a nation free from religion of every class--except our Civil Religion..
.
That doesn't mean that most Americans were not respectful of or even deeply involved in Christianity. Most of them probably were Christians to one degree or another. The pulpit, after all is said and done, was the dominant media of the Founding era.
.
.

.

Pinky said...

.
Dan writes, "As for the ridiculous notion that the Bible stood in defiance to the American Revolution (and I have heard this argument dozens of times) how do you explain Moses, David, Esther, etc.? There are a number of examples in which rebellion to a wicked government was sanctioned by God."
.
Uh, none of those people were Christians, Dan. Maybe you mean to say that America was created to be a Jewish Nation?
.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Case #2, and following, #4, is the strongest, and worthy of development, man's natural endowment of liberty by his Creator.

In Case #6, the story of David and Bathsheba [and the murder of Uriah] per 2 Samuel 11, how is that relevant to the American situation?

Indeed, David's refusal to raise his hand against King Saul in 1 Samuel 24 argues against rebellion, does it not? Saul is the rightfully anointed king albeit a bad one; however, although David is also anointed, he does not overthrow Saul, waiting for his time.

In fact, at Saul's death, David immediately executes the Amalekite who claims to have finished off Saul [1 Sam 1:13-16]. No peon has a right to kill God's anointed king.

A much better biblical argument for #5 is in the rest of the Saul-David story, 2 Sam 5:3:

"So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a covenant with them before the LORD at Hebron; then they anointed David king over Israel."

...which at least implies a consent of the governed, in this case through the elders.

Dan Atkinson said...

Pinky writes the following:

"Uh, none of those people were Christians, Dan. Maybe you mean to say that America was created to be a Jewish Nation?"

Obviously you are trying to grab at anything you can to prove an irrelevant point. These individuals of the Old Testament were Jewish only because Jesus Christ had not come to fulfill the old law.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Actually I compared the car warranty, not to the Bible but to the Declaration of Independence. The comparison stands. The Founders told us the sources for their documents and the Bible wasn't on the list.

Pinky said...

.
Dan: "Obviously you are trying to grab at anything you can to prove an irrelevant point. "
.
I think you must have misunderstood what I wrote.
.
Sorry about that.

Ray Soller said...

Dan wrote:

"These individuals of the Old Testament were Jewish only because Jesus Christ had not come to fulfill the old law."

I don't think this forum should be used to declare a personal belief as to what "Jesus Christ" came to "fulfill." The Jesus of the Gospels reports that he was come to fulfill the scripture (Luke 4:16-21) relating to the "Accceptable Year of the Lord." I don't see how this scripture has anything to do with identifying someone as being Jewish.

Pinky said...

.
Ray, in all fairness, if you follow that post of Dan's back you will learn why he made mention of people being Jewish.
.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Dr Frazer already essentially answered this sentiment in a past note. He wrote:

The fact that some parts of the Declaration and/or Constitution are not in conflict with verses in the Bible does not mean that the Bible was the source. This is especially important when — as in the case of the Declaration and the Constitution — the authors claim other sources, but do not claim the Bible as a source!

In a May 8, 1825 letter to Henry Lee, Jefferson identifies his sources for the Declaration’s principles. He names as sources: Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and (Algernon) Sidney — he does not mention the Bible. Then again, the terminology in the Declaration is not specifically Christian — or even biblical, with the exception of “Creator.” The term “providence” is never used of God in the Bible, nor are “nature’s God” or “Supreme Judge of the world” ever used in the Bible.

In the hundreds of pages comprising Madison’s notes on the constitutional convention (and those of the others who kept notes), there is no mention of biblical passages/verses in the debates/discussions on the various parts and principles of the Constitution. They mention Rome, Sparta, German confederacies, Montesquieu, and a number of other sources — but no Scripture verses.

In The Federalist Papers, there is no mention of biblical sources for any of the Constitution’s principles, either — one would think they could squeeze them in among the 85 essays if they were, indeed, the sources; especially since the audience was common men who were familiar with, and had respect for, the Bible. The word “God” is used twice — and one of those is a reference to the pagan gods of ancient Greece. “Almighty” is used twice and “providence” three times — but neither is ever used in connection with any constitutional principle or influence. The Bible is not mentioned.

As for freedom and liberty in the Bible, it is always SPIRITUAL freedom/liberty — as a look at the verses you’ve listed IN CONTEXT shows. That is NOT to say that political liberty is an anti-biblical concept — it’s just not a biblical one. Arguing that it is a “Calvinist” concept does not make it a biblical one, either. The “disciples” of Calvin did not write inspired revelation.

The key Founders (J. Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, & G. Morris) — those most responsible for the founding documents — were religious, but not Christians. They believed that religion was essential to produce the morality that a free society required, but that any religion would suffice. Their religious belief was a mixture of Protestantism, natural religion, and rationalism — with rationalism as the trump card and decisive factor. They retained elements of Christianity, but rejected the elements of Christianity (and of natural religion) that they considered irrational. However: of the ten CORE beliefs of Christianity (those shared by all of the major Protestant denominations of the day (and by the Catholics), they held to only one (or two, in some cases). Their belief system was, as I have termed it, theistic rationalism.

If the view of Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin that any/all religions were valid paths to God and that any/all religions would suffice to produce the morality needed was a “minority opinion” among the Founders, why were they chosen to write the philosophical (you say religious) document (Declaration)?

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, I'm still waiting for Mr. Atkinson's reply on 1 Sam 24. He called the Bible as his witness after all.

Mr. Rowe, to me the obvious answer to Dr. Frazer's final question there is that these Founders were least identified with demoninations [sects], and the sects feared each other most of all. Best to get some honest brokers, with no dog in the fight.

To drag the true believers of different stripes into a room and expect them to come out with any document they could all agree on would have been madness.

As for Jefferson in 1825, after ridiculing the Bible for decades, I'd hardly expect him to credit it with anything, or even know how it might underlie not only his thinking, but those of his credited sources.

bpabbott said...

Dan,

Correlation does not equate to causation.

While you might find many Biblical passages that remind you of the words of our Nation's founders that is not evidence that they were inspired by such (I'm not saying they were not, btw).

Brad Hart said...

I bet that we could have the same results if we were to replace the Bible with the Qur'an, Book of Mormon, Zohar, Green Eggs & Ham, etc. Let me prove it:

Case #1: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

Evidence: "I do not like Green Eggs and Ham. I do not like them Sam I am.”

You see, when we don't like a particular government we don't have to partake of it, just like green eggs and ham. Also, Uncle Sam is a common nickname for the American government our founders created. Green Eggs and Ham’s primary character is, "Sam I am." Coincidence? I think not.

I apologize for making light of this argument, but come on! You are simply casting out your fishing hook and keeping whatever you catch.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Thanks to Brad for stating the obvious.

Brad Hart said...

Sorry for resorting to elementary school logic, Jon, but it seemed appropriate for the post.

Pinky said...

.
"You are simply casting out your fishing hook and keeping whatever you catch."
.
I'm sure you understand the impact this post and the blog has on the choir.
.
The scenario goes something like this: "A post was made that conclusively shows that the Declaration of Independence was inspired by the Bible. A bunch of leftist liberals and commie secularists tried to attack it; but, our God is a Sovereign God and His truth always prevails. It proves that those that haven't been chosen just cannot see the light. Chalk one up for God."
.
I'm surprised no members of the choir have posted a response.
.

.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Pinky,

You are right that this is the reaction that some folks will have. And ultimately it boils down to a "poisoning the well" or "genetic fallacy" -- which attacks the motive or the source as tainted without adequately addressing the argument.

However, there are some folks who believe unless one is a "true believer" one won't get it. That's why I like to show how true believers (like Drs. Frazer and MacArthur) present strong arguments that refute the Christian Nation thesis.

And indeed, Frazer has said that some of his Christian brothers and sisters doubt his salvation for what he has argued on America's non-authentically Christian origins!

Pinky said...

.
Even so, it is good to read what these "true believers" have to say.
.
I think it points up our need to see many different perceptions. Maybe Dan will be forced to review those A+++ papers he wrote for his masters.
.
I also think that peer review is a necessity.
.

bpabbott said...

Regarding the wording of the DOI, a post on the first draft (Jefferson, Adams, & Franklin) the reported draft (Congress' draft?), and the final might be interesting.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/compare.htm

I notice there was much religious sentiment inserted at each stage and many antagonistic or sarcastic sentiments regarding religion removed.

If the current discussion isn't heated enough, I'm sure the result of such a post would be sufficiently warm for any of us ;-)

Jonathan Rowe said...

Ben,

I think the historical context to which you refer shows that the Declaration was a lowest common denominator between the heterodox unitarian sentiments of Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin and the orthodox Christian sentiments that were more common among the masses and the institutional Churches. But ultimately what we are left with is a theology that is "generic," that is compatible with traditional Christianity, but equally so with heterodox, non-biblical theologies.

Our Founding Truth said...

Good job Dan! We know the Law of Nature is Jesus Christ, inasmuch as the Congress proclaimed so in 1776.

If the Framers actually told us these verses were the source of the Declaration's ideas, he might have a point.>

The Congress said the Law of Nature is Jesus Christ in 1776.

That's a far stretch considering that some highly reknowned theologians claim the Founders were committing the sin of disobedience by way of the Declaration. The facts are, according to these scholars, that we would still be under the rule of the British monarchy--rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's--if we were a Bible based society.>

Hey Pinky, my blog has already proven Frazer lacks biblical discernment, it also sufficiently gives the proper understanding of Romans 13.

So as you can see, Pinky, your argument doesn't hold.>

Let the truth be proclaimed, and Jesus Christ; the only mediator between God and man!

They can be found in other places as well.>

Not so Pinky, the Law of Nature is only in Romans 2:14-15, and 7:22-23Check it out. Locke, and the rest got it from the Bible.

The Founders told us the sources for their documents and the Bible wasn't on the list.>

And those sources were Monstesquieu, Locke, Blackstone, Hooker, Grotius, Puffendorff, etc. who received it from the bible.

The term “providence” is never used of God in the Bible, nor are “nature’s God”>

Are you sure about that?

The key Founders (J. Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, & G. Morris) — those most responsible for the founding documents>

More deceit that won't fly. Law is a public act, not based on the mind of subjective intentions. Jon, how come you haven't learned that yet? I learned this from maybe the greatest Judge, whom you know and respect.

While you might find many Biblical passages that remind you of the words of our Nation's founders that is not evidence that they were inspired by such (I'm not saying they were not, btw).>

The State Constitutions affirm the Christian evidence.

That's why I like to show how true believers (like Drs. Frazer and MacArthur) present strong arguments that refute the Christian Nation thesis.>

My blog has already proved, by his own words, Frazer doesn't know the bible. Look at it yourself.

OFT

Raven said...

Since nobody else is willing to do it, I will. I know that you are all thinking it, so it might as well be said.

The garbage sentiments expressed in this posting (and many other posts by people like Our Founding Truth, and others) are so far from the truth that it is actually funny. If you ever are in need of a good laugh, go over to our founding's blog (which he believes is a legitimate source on everything to do with America, religion, and probably the secrets of the universe). You will be amazed at how ridiculous his views are.

Bottom line is this. We all have our opinions, and yes it is good to express them. But this doesnt mean that every opinion is right or good. So far the opinions of people like Dan and Our Founding Truth have proven to be absolutly wrong and pointless, yet they still believe they are right. Why? Because of their narcissistic faith in God that excludes us for thinking differently (and being closer to the truth as well).

How do u argue with people like this? You dont. It is pointless because this is the same crowd that believes in talking snakes in a garden, a world flood and a man that built a boat to house EVERY SINGLE animal on earth, a virgin birth, burning and talking bushes, and that dinosaurs only lived a couple thousand years ago.

And of course they will call me a hypocrite for saying all this. They will call me intolerant, unpatriotic, unrealistic, and a bunch of other stuff.

How can you reason with this?

Brad Hart said...

Well, you sure know how to inspire comments, Dan. Though I do not agree with you, my hat is off to you for braving the "lion's den."

Jonathan Rowe said...

Raven,

I started laughing so hard at/with your comment that I started coughing and couldn't catch my breath.

I was simply going to point out to OFT that appealing to authority is one of Aristotle's logical fallacies. But...if you are going to appeal to authority (most of us do from time to time; as an attorney, I know that our whole common law legal system is built upon this) you might as well appeal to an authority that is impressive, that carries weight.

Tom Van Dyke said...

...an authority that the other fellow just might find credible, like John Locke.

No wonder he was so influential. He spoke the other guys' language.

Didn't anybody here look up my reference to Genesis 11? Or were you all too busy talking?

Pinky said...

.
I think we need to see Dan's pre-doctoral candidate credentials.
.
Curriculum Vitae, Dan?
.

Jonathan Rowe said...

One little more point on "what if the Founders didn't rebel?"

The facts are, according to these scholars, that we would still be under the rule of the British monarchy--rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's--if we were a Bible based society.

Uh no. We'd be like Canada.

Dan Atkinson said...

When I woke up this morning I expected to see a massive collection of liberal, biased, insensetive comments to my post and I was not disappointed. Instead of answering every specific (and ridiculous) attack on my position, I will instead say a couple of general comments.

First, in the words of Paul, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ." I don't care how much I am attacked for taking these stances. The Lord of Hosts will do battle for those that fear His holy judgements.

Second, I hope that everyone will understand that a pro-Christian perspective does not mean I am wrong. For some reason people that take a pro-Christian stance are immediately labeled as being in error.

And last, the secular arrogance exhibited by several on this blog (Brad, Jon and Pinky are the main ones to blame) is astonishing. I am truly sorry that the three of you have no place in your hearts for Christ. If you truly believe in being enlightened, I invite you to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. In so doing, you will find greater enlightenment than you can possibly imagine.

God bless!

Ray Soller said...

In all fairness -

September 13, 2005 - Cultural genocide in the name of Islam by Amil Imani.

[snippet]
In their [Iran's] latest attempt in the war of destruction, the Islamic Republic has been insidiously planning to obliterate some of the most cherished places in Persian history. They intend to eradicate the Pasargad, the Bolaghi gorge and the Persepolis. Most of all, they are obliterating the memory of one of history's great rulers, Cyrus the Great.

In Pasargad is found the tomb of Cyrus the Great, the King of Kings and the founding father of Persia. Cyrus the Great, who is mentioned twenty—five times in the Bible, is known for his passion and compassion and his unprecedented tolerance. Cyrus the Great's Charter of Human Rights is known to be the first such charter written, and refers to the concept of humans as having universal rights, regardless of legal jurisdiction, ethnicity, nationality or religion.

Cyrus the Great's most notable reputation of a great leader stands high as a Persian king who freed the Jews from captivity by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.
Cyrus the Great, not only allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild their temple, but assisted the Jews in this endeavor, something which was followed by his heirs.

Cyrus the Great proclaimed more than 2500 years ago,

"Today, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion and free to live in all regions and take up a job provided that they never violate other's rights."

Cyrus the Great declared himself not a conqueror, but a liberator.
[end snippet]

For those who want to back date an earlier occurrence of a liberating Christ-figure (Messiah) they should consider Isaiah 45:1-4. In this instance the Jews did not convert to Christianity. Instead, their Jewish culture was permitted to flourish.

Dan Atkinson said...

Ray,

What in the world does your post have to do with this discussion?

Pinky said...

.
My purpose in asking you, Dan, about your educational credentials involves my wanting to learn more about you; because of the "my way or the highway" attitude I think I'm seeing. Maybe I'm wrong?
.
You are getting some normal responses to your claims that don't seem to be so very well grounded except in your own thinking. And, you are almost throwing a fit because others aren't telling you what wonderful reasoning you use. I don't think that is going to help you win a PhD.
.
You present a blindsided persona and I think that may be giving the rest of us a wrong impression. It would be good to learn how you came to be so sure of what you think you know at such a young age.
.
Maybe you should go back to the drawing board and rethink some of the proof you're using to make your points. You do want your audience to accept your thesis, don't you?
.

Brad Hart said...

I second Pinky's sentiments, especially after you state the following, Dan:

"Last, the secular arrogance exhibited by several on this blog (Brad, Jon and Pinky are the main ones to blame) is astonishing. I am truly sorry that the three of you have no place in your hearts for Christ. If you truly believe in being enlightened, I invite you to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. In so doing, you will find greater enlightenment than you can possibly imagine."

There is a flip side to that coin. What about religious arrogance? I am not so certain that this is the appropriate forum for preaching salvation and redemption.

Also, you make an assumption that we have no place in our hearts for Christ. Though this may shock you, I am actually quite devout in my chosen religion.

Jonathan Rowe said...

It's also an utter non-sequitur (indeed one I posted about above) that our position has anything to do with personal rejection of the orthodox Christian religion. The person whose research I have relied on (Dr. Gregg Frazer) is an evangelical/fundamentalist of impeccable orthodoxy.

And also notice how Pinky, myself and Brad have not at all attacked the Christian religion, but rather expose phony claims about the way it influenced the American Founding.

Raven has done a little attacking on this thread of historic Christian orthodoxy. And that's fine. But Brad and I haven't.

Ray Soller said...

Dan, first off, I see the phrase "Old Testament" as an oxymoron. Your comment suggests that if Jesus had come earlier, that Christianity would have prevailed. I seriously doubt that.

If you can't see the relevance pertaining to the article, "Cultural genocide in the name of Islam," then don't let it worry you, after all, as you wrote, "The Lord of Hosts will do battle for those that fear His holy judgements."

Anonymous said...

If America wasn't founded as a Christian nation then why does our pledge of allegiance say "One Nation Under God"? why does our currency say "In God We Trust"? Why does each new president swear in the bible when taking office? The colonists broke away from Britain for many reasons including religious freedom. Our founding fathers founded America on christianity but gave the people their right to chose who and what they want to worship. Our founding fathers were kind of like Joshua when he said "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."(Joshua 24:15). The founders didn't want to dictate what the people did because that would have made them just like King George! So they gave the people a choice. To serve god or not to serve god. This is the same choice God gives us. To serve Him or not to serve Him. But our founders also wanted the people to know that though the some people may beleive what they want, the founders believed in Godly standards and principles.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't have said any better myself.

spookym said...

@Anonymous LOL. "If America wasn't founded as a Christian nation then why does our pledge of allegiance say "One Nation Under God"? The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, but the words "under God" weren't added until 1954.