Was The Declaration of Independence A Covenant With God?

Most secularists reject the idea the Declaration of Independence was a covenant with God. Upon closer examination, whether from Revelation or Natural Law, the DOI implores God's protection, with the understanding, God's judgment will follow our National Sins. God's protection is contingent.
Daniel J. Elazar, from The Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, explains, "the concept and intention of the Declaration is more covenantal than compactual in the American context. As Jefferson remarked nearly fifty years later:"

Neither aiming at originality of principles or sentiments nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American Mind 1

I cannot read this quote, in its context, supporting a covenant. However, this compact was definitely copied from a particular and previous writing, that John Adams alluded to. The idea had been established in every colony for over one-hundred years, starting with the Mayflower Compact on Nov. 11, 1620:

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-writen, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britaine, Franc, and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., haveing undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancemente of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutualy in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof to enacte, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for the generall good of the colonie, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

Founding Father John Q. Adams claimed the Mayflower Compact was a Covenant with God 2, as well as calling it the foundation for the Constitution in a speech in 1802.  Samuel Adams told Congress his feelings:

In 1777, many of the warmest friends of America, began to despair. It was at this critical juncture, after Congress had resolved to adjourn from Philadelphia to Lancaster, that some of the leading members accidentally met in company with each other. A conversation in mutual confidence ensued. Mr. Adams, who was one of the number, was cheerful and undismayed at the aspect of affairs, while the countenances of his friends were strongly marked with the desponding feelings of their hearts. The conversation naturally turned upon the subject which most engaged their feelings. Each took occasion to express his opinions on the situation of the publick cause, and all were gloomy and sad. Mr. Adams listened in silence, till they had finished. He then said : " Gentlemen, your spirits appear to be heavily oppressed with our publick calamities I hope you do not despair of our final success ?" It was answered, that " the chance was desperate." Mr. Adams replied: " If this be our language, it is so, indeed. If we wear long faces, they will become fashionable. The people take their tone from ours, and if we despair, can it be expected that they will continue their efforts in what we conceive to be a hopeless cause ? Let us banish such feelings, and show a spirit that will keep -alive the confidence of the people, rather than damp their courage. Better tidings will soon arrive. Our cause is just and righteous, and we shall never be abandoned by Heaven, while we show ourselves worthy of its aid and protection."

Furthermore, at Thomas Jefferson's inaugural address, he stated our Republic was a "choosen country." Although I doubt he believed what he said, he understood what the people believed.

There are many similiarities with the Sinai Covenant, however, as  Elazar writes, "the Declaration invokes God as both a witness and guarantor. This sets it apart from a simple compact." It is quite striking that our DOI appears much more than a compact, as H. Richard Niebuhr describes:

Covenant meant that political society was neither purely natural nor merely contractual, based on common interest. Covenant was the binding together in one body politic of persons who assumed through unlimited promise responsibility to and for each other and for the common laws, under God. It was government of the people, for the people and by the people but always under God, and it was not natural birth into natural society that made one a complete member of the people but always the moral act of taking upon oneself, through promise, the responsibilities of a citizenship that bound itself in the very act of exercising its freedom. For in the covenant conception the essence of freedom does not lie in the liberty of choice among goods, but in the ability to commit oneself for the future to a cause and in the terrible liberty of being able to become a breaker of the promise, a traitor to the cause.3

Another important fact resides in the Covenant relationship in Federalism.This form of Federalism is completely Puritan. The Puritan form of Federalism ultimately grew into our society by way of Congregationalism and Presbyterianism. Elazar explains, "there were no extant models for the framers of the U.S. Constitution except New England. Furthermore, representatives from New England, especially Connecticut and Massachusetts, were influential in the Constitutional Convention. The principal compromise of the Convention, The Connecticut Compromise, was initiated by those delegates accustomed to the New England legislative system in which one house provided for representation of towns."

Samuel Adams' Oration to the people tell us the DOI was a covenant:

We have explored the temple of royalty, and found that the idol we have bowed down to has eyes which see not, ears that hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone. We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient.

-Samuel Adams, An Oration: Delivered at the State-House in Philadelphia, to very Numerous Audience, as Thursday the 1st of August, 1776. (Philadelphia, 1776).





Notes

1. Saul K. Padover, Jefferson (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1942), p. 54.

2. John Quincy Adams, The Social Compact, Exemplified in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; with Remarks on the Theories of Divine Right of Hobbes and of Filmer, and the Counter Theories of Sidney, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau, concerning the Origin and Nature of Government, a lecture delivered before the Franklin Lyceum at Providence, R.I., November 25, 1842 (Providence: Knowles and Vose, 1842).

3. H. Richard Niebuhr, "The Idea of Covenant and American Democracy."



 


.

Would the Founding Fathers Agree with the Tea Party? Web-exclusive with Ron Chernow

Tavis Smiley's blog has the entire video of Ron Chernow speaking on the Tea Party and their similarity with the Founding Fathers. Chernow says, "The notion that all the founders were one mind about issues." Political issues yes, however, as to Christianity, there was rarely any disagreement, whether morality, epistomology, or theology, or end times. Christianity was the standard, with only a handful of FF's departing from Orthodoxy.

Dennis Prager, God, Liberals and Liberty

Dennis Prager's recent post about Liberty and God differentiates rights from Christianity and Islam. It is vitally important to understand the identity of the God that gave us our rights. The Declaration of Independence tells us who the God of our liberty and rights is; His name is "The Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature's God." This appellation is attributed to no other God in history than the God of the Bible. In fact, the Founding Fathers understood this name as passed down from the Scriptures to Protestant Reformers: John Calvin, and Martin Luther, to English and Catholic Elites: John Locke, Richard Hooker, William Blackstone, Francis Bacon, and Thomas Aquinas.

Alexander Hamilton The Rationalist?

I can only assume Ron Chernow, among others, view Alexander Hamilton a product of the Enlightenment, a rationalist, or something less than an Orthodox Christian.
The idea that committing sin, or failure to proclaim Orthodox doctrine, is a false basis for understanding the heart of a person. If committing sin was the criteria, no one would pass the test. Rather, slavery to sin, is what God's Spirit will convict. Chernow and others, imply this view against Hamilton. It is not fair, nor accurate. Most Christians, including myself, are not members of a Church, just for the fact of not getting around to it; ironically, the same reason Hamilton failed to commune before his death bed.

Constitution Signer Rufus King wrote less about Christianity than Hamilton, yet his faith is not questioned. George Washington, and James Madison are viewed in the same light. Many Christians are silent about their faith, thus, never speak a word of Orthodoxy. I am not defending the faith of George Washington, however, James Madison is pigeon-holed the same way Hamilton is. The below quote should once and for all, refute Hamilton was a product of the Enlightenment, or viewed reason superior to anything. On the contrary, he viewed man's reason with the highest contempt:

Experience is a continual comment on the worthlessness of the human race; and the few exceptions we find have the greater right to be valued in proportion as they are rare.

-To Colonel Richard K. Meade, Albany, August 27, 1782.
 
That quote along with the one below, nearly proves beyond a doubt, Hamilton believed in Original Sin. He understood human depravity could never be corrected, unlike proponents of the Enlightenment. In the below statement, AH sounds identical to John Calvin:
 
As riches increase and accumulate in few hands; as luxury prevails in society; virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature: It is what, neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortune, that awaits our state constitution, as well as all others..It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition, that there is more virtue in one class of men than in another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists, not in the quantity but kind of vices, which are incident to the various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity. [bold face mine]

-Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention 21 June 1788. Papers 5:36--37, 40--43

Hamilton rented Pew 92 at Trinity Church as early as 1790, affirming at least his church attendance. He isn't on the Communion roll, but his wife is. As to taking Communion, he had desired it, yet accomplished it on his death bed:
 
It has for some time past been the wish of my heart, and it was my intention to take an early opportunity of uniting myself to the church, by the reception of that holy ordinance [Communion].
 
Who then can claim how long "some time past" is? Based on his Calvinist view of human nature, and his previous affirmation of the Trinity; the evidence supports Hamilton was an Orthodox Christian.

President Obama Says Islam Is Not The Enemy

Muhammed with the Black Stone at the Pagan Kaaba, circa 1315

President Barack Obama says, "the country's enemy is not Islam." However, since Muhammed claimed he was possessed by Satan, once in the Hadith, and at least once in the koran, Islam is not only Obama's, but the enemy of all, including planet earth. Fighting is compulsory, as Muhammed waged every war, of which Muslims continued, until they were stopped at the Battle of Tours in 732 by Charles Martel. But by then, their empire went from Spain to India. All Muslims are ordered by Muhammed himself to Jihad until Islam controls the world. Here is what Muhammed has to say to Peaceful Muslims (hypocrites):

Tabari IX:13 "Muhammad turned to see Umm, a pregnant woman, who said, 'O Messenger! Kill those [Muslims] who flee from you as you kill those who fight you, for they deserve death. Here is my dagger. If any come near me I will rip them up and slit open their belly with it.'"

Ishaq:246 "The surah of the Hypocrites came down because some men sent secret messages to the Nadir Jews when the Apostle besieged them. So Allah sent down, "Have you not considered the Hypocrites who say to their brethren, the People of the Book [Jews], 'We shall never obey anyone against you. If you are attacked and driven out we will help you. Allah bears witness that they are liars.'"

Qur'an 4:77 "Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands from fighting, perform the prayer and pay the zakat. But when orders for fighting were issued, a party of them feared men as they ought to have feared Allah. They say: 'Our Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?'"

Qur'an 4:78 "Wherever you are, death will find you, even if you are in towers built up strong and high! If some good befalls, they say, 'This is from Allah;' but if evil, they say, 'This is from you (Muhammad).' Say: 'All things are from Allah.' So what is wrong with these people, that they fail to understand these simple words?"

Qur'an 59:11 "Have you not observed the Hypocrites saying to their unbelieving brethren among the People of the Book, 'If you are expelled [from your homes by the Muslims], we will go with you?' But Allah is witness that they are liars. If the Jews are expelled, never will the Hypocrites go with them; if they are attacked, they will not help them defend themselves. In truth you [jihadist Muslims] are more fearful and awful (than they) because they are afraid of you. This is a result of the terror (sent) by Allah. They are men devoid of understanding."

Qur'an 4:89 "They wish that you would reject Faith, as they have, and thus be on the same footing: Do not be friends with them until they leave their homes in Allah's Cause. But [and this is a hell of a but...] if they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them."

Qur'an 48:11 "The desert Arabs who lagged behind [in fighting] will say to you (Muhammad): 'We were engaged in (looking after) our flocks and our families.' We have prepared for them a Blazing Fire!"

Qur'an 59:14 "They are a divided people devoid of sense. There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so both of them will end up in Hell."

Qur'an 4:88 "What is the matter with you that you are divided about the Hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (causing their disbelief). Would you guide those whom Allah has thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah has thrown aside and led astray, never shall they find the Way."

Ishaq:602 "Jadd told Muhammad, 'Will you allow me to stay behind and not tempt me? Everyone knows that I am strongly addicted to women. I'm afraid that I'll see Byzantine women and will not be able to control myself.' The Apostle gave him permission to remain behind. It was about him that Allah sent down: 'There are some who say: "Give me leave to stay behind and do not tempt me." Surely they have fallen into temptation already and hell encompasses these unbelievers.' (9:49) It was not that he feared the temptation from the Byzantine women. The temptation he had fallen into was greater in that he had hung back from the Apostle and sought to please himself rather than Muhammad. Verily hell awaits him."

Ishaq:603 "One of the estranged ones said to another, 'Don't go out to fight in this heat.' He disliked strenuous war, doubted the truth, and created misgivings about the Apostle. So Allah sent down regarding them, 'And they said, "Do not go out in this heat." Say, "The fires of hell are hotter. Let them laugh a little now for they will weep a great deal later as a reward for what they did.'" (5:82)

Ishaq:603 "Some Bedouins came to apologize for not going into battle, but Allah would not accept their excuses."

A Debate Between John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama

This video from Cato@Liberty on JFK's tax policy, is a direct affront to Barack Obama and the Democrats' tax policy. The President is in great error, as with many other issues, as to correct tax policy. I do disagree with JFK if he was for lowering taxes for corporations. JFK had no idea how massive they would be today, and the revenues they would generate. Cannot corporations generate jobs with billions in revenue?

Mark Noll's Shoddy Scholarship

Roger Schultz wrote a critique about the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers several years ago, but it hits the bullseye with regard to how liberal historians fail to understand correct biblical exegesis, in relation to the writings of the Founding Fathers. Mark Noll is one of those liberals. Schultz's piece is called, "A Celebration of Infidels: The American Enlightenment in the Revolutionary Era." That Noll is ignorant of certain Biblical concepts in the Law of Moses and their obvious absence of incorporation into American society doesn't surprise me:

Neo-Evangelical Historians On Witherspoon

In trying to portray John Witherspoon as an apostle of the Enlightenment who ignored the scriptures, “UnChristian America” historians, relying almost entirely on secondary sources, have distorted the record, either through sloppy scholarship or deliberate misrepresentation. This is an example of how they use quotations:

Mark Noll quotes James McAllister as saying of Witherspoon:

The answer to the question regarding the biblical contribution to Witherspoon's teaching about the law and liberty is: almost nothing ... his theory of society and civil laws was based not on revelation but on the moral sense enlightened by reason and experience.

 Noll, Search for Christian America, pp. 90-91.

Compare that to McAllister's full quote:

One final question needs to be asked in this discussion of Witherspoon's concept of law and civil law particularly. Since Witherspoon was of a conservative theological bent and argued that “the wisest way for us, with regard to all revealed truth, is to receive it as revealed,” how large a role did biblical revelation play in his theory of civil law? His Lectures on Divinity repeatedly illustrates his literalistic method of interpreting scripture; but when he raised the question about whether the laws of Moses are of “perpetual obligation,” he argued that they are not because of their being particularly suited to conditions of the Jews in Canaan. Nonetheless, he believed that criminal laws based on the principle of lex talionis were “founded upon so much wisdom, that it is a question whether departure from them in punishing crime has ever been attended with advantage.” Therefore, the answer to the question regarding the biblical contribution to Witherspoon's teaching about civil law and liberty is: almost nothing. We claim that his theory of social and civil law was based not on revelation but on the moral sense enlightened by reason and common experience. Although his theological method was based on a literalistic view of scripture, he somewhat inconsistently explained away a large part of the scriptural revelation which he said must be merely accepted without the believer's “presuming to be wise above what is written.”

-- James McAllister, “John Witherspoon: An Academic Advocate for Religious Freedom” in A Miscellany of American Christianity, ed. Stuart Henry (Durham: Duke University Press, 1963), pp. 217-218.

Notice the difference? Noll doesn't mention that McAllister, an honest historian who actually reads the sources, stressed Witherspoon's emphasis on scripture, its literal interpretation, and the necessity of receiving it “as revealed”. Nor does Noll mention that McAllister claimed that Witherspoon's social theory was rooted in reason and moral sense in social theory only because he did not make Mosaic case laws a foundation for American society. McAllister clearly judged Witherspoon and found him wanting by what could be called theonomic standards. If failure to adopt all Hebrew case laws as a civil pattern makes one an apostle of the Enlightenment, then many of the Reformers and most contemporary Christians, including American evangelicals, would fall into this camp. Without saying what he is doing, Noll holds Witherspoon to a standard which few people, probably including Professor Noll, could meet. Nonetheless, we are happy to see Dr. Noll clandestinely employing theonomic standards, and wish him well as he begins to unfurl the Reconstructionist banner and diligently apply Mosaic law to contemporary society. We can only urge him to take greater care in his historical methodology.

Prediction, President Obama Is One And Done

President Obama says Islam has always been part of America, which raises the question, does the president know something about American history that we don't? How can Islam be apart of Amerca when there is no freedom of religion, no freedom of the press, no freedom to peaceably assemble, no gun rights, etc. in any Islamic country? Islam is the anti-thesis of Christianity. There is no concept of liberty in Islam. Sharia Law rules, where women are second class citizens.

There is no freedom of choice, therefore, no liberty, thus there is no democracy. Islam and Democracy are mutally exclusive. This statement shows how out of touch Barack Obama is, not only with the people, but with our principles of liberty.

Harry Reid: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican."

Being neither a Democrat or Republican, comments like this from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, make me wonder what happened to Original Intent?

Yes, Chris Rodda, Our Constitution Is Based on the Book of Deuteronomy

Chris Rodda makes it her business to attack the Christian Nation Thesis any chance she gets. David Barton, of Wallbuilders, is usually her target. She is Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF); the group that lobbied the Obama Administration to prohibit Franklin Graham from attending the National Day of Prayer Breakfast in light of his statements about Islam. Chris is the Author of Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History. However, as this post will show, it is her Alternate Version of American History that needs to be debunked; the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, firmly founded on the Book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In attempting to present Barton's distortions, of which there may be, revisionists like Rodda are vulnerable to Orthodox Christians like myself that read the Scriptures everyday. It appears her article about David Barton in Daily Kos, was presented with an ill-advised title: "No, Mr. Beck, Our Constitution is Not Based on the Book of Deuteronomy."

The body of her article that refutes Barton's use of Donald S. Lutz's research: "34% of their quotes came out of the Bible." looks legitimate to me. However, whatever Barton presented that skewed the evidence, has little to do with the Constitution not based on the Book of Deuteronomy.

If the Scriptures and Natural Law are the same, from the same source, the latter will be harmonious with the former, and our unalienable rights will be written in the Scriptures, linked together to the Common Law, Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights (1689) et al. I am not unaware, nor will lessen the impact Natural Law has in this equation, however the framers understood rights are derived from religion and Natural Law; religion a more solid foundation, referenced through Christian philosophers, including Montesquieu and Blackstone, and Protestant forms of government, such as: Switzerland, and Holland. The framers also made it clear, they perused the Protestant Reformers, and Blackstone, in the Constitutional Convention for guidance, however, Rodda distorts that influence she accuses Barton of:

In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers--Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford: that the States being equal cannot treat or confederate so as to give up an equality of votes without giving up their liberty. [italics mine]

-Luther Martin, June 27, 1787. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 1]. MADISON Wednesday June 27. in Convention.

 First, our rights as Christians from Jesus and Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy:

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.
These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

-Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. November 20, 1772.

Benjamin Franklin, believed our rights are found in the Bible by endorsing Adams' report, and adopted by inhabitants of Boston, no less:

The person alluded to by Governor Hutchinson, as "the great director in England," was Dr. Franklin, and it is insinuated that he was in effect the author of the report, but this is in no sense true..To the sentiments expressed in the report of the committee, and adopted by the inhabitants of the town, he fully assented. This is proved by his sending a copy of the proceedings to the press, as soon as he received it in London, with a prefatory notice written by himself. The pamphlet was entitled "The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, in Town Meeting assembled, according to Law. Published by Order of the Town." -- Sparks.

The fact is, liberties, which are our unalienable rights, are immersed in their writings, thus, only liberty can give peace and happiness, and religion is the source of virtue, which brings happiness. It is religion coupled with Natural Law, that grants individual rights that are essential to happiness, thus, John Adams believed our liberties are found in the Scriptures:

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.

-Letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776.

Adams again, linking Christian morality with unalienable rights found in the Scriptures, and in the true Constitution of Britain. Unalienable rights must encompass the principles Adams alludes to, for the Revolution was fought for more than just improper morality:

The gallant Struggle in America, is founded in Principles so indisputable, in the moral Law, in the revealed Law of God, in the true Constitution of great Britain..."

-John Adams second "Clarendon" letter as printed in the Boston Gazette, 20, Jan. 1766.

The Christian religion is the source of unalienable rights:

[T]he Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

-Noah Webster, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA” A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark, 1843), p. 291, from his “Reply to a Letter of David McClure on the Subject of the Proper Course of Study in the Girard College, Philadelphia. New Haven, October 25, 1836.”

 Next, our greatest Judge, called "the american blackstone" whose judicial philosophy of Federal superiority has shaped our nation to this day, wrote the free exercise clause is found in the Scriptures:

The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority, without a criminal disobedience or [sp?], the precepts or [sp?] natural, as well as of revealed religion. [italics mine]

-Joseph Story, Commentaries. CH. XLIV FREEDOM OF RELIGION. 727.

Story is more than qualified to exposite the Constitution.

Story produced nine major treatises within the space of twelve years: Bailments (1832), Commentaries on the Constitution (3 Vols., 1833), Conflict of Laws (1834), Equity Jurisprudence (2 Vols., 1836), Equity Pleadings (1838), Agency (1839), Partnership (1841), Bills of Exchange (1843), and Promissory Notes (1845).

Judge Story was also the author of valuable notes on prize, admiralty, maritime, and patent law contained in appendices to Supreme Court reports, and a frequent contributor to the North American Review, in which he published legal essays. His judicial opinions and writings laid the foundation for admiralty law, equity jurisprudence, and commercial law in the United States. Though a member of the judiciary, Story also worked diligently to clarify and improve Federal laws. He drafted legislation to extend the jurisdiction of the circuit courts and revise the bankruptcy laws.

Story may justly be regarded as the real founder of the Harvard Law School; for his appointment marked an important turning point in the history of an institution that was faltering until Story took command. As a result of his leadership, enrollment increased, the quality of instruction improved, and the school's reputation for excellence grew rapidly.

-American Reference Library, The Ultimate Reference to American History and Political Science, World Book Encyclopedia. 1998 World Book, Inc and Western Standard Publishing Company.

Just where are the texts in the Scripture that expound unalienable rights?

LIFE, Judges 13:5, Deut 24:16. HAPPINESS, Eccles 3:13. Ironically, several rights are in the same chapter of Deuteronomy, listed one after the other, as the framers listed the Bill of Rights:

Property, Ninth and Tenth Amendment: Deut 19:14. "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it." and I Kings 4:25.

Trial by Jury. Sixth Amendment: v.15. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."

Unreasonable search and seizure. Fourth Amendment: Deut. 24:10-11. "When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge. Thou shalt stand abroad, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee."

Right to bear arms. Second Amendment: “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

Free Speech, assembly, free exercise. First Amendment:

John 4:14
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
John 6:40,47,51,54
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 7:37
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
John 8:51
Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
John 11:26
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Many State legal codes, the death penalty, et al., are quoted verbatim by the framers. It isn't difficult to see why the framers considered America the "New Zion."

So Israel under the monarchy always had an armed population (as the 2nd Amendment envisions for the United States). It also had powerful dissidents, the prophets, who were not afraid to use their freedom of speech to rebuke the government (as the 1st Amendment provides). Yet even though ancient Israel might be said to have protected both 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment rights, these were not sufficient to protect the full scope of liberty and prevent serious abuses by government. The concentration of national political power continued to have terrible consequences.

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2007_04/kopel-israel.html

The framers knew where these rights derived, just as Thomas Paine understood Israel was a "kind of Republic." There was no mention at the Constitutional Convention of any separation of church and state, only the anti-establishment clause. We see this is true because they immediately hired Christian chaplains, issued Christian religious proclamations, promoted Christianity amongst the Indians, used government buildings for Christian church services, used the bible as a textbook in federally run public schools, set aside land for Christian religious purposes and continuousy thanked God for his blessings, guidance, and protection.

Whatever be the case of Barton's errors, the entire foundation of Law: the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights, are founded upon the Bible.

Federal Government Will Sue Arizona Over Immigration Law

Kris W. Kobach of National Review defends Arizona. The Federal Government is sueing the State of Arizona on the basis their immigration law violates the Constitution. If this lawsuit doesn't show how incompetent the Obama Administration is, nothing will. The Arizona law copies the Federal Law, since the federal law mandates:

Since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens not to keep certain registration documents on their person or not to register with the federal government.

One wonders if Barack Obama knows what a green card is. The law was made with full view the feds would sue under racial profiling, so they made sure there is no racial profiling in the bill.

Andrew McCarthy states in an earlier post:

At the border, the federal government does not need probable cause — or any cause at all — to inquire into a person’s citizenship, immigration status, or purpose for attempting to enter our country. Agents can detain immigrants and citizens alike. They can perform bodily searches. They can go through every inch of a would-be entrant’s belongings, read his mail, and scrutinize the contents of his computer.

If the government can search anyone entering the country, why can't anyone be searched with probable cause?

The fact is James Madison and George Washington, would advocate deportation:

[T]hose who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community; are not the people we are in want of."

-James Madison, to Congress Feb 3, 1790. The Writings of James Madison. 1998 World Book Inc. Western Stnd Publishing Co.

Most hispanics who break our laws to enter our country, add no strength to our communities, since they fail to assimulate to hold onto their own language and culture, and they provide no wealth as they send their money back to their home countries. More than likely, JM would be for deportation.

Washington would have illegals deported as well, as they are not acting decently by breaking our laws, however, he would never have allowed it to get this bad:

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and previleges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.[italics mine]

-George Washington. To THE MEMBERS OF THE VOLUNTEER ASSOCIATION
AND OTHER INHABITANTS OF THE KINGDOM OF IRELAND WHO HAVE LATELY ARRIVED
IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, New York, December 2, 1783.

Timothy Dwight, And The Moderate Calvinist Battle Against Unitarianism

The theological fight between Orthodox Christians and Unitarians took center stage in mid to late 18th Century America. Moderate, Orthodox Calvinists such as: Timothy Dwight, Abiel Holmes, Ashbel Green, Samuel Langdon, Ezra Stiles, Joseph Bellamy, Jedidiah Morse, Nathan Strong et al., battled unitarians: Jonathan Mayhew, Ebenezer Gay, Charles Chauncy, Simeon Howard, and Samuel West. These leaders in the Church, fought like cats and dogs in various periodicals, and in the pulpits, over the fundamentals of Christianity, and what was literal and allegory. Timothy Dwight was the leader, and promoter of today's Evangelical movement. For the next one-hundred years and beyond, Dwight's Theology was study material in every Protestant college in the world, going through twelve editions. Dwight is the Father of Modern Evangelicalism.

Dwight, and the Evangelicals halted unitarianism, deism, and other forms of Pelagianism to the inner Boston, Massachusetts area:

By the 1830's, evangelicals had successfully contained Unitarianism within the Boston area and the West had become the new battleground for Orthodoxy.

          -Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Anchron Books, 1974, p. 199.

Furthermore, independent periodicals echoed the same point:

Unitarians, who are principally confined to Boston and its vicinity.

-Boston Patriot, May 13, 1815.

That unitarianism was limited to a small area reflects the influence it had on the population. Make no mistake, there were many Unitarians at Harvard, however, "only one man: John Clark of Boston, an overseer of the college disagreed with David Tappan's election as Professor of Divinity in 1793." (Bentley, Diary, III, p. 38). Dwight's battle with the unitarians started in 1783 as the minister in "Greenfield Hill," a congregational church in Fairfield, Connecticut. "Dwight had a genius for recognizing able proteges — among them Lyman Beecher, Nathaniel W. Taylor, and Leonard Bacon, all whom would become major religious leaders and theological innovators in the ante bellum decades." Having graduated from Yale in 1769, Dwight made Yale the "largest institution of higher education in North America." Dwight took over Yale from Evangelical Clergyman Ezra Stiles, the President from (1778-1795) and Pastor of Second Congregational Church in Newport, R. I. from (1755-1777).

Not a few historians label Stiles an innocent bystander in this Puritan battle against pelagianism, which may have been the case publicly, however his diary paints a different picture. If Stiles did not join this quarrel in print, he joined the Orthodox in the pulpit. His diary gives many examples of his opinion of heresy.

May God defeat these insidious Machiavellian hellish designs against his Chh [Church] in New England.

-Diary, Vol I, p. 587.

Stiles had many, less than Orthodox friends, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Stiles once had dinner in Scotland with Franklin, and David Hume. However, he was an evangelical:

[M]ay I be quickened to greater fidelity..to press home Evangelical Truths..reprehending with all authority, not shuning to declare the whole truth.

-Diary, Oct. 22, 1769. 

His Diary presents short entries of debate that never appear to escalate detailing Christian doctrine:

He [Abraham Redwood] has a peculiar notion about sin--that there is no Imputation of sin from Adam, but God created every man a Sinner..I objected this made G[o]d the Author of Sin.

-Diary, May 9, 1770.

Stiles died in 1795, and Dwight personally led Yale in training men to carry out the fight against heresy. Dwight engineered the Second Great Awakening (1802-1810), aligning Old Calvinists by planning to spread Orthodoxy throughout New England. Among these Calvinists Dwight joined forces with, were Hopkinsians, after Rev. Samuel Hopkins, D. D. pastor of the First Congregational Church at Newport, Rhode Island. Hopkinsians were remnants of the Edwardians, after the great Theologian Jonathan Edwards; the main theologian of the Great Awakening, that spread from New England to Georgia. Towards the end of Edwards' life, he strayed into meta-physical doctrine, attempting to "combine his theory of cause & effect with Newtonian Cosmology." The staunch Calvinist that he was, Edwards did not believe in self-determination; this tended to mis-lead his later followers that God was vengeful, wanting to punish everyone. Rigid discipline, and too much emphasis on human depravity pushed parishoners away. Here is an example of Edwards' thoughts:

No energy is self-generating, so the actions of human will must be determined from outside oneself.

-Edwards, Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Achron Books, 1974.

Contrast Edwards with Dwight and the moderate Calvinists:

God's foreknowledge has not the remotest influence on the agent, or his action.

-Dwight, Theology I.

Dwight used "means" to nurture one's spiritual conversion, through prayer, education, and church attendance. The Old Calvinists meta-physical doctrines stifled evangelism, but Dwight understood they were a vital group, with a large base, that also disliked heterodox doctrine calling itself Christianity. Yet, the Scriptures are simple; for simple people. The Church has long delineated what is literal and what is allegory. Here, in Luke 17: 26-30, Jesus affirms the flood, the story of Abraham, Lot, and the destruction of the cities of the plain:

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. [italics mine]

Notice, Jesus says, "[A]s it was in the days of Noe." Unitarians and/or rationalists, proclaim they adhere to inerrancy, yet, denial of these obvious literal passages leave no excuse.

Dwight, and the moderates employed Old Calvinists to spread a moderate, almost Arminian form of Calvinism.

 Along with Jedidiah Morse in Massachusetts, the New Divinity combined all Calvinists to defeat the unitarian influence. Morse, with the Hopkinsians, formed Andover Theological Seminary, that survives to this very day. Furthermore, the battle against heresy was not as some would suggest:

Contrary to publicized orthodox opinion, the great majority of Jeffersonians were in fact Trinitarian Protestants.

-Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Anchron Books, 1974, p.150

In my opinion, Dwight and the Modern Calvinists did a dis-service, sometimes viciously attacking the Jeffersonians throughout New England. These attacks by Federalists, no doubt hurt the party, losing the 1800 election to Thomas Jefferson; linked "Jeffersonian leaders with the illuminati" in the Connecticut Courant, Berk, p. 131. Yes, the Jeffersonians attacked the Standing Order of Connecticut Gentry, however, writing these falsehoods didn't help the Federalists. Dwight even advised spurning democratic members of Puritan families. The Connecticut Courant, edited by Dwight's brother, Theodore, had the nerve to ask Jefferson to sign the Apostles Creed.

In New England, Jeffersonians had several papers as well, including The Aurora and American Mercury. Their rhetoric included calling Dwight, "Pope of Connecticut" and a diatribe in the Mercury, attacking the Standing Order of Connecticut:

"...an union of church & state--an union which the experience of all countries has proved to be incompatible with civil & religious liberty."

-American Mercury, Sept. 25, 1800.

It reads like James Madison. If it is him, it's another example of Madison's inconsistency, having fought against Virginia's assessment for Christian teachers, yet, he wrote any State can form whatever religion they like:

If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion...Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution; and it is sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest. [italics mine]

-James Madison, June 12, 1788. Elliot's Debates In the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Virginia).

Dwight viewed religion (Orthodox Christianity) the basis for liberty, as Puritanism had protected their rights, and provided happiness for nearly two centuries. Dwight was correct; there was no discrimination of any sects, nor a union of church and state. Dwight claimed the Jeffersonians wanted a pluralistic society, that always leads to infidelity:

Requiring citizens to support religion is not only consistent with freedom, but the primary cause of it.

-Woods, History of Andover,  p. 106.

In light of the happiness and liberty religion had brought to New England, the Jeffersonians arrogantly labeled Congregational missionary work as a "Priestly Conspiracy." Berk, p. 163. and "the usual alliance of church & state." Mercury, July 2, 1801; and June 27, 1805.

But Dwight had history on his side.  "To the orthodox mind, religion was the chief agency of social control." Berk, p. 142. In defense of Connecticut's Standing Order, Dwight wrote:

The whole history of the heathen world furnishes not a single reason to believe, that its teachings ever reformed one individual, either among the teachers, or among the disciples.

-Sermons I, On Revelation, p. 103.

Because God demands obedience to governmental authorities, this obedience is the basis for social virtue. To the Federalists, democracy served to destroy social harmony and a disrespect for authority.

At the end of the day, Harvard did not officially became Unitarian until Henry Ware was appointed Hollis Professor of Divinity in 1803, by succeeding David Tappan, who defended historical Puritanism. Unitarianism never even gained ground in outer Massachusetts. Many Politicians, such as, Josiah Bartlett, Benjamin Rush et al., became universalists, yet, never departed from Historical Christian Orthodoxy.

Thomas Jefferson Backstabbing George Washington

Paul Leicester Ford's excellent book, The True George Washington gives a detailed look into Washington's life. Ford was a well respected author, who first edited Jefferson's writings. While Secretary of State, TJ complained, and fought Alexander Hamilton and Washington tooth and nail for attempting to violate enumerated powers in the Constitution, yet, he did the same thing with the Louisiana Purchase. Backstabbing your friends, especially the President, is downright tragic. GW had friends who knew TJ all too well. "Henry Lee warned Washington of the undercurrent of criticism, and when Jefferson heard indirectly of this he wrote his former chief that:

I learn that [Lee] has thought it worth his while to try to sow tares between you and me, by representing me as still engaged in the bustle of politics & in turbulence & intrigue against the government. I never believed for a moment that this could make any impression on you, or that your knowledge of me would not overweigh the slander of an intriguer dirtily employed in sifting the conversations of my table.

"To this Washington replied," —

As you have mentioned the subject yourself, it would not be frank, candid or friendly to conceal, that your conduct has been represented as derogating from that opinion /had conceived you entertained of me; that, to your particular friends and connexions you have described, and they have denounced me as a person under a dangerous influence ; and that, if I would listen more to some other opinions, all would be well. My answer invariably has been, that I had never discovered any thing in the conduct of Mr. Jefferson to raise suspicions in my mind of his insincerity; that, if he would retrace my public conduct while he was in the administration, abundant proofs would occur to him, that truth and right decisions were the sole objects of my pursuit; that there was as many instances within his own knowledge of my having decided against as in favor of the opinions of the person evidently alluded to ; and, I was no believer in the infallibility of the politics or measures of any man living. In short that I was no party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them.

"As proof upon proof of Jefferson's secret enmity accumulated, Washington ceased to trust his disclaimers, and finally wrote to one of his informants, " Nothing short of the evidence you have adduced, corroborative of intimations which I had received long before through another channel, could have shaken my belief in the sincerity of a friendship, which I had conceived as possessed for me by the person to whom you allude. But attempts to injure those, who are supposed to stand well in the estimation of the people, and are stumbling blocks in the way, by misrepresenting their political tenets, thereby to destroy all confidence in them, are among the means by which the government is to be assailed, and the constitution destroyed."

Nancy Pelosi Claims Jesus Christ Directs Her Lawmaking?

It appears Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to copy President Barack Obama. Although I don't agree completely with his politics, the author of this article, Ken Blackwell, gives us a glimpse of the hypocrisy on both sides of the political spectrum:

Last week, Pelosi made a rambling, redundant, somewhat incoherent monologue in which she claimed that “The Word” directed her. She clarified that meant “The Word Made Flesh”—the incarnate Deity—Jesus Christ. She doesn’t leave us to surmise, elaborating that she makes policy decisions, “in keeping with the values of Jesus.”

Our Founding Fathers never claimed the Declaration or Constitution was the product of Divine Inspiration.

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Is Silent As Her University Accepts Money From Saudi Arabia; A Country That Executes Gays

Elena Kagan is close to confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. Prayer and Action, has high-lighted her hypocrisy on homosexuality, and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is bringing those contradictions to the Senate floor. Kagan accomplished her goal of kicking U.S. recruiters out of Harvard, but like other hard-core liberals, she supports Saudi Arabia, a nation that sponsors Islamic terrorism.

Her confirmation hearings will be interesting, once her pro-islamic views are made public. Liberals that vote for her, should think twice, or they may get booted out by independents in the next election.  

Great Britain Beware!

Oklahoma is taking matters into their own hands. The legislature is beginning to prohibit Sharia and International Law from their state. Started by State Rep. Rex Duncan, who "served 16 months as a Special Forces officer on duty assignments in the Middle East and Africa." As WND reports, "not a single county [in Oklahoma] voted for Barack Obama." No doubt, this move has Obama in mind, with the Federal Government's apparent intrusion into state's rights, etc.

What caught my eye in this article referred to, "Reports say nearly half a dozen Shariah courts already have been set up in the U.K." The only way Sharia Law can be set up is if a majority in a particular county in Britain is Muslim. The Brits, especially the Monarchy, better wake up quick, and understand what they are dealing with.

Even more egregious is the United States Government supports Sharia Law; the law that tells muslims to destroy us! Unbelievable! But it's true. No wonder Rep. Duncan and Oklahoma are outlawing Islamic Law. Here is a taste of what Mohammed and his henchmen spread upon the earth. Important to note is the Hadith must be inspired, as the koran does not contain the essential five pillars of the faith:

FIGHTING

Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

Ishaq:324[Hadith] "He said, 'Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'"

Ishaq:300 "I am fighting in Allah's service. This is piety and a good deed. In Allah's war I do not fear as others should. For this fighting is righteous, true, and good."

Ishaq:587 "Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."

TERRORISM
Bukhari:V4B52N220[Hadith] "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror.'"

Qur'an:8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."

Qur'an:8:57 "If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned."

Ishaq:326 "If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah's enemies."

Qur'an:8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."

Ishaq:588 "When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves."

WAR

Ishaq:208 "When Allah gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of submission. Now we bound themselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle. He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service. We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammad no matter how evil the circumstances."

Ishaq:472 "Muhammad's Companions are the best in war."

Qur'an:8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: 'Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"

Qur'an:8:12 "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.'"

Qur'an:8:15 "Believers, when you meet unbelieving infidels in battle while you are marching for war, never turn your backs to them. If any turns his back on such a day, unless it be in a stratagem of war, a maneuver to rally his side, he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell, an evil refuge!"

Qur'an:8:39 "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam."

JIHAD

Qur'an:2:216 "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not." [Another translation reads:] "Warfare is ordained for you."

Qur'an:4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard, fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting Jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward."

Bukhari:V4B52N44 "A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, 'Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.' He replied, 'I do not find such a deed.'"

Bukhari:V1B2N25 "Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next best in goodness?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.'"

MURDER

Tabari IX:69[Hadith] "Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us."

Tabari VIII:141 "The battle cry of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah that night was: 'Kill! Kill! Kill!'"

Bukhari:V5B59N512 "The Prophet had their men killed, their woman and children taken captive."

Ishaq:489 "Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing."

TORTURE

Qur'an 5:33 "The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly."

Tabari VIII:122

Ishaq:515 "The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, 'Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah's chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him."

Bukhari:V4B54N487 "The Prophet said, 'The Hell Fire is 69 times hotter than ordinary worldly fires.' So someone said, 'Allah's Apostle, wouldn't this ordinary fire have been sufficient to torture the unbelievers?'"

Bukhari:V4B52N260 "Ali burnt some [former Muslims alive] and this news reached Ibn Abbas, who said, 'Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, "Don't punish with Allah's Punishment." No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, "If a Muslim discards his Islamic religion, kill him."'"

ISLAMIC SCIENCE

Bukhari:V4B55N546 "Allah's Apostle said, 'Gabriel has just now told me of the answer. If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble him, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her.'"

Qur'an 15:26 "Allah created Adam from sticky clay, meaning viscous and sweet smelling slime, being stinking. It became stinking slime after having been compact soil."

Qur'an 80:17 "Be cursed man! He has self-destructed. From what stuff did He create him? From nutfa (male and female semen drops) He created him and set him in due proportion."

Tabari I:258 "Allah sent Gabriel to the earth to bring Him some clay. The earth said, 'I take refuge in Allah against you mutilating me. Then He sent the angel of death. He took some soil from the earth and made a mixture. He did not take it from a single place but took red, white, and black soil. Therefore, the children of Adam came out different."

WOMEN

Tabari IX:113 "Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an."

Tabari I:280 "Allah said, 'It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.' Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid."

Qur'an 4:3 "If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with orphans, marry women of your choice who seem good to you, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to do justice (to so many), then only one, or (a slave) that you possess, that will be more suitable. And give the women their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, eat it with enjoyment, take it with right good cheer and absorb it (in your wealth)."

Qur'an 4:11 "Allah directs you in regard of your Children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females.... These are settled portions ordained by Allah."

Bukhari:V1B22N28 "The Prophet said: 'I was shown the Hell Fire and the majority of its dwellers were women who are disbelievers or ungrateful.' When asked what they were ungrateful for, the Prophet answered, 'All the favors done for them by their husbands.'"

Such is only part of the religion of Islam.

Refuting Samuel Barrett's (1825) 100 Scriptural Arguments For the Unitarian Faith

Although, Barrett's list was made in 1825, the same would apply to the unitarians of the 18th century. It would be simple enough to refute all one-hundred points by listing the clear scriptural references declaring Jesus as God, co-equal, and co-eternal, with Father God. However, both sides cannot be correct. One side must be wrong, or there is a contradiction:

Philippians 2:5,8, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." [italics mine]

Unitarian Founding Father John Adams et al., would mis-translate these scriptures by siteing what is italicized, ignoring what Paul is saying about Jesus. Yes, Jesus was made a man.

Barrett's number 1. Because Jesus Christ is represented by the sacred writers to be as distinct a being from God the Father as one man is distinct from another. “It is written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one who bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me” (John 8:17 and 18).

Barrett and the unitarians, get confused that words proclaiming a difference in persons, refers to multiple Gods, ignoring Philippians 2. The Father is a distinct person, Jesus is a distinct person, and the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, but one God. I know, don't try and figure it out, it's beyond our comprehension. Here, is the Apostle John saying the Jews understood Jesus was declaring himself to be God:

John 5:18, "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

Therefore, the Jews understood Jesus claimed equality with the Father.

2. Because he not only never said that himself was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). This language our Saviour used in solemn prayer to “his Father and our Father.”

Jesus never claimed to be God? How could he and the unitarians miss these?

John 8:58,59, "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. [italics mine]

Jesus took the very name God told Moses at the burning bush, and they tried to stone Him for it. It was Jesus at the burning bush! All revelation of God to man, apart from God declaring, "This is my beloved Son", is from Jesus. Thus, Jesus is the Creator of the universe; the Father, the architect. Jesus claims the same essence as the Father. "I am", is the self-existent one, omni-potent, omni-present, omni-science, etc.

3. Because he is declared, in unnumbered instances, to be the Son of God. “And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). Can a son be coeval (the same age) and the same with his father? [italics mine]

How else could Barrett say this in light of John 5, and Philippians 2?

4. Because he is styled the Christ, or the anointed of God. “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power” (Acts 10:38). Is he who anoints the same with him who is anointed?

Yes, Jesus is a man. Jesus is only different as Philippians says, "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Jesus surrendered some of His attributes as God, by becoming a man. He couldn't fly, move in and out of dimensions, that He could do after His resurrection.

6. Because Christ is Mediator between the “One God,” and “men.” “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

By this very statement, Jesus must be God, as only God can access God. A man has no access to God. God would only reveal His back(glory) unto Moses:

Exodus 33:18,23, "And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

12. Because Christ says, “My father is greater than all” (John 10:29). Is not the father, then greater than the son?

Greater than Jesus's human position, not in essence.

14. Because he virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God” (Matt. 19:17).

Jesus is claiming the opposite. Jesus is either God or He isn't good.

17. Because an Apostle says of God, in distinction from the “Lord Jesus Christ,” that He is the “only Potentate,” and that He “only hath immortality” (1 Tim. 6:15 and 16).

Jesus died. The man died, yet, Barrett divorces the context from what he writes. Paul says Jesus, "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen." Paul tells us the context, that Jesus has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light. The immortality is connected to where He is.

The rest of Barrett's objections is a matter of semantics taken out of context. Jesus has all the attributes of God, besides those limited by putting on flesh. God is the judge, Jesus claimed to be the judge. God is the creator, Jesus claimed to be the creator, etc. God demands worship, Jesus said to worship me.

Revolutionary Founding Father James Wilson

A well written book concerning James Wilson was written in 1956, by Charles Page Smith. He takes a considerable amount of time presenting Wilson's upbringing, and college life in Scotland, that included attendance at several universities.

Wilson was raised arguably in the most die-hard Calvinist area on the planet; Fife, in the Lowlands of Scotland. His Father was an elder in the Reformed Church, where, it is more than likely, as a boy, Wilson actually watched George Whitefield preach. In all of Scotland, Fife was the heart of Calvinism, the home of St. Andrews University.

There is no record, that I know of, that he affirmed Calvinism, or unitarianism, but, he did believe the scriptures, the least common denominator.

Growing up in the middle 18th century, it doesn't appear the Scottish Enlightenment had a big impact on Wilson, considering he attended Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities a fraction of the time he spent at Calvinist St. Andrews. Wilson was not over-joyed by philosophy:

I prefer the conversation of a fine woman to that of a philosopher.

The Visitant, Pennsylvania Chronicle, Feb. 1768. Charles Page Smith, "James Wilson" (Univ. of N.C. Press, Chapel Hill, 1956)

In the Chronicle, Wilson gives his insight as to his opinion on man's reason:

Mathematical knowledge is not received by the senses but rather proved by them. In moral subjects the mind has not such a certain standard; there are numberless passions and prejudices to warp the judgment. It is thus "absolutely impossible," because of the weakness of our minds to have a clear perception of moral truths. "The most important moral truths are discovered not by reasoning, but by that act of the mind which I have called perception...reasoning is very fallacious, for every step leads us into danger, and by one false step we are irrecoverably lost."

The Visitant, Pennsylvania Chronicle, Apr. 25, 1768. Charles Page Smith, "James Wilson" (Univ. of N.C. Press, Chapel Hill)

Hence, Wilson is an important Founding Father, not to be forgotten, or labeled by a tier, whose influences included the "sagacious" "judicious" and "most excellent" Calvinist (sola scriptura, total depravity, salvation by faith alone), Richard Hooker:

Hooker's account of natural law appeals to Luther's [and Calvin's] distinction of the twofold use of the law, although his formulation of doctrine is potentially misleading on a terminological level:

The lawe of reason doth somewhat direct men how to honour God as their Creator, but how to glorifie God in such sort as is required, to the end he may be an everlasting Saviour, this we are taught by divine law, which law both ascertayneth the truth and supplyeth unto us the want of that other law. So that in morall actions, divine lawe helpeth exceedingly the law of reason to guide mans life, but in supernaturall it alone guideth. (Lawes I.16.5; 1:139.3-10)

Thus, to Hooker, and Wilson, the scriptures guide man's reason where enumerated.

Wilson was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the 2nd most active speaker at the Constitutional Convention. Not much is known about his personal faith, or that he affirmed any creed. What we do know is Wilson believed the Scriptures.

John Adams Quoting Total Depravity

I found this quote in a letter to Mercy Warren. In this letter without any doubt, Adam's adhered to John Calvin's Total Depravity of Human Nature:

The Form of Government, which you admire, when its Principals are pure is admirable indeed. It is productive of every Thing, which is great and excellent among Men. But its Principles are as easily destroyed, as human Nature is corrupted. Such a Government is only to be supported by pure Religion, or Austere Morals. Public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. There must be a possitive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. [bold face mine]

John Adams to Mercy Warren April 16, 1776.

Adam's links Christianity with the fall; as did James Madison, understanding our corrupt nature is imputed to us by Adam's sin. Thus, it isn't a stretch, at this time in his life, to conclude Adams believed in imago dei (unalienable rights imputed by Adam), and pre-destination.

The imputation of sin, unalienable rights, and pre-destination, is accomplished by the same process.

The Faith of Our Founding Fathers

Author Rod Gragg, has a new book out called, Forged in Faith. Here, is his video interview on Fox.

The reason I believe our rights are found not just from Natural Law, but in the Scriptures themselves, is precisely what his book is about. The Purtians helped form our nation, and were most responsible for promoting education. Thus, the "Puritan work ethic" that was spread by education (do everything unto the Glory of God) through the scriptures. England started this education of the citizenry by translating the Bible into English in order for citizens to read the Bible and understand the Gospel themselves, to learn about God's creation, and as Founding Father John Jay wrote:

By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.

Acton Lecture Series: Virtue and Liberty in the American Founding

Dr. John Pinheiro examines the American Founders’ understanding of liberty as rooted in a classical and Christian understanding of virtue. Dr. Pinheiro is associate professor of history and director of Catholic Studies at Aquinas College in Michigan. He holds a Ph.D. in history from the University of Tennessee.

He claims, "Washington was a Christian." And also remarked, "Adams believed virtue was the foundation of government in the 1770's, but by the 1790's, he thought the government could inculcate virtue in the people."

That could be a stretch, however, I agree with his summation that Adams changed his views over time.

In the question and answer forum, Dr. Pinheiro explained, "Rousseau helped bring about the French Revolution; the nobel savage belief Jefferson admired."

Rousseau is key in understanding TJ's belief in revolution, and man's place in nature.

Col. Alexander Hamilton Mirrored John Calvin

I found this quote by Hamilton that screams of his Calvinism. Off the cuff, it is the most stunningly Calvinist statement I have read by any Founding Father:

"Experience is a continual comment on the worthlessness of the human race; and the few exceptions we find have the greater right to be valued in proportion as they are rare."

-To Colonel Richard K. Meade, Albany, August 27, 1782.

Was The Bible The Founding Fathers' Source of Unalienable Rights?

The subject of where exactly did the Bill of Rights come from is a hotly contested topic, especially as the Founding Fathers did not specifically tell us in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. With that said, this author at american creation writes unalienable rights are not found in the Bible:

It is this concept of inalienable rights thats taken to its logical conclusion in the bill of rights. So, are the bill of rights found in the Bible? No. Did Christian theologians use the Bible and the wisdom of the ages to come up with a rational[sp] for inalienable rights that is unique to Judeo-Christian thought? Yes.

The rationale the author is referring to, is Natural Law; Man's right reason found in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 2:14-15, and 1 Corinthians 11:14. Nature (common sense), impresses upon us there is a difference between right and wrong, this understanding imputed into our minds by our Creator, just as God's image is imputed to mankind by Adam in James 3. Yet, our rights are enumerated in the Scriptures; supporting the fact it isn't Natural Law they are derived from. The rights are written on paper. Without serious inquiry into Aquinas, I doubt he was unfamiliar with these scriptures.

Again, the Founding Fathers understood our unalienable rights are found in the scriptures. Here is the Father of the Revolution, the mastermind of the Boston Tea Party, one of only two framers not pardoned by King George:

"II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.
These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

-Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. November 20, 1772.

Furthermore, another important Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, believed our rights are found in the Bible by endorsing Adams' report:

The person alluded to by Governor Hutchinson, as "the great director in England," was Dr. Franklin, and it is insinuated that he was in effect the author of the report, but this is in no sense true..To the sentiments expressed in the report of the committee, and adopted by the inhabitants of the town, he fully assented. This is proved by his sending a copy of the proceedings to the press, as soon as he received it in London, with a prefatory notice written by himself. The pamphlet was entitled "The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, in Town Meeting assembled, according to Law. Published by Order of the Town." -- Sparks.

Interesting, that Adams says our unalienable rights are not only expounded by Jesus and the Apostles of the New Testament, but also written by Moses in the Torah.

Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin were not the only ones that attributed the Bible as the source of our rights. The Penman of the Revolution understood our unalienable rights come from Jesus Christ:

"Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness... We claim them from a higher source -- from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth."

-John Dickinson, An Address to the Committee of Correspondence in Barbados, 1766.

Just where are the texts in the Scripture that expound unalienable rights?
Ironically, several rights are in the same chapter of Deuteronomy, listed one after the other, as the framers listed the Bill of Rights:

Property. Ninth and Tenth Amendment: Deut 19:14. "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it."

Trial by Jury. Sixth Amendment: v.15. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."

Unreasonable search and seizure. Fourth Amendment: Deut. 24:10-11. "When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge. Thou shalt stand abroad, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee."

Right to bear arms. Second Amendment: “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

Free Speech, assembly, free exercise. First Amendment:

John 4:14
"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
John 6:40,47,51,54
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:"
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 7:37
"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink."
John 8:51
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death."
John 11:26
"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

Many State legal codes, the death penalty, et al., are quoted verbatim by the framers. It isn't difficult to see why the framers considered America the "New Zion."

"So Israel under the monarchy always had an armed population (as the 2nd Amendment envisions for the United States). It also had powerful dissidents, the prophets, who were not afraid to use their freedom of speech to rebuke the government (as the 1st Amendment provides). Yet even though ancient Israel might be said to have protected both 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment rights, these were not sufficient to protect the full scope of liberty and prevent serious abuses by government. The concentration of national political power continued to have terrible consequences."

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2007_04/kopel-israel.html

Thus, the entire foundation of Law: the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights, are founded upon the Bible, and Natural Law. No doubt, pertaining to religion, the United States was founded an Orthodox Christian Nation.

Thomas Jefferson Is Voted Most Responsible For Our Constitution

Jefferson defeated James Madison 12% to 10%. I voted for Gouverneur Morris. He spoke the most at the Constitutional Convention, wrote the preamble, and was principal draughtsman, similar to Thomas Jefferson's role writing the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson was in France during the Convention, and did not sign the document.

John Calvin, Locke, Sidney, Interposition, Covenant Theology, and the Founding Fathers

My contention is the Declaration of Independence, thus the basis of this country's existence, is founded by interposition, through what Founding Father John Witherspoon called abdication. The framers contend King George forfeited his right to rule the colonies by breaking the scriptural covenant, they believed, God had made with them and the King.

Witherspoon, the pre-eminent scholar of the Founding Fathers, understood the Declaration of Independence was not a revolt:

"On the part of America, there was not the most distant thought of subverting the government or of hurting the interest of the people of Great Britain; but of defending their own privileges from unjust encroachment; there was not the least desire of withdrawing their allegiance from the common sovereign till it became absolutely necessary - and indeed, it was his [King George III] own choice."

-The Works of John Witherspoon, (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1802), Vol. III, p. 42, "The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men", May 17,1776.

The abdication was carried out by a process called: interposition; a change of government made by lesser magistrates within the government. This theory was begun by John Calvin, and promoted by his successors.

"For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings..So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians."

-Institutes of the Christian Religion

It is true, Reformed theology of the Protestant Reformation picked up where Catholic Scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas, and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) left off. Yet, if a minority of Catholics used PRIMARILY Natural Law to promote Republican government; risking their lives I might add, the reformers turned the world upside down, by directly linking Republican government to the scriptures. Yes, Aquinas' Summa may have quoted scripture, but he, and the schoolmen, had little effect; their efforts, somewhat exaggerated, emphasized Aristotle's Greek Philosophy, instead of "right reason" from the scriptures, ultimately, their church doctrine contradicted their nobel efforts.

Some of the leading tracts by Protestants from the Reformation period that had wide and enduring political impact in support of liberty: The Right of Magistrates (1574) by Theodore Beza, The Rights of the Crown of Scotland (1579) by George Buchanan, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (1579) by Phillipe du Plessis Mornay, Politica (1603) by Johannes Althusius, and Lex Rex (1644) by Samuel Rutherford.

The Reformers believed in "Covenant Theology," that God made with Israel in I Samuel 12:17,25, applied to them, giving protection and blessing for obedience:

Is it not wheat harvest to day? I will call unto the LORD, and he shall send thunder and rain; that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking you a king..But if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and your king.

Important to note, this doctrine may not be enumerated in the New Testament, and should not be confused that the framers adhered to this doctrine for salvation. However, the Founding Fathers believed it.

It isn't a stretch to claim all the signers of the Declaration of Independence adhered to this covenant theology. John Adams quoted Vindiciae contra tyrannos, and noted that Calvin's successor, "[Theodore] Beza explained his doctrines with great pomp of eloquence." Even Thomas Jefferson may have believed it. A monarch's violation of unalienable rights is grounds for separation from the covenant; hence, the monarch is a representative of the people, bringing judgment to the people. The below quote may be out of the particular context, however, the principle applies; that God will judge nations for breaking the covenant [wickedness]:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

- Notes on the State of Virginia.

TJ also believed our unalienable rights come from the Bible:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ."[bold face mine]

-A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, Section I.

This holy author had zero to do with other religions, or Roman, or Greek philosophy. The Father of our country, George Washington wrote Jesus Christ is the holy author of our religion [Christianity]:

"I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation." [italics mine]

-Washington's Farewell to the Army, June 8th, 1783.

With this in mind, TJ wrote the DOI was founded on:

"..the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c..."

-to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825.

No doubt the "&c" includes the Bible, and Reformation Literature. Covenant theology in the Declaration, is specifically enumerated in the Scriptures, only inferred from Natural Law. Yet, Algernon Sidney is only one out of those names who advanced biblical covenant theology. Furthermore, Sidney said, "he preferred to be classified as a Calvinist or a Puritan rather than be associated with the ideas of Archbishop Laud." Locke secularized his social contract and based the contract on reason.

Is there a doubt the Revolution was based on scripture? Our first Professor of the Law of Nature, (James Wilson), understood Natural Law cannot contradict Divine Law. Thus, the "Atlas of Independence":

"The gallant Struggle in America, is founded in Principles so indisputable, in the moral Law, in the revealed Law of God, in the true Constitution of great Britain, and in the most apparent Welfare of the Nation as well as the People in America, that I must confess it rejoices my very Soul."

-John Adams second "Clarendon" letter as printed in the Boston Gazette, 20, Jan. 1766.

In 1776, the two most respected and famous founding fathers were, John Dickinson, and Samuel Adams, who declared our rights are from the Scriptures:

"Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness... We claim them from a higher source -- from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth."

-John Dickinson, An Address to the Committee of Correspondence in Barbados, 1766.

Important to note, Benjamin Franklin agreed with Adams, and supported The Rights of the Colonists:

"II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.
These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament." [italics mine]

-Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting.
November 20, 1772.

The sum of my argument declares the evidence supports: the Revolution, and Declaration of Independence, thus, the formation of the United States, is based on Covenant theology, found in the pages of scripture, brought to light by the Protestant Reformers.