if “there are “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” that bind all human beings, that they are compelled to follow even if all parties consent otherwise”, how do you propose to do the binding and compelling if i do not voluntarily choose to follow gods laws, whatever they may be?

your beliefs may be “rationally acceptable to hold in the absence of any proof”, but surely they should not also be allowed to influence my life in the absence of proof given that i don’t share them?

there is much discussion about which side has the burden of proof. however if i am to be ‘compelled to follow (laws) even if (I) consent otherwise’ due to it being a ‘Law… of Nature’s God’, or if my government is to consider your theological claims when deciding on public policy which will affect my life, surely i have the right to first be shown proof of the existence of god, and then that you have actually interpreted his laws correctly?

I don’t deny that I agree with you on YHWH exclusivity, but Ancient Israel at some time, did tolerate some alliances and intrusion of pagan embassies. David’s alliance with Hiram King of Tyre; the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon. Even the master builder of solomon’s temple was a foreigner himself ironically

Now contrast that with castro’s cuba and the USSR, where they don’t even receive american ambassadors let alone an embassy.
because of secular commitments to marxism

A country’s holiday’s are simply a country’s holiday’s. And studying holidays does not provide prove the truth of a religion. If you lived in India or Arabia or even New Zealand you’d be celebrating different holidays, and different historical documents. Neither must any nation today, except perhaps Iran, affirm its holidays and founding documents in some inerrant religious sense. Sheesh Matt.

And note that the author of the above piece that Matt approvingly quotes, wrote the following:

“So if by ‘deism’ is meant the doctrine that God is a mere metaphysical cause of the universe’s beginning to exist who is thereafter uninvolved in its continuing to exist, then the God of the Declaration is non-deistic.”

Deism held a range of meanings. And Jefferson who drafted the Declaration was a deist. Franklin, another deist, suggested edits. And concerning the writing of the Constitution, the whole Continental Congress voted against starting their deliberations with prayer even when Franklin suggested they might. They even decided to leave out mention of God in the whole Constitution that they took far more care to write than the Declaration. Not that they were atheists. They were not. But they believed a government was not equal to religion, i.e., that forming a government was more like an engineering concept. They also drank up a storm during the Convention.

ALSO, The British, from whom the colonies were declaring their Independence, were not atheists. They were a Christian nation. So we have one nation declaring its independence from another nation, with Deists and Christians on one side of the Atlantic versus a Christian-inspired British kingdom on the other. A shared belief in “God” doesn’t seem to have ironed out their differences.

As for the pursuit of happiness, what kind of a guarantee is that? Sure, go ahead, pursue it.

But in the end ya gotta hand it to the guys who wrote the CONSTITUTION. I agree with those founder in chooding the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution over the first commandment of Moses. “Freedom of religion and speech and the press,” over, “I am the Lord your God, ye shall have no other gods before me..”

Tim’s comments were about the separation of Church and state. I think the separation of Church and state ( which i agree with) is not the same as separation of theological considerations from public life which is what I am referring to in the post.

to clarify, which of these is relevant to the inclusion of god in the declaration or to tims post?

This year the atheists used the 4th for evangelism throughout the U.S. For instance, they paid $23,000 to fly an airplane with a sign over a baseball stadium with 37,000 fans that said, “God-less America!” Strangely, they didn’t even pick one of the stadiums were “God Bless America” is sung each game. It’s strange how active they are in their evangelism of something they claim doesn’t actually exist. After all, atheism is nothing more than a “lack of belief,” right?

Take for instance the Declaration’s conviction that God has made “all men created equal.” If only the Constitution had made this belief the law of the land, there might not have been the 3/5th compromise where some individuals were seen as only the equivalent of 60% of others.

How could a secular state ground such a belief? After all, what is a “man” or the concept of a “person” to a materialist? There are no universals…only individuals, and the group of individuals with the most power prevails. Read Nietzsche lately?

If only the Constitution and government upheld the right to life as well in the manner that the Declaration says it should. Instead, we bicker over whether or not this person deserves to live. Who has the final choice in their death? The secular state says the mother has the final choice if the person is still in the womb, but says the individual has the choice if they are out of the womb. If only we all held that God had endowed us with the inalienable right to life, and built on this belief that the state must serve to provide life for those who cannot provide it for themselves…the poor, the handicapped and of course the unborn. Instead, millions upon millions have died at the hands of others outside of their control and the government has done nothing about it.

Instead, these “self-evident” truths were repressed for the sake of social contracts. Instead, the will of the people trumps even the rights of the individuals.