Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
William

The Declaration of Independence

Recommended Posts

Staff

 

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

 

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

 

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

 

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

 

Column 1

Georgia:

Button Gwinnett

Lyman Hall

George Walton

 

Column 2

North Carolina:

William Hooper

Joseph Hewes

John Penn

South Carolina:

Edward Rutledge

Thomas Heyward, Jr.

Thomas Lynch, Jr.

Arthur Middleton

 

Column 3

Massachusetts:

John Hancock

Maryland:

Samuel Chase

William Paca

Thomas Stone

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:

George Wythe

Richard Henry Lee

Thomas Jefferson

Benjamin Harrison

Thomas Nelson, Jr.

Francis Lightfoot Lee

Carter Braxton

 

Column 4

Pennsylvania:

Robert Morris

Benjamin Rush

Benjamin Franklin

John Morton

George Clymer

James Smith

George Taylor

James Wilson

George Ross

Delaware:

Caesar Rodney

George Read

Thomas McKean

 

Column 5

New York:

William Floyd

Philip Livingston

Francis Lewis

Lewis Morris

New Jersey:

Richard Stockton

John Witherspoon

Francis Hopkinson

John Hart

Abraham ClarkColumn 6

New Hampshire:

Josiah Bartlett

William Whipple

Massachusetts:

Samuel Adams

John Adams

Robert Treat Paine

Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:

Stephen Hopkins

William Ellery

Connecticut:

Roger Sherman

Samuel Huntington

William Williams

Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire:

Matthew Thornton

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/5/2015 at 2:07 PM, William said:

1. Nature's God

2. Creator 

3. appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions

4. a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence

 I numbered the above in William's citation of the Declaration of Independence.

 

 It's obvious that belief and reliance on God was paramount in the formation of this country.

 

Something else, for those who want to get rid of prayer in all public places #3 is an "appeal" to God - this means it is a prayer.

Imagine today that whatever laws that are proposed and/or voted on that each person proclaims they did so with an "appeal to God for the rectitude of their intentions"?

  • Best Answer 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Faber said:

 I numbered the above in William's citation of the Declaration of Independence.

 

 It's obvious that belief and reliance on God was paramount in the formation of this country.

 

Something else, for those who want to get rid of prayer in all public places #3 is an "appeal" to God - this means it is a prayer.

Imagine today that whatever laws that are proposed and/or voted on that each person proclaims they did so with an "appeal to God for the rectitude of their intentions"?

Yeah, great job pointing out the appeal to God cited in the Declaration of Independence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, CDF47 said:

Yeah, great job pointing out the appeal to God cited in the Declaration of Independence.

This fact was never pointed out to me in the public school system. Then again, I suppose if any history teacher of mine did he/she would be probably reprimanded for "interjecting religion into the classroom."

 

 This leads to another point. I think it is very important to see that the founding document by which America became a nation contains within it a prayer to God. This totally debunks many myths (lies) that are repeated such as "Don't bring God into politics" "Let's not mention God in public places because it isn't proper - some people might be offended."

 

 And this too leads to another point. Prayer to God is given when the Supreme Court is in session:

When the Court is in session, the 10 a.m. entrance of the Justices into the Courtroom is announced by the Marshal. Those present, at the sound of the gavel, arise and remain standing until the robed Justices are seated following the traditional chant: "The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United Sates and this Hoorable Court!" (see the 5th paragraph, the underlined is mine)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx

 --> And yet the Court declared that prayer initiated by the public school can not be given to God in the public school system! (Engel v. Vitale, 1962)

 

 Need to stop here because the insanity and inconsistency just really irk me.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Considering that 2/3rds of the soldiers that died on the battle field of the revolutionary war were Calvinist I would think that what "the people" believed should be used in historical context when examining the representatives appointed by the people. Rejecting the moral or moral basis for laws or the country's climate at that time falls into the Liberal/Dem trap where founding documents becoming living breathing documents which can be interpreted depending on the times or culture. This is opposed to taking the founding documents in historical context and attempting to draw on the principals and/or convey what the authors had in mind.

 

There is no doubt that God was invoked in early founding documents. And I think only by rejecting the historical religion of the people could one even insinuate that "religion" covered other systems of beliefs such as Islam or Satanic worship. This is my personal opinion, but I think the founding Constitution which uses religion in the 1st amendment was closer to "denominations". Again, only by rejecting the historical context of the 1st amendment could anyone inject other false religions in its stead outside of Christianity. I support my line of reasoning by other historical writings of early forefathers that wrote Islam is incompatible with the "west". Would our forefathers encourage or protect an ideology that is destructive to our way of life?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2018 at 6:17 PM, Faber said:

This fact was never pointed out to me in the public school system. Then again, I suppose if any history teacher of mine did he/she would be probably reprimanded for "interjecting religion into the classroom."

 

 This leads to another point. I think it is very important to see that the founding document by which America became a nation contains within it a prayer to God. This totally debunks many myths (lies) that are repeated such as "Don't bring God into politics" "Let's not mention God in public places because it isn't proper - some people might be offended."

 

 And this too leads to another point. Prayer to God is given when the Supreme Court is in session:

When the Court is in session, the 10 a.m. entrance of the Justices into the Courtroom is announced by the Marshal. Those present, at the sound of the gavel, arise and remain standing until the robed Justices are seated following the traditional chant: "The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United Sates and this Hoorable Court!" (see the 5th paragraph, the underlined is mine)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx

 --> And yet the Court declared that prayer initiated by the public school can not be given to God in the public school system! (Engel v. Vitale, 1962)

 

 Need to stop here because the insanity and inconsistency just really irk me.

 

Yeah, that is ridiculous.  I went to Catholic high school and took Government class.  It was mandatory and God was pointed out as He should be.  I had to memorize the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.  I can still remember some of it by heart.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2018 at 6:30 PM, William said:

Considering that 2/3rds of the soldiers that died on the battle field of the revolutionary war were Calvinist I would think that what "the people" believed should be used in historical context when examining the representatives appointed by the people. Rejecting the moral or moral basis for laws or the country's climate at that time falls into the Liberal/Dem trap where founding documents becoming living breathing documents which can be interpreted depending on the times or culture. This is opposed to taking the founding documents in historical context and attempting to draw on the principals and/or convey what the authors had in mind.

 

There is no doubt that God was invoked in early founding documents. And I think only by rejecting the historical religion of the people could one even insinuate that "religion" covered other systems of beliefs such as Islam or Satanic worship. This is my personal opinion, but I think the founding Constitution which uses religion in the 1st amendment was closer to "denominations". Again, only by rejecting the historical context of the 1st amendment could anyone inject other false religions in its stead outside of Christianity. I support my line of reasoning by other historical writings of early forefathers that wrote Islam is incompatible with the "west". Would our forefathers encourage or protect an ideology that is destructive to our way of life?

No, they definitely wouldn't support that destructive ideology.

Edited by CDF47

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2018 at 5:30 PM, William said:

Considering that 2/3rds of the soldiers that died on the battle field of the revolutionary war were Calvinist I would think that what "the people" believed should be used in historical context when examining the representatives appointed by the people. Rejecting the moral or moral basis for laws or the country's climate at that time falls into the Liberal/Dem trap where founding documents becoming living breathing documents which can be interpreted depending on the times or culture. This is opposed to taking the founding documents in historical context and attempting to draw on the principals and/or convey what the authors had in mind.

 

There is no doubt that God was invoked in early founding documents. And I think only by rejecting the historical religion of the people could one even insinuate that "religion" covered other systems of beliefs such as Islam or Satanic worship. This is my personal opinion, but I think the founding Constitution which uses religion in the 1st amendment was closer to "denominations". Again, only by rejecting the historical context of the 1st amendment could anyone inject other false religions in its stead outside of Christianity. I support my line of reasoning by other historical writings of early forefathers that wrote Islam is incompatible with the "west". Would our forefathers encourage or protect an ideology that is destructive to our way of life?

Whether separation of church and state is the best approach to governing ourselves remains to be seen in the long run. We know why it was so ordered because of the tendency of European states to name a type of Christianity for all the people to follow. It may have looked good on paper but was impossible to fully implement. Just look at the death toll Christianity has invoked down through the ages trying to win souls for Christ. The crusades, the inquisitions and the destruction of Indigenous people of Central and South America. This country was founded by people that wanted to worship as they wished. Maybe we have come up against our limits in the secular state implementation. With other religions that include state government moving in, just how are we to defend against that. There seems no perfect solution to move forward. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

 

d0512e83a957312083016d35085eca85.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...