The Declaration of Independence and Unalienable Rights

[JonC]

Jonc still ignores the phrase “laws of nature and natures God” it’s etymology and why the authors of the DOI put it in there.

No, I do not. We have not even discussed "laws of nature and natures of God". You are just making things up here (way to go, "Rev").

That said, YOU said that unalienable rights cannot be taken away, and that I was ignorant of the DOU and Constitution, that I did not even understand the basics, because I said that the Constitution prohibits men being deprived the right to life and liberty without the due process of the law.

Yet the 5th Ammndment does prohibit depriving men of life and liberty without due process AND the 14th Ammendment speaks the same to the States.

You need to continue reading on the topic (and when you discover something you want to mention, please stop falsely saying I ignored it).

 

[JonC]

@RighteousnessTemperance& ,

The difference I am pointing to between the two threads (one in context of Scripture and the other the DOI & Constitution) is the DOI & Constitution speaks of these unalienable rights as absolute human rights. These are civil rights inherent to every person, but as such they are also subject to the law. The laws are to protect these rights, but at the same time there are circumstances where the law can take them away.

 

[Revmitchell]

No, I do not. We have not even discussed "laws of nature and natures of God". You are just making things up here (way to go, "Rev").

That said, YOU said that unalienable rights cannot be taken away, and that I was ignorant of the DOU and Constitution, that I did not even understand the basics, because I said that the Constitution prohibits men being deprived the right to life and liberty without the due process of the law.

Yet the 5th Ammndment does prohibit depriving men of life and liberty without due process AND the 14th Ammendment speaks the same to the States.

You need to continue reading on the topic (and when you discover something you want to mention, please stop falsely saying I ignored it).

you ignored it because I have brought it to your attention over and over again as it is important to understanding inaliable rights. Without it your lost and cannot understand the DOI and therefore the constitution. The DOI is key to understanding the constitution and the phrase “laws of nature and natures God” is key to understanding the DOI, the etymology the authors and John Locks use of that phrase are paramount to understanding all of it. So yea you have ignored it each time I brought it up and did not address it by communicating how you fully understand those things.

 

[JonC]

you ignored it because I have brought it to your attention over and over again as it is important to understanding inaliable rights. Without it your lost and cannot understand the DOI and therefore the constitution. The DOI is key to understanding the constitution and the phrase “laws of nature and natures God” is key to understanding the DOI, the etymology the authors and John Locks use of that phrase are paramount to understanding all of it. So yea you have ignored it each time I brought it up and did not address it by communicating how you fully understand those things.

I did not ignore those principles. I understand that. I ignored your mention of them because I see it as a smoke screen to divert attention to the fact of your inconsistencies.

You challenged my understanding when I said that the Constitution prohibited depriving men of life and liberty without due process. You said that life and liberty, being inalienable, can never be taken away. But the 5th and 14th Ammendments state that life and liberty cannot be deprived except under the due process of law.

I understand if you recognized your lack of understanding, but am not sure you have

Do you still refuse to see the 5th and 14th Ammendments as ammendments to the U.S Constitution?

 

[Revmitchell]

I did not ignore those principles. I understand that. I ignored your mention of them because I see it as a smoke screen to divert attention to the fact of your inconsistencies.

You challenged my understanding when I said that the Constitution prohibited depriving men of life and liberty without due process. You said that life and liberty, being inalienable, can never be taken away. But the 5th and 14th Ammendments state that life and liberty cannot be deprived except under the due process of law.

I understand if you recognized your lack of understanding, but am not sure you have

Do you still refuse to see the 5th and 14th Ammendments as ammendments to the U.S Constitution?

actually I addressed that second I brought up that phrase long before you ever brought up your little irrelevant thing. Now if you were really being intellectually honest you would have dealt with that way back at the beginning when I first brought it up. But you run from it. You don’t know anything about the phrase it’s epytimology the authors or John Lock.

 

[JonC]

actually I addressed that second I brought up that phrase long before you ever brought up your little irrelevant thing. Now if you were really being intellectually honest you would have dealt with that way back at the beginning when I first brought it up. But you run from it. You don’t know anything about the phrase it’s epytimology the authors or John Lock.

Do you even know who John Lock is?

To be honest, no, I do not know anything about John Lock.

I do know about John Locke, who was an English philosopher....and doctor, if I remember correctly. The "Father of Liberalism" (not "liberalism" like you probably think of). I studied Treatises on Civil Government....a bunch of essays, and still have Of the Conduct of the Understanding somewhere (had to read that in college).

Locke is precisely the reason I say that you do not understand the DOI (on the previous thread when I was discussing theological implications of "unalienable rights" in the popular understanding of the DOI in America). The discussion proved that I was correct with the discussion of "the pursuit of happiness", which does not mean men have the right to seek happiness but rather the actual practice of their own happiness within the context of a civil society.

Who is John Lock?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

@RighteousnessTemperance& ,

The difference I am pointing to between the two threads (one in context of Scripture and the other the DOI & Constitution) is the DOI & Constitution speaks of these unalienable rights as absolute human rights. These are civil rights inherent to every person, but as such they are also subject to the law. The laws are to protect these rights, but at the same time there are circumstances where the law can take them away.

There is no disagreement with that, except that “unalienable rights” are not described as absolute or inviolable. The DOI decries the tyrannical violation of such rights by the British crown, when instead, government is responsible to secure such rights so that they will not be violated.

The DOI does not imply that someone violating “unalienable rights” of others is immune from prosecution. The DOI does not imply that someone cannot be judged to have forfeited free exercise of those rights within society. In the DOI, “unalienable rights” are not absolute, they just don’t stem from government but rather “[all men] are endowed by their Creator with [them].”

 

[JonC]

There is no disagreement with that, except that “unalienable rights” are not described as absolute or inviolable. The DOI decries the tyrannical violation of such rights by the British crown, when instead, government is responsible to secure such rights so that they will not be violated.

The DOI does not imply that someone violating “unalienable rights” of others is immune from prosecution. The DOI does not imply that someone cannot be judged to have forfeited free exercise of those rights within society. In the DOI, “unalienable rights” are not absolute, they just don’t stem from government but rather “[all men] are endowed by their Creator with [them].”

I agree. My point with the other thread was to discuss those rights as God given unalienable rights in the context of theology. But the context of the DOI is different. These are absolute rights (per definition under the law) but they can also be lost (with due process).

What the DOI is declaring is not the government giving rights but the government protecting the rights all people should have in a society by virtue of being human. I would say by virtue of being made in the image of God. The appeal is not to God, or really to human rights, but to the nature and worth of men and that in civil society.

John Locke is often (and wrongly) considered a destination or agnostic. But the point is that human beings have value and rights in a society by virtue being human.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I agree. My point with the other thread was to discuss those rights as God given unalienable rights in the context of theology. But the context of the DOI is different. These are absolute rights (per definition under the law) but they can also be lost (with due process).

What the DOI is declaring is not the government giving rights but the government protecting the rights all people should have in a society by virtue of being human. I would say by virtue of being made in the image of God. The appeal is not to God, or really to human rights, but to the nature and worth of men and that in civil society.

John Locke is often (and wrongly) considered a destination or agnostic. But the point is that human beings have value and rights in a society by virtue being human.

We seem to be in agreement on much of this, but for some unstated reason there seems a determined effort in your reply to distance the DOI’s expressly stated source of “unalienable rights” from man’s Creator.

You may well say “by virtue of being made in the image of God,” but the DOI does not say “by virtue of being human,” rather it expressly states by virtue of being “created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with [those rights].”

Why the attempts to eliminate the Creator from the DOI? If someone were to rephrase your own expression as “by virtue of being made in the image of other humans,” I think you would object rather strongly, even though it would closely parallel your post’s rephrasing of the DOI.

 

[JonC]

We seem to be in agreement on much of this, but for some unstated reason there seems a determined effort in your reply to distance the DOI’s expressly stated source of “unalienable rights” from man’s Creator.

You may well say “by virtue of being made in the image of God,” but the DOI does not say “by virtue of being human,” rather it expressly states by virtue of being “created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with [those rights].”

Why the attempts to eliminate the Creator from the DOI? If someone were to rephrase your own expression as “by virtue of being made in the image of other humans,” I think you would object rather strongly, even though it would closely parallel your post’s rephrasing of the DOI.

I agree with man having unalienable rights in the context of the DOI (in context of John Locke, for example). The context is civil society and is liked to man's value, worth, or being. The context is one man has no right to take another man's liberty, life, or happiness except under due process of law. I agree with the DOI.

Where we disagree is if man actually possesses these entitlements in a theological concept. Here I believe that man has no right to make any demand of God, or really of other men. That is, through, an entirely different context. Where Locke was pointing to the nature of men (men are greater than the government that is there to govern, and the role of the government is to protect the governed and preserve their rights) Scripture points to divine grace.

I am not attempting to eliminate the Creator from the DOI. The DOI is not, IMHO, a divinely inspired document. I am, however, saying that the DOI was not meant to be Scripture (just as it is not meant to be legally binding). What I am suggesting is that too many Americans do not pay attention to the context of the DOI, what it is saying about "rights", i.e. what the DOI is really taking about.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I agree with man having unalienable rights in the context of the DOI (in context of John Locke, for example). The context is civil society and is liked to man's value, worth, or being. The context is one man has no right to take another man's liberty, life, or happiness except under due process of law. I agree with the DOI.

Where we disagree is if man actually possesses these entitlements in a theological concept. Here I believe that man has no right to make any demand of God, or really of other men. That is, through, an entirely different context. Where Locke was pointing to the nature of men (men are greater than the government that is there to govern, and the role of the government is to protect the governed and preserve their rights) Scripture points to divine grace.

I am not attempting to eliminate the Creator from the DOI. The DOI is not, IMHO, a divinely inspired document. I am, however, saying that the DOI was not meant to be Scripture (just as it is not meant to be legally binding). What I am suggesting is that too many Americans do not pay attention to the context of the DOI, what it is saying about "rights", i.e. what the DOI is really taking about.

Except that wasn’t my question. There is no hint that I’m considering the DOI to be divinely inspired or should be used as Scripture, nor does the DOI represent itself as such. My question is why try to eliminate “created equal” and “their Creator” from the DOI, pretend those phrases aren’t key?

The DOI does not express the issues the way your replies to mine are attempting to represent it.

The DOI makes no demands of God, nor does it suggest men have the right to make demands of God, but rather of government instituted by men. However, it most certainly does acknowledge that “all men are created equal” by “their Creator, in fact depends on this as self-evident truth.

Perhaps my question can be asked another way. Why do you think the DOI does not mean what it says when it refers to being “created equal” and “their Creator”? Why did you completely avoid these concepts, divorce them from the DOI, and instead resort to speaking only of “being human”?

 

[JonC]

Except that wasn’t my question. There is no hint that I’m considering the DOI to be divinely inspired or should be used as Scripture, nor does the DOI represent itself as such. My question is why try to eliminate “created equal” and “their Creator” from the DOI, pretend those phrases aren’t key?

The DOI does not express the issues the way your replies to mine are attempting to represent it.

The DOI makes no demands of God, nor does it suggest men have the right to make demands of God, but rather of government instituted by men. However, it most certainly does acknowledge that “all men are created equal” by “their Creator, in fact depends on this as self-evident truth.

Perhaps my question can be asked another way. Why do you think the DOI does not mean what it says when it refers to being “created equal” and “their Creator”? Why did you completely avoid these concepts, divorce them from the DOI, and instead resort to speaking only of “being human”?

I do not understand why you think that I am trying to eliminate "created equal" and "their Creator" from the DOI. That does not make sense to me (sorry, I'm just not following your argument).

The whole point of equality in the DOI is that humanity supersedes government in a civil context. Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in the context of the DOI, to "be happy"). These are qualities natural to man in any given society. Some governments do violate these things, but that is not the role of government per our founding fathers.

I think you are mixing up arguments here. When I argued that man is not entitled to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness I was speaking in a Christian sense (in a theological context). These are not unalienable as they can be taken away by secular government (and even under the Theocracy of Israel under the Law). An man killed by a tiger does not have his rights violated. A man who falls in a well does not have his right's violated. When God requires our life God is not violating our rights. BUT the DOI is not speaking of theology but the nature of man within society. A government has no right except under the due process of law to take away man's life, liberty or happiness.

The reason I speak of "being human" (I also said "created in the image of God) is that this is the appeal of John Locke whose philosophy was instrumental in framing the DOI. It is self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by God with the right to life, liberty and happiness in relation to civil conduct and government (the purpose of the DOI). Locke appealed to what some have termed "deism" or "agnosticism" (although Locke was neither and those terms are incorrect, IMHO). His point is that it is evident in our very existence simply by being human that we have qualities that cannot be taken away or denied by civil government without due process because they are inherent qualities of the human condition.

Scripture, on the other hand, does not afford men these rights because civil governance is not the context of Scripture (although the Bible does mention secular governments). The context of Scripture is man and God, and in that context God - not man - hold's all the rights.

Does that clarify the two subjects? It is difficult because there are two different threads dealing with the same "rights" but in different contexts (which in retrospect may not have been such a good idea as bounding between the threads can be a bit difficult).

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I do not understand why you think that I am trying to eliminate "created equal" and "their Creator" from the DOI. That does not make sense to me (sorry, I'm just not following your argument).

The whole point of equality in the DOI is that humanity supersedes government in a civil context. Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in the context of the DOI, to "be happy"). These are qualities natural to man in any given society. Some governments do violate these things, but that is not the role of government per our founding fathers.

I think you are mixing up arguments here. When I argued that man is not entitled to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness I was speaking in a Christian sense (in a theological context). These are not unalienable as they can be taken away by secular government (and even under the Theocracy of Israel under the Law). An man killed by a tiger does not have his rights violated. A man who falls in a well does not have his right's violated. When God requires our life God is not violating our rights. BUT the DOI is not speaking of theology but the nature of man within society. A government has no right except under the due process of law to take away man's life, liberty or happiness.

The reason I speak of "being human" (I also said "created in the image of God) is that this is the appeal of John Locke whose philosophy was instrumental in framing the DOI. It is self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by God with the right to life, liberty and happiness in relation to civil conduct and government (the purpose of the DOI). Locke appealed to what some have termed "deism" or "agnosticism" (although Locke was neither and those terms are incorrect, IMHO). His point is that it is evident in our very existence simply by being human that we have qualities that cannot be taken away or denied by civil government without due process because they are inherent qualities of the human condition.

Scripture, on the other hand, does not afford men these rights because civil governance is not the context of Scripture (although the Bible does mention secular governments). The context of Scripture is man and God, and in that context God - not man - hold's all the rights.

Does that clarify the two subjects? It is difficult because there are two different threads dealing with the same "rights" but in different contexts (which in retrospect may not have been such a good idea as bounding between the threads can be a bit difficult).

Even before getting to the end of your post, I had already felt that you may be getting confused having to defend against several posters in two threads. I was very specific in pointing out what seemed unfair rephrasing of the DOI in your post, even citing an equally unfair rephrasing of your own view for comparison (see posts #28 & #29).

Your post had the DOI speaking of men merely “being human” rather than being “created equal” by “their Creator.” It then contrasts that with your own view of “being made in the image of God.”

The question was why try to change the way the DOI expresses such a fundamental point? Bona fide discussion depends on fair representation. Your post seriously misrepresented the DOI. I’m fairly certain you would not want your own view to be rephrased as “being made in the image of other humans.” But that would be the equivalent of what your post #28 did to the DOI view.

Even if that were rectified, it still seems that further discussion would be unfruitful, as we cannot agree on what the DOI means by “unalienable rights.” But there really is no argument about God here. God being perfect, is unable to violate whatever he endows man with.

However, the really important question, one neither the DOI nor the Constitution will answer, nor should they, is why men might be “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Scripture, on the other hand, does answer this. Clearly, while a man yet has life, he should use whatever God-given liberty he has to seek his Creator, for therein lies his happiness. In Acts 17, Paul said to some Athenians:

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.”​

 

[JonC]

Even before getting to the end of your post, I had already felt that you may be getting confused having to defend against several posters in two threads. I was very specific in pointing out what seemed unfair rephrasing of the DOI in your post, even citing an equally unfair rephrasing of your own view for comparison (see posts #28 & #29).

Your post had the DOI speaking of men merely “being human” rather than being “created equal” by “their Creator.” It then contrasts that with your own view of “being made in the image of God.”

The question was why try to change the way the DOI expresses such a fundamental point? Bona fide discussion depends on fair representation. Your post seriously misrepresented the DOI. I’m fairly certain you would not want your own view to be rephrased as “being made in the image of other humans.” But that would be the equivalent of what your post #28 did to the DOI view.

Even if that were rectified, it still seems that further discussion would be unfruitful, as we cannot agree on what the DOI means by “unalienable rights.” But there really is no argument about God here. God being perfect, is unable to violate whatever he endows man with.

However, the really important question, one neither the DOI nor the Constitution will answer, nor should they, is why men might be “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Scripture, on the other hand, does answer this. Clearly, while a man yet has life, he should use whatever God-given liberty he has to seek his Creator, for therein lies his happiness. In Acts 17, Paul said to some Athenians:

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.”​

Ok. I will try to keep it specific to the DOI.

John Locke is credited with articulating the language and philosophy used in the Declaration of Independence, so I think it fair to allow Locke to interpret the meaning of those words.

I guess we have to agree on that part first, so I will ask and then continue (under the assumption we both agree it is fair to have the founders define the document they produced).

Do you think it is fair to allow the founders of our nation to define the terms they used?

John Locke's argument was that the "law of nature" obliged all human beings not to harm "the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another".

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one aught to hard another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.....when his own preservations comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another. (Locke, Two Treatises of Government).

Also, the unalienable right to happiness does not mean (in the DOI) that men have a right to seek after their happiness but rather that the "necessity of pursuing happiness is the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more we are free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action. (Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding).

Consider that for a moment, Brother. Locke is saying that the pursuit of happiness is the foundation of liberty because it frees us from attachment to any particular desire we might have at a given moment in time. Thomas Jefferson shared this same idea. Happiness is not the pursuit of pleasure or self-interest but the freedom to be able to make decisions that result in the best life for a human being. This is the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence (not seeking one's desires or one's pleasures but the freedom to make decisions regarding one's own life).

So it is not me, but the founders who have decided that "endowed by our Creator" is also "the law of nature" which placed an obligation on all human beings.

We have to keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson who was tasked with drafting a formal statement justifying the break with Great Britain, was not a Christian. He was a deist who did not believe that Christ is God, nor that He was born of a virgin, nor that He was raised from the dead. So if your claim is that the DOI affirms the rights of man as given by God - given Locke's philosophy and language along with the fact Jefferson was not a Christian - I have to ask exactly what god?

That is why I am saying it is a mistake to treat the DOI as a religious document. It's author did not believe in God (in the God of the Bible). And the language equates "endowed by their Creator" with "the laws of nature".

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Ok. I will try to keep it specific to the DOI.

John Locke is credited with articulating the language and philosophy used in the Declaration of Independence, so I think it fair to allow Locke to interpret the meaning of those words.

I guess we have to agree on that part first, so I will ask and then continue (under the assumption we both agree it is fair to have the founders define the document they produced).

Do you think it is fair to allow the founders of our nation to define the terms they used?

John Locke's argument was that the "law of nature" obliged all human beings not to harm "the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another".

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one aught to hard another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.....when his own preservations comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another. (Locke, Two Treatises of Government).

Also, the unalienable right to happiness does not mean (in the DOI) that men have a right to seek after their happiness but rather that the "necessity of pursuing happiness is the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more we are free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action. (Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding).

Consider that for a moment, Brother. Locke is saying that the pursuit of happiness is the foundation of liberty because it frees us from attachment to any particular desire we might have at a given moment in time. Thomas Jefferson shared this same idea. Happiness is not the pursuit of pleasure or self-interest but the freedom to be able to make decisions that result in the best life for a human being. This is the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence (not seeking one's desires or one's pleasures but the freedom to make decisions regarding one's own life).

So it is not me, but the founders who have decided that "endowed by our Creator" is also "the law of nature" which placed an obligation on all human beings.

We have to keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson who was tasked with drafting a formal statement justifying the break with Great Britain, was not a Christian. He was a deist who did not believe that Christ is God, nor that He was born of a virgin, nor that He was raised from the dead. So if your claim is that the DOI affirms the rights of man as given by God - given Locke's philosophy and language along with the fact Jefferson was not a Christian - I have to ask exactly what god?

That is why I am saying it is a mistake to treat the DOI as a religious document. It's author did not believe in God (in the God of the Bible). And the language equates "endowed by their Creator" with "the laws of nature".

It may be dismaying , but there may be an unbridgeable chasm in our understandings here, in part because there is so much more to it than your post allows.

Locke's views exerted much influence, but hardly the entirety. Others were instrumental, as one of my earlier links noted. Jefferson crafted the DOI, but neither the language nor the concepts were all his own making. He was influenced by others (besides Locke), as one of my earlier links noted.

And of course neither was pastor or chaplain of the congress. Nor was the purpose of the DOI to establish the Gospel or church government. That would have been a grave mistake.

I think we come at this from two sides. For example, one would have to convince me there is another Creator of nature and man to conclude that God is not in view. Rather than denying him, the DOI affirms God. The signatories of the DOI express dependence on God—as Lawgiver, as Creator, as Supreme Judge, as Divine Provider.

Regarding law, there does seem inherent in man a sense of right and wrong as well as reason—both due to being made in God's image—that can be appealed to. The near universal societal recognition of a standard akin to "love thy neighbor as thyself" bears witness to this.

Here are a few more links for those who might wish to pursue some of this further. Only the last is long.

What is the Law of Nature’s God?

Concludes that the law of nature's God actually refers to the Bible.

Four Times the Declaration of Independence Mentions God, and Why It Matters

"So the Declaration of Independence mentions God four times, saying He created the world, is the foundation for morality, will judge the world, and interferes in the lives of nations and peoples."

Laws of Nature and Nature’s God – True Foundation of Law

A long treatise on the subject. Argues for fundamental Christian influence.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

…
Also, the unalienable right to happiness does not mean (in the DOI) that men have a right to seek after their happiness but rather that the "necessity of pursuing happiness is the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more we are free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action. (Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding).

Consider that for a moment, Brother. Locke is saying that the pursuit of happiness is the foundation of liberty because it frees us from attachment to any particular desire we might have at a given moment in time. Thomas Jefferson shared this same idea. Happiness is not the pursuit of pleasure or self-interest but the freedom to be able to make decisions that result in the best life for a human being. This is the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence (not seeking one's desires or one's pleasures but the freedom to make decisions regarding one's own life). …

I did not specifically address this Locke quote supposedly regarding the unalienable right to the Pursuit of Happiness, because it seems especially terse and opaque for that application. Do you know its more specific reference, its broader context?

 

[JonC]

I did not specifically address this Locke quote supposedly regarding the unalienable right to the Pursuit of Happiness, because it seems especially terse and opaque for that application. Do you know its more specific reference, its broader context?

As far as Locke, he goes into detail in the sources provided (he explains his position very well). We have to remember that we have been enjoying all our lives a type of government that was novel when our nation was founded. The idea is in context of appropriate governance of a people (and the purpose a government exists) and constraints on government rather than people.

 

[JonC]

It may be dismaying , but there may be an unbridgeable chasm in our understandings here, in part because there is so much more to it than your post allows.

Locke's views exerted much influence, but hardly the entirety. Others were instrumental, as one of my earlier links noted. Jefferson crafted the DOI, but neither the language nor the concepts were all his own making. He was influenced by others (besides Locke), as one of my earlier links noted.

And of course neither was pastor or chaplain of the congress. Nor was the purpose of the DOI to establish the Gospel or church government. That would have been a grave mistake.

I think we come at this from two sides. For example, one would have to convince me there is another Creator of nature and man to conclude that God is not in view. Rather than denying him, the DOI affirms God. The signatories of the DOI express dependence on God—as Lawgiver, as Creator, as Supreme Judge, as Divine Provider.

Regarding law, there does seem inherent in man a sense of right and wrong as well as reason—both due to being made in God's image—that can be appealed to. The near universal societal recognition of a standard akin to "love thy neighbor as thyself" bears witness to this.

Here are a few more links for those who might wish to pursue some of this further. Only the last is long.

What is the Law of Nature’s God?

Concludes that the law of nature's God actually refers to the Bible.

Four Times the Declaration of Independence Mentions God, and Why It Matters

"So the Declaration of Independence mentions God four times, saying He created the world, is the foundation for morality, will judge the world, and interferes in the lives of nations and peoples."

Laws of Nature and Nature’s God – True Foundation of Law

A long treatise on the subject. Argues for fundamental Christian influence.

In the DOI there is definitely the idea that men have an inherent sense of right and wrong. When I point out that the author of the DOI was not a Christian I do not mean that Jefferson denied we have a Creator. Jefferson believed in God, just not a Christian God, per se. But the morals were there (that is what Jefferson took from Scripture - a God-given morality).

But the context is not that the God we worship as Christians has given us rights as much as it is self evident men have these rights in terms of the role of a government. In other words, a government has no right to take away man's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness because these are not given by the government (their role is to protect these rights, except under due process of law).

 

[FollowTheWay]

In the DOI there is definitely the idea that men have an inherent sense of right and wrong. When I point out that the author of the DOI was not a Christian I do not mean that Jefferson denied we have a Creator. Jefferson believed in God, just not a Christian God, per se. But the morals were there (that is what Jefferson took from Scripture - a God-given morality).

But the context is not that the God we worship as Christians has given us rights as much as it is self evident men have these rights in terms of the role of a government. In other words, a government has no right to take away man's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness because these are not given by the government (their role is to protect these rights, except under due process of law).

Jefferson even produced his own "bible" by including portions of the NT but extracting everything that was supernatural e.g. miracles, Jesus' birth and His resurrection. He called it "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." The Jefferson Bible (uuhouston.org)

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

In the DOI there is definitely the idea that men have an inherent sense of right and wrong. When I point out that the author of the DOI was not a Christian I do not mean that Jefferson denied we have a Creator. Jefferson believed in God, just not a Christian God, per se. But the morals were there (that is what Jefferson took from Scripture - a God-given morality).

But the context is not that the God we worship as Christians has given us rights as much as it is self evident men have these rights in terms of the role of a government. In other words, a government has no right to take away man's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness because these are not given by the government (their role is to protect these rights, except under due process of law).

Worded that way, we hardly disagree here. (See my upcoming comment about Jefferson's "Gospel" redaction which FTW posted as a link.)