The Rights of the People
FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Still citing proof that this is a Christian nation, the court continues in the following queer fashion:- ROP 123.2
“Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: ‘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.’ ‘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,’ etc. ‘And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.’” ROP 123.3
It is undoubtedly true that the Declaration of Independence does recognize the presence of the divine in human affairs. But it is a hazardous piece of logic to conclude from this that “this is a Christian nation.” For what nation has there ever been on earth that did not recognize the presence of the divine in human affairs? But it would be rather risky to conclude from this that all nations have been and are “Christian nations.” ROP 123.4
But, it may be said, the Declaration recognized the “Creator and “the Supreme Judge of the world,” as well as “Divine Providence.” Yes, that is true, too. And so do the Turks, the Arabs, the Hindoos, and others; but that would hardly justify the Supreme Court or anybody else in concluding and officially declaring that Turkey, Arabia, and Hindoostan, are Christian nations. ROP 124.1
But it may still be said that those who made this Declaration used these expressions with none other than the God of Christianity in mind. This may or may not be true, according to the way of thinking of the respective individuals who signed or espoused the Declaration. 14 But whatever these expressions may have meant to those who used them at the time, it is certain that they did not mean the Supreme Court has here made them mean. Of this we have the most positive evidence. ROP 124.2
Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence, and from that day and forward he exerted all his powers to disestablish “the true Christian faith professed in the Church of England,” which, according to the purpose of Elizabeth and her successors, had been established in Virginia for more than a hundred and fifty years. When this accomplished, and an attempt was made to establish “Christianity, general Christianity,” under the title of “the Christian religion,” Jefferson again enlisted all his powers to defeat the attempt, and it was defeated. And to the day of his death, the one thing in all his career upon which he looked with the most satisfaction was this disestablishment of “the Christian religion” in Virginia. And now, lo! this document of which Jefferson was the author is quoted by the Supreme Court of the United States, and classed with documents “one of the purposes” of which was “the establishment, of the Christian religion;” and, as having “one meaning” with these, is used to prove a proposition with reference to this nation which Jefferson spent all his powers and the best part of his life in combating. What would Jefferson himself say to this use of his language were he here to read this decision? 15 ROP 124.3
Except in the matter of the Died Scott decision, a more perverse use of the language oft the Declaration of Independence certainly never was made than is thus made in this “Christian nation” decision, February 29, 1892. ROP 125.1