Empty repetition doesn't become truth. The truth is that if they wanted to make a Christian document they would have written a Christian document, by calling on God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, instead of an anonymous and impersonal "Creator".
They knew what they were doing and the document reads exactly as they saw fit. It is written as a deist document.
Besides, capitalizing the word "Creator" means nothing. In those days they capitalized every noun (as Germans do to this day).
Look to the beam in your eye, Pilgrim. I spoke, mocking your own bald assertion in response to a carefully crafted exposition supporting the thesis that The Declaration is infused with Judeo-Christian values. Apparently you value your own naked assertions a great deal more than that of others (the mockery exposing the blindness you possess with respect to your own faults) . . . ( ^8 }.
In reality there is a very great deal of Judeo-Christian values in The Declaration and The Constitution. What neither document does is demand adherence to a particular religious denomination. Consequently, there is very little “God” in The Constitution, the Founding Fathers being convinced that government (at least the Federal government) should have little to do with issues of conscience, looking to exercise a minimum control over human action and to exercise no restraint on thought. Ever since that time nihilists have sought to gain advantage of the Founders’ circumspection by insisting the documents are devoid of Judeo-Christian values (and will pitch a fit at any contrary understanding).
You elect to demand that the Founding Fathers’ choice of language must conform to your expectations or you will impose your interpretation on their thoughts. The Founding Fathers spoke as they saw fit without consulting you as to how they might properly phrase their thoughts. Apparently you believe, as Jefferson once wearily observed of the remarks of angry Baptists and Episcopalians, that those who advocate religion’s freedom have no religion.
“Besides, capitalizing the word "Creator" means nothing.”
Not according to Etymology, which in this case, has noted that the word Creator was not capitalized until the publishing of the KJ Holy Bible in 1611. So far as I know, there are at least 35 instances where the KJ refers to God as “Creator.” But you apparently think your knowledge superior to the wisdom of ages. Not, however, to the extent of being able to quote a citation supporting your allegation that John Adams once wrote a letter (when? and to whom?) stating that the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. Which Atheist website did you get that quote from?
But if you think Adams to be an impeccable authority on the spirit that moved the American people to revolution and a new government, his most definitive testimony, of which I am aware, is to be found in a letter written to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 28, 1813 . . . “Who composed that army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes? There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien." Very few however of several of these species.
“Nevertheless, all educated in the general principles Of Christianity; and the general principles of English and American liberty. Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the others the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? Or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? Or those of the Philosophers? No. The general principles On which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young gentlemen could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer.
“And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity (emphasis mine), in which all those sects were united; and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all these young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature, and our terrestrial mundane system. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles . . . “ (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh Editor, in 19 volumes)
Jefferson says: “The fundamental principle of all philosophy and all Christianity, is ‘Rejoice always in all things!’ ‘Be thankful at all times for all good, and all that we call evil.’” Those who are today the doubters and defamers of Christianity, might take heed of his word, just as Jefferson wished their antecedents of his day might have done the same. Like the Democrats of today, who could take no solace in anything so long as a Republican resided at 1600 Pennsylvania, the haters of Christianity can take no solace so long as a Christian is permitted to appear in the public square. (see Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Jefferson, December 25, 1813, Ibid)
Oh, we are weary pilgrims; to this wilderness we bring
A Church without a bishop, a State without a King.
anonymous poem, The Puritans’ Mistake, published by Oliver Ditson in 1844
You've got to learn to stop making statements which can be easily checked and refuted, expecting to carry the day b sheer bombast.
Here's a link to the text of the Declaration of Independence, which says that it retains the original spelling .
I take the liberty of doing a cut-and-paste of the first two paragraphs, only italicizing them to distinguish from my text in this reply.
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 to 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 shown 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.
FACTS 1, kos 0.
Cheers!
You've got to learn to stop making statements which can be easily checked and refuted, expecting to carry the day by sheer bombast.
Here's a link to the text of the Declaration of Independence, which says that it retains the original spelling .
I take the liberty of doing a cut-and-paste of the first two paragraphs, only italicizing them to distinguish from my text in this reply.
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 to 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 shown 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.
FACTS 1, kos 0.
Cheers!