Reflections on the Declaration of Independence

The commemoration and celebration of America’s Independence over the Fourth of July weekend brought to the fore the various opinions held regarding its meaning and significance. Liberals see the Declaration of Independence as a manifesto for entitlements, reading the document’s clarion call for equality as a mandate for equality of income. Conservatives by and large reject this idea and embrace equality as the basis for equality of opportunity.

What is often forgotten are the great evils laid to rest by our ancestors’ success and understanding, chief among them the end of political and theological oppression in this country, and the promise of the same in other parts of the world. Monarchy, aristocracy and theocracy, and ultimately, the slaveocracy, have been buried by virtue of the progress of the “self-evident’ truth “that all men are created equal” in their rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Given the considerable controversy generated by the debate over the meaning of the First Amendment’s ban on national religious establishments and guarantee of the free exercise of religion, it seems fitting to devote this column to the place of religion in our public life. Liberals seem fixated on the history of religious tolerance and warfare while conservatives seem to have “moved on.” The former feel threatened by any opinion that seems to have a religious derivation while the latter judge opinions on their merits.

Americans’ understanding of their Declaration of Independence is thus, to some degree, inadequate. Our nation’s earliest leaders credited religion considerably more than those of the last couple of generations. Our most principled and prudent statesmen, comprehending the men of the founding generation, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln, understood that the Declaration found common ground between faith and reason, Biblical revelation and philosophic enlightenment.

The theology of the document stands on the ground of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” and all the Declaration’s references to God are broad enough to embrace both world views. “Creator” is both Biblical and rational, as are “Supreme Judge of the world” and “divine Providence.” Their fundamental point of agreement on the matter of greatest political significance is the equality and liberty of every human being.

However, the fact that the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” provide the major premise that leads to the conclusion that “all men are created equal ... [in their rights to] life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” does not make America a theocracy, or even a Christian nation, although it is a nation deeply influenced by Biblical faith. All citizens, religious or not, are governed by the requirements of the civil order, which aim to secure the life, liberty and property of all.

Equality and liberty have been misunderstood and abused. But if they have been rallying cries for demagogues and factions, they have also provided support for self-governing people and their chosen leaders. Americans have sought to anchor their republic in the most emphatic statement of the true relations between men so as to discredit and destroy every pretension of any actual or potential despot.

For centuries political and theological authorities had claimed authority from God for their unjust rule, falsely teaching mankind that God valued stability over liberty. It was necessary, as demonstrated in the teachings of the English political philosopher John Locke, to place sovereignty in the people themselves.

Protestants reached that conclusion regarding the interpretation of the Bible and church governance, but it was the combined efforts of pious and philosophic men which eventuated in the revolutionary political principle “that all men are created equal.” The Christian world moved in the direction of political liberty along with the rise of the nation state and the Renaissance of learning.

We do well to acknowledge and draw from the moral energy of this people governed so much and so widely by the Bible, but we would misrepresent the character of our republican government by giving America a theological cast. It is easy to forget the old religious disputes that once devastated Europe (and today the Middle East and elsewhere). The doctrinal differences that once were the basis for civil wars needed to be subordinated to the requirements of political life.

In plain English, no polity can long survive disputes turning on fine theological points. The plainest English was spoken by Locke and the American founders, who appreciated the moral virtue that Biblical religion shepherded into the world, but each loved their countrymen too much to subject them to a polity that would oppress those who were not persuaded of even the most notable divine’s theological teaching.

“The friend of republican government” who authored The Federalist is no less the cool but discerning friend of Biblical faith who understands that moderation of both politics and religion is the key to our nation’s health. Recurring to our fundamental principles is not merely an intellectual exercise, but necessary for us to keep our bearings.

ABOUT THE WRITER
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “ Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause” (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.