The funny thing is, those truths had not previously been self-evident, or any other kind of evident, to anybody; notably not to religious teachers.

OJ -

You wrote, "...presumably because it would literally any truly secular candidacy, is: "

There appears to be a missing verb in the miasma. Perhaps you meant stump or scare ?

I think the above-mentioned truths were already perceived to be self-evident before the Declaration of Independence. Perceived, perhaps, by the many (the populace) who did not have the power to apply them at large; and, perhaps, by those who had the power to do so, but did not want to live by their injunctions. The uniqueness of the birth of the American democracy is that it combined -- in the leaders of the day -- the willingness to accept these truths with the ability to apply them.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 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..."

Still makes sense to me.

Since it is an assertion with material consequences, it would seem the proof is in the pudding, not in some particular concept of what wielded the spoon.

Jeff:

One admires the forthrightness with which you retreated to the Creation foundation and acknowledge that the experiment has succeeded here because based on it.

OJ:
No, I didn't. "Created" is passive voice, and leaves entirely open as to how that creation occurred, or what it entailed.

Additionally, I asserted that the proof is wholly in the results, not on the basis for the material assertion.

Perhaps you didn't read my last sentence.

Jeff:

all men are created equal, with certain unalienable Rights

You assert a creator, who not only created but created all men "equal"--the opposite of what Darwinism asserts--and endowed them with Rights.

To say that the philosphical basis for the Declaration arose full blown from the minds of Jefferson and the other contributors unaffected by the traditions of the west is convenient but obviously innaccurate. The thesistic assumptions contained within the founding documents are plain. Read them in their entirety, from beginning to end. The materialist will find little support for their peculiar cause.

The theistic basis for the American Republic protects the atheist and the materialist since it posits (thank God) the belief that all men are created by Him, not some imaginary big spook.

OJ:
Sorry, what I wrote are my words, not yours. You don't get to hijack them. The passive voice leaves the means of creation entirely open, whether Supreme Being or pure evolutionary accident. Pick A, B, or anything else, the mode of creation just doesn't matter to the material consequences of the assertion.

They stand or fall entirely on their fitness, completely regardless of how you choose to fill in the "created" blank.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

not Divinely revealed? Since when are truths allowed to be invented by mere mortals? By basing the foundation of our rights on the self-evident nature of our equality, they did away with any need for divinely inspired revelation to back up our political institutions.

So what is so laughable about a secular president? It is only prejudice that would prevent the election of an atheist, not any philosophical argument based on the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.

Robert:

It is the prejudice which makes the idea laughable. We're not going to elect someone who doesn't believe in the foundational basis of the nation.

OJ:
Which is the basis:

A. The pruported intent of some unspecified Creator
B. The idea that all men are equal before the law.

If you vote A, then any amount of repression is possible.

If B, then it doesn't much matter what someone thinks of A.

That equality and the rights that go with it are gifts of the Creator and not dependent on men.

Remove the Creator and you remove the rights--you are entitled to only what the state allows. That's why secular states deteriorate into statism so quickly.

But they are dependent upon men, since men have taken them away since time immemorial. And those who spoke for the Creator weren't in any hurry to change that until forced.

Jeff:

Men can't take God-given rights, only prevent their exercise.

That sounds very much like a classic example of a distinction without a difference.

Yes, well, assuming you're a decent person, if you understood the difference you'd be forced to believe in God.