First it should be noted that while invoking "God-talk", the Declaration was essentially a synthesis of enlightenment thinking and writing. Paul's Epistle to the the Romans was sent to a christian minority living in the heart of an utterly barbaric and pagan empire. And you suggest that we can easily put this divine instruction aside in favor of a political document used to justify separation from the British Empire? Horsefeathers!
To qoute President Ronald Reagan: If you can't get them to see the light,make them feel the heat.
And is oft regarded a an exposition of modern paganism, at least if you concur with Peter Gay.
And you suggest that we can easily put this divine instruction aside in favor of a political document used to justify separation from the British Empire?
Reading a little much into the post, aren't we? What I was pointing out is that there is an apparent conflict between Cal Thomas' citation of Paul and the expressed grounds for the American Revolution. Is there something wrong with that?
Few would argue that, the Revolution didn't provide a unique environment of religious freedom for nearly 200 years. Few would argue that a nation Constituted under God has not brought the blessings of liberty. Indeed, it is our abandonment of those principles as a Christian citizenry that has brought Terri Schiavo's predicament upon us.
Are you so certain of the context of his words that you willingly apply them to all other circumstances? Some might argue that adherence to Paul's admonition led to tolerance of NAZI crimes, giving the world "good Germans" during WWII. Do you argue that there is no point at which you would fight an illegal authority?
It is merely a point of interest, so kindly dispense with your righteous indignation.