Those who deny the divinity of Jesus or the Trinitarian nature of God are not Christians. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarists, deists, agnostics, etc. are not Christians. Some of the key authors and players of the Declaration were known to fall into one of those groups.
the Revolutionary Act were founded on Christian values. They [Founding Fathers] should know. It is they who created it.
The Declaration is not specifically Christian, implicitly or explicitly.
Elsewhere in this thread you’ve declared that might always makes right
That's the way the world is, whether you understand it or not. Might prevails. If you have the might, you write the rules.
And, I must express my absolute astonishment that you seem unable to comprehend that the Founders’ expression ‘a more perfect union’ refers not to the impossible task of improving perfection, but simply means constructing a union more closely approaching perfection.
In a poetic sense, perhaps, but not in a legal document. Grammatically "more perfect" is an oxymoron . To form a more perfect union suggests the union that exists is already "perfect." If Jefferson wanted to say to form "an improved" or "better" or "more equitable" union or words to that effect, then he should have said so plainly.
With respect to Ayn Rand and your suggestion that we not go there because “the reality of life shows that such absolute statement are abjectly false, or just plain unrealistic,” I would ask you that do these abjectly false absolute statements include such absolutes as might always makes right?
In the real world we "settle" things by compromising with our adversaries and even enemies. Therefore a compromise with a nemesis is not always abject surrender to it. Only Christianity calls for abject surrender to evil by teaching that we "not resist the evil." [cf Mat 5:39]
On the other hand, might is right without exception, which can easily be demonistrated as the universal law.
Yes; of the animal kingdom.... "Survival of the fittest" and all that jazz.
Your observation strikes me as a great pretext for the long-predicted "war of all against all".... "Nature bloody in tooth and claw," etc., etc., ad nauseam. The law of the jungle in the Public Square....
French Revo Redux.
Do you really think human beings should be regarded exclusively as animals? If you do, then how could you ever account for the fact that, though an animal in his physical nature, man is also "ensouled," and is rational; he has mind; he thinks, and he communicates his thoughts in complex natural languages. No animal other than man is capable of doing this.
Are we going to have to drop this fact down the old memory hole, just so your thesis — which implicitly calls for the total reduction of the human being to the purely physical — can be correct?
Yet those very men whose Christianity you deny, themselves declare Christian values to be the foundation of the Revolutionary Act, and of the document they created. But, you seem to believe that you know better than they what was in their minds. A man, who apparently believed similarly as you, turned on the American people, betrayed their trust by denouncing everything they held sacred, in the mistaken thought that he could sway them to any way of thinking he wished, discovered he could not, and died with their scorn and in disgrace. Would that no better fate should await you, but I defer to the Lord’s will on that issue.
Despite the Founding Fathers’ declarations, no curiosity is aroused in your thoughts, no wonderment disturbs your mind, over the blatant discrepancy between what you assert and what the Founders themselves declare. One must think that you should pause to consider so blatant a contradiction in your construct, but seemly not.
Even John Adams, the very epitome of what you trumpet to be an example of the Unitarian denial of Christianity, embarrasses you:
“. . . 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, 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 . . . ” (letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh Editor, in 19 volumes).
So you plow straight ahead, head down, eyes averted, propounding an absurdity so preposterous that even the old Latins had no name for the fallacy.
“The Declaration is not specifically Christian, implicitly or explicitly.”
Yet the men who wrote it and voted on it (and the people who sent them to Independence Hall) declare the document to be explicitly Christian. Whom would you have me believe?
“That's the way the world is, whether you understand it or not. Might prevails. If you have the might, you write the rules.”
Did the Romans write the rules for the Christians? Who prevailed? . . . Roman might? . . . or Christian faith? It’s people like you (and Rand Paul) who encourage people to believe that resisting evil is futile. You remind me of the Amsterdam lady who announced, “all war is stupid.” I asked her if that included the Dutch war for independence from Spain. I asked her if we stupid Americans should not have sent our General Eisenhower and several million GIs over to liberate Western Europe in 1944. The lady had no answer, but I could tell from her eyes that no amount of instances would sway her from her belief. Just as I an sure none can sway yours.
“In the real world we "settle" things by compromising with our adversaries and even enemies.”
In the “real world” some political compromises are possible, though I can think of none presently that offer any hope for success. In the “real world” I asked you if abjectly false absolute statements such as Rand’s included absolutes like “might always makes right.” You had no answer.