Too conflated?
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 . . .
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States . . . And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
I will say that you do not realize the danger to your own purposes in kicking the struts of your culture away. Without Christianity the West’s alternative culture is state supremecy and socialism. Look up Gramsci and see what the cultural marxists objectives and methods are . . . in truth, it is the secularists that endanger freedom, even those that are on the right, because they are the “useful fools” the left. You do not realize what the cultural fight is even about and where the danger lies if you have been bamboozled into fearing Christians in politics.
“I will say that you do not realize the danger to your own purposes in kicking the struts of your culture away.”
Who’s talking about kicking the struts of culture way? Libertarianism isn’t about the role of culture, it’s about the role of government. I’m not talking about eliminating religion from the sphere of public discourse. I am talking about removing it from the sphere of government enforcement (i.e. the Law, i.e. brute force).
It’a very weak religion or ideology that relies upon government enforcment to underpin it anyway. Religions and ideologies if they have any REAL value should be able to stand on thier own in the marketplace of free ideas. If the notion that a particular vice/sin is bad and aught not to be done is worthwhile then you should be able to CONVINCE people not to engage in it...... you shouldn’t need the government standing behind you leveling a gun at peoples heads to back up that idea.... and if you do, then either your idea has no real value...or you really need to work on your skill at expressing it.
You do realize that the term "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God" is much more in line with the "Deist" terminology of the day than it was with the "Christian"...
from Deism.com :
"Deism is belief in God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer. Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a "revealed" religion."
I would posit that from the evidence the DOI is much more influenced by Deist thinking than Christian...