Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Sacred and Undeniable

Gil Reich
@GilReich
Join to bookmark23likesJoin to like12comments
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness ... -- from Jefferson's "original Rough draught" of the Declaration of Independence

The final version is more catchy and memorable.

We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women are created, by the, you know, you know the thing.

Wait no, not that one.


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.

Rough draft Declaration of Independence

Rough draft of Declaration of Independence from https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffdec.html
Ben Franklin changed "sacred & undeniable" to "self-evident."

Andrew Sullivan writes of this:

When he chose the word "sacred," Jefferson had suggested intentionally or unintentionally that the principle in question—the equality of men and their endowment by their creator with inalienable rights—was an assertion of religion. By changing it to "self-evident," Franklin made it an assertion of rationality. ... With one word—“self-evident”—Franklin forever clarified the divide between received and rational truth, and placed our political system firmly on the foundation of our common rationality rather than on sectarian faith. ... Franklin was not editing the Declaration—he was editing our minds. ... Truth is self-evident. Our freedom is founded on that proposition.

There's only one problem with Sullivan's analysis. Ben Franklin was wrong, and Thomas Jefferson was right.

And if Franklin was editing our minds here, he was encoding a deadly mistake into our national mindset.

In the ancient world, if one thing was clear, if one thing was taken as given, it was that all men are not created equal. That the most natural understanding of the social world is that it exists in a hierarchy, in stratification. You know there's going to be a king, and there's going to be a landed gentry, there's going to be slave owners, there's going to be slaves, and this is true even in Greece. The democracy we have in Athens is only the top ten percent or so. -- Joshua Berman, author of Created Equal, at about the 9 minute mark of this video.


There is nothing self-evident about the idea that all men are created equal. The idea is a heritage of our religious tradition.

When the Darwinists and other eugenicists of the early 20th Century threw off the yoke of heaven, they did not rediscover the self-evident truth of all men being created equal. Quite the opposite. The scientific community was generally on the animal husbandry side of the question of human equality.

It is not self-evident that we are all created equal, with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many cultures do not share this belief. Many individuals in our own culture do not share this belief. Sending people who do not have these beliefs to our universities will often not lead to them discovering these allegedly self-evident beliefs. Defunding the police, and giving rapists and murderers whatever they want, will not result in them recognizing and respecting these ideas or those who hold them. Because while these ideas are true, they are not self-evident.

These are beliefs that must be taught, through words and actions. They must be cherished and championed. And they will be hard to maintain if we sabotage the religious traditions that gave them life.


America is great because it was founded on these principles, which it should recognize as sacred and undeniable.

Happy Fourth. And may God bless America.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (12)

  • Susan Quinn@SusanQuinn
    Gil Reich (View Post):
    It is not self-evident that we are all created equal, with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many cultures do not share this belief. Many individuals in our own culture do not share this belief. Sending people who do not have these beliefs to our universities will often not lead to them discovering these allegedly self-evident beliefs. Defunding the police, and giving rapists and murderers whatever they want, will not result in them recognizing and respecting these ideas. Because while these ideas are true, they are not self-evident.

    A very powerful statement, and so true!

    Good to see you Gil. Stay safe.

  • Gil Reich@GilReich
    ReplyingtoSusan Quinn

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Gil Reich (View Post):

    Gil Reich (View Post):
    It is not self-evident that we are all created equal, with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many cultures do not share this belief. Many individuals in our own culture do not share this belief. Sending people who do not have these beliefs to our universities will often not lead to them discovering these allegedly self-evident beliefs. Defunding the police, and giving rapists and murderers whatever they want, will not result in them recognizing and respecting these ideas. Because while these ideas are true, they are not self-evident.

    A very powerful statement, and so true!

    Good to see you Gil. Stay safe.

    Thanks Susan!

  • Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)@ArizonaPatriot

    I think that you are right about the Declaration being a religious document.

    I do not believe that it is an expression of "our religious tradition." I note that you don't even identify what that religious tradition might be. It's not the teaching of Christianity, that's for sure.

    One caveat. If you mean that the Declaration was a statement of our new national religious tradition, starting at that moment, then I think that you are correct. It is a blasphemous false religion, I'm afraid.

    This becomes obvious when you notice that that statue in New York harbor is a giant pagan goddess. It becomes obvious when you visit the Lincoln Memorial and notice that it is called a "temple."

    Yep. Just like the Romans, this new American religion deifies its emperors.

  • Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)@ArizonaPatriot

    I should probably cite some Scripture to support my assertions above.

    In the New Testament, the purpose and nature of government is explained by both Peter and Paul. In Romans 13, Paul wrote:

    1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

    That's quite clear, isn't it? God establishes the governing authorities, whose job it is to give approval to those who do good, and to be "an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

    Peter concurred in 1 Peter 2:

    13Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

    So this is the Christian teaching, completely contrary to the Declaration.

    I don't know what the Jews believe. I do know the Old Testament quite well, though. God chose Moses to lead the Israelites; then He chose Joshua to succeed Moses (reported in Numbers 27). Then there was the period of the Judges, which was very instructive.

    The period of the Judges was a period of liberty. Liberty is a disaster. This may be explained most clearly in Judges 2:

    11And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD and served the Baals. 12And they abandoned the LORD, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. They went after other gods, from among the gods of the peoples who were around them, and bowed down to them. And they provoked the LORD to anger. 13They abandoned the LORD and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth. 14So the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he gave them over to plunderers, who plundered them. And he sold them into the hand of their surrounding enemies, so that they could no longer withstand their enemies. 15Whenever they marched out, the hand of the LORD was against them for harm, as the LORD had warned, and as the LORD had sworn to them. And they were in terrible distress.

    16Then the LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them. 17Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed down to them. They soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the LORD, and they did not do so. 18Whenever the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them. 19But whenever the judge died, they turned back and were more corrupt than their fathers, going after other gods, serving them and bowing down to them. They did not drop any of their practices or their stubborn ways.

    This led to the period of the kings, who were also appointed by God. God told the prophet and last judge Samuel to anoint Saul as king (reported in 1 Samuel 9), and Samuel did so (reported in 1 Samuel 10). God also told Samuel to anoint David as the next king (reported in 1 Samuel 16).

    The people had nothing to do with it. The people's consent did not matter. In fact, the bulk of the people -- 10 out of the 12 tribes -- rejected David's rule for a time, and followed one of Saul's sons. David did prevail in this contest, though notably, he did not fight.

    God chose Solomon to succeed David, telling this to David (reported in 1 Chronicles 22).

    After the time of Solomon, the northern 10 tribes rebelled, forming the northern kingdom (called "Israel"), while the descendants of Solomon ruled the southern kingdom (usually called "Judah," or sometimes "Jerusalem" after its capital).

    The northern kingdom of Israel was one long, uninterrupted catastrophe, never having even a single good king. The southern kingdom of Judah has some good kings, some bad.

    The northern kingdom was destroyed by the Assyrians around 720 BC. The southern kingdom was destroyed by the Babylonians around 490 BC. The kingdom was never re-established, though the people exiled to Babylon did get to return circa 430 BC.

    I don't see anything in the entire history of the Israelites, reported in the Old Testament, that would support the doctrine of government set forth in our Declaration. Rather, the Old Testament account is consistent with the principles explained by Peter and Paul in the New Testament.

  • Painter Jean@PainterJean

    So this is the Christian teaching, completely contrary to the Declaration.

    No, it's not. I don't think this is an accurate understanding of either the Declaration or of Christianity. To deal with the latter first, I would cite St. Paul in Galatians 3:28 : "There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." He is explaining that we are all equal in being made in the image and likeness of God, and that when we are united in Jesus and His Church, that which formerly divided us - ethnicity, race, station in life, sex - no longer matters. We have God-given dignity. The Declaration states that because of that God-given dignity, we have inherent and inalienable rights. That does not mean that we are equal in abilities, and so of course there are kings and queens, parliaments and legislatures. Hierarchies in various areas of life is not a contradiction in either the Declaration or of Christianity.

Scroll for later comments
+7 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of twelve comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.