Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence has absolutely no legal weight in American law. Our law is founded, first and foremost, on the U.S. Constitution. This is clearly articulated in the Constitution, in Article VI, in what is known as “the supremacy clause.”

So where does the Declaration of Independence stand? The Declaration of Independence was drafted in 1776. It is a document that lists the grievances of the colonists in America who were tired of British rule that imposed upon them the taxes of the British crown but provided them with no representation in British Parliament or say in how their lives were governed.

Thomas Jefferson, having studied John Locke, an English philosopher and social contract theorist, used Locke’s own words in crafting the Declaration of Independence. The primary rationale and reasoning that Jefferson drew upon was Locke’s justification for a people to sever their bonds with their government, dissolve the political order, and restructure it anew.

And thus, from Jefferson, we have this:

And it was at this point that the rebellion in the American colonies was officially undertaken.

The Revolutionary War lasted until 1781 with the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. Following this, the official end of the war was not achieved until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. There was then the failed attempt to establish a government under the Articles of Confederation. In 1787, delegates from 12 of the 13 states (R.I. did not send a delegate) met to draft what ultimately became the U.S. Constitution. After much debate, the U.S. Constitution was finally ratified by the states in 1789.

The Declaration of Independence is the landmark document that marks America’s severance of British rule. It’s clear, strong language reflects the conviction and resolve that each of the signers had in ensuring their own Life, Liberty, and Property. But the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land in the United States and does nothing to establish religious (Christian) roots as the foundation of our government.

The Declaration’s guarantees of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” are not secured by the Declaration itself. And while the words “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” do not appear verbatim in the U.S. Constitution, they are clearly embodied in all of our constitutional guarantees. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution has as its purpose:

• to form a more perfect Union

• establish Justice

• ensure domestic Tranquility

• provide for the common defence

• promote the general Welfare

• secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

“Life” is secured through the establishment of justice and providing for our common defense, and “Liberty” is called out explicitly. The “Pursuit of Happiness” is a bit more complicated, for how does one guarantee a right to pursue happiness?

Generally understood, the pursuit of happiness is best represented in our ability to enjoy the fruits of our labor and our liberty. We are free to make our own decisions about how to pursue our existence, and to make for ourselves our own home, profession, and domestic life. Our existence, our home, our profession, our domestic life, and our right to such, are the embodiment of our “Estates.” It is through this line of reasoning that the right of “Pursuit of Happiness” becomes a right to our “Estates,” or as Locke concludes, that “which I call by the general Name, Property.” (Locke, Chap. IX, § 123, l.17)

“Property” is thereby secured through the establishment of justice, providing for domestic tranquility, common defense, and the general welfare. It is this approach that gives us the language of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing to all citizens the rights of “life, liberty, and property.”

These same guarantees are again reiterated in the language of the 14th Amendment.

Yet the Declaration’s language of “Nature’s God” and the “Creator”—tenuously religious terms of 18th Century Deists, skeptical of religion and the Judeo-Christian God—are nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. Instead we find prohibitions. Article VI mandates that “no religious test” shall be required to hold public office, and the First Amendment prohibits government from taking any official action with respect to religion, or prohibiting the free exercise, thereof. From these prohibitions, Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state is clearly visible, and the Judeo-Christian God (or any god, for that matter) are forever shut out of our Constitution.

Thus, we have an inherently godless Constitution, irrevocably committed to a purely secular form of government. And the idea of a Christian Nation becomes little more than the wishful thinking of religious-minded power-mongers and mealy-mouthed ministers seeking to expand the scope of their influence beyond their congregation—a concept that is utterly and completely at odds with the core principles at the heart of our guarantees of life, liberty, and property.

Dershowitz, A. (2003). America declares independence. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kramnick, I., Moore, R.L. (2005). The Godless Constitution: A moral defense of the secular state. New York: W.W. Morton & Co.

Locke, J. (2005). Two treatises of government. Laslett, P., ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

The question of the basis for atheistic ethics and morals seems to be a recurring question that religious people have for atheists. The presumption seem to be that because atheists do not hew to the authority of the Bible, and reject the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, supreme law giver, they are therefore without ethics, morality, and incapable of living amongst society in a peaceful and respectful manner. If this is not true in whole, it is at least true in large part. I, personally, have been questioned by several of the ministerial profession about where I get my ethics and morality, and the conclusory statement that I am nothing but a moral relativist is a consistent argument. As I shall show, not only is this conclusion false, it is the morality and ethics of religious persons that is situational and relativistic. As an adjunct to the personal questions of ethics and morality, the question usually put to atheists (or agnostics) is where does America get its ethics and morality—presuming, of course, that while it may be acceptable or even appropriate for an individual to establish a personal code of ethics and morality, extrapolation of the personal to the national is no more valid than advancing any other individual code of ethics and morality, say that from the Bible.

For now, I’ll avoid any circular logic associated with a self-authenticating Bible as any sort of authority. It doesn’t advance a rational discussion and really only serves to further entrench theistic positions. However, the Bible is illustrative in one particular sense.

The basis of biblical law, whether it be Old or New Testament law, can be traced back to a central tenet: The Golden Rule—Do to others as you would have done to yourself (or some approximation thereof). With the exception of rules requiring respect and worship for the Judeo-Christian God, the Golden Rule essentially forms the basis of the Ten Commandments. This tenet also exists in some fashion in all other religious laws. This is perhaps the only single point of agreement amongst all religions—the differentiation of religions being in how this rule is implemented.

Laws provide for two basic components: (a) rules of what one may or may not do, and (b) what is appropriate restitution for violating the rules. Laws such as the Ten Commandments only provide a set of rules and tell us nothing about what punishments are appropriate for violating a commandment. Elsewhere, the Bible tells us of punishments and violations of rules, but it doesn’t tell us how those rules relate to the Ten Commandments.

In a religious sense, the Golden Rule provides us with no direction or basis for how human beings relate to their deity. “Doing unto others” tells me nothing about when, where, why, or how I should revere a deity. Insofar as a god is uninvolved in the daily events of the world, what relations do I have with such a god that the Golden Rule could provide guidance for my actions?

In a non-religious sense, the Golden Rule finds expression in Socratic dialogues on justice and how we find it, and finds embodiment in the English Common Law and the Code of Hammurabi (though certainly in a more barbaric fashion than what exists today). The Golden Rule also shows up as the basis from which loosely connected social organizations come together for the formation of the social contract, particularly social contract theory as it has developed into the American system of government. The Bible does not have a monopoly on establishing systems of justice or rules for social behavior.

The primary function of the English Common Law (aside from finding guilt or innocence) is to ascertain the equitable position between disputing parties. If a person takes a loaf of bread, the compensation required must be in accordance with the value of a loaf of bread. If someone publicly maligns your character, the compensation required must be in accordance with the damage done to your character. The punishment or compensation must be in accord with the actual crime or damages inflicted. It is worth noting that in the Middle Ages execution was a typical punishment for a wide variety of crimes, including some that are today considered petty crimes. However, the evolution and restatement of appropriate punishments meted out by a civilized society further evidences the principle of equity amongst disputing parties.

It is undeniable that John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government provides the primary founding ideas from which the Founding Fathers broke from English rule, established the colonies as an independent nation, and constructed our system of government via the U.S. Constitution. The central premise at the bottom of the American system of government is that each of us only surrenders to the state that degree of liberty that all others surrender—a contractual version of the Golden Rule. The liberty that permits me to murder anyone I wish is surrendered to the same extent that all others have surrendered that liberty. My right to be secure in my person is placed on the same footing as all others’ right to be secure in their person. My right to hold property is on the same equitable footing as the right of all others to hold property.

Just as Locke reasoned God out of the equation of the social contract and the laws thereof, so do atheists. The only difference between Locke and atheists is that Locke professed a belief in God. However, Locke also concluded that because no earthly being could establish a right to rule in God’s name (either by relation/blood or by divine revelation), human beings were left to their own devices of logic and reason in setting up their social order and rules. Atheists, on the other hand, simply cut out the middle-man.

The statement that atheists, lacking belief in a “higher power,” cannot lead an ethical or moral life is demonstrably false. It is equally false to state that atheistic ethics or morals are nothing more than situational or relativistic. In fact, lacking a unifying, consistent implementation of the Golden Rule, religiously-based laws are nothing more than situational and relativistic as they are based on whatever interpretation an individual can derive (or concoct) from his/her religious texts.

The basis of this conclusion starts with the introduction to his Second Treatise of Civil Government, where, after methodically eliminating any right or dominion that God may impose upon or require of this world, either directly or through the lineage of Adam, he draws the conclusion that we “must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it.” The “political power” of which he speaks is that of a magistrate over a subject (government over its citizens) and distinguishable from all other power relationships (of which he provides several examples)—this power being all aspects of the actions we now attribute to our government.

What follows is Locke stepping through the theoretical state of nature and examining the bonds of association that ultimately form the basis of the social contract. In the end, Locke’s conclusion is that political power, the power of the government to exercise its authority over its citizens, arises from the laws of man and agreements among men—the civil/social contract. We do not take our cue from the Bible or some other mythical text.

Locke’s conclusions, later echoed by the Founding Fathers in support of the new Constitution, regarded the law of God and the law of man as binding two separate spheres. In his Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke sought, “to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other.” The purpose of civil government, the basis of the social contract between citizens, is not for government to tell people what and how to believe, but to keep the peace. With regard to religion, Locke concluded that the state’s powers do not extend “to the establishing of any articles of faith, or form of worship, by the force of his laws.”

Hmmmm . . . . That word “establishment,” where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Inherent in Locke’s “life, liberty, health, and indolence of body,” is the sovereign nature of an individual’s mind. Just as the government cannot force me to slavery in body, it cannot force me into slavery in mind.

Roger Williams, a 17th century Baptist minister, and one of the earliest proponents of separation of church and state probably best articulated the views of the Founding Fathers justifying the separation of the spheres of religion and government:

The primacy of the social contract is that, as individuals, we each surrender our liberty to the same degree as all others—and we each retain our liberty to the same degree as all others. The Founding Fathers set down in the very first sentence of the very first amendment to our Constitution, the language that separates the affairs of the church and the affairs of the state, and acknowledges and reinforces the inviolate nature of our personal beliefs.