Leaving aside the issue of what might be a “founding document,” I am curious where you think you might have found those principles enshrined in Christianity. I can think of a single statement by Paul that could be tortured into a claim of created equality, (although that was certainly not his intent and it was never carried forth into Christian tradition), but the “inalienable rights” claim has even less support in Christian tradition. That is a concept that Christianity later borrowed from the political philosophers.
This constitutional quote has never struck me as having a biblical basis. The part, “all men are created equal” was actually borrowed by Jefferson from an Italian.
Not.
You don’t understand the difference between a declaration of individual independence for the colonies (even as a cooperative effort) and the establishment of a country. The DOI did not establish or found a country. The USA did not exist until the ratification of the US Constitution in 1788. Until then it was just 13 individual states.
Independence Day does not commemorate the founding of the United States, and the DOI is not a founding document.
It also does not express any Christian principles. “All men are created equal” does not come from Christianity.
Not that facts make any difference, but just to demonstrate that you are wrong, I will cite some religious references from the Declaration and snicker condescendingly when you ignore it.
Not that references to God, creation, or the Divine are religious at all. Of course not.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t have a dog in this peculiarly and particularly American pissing match, but you’ve fundamentally distorted or simply failed to understand his argument.
He has been saying (and from his quotes it rather seems to be the case), that said references are not Christian as such, but vague Theistic / Deistic references.
He hasn’t denied religious reference at all, he’s rebutted the specific Christian claim.
As far as I can tell, he has a strong case, whereas the Christian argument seems to be… just asserting a view.
But getting this more to the initial subject, I believe that putting oneself into late 18th century shoes, that the American sentiment in that treaty makes a degree of sense relative to the European powers with which they were contrasting themselves, which all had State Churches and to varying degrees quite officially Christian Nations by that fact. The Americans uniquely rejected the State Church and the establishment of a state religion. Reading the statement in the context of the era, it is most certainly a valid assertion of differentiation, whatever discomfort it provokes two centuries on.
You’ll have to do better than that. Malcolm X was not a Muslim yet, detested King and called him a chump, only stood with King for one minute of his entire life for this photo, and was very critical of the civil rights movement.
He certainly was a Muslim, in his own words. He just wasn’t a mainstream Muslim.
Hundreds of millions of Muslims, who know what it means to be a Muslim would disagree with you.
He was indeed a Muslim. Doctrinal differences with other Muslims don’t change that, and while he was critical of some of the tactics of the civil rights movement he was very much in support of its goals. And before the end of his life he’d changed his religious and racial views a great deal. He’d also converted to Sunni Islam after his journey to Mecca. This was mentioned upthread. 
Where’s the Christian part? How are these statements distinct from Deism, Pantheism or Paganism?
He was part of the civil rights movement before King, and he became a vocal supporter of King after he converted to Islam.
For the record. the nation of Islam cult is not recognized as part of the religion of Islam by any of the major Islamic schools. It’s theologically quite different (it’s as wacky as Scientology when you really delve into it), and the racism, in and of itself is regarded as non-Muslim (Islam is the only major religion which has explicitly condemned racism from its inception).
Members of NOI are not allowed into Mecca because they are not considered to be Muslims within the Muslim world. Malcom X went to Mecca after his conversion to Sunni, not before. He would not have been allowed to while he still belonged to NOI.
I also have no dog in the hijack and no intention of getting involved in it - to my mind, the interesting thing about the treaty is its obvious disingenuous nature.
What the treaty is in effect saying is ‘we have a non-Christian formation’ (which is true), and so ‘we will never have any conflict between us and you over religious matters’. The conclusion is obvious puffery, since the fact that the US was not “officially” Christian in no way precludes religious conflict between the US and Muslim nations: for one, the society of America remained overall pretty solidly Christian no matter what the official organs of state were; and for another, even if the US was composed solidly of atheists, that in itself has the potential to create conflict with nations that are officially Islamic and composed of religious Muslims.
Officially, though, the US has never had any national religion, and religion (ostensibly anyway) has never been relevant to how the US government deals with other states. The treaty basically said that if you’re dealing with the US Government, you’re dealing with a religiously indifferent agency, and that is true.
Well, that’s fair enough. Take it, then, the the foundational document of the United States is based on the religious concepts of creation, God, and Providence.
Regards,
Shodan
No it isn’t. Those words are found nowhere in the Constitution and are not reflected in any founding principles.
That wasn’t true then and isn’t even true now. Even assuming the notion that US officials in the 19th century did not generally look down on Muslims, and treated them exactly as they would treat Christians, it is completely ignoring the notion that the Muslims may have their own “religious opinions” which might “produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries”.
Hence, puffery.
Remember the context - the treaty was intended to pay danegeld. Puffery about 'harmony" makes perfect sense in such context.
The Nation of Islam expects its members to adhere to the Five Pillars. Hundreds of millions of Christians think the Phelps clan aren’t true Christians, but they accept Jesus as their savior.
Actually that is not interesting as it is not obviously disingenuous, in particular as noted earlier due to the contrast between American government and the European governments.
Insofar as the Americans of the day would have been contrasting themselves with the explicitly Christian states of Europe, with their State Churches, the treaty is making an entirely non-disingenuous assertion.
Perhaps, but that is a fundamentally different issue than what the treaty was discussing (which in any case was as much about Ottoman power politics vis-a-vis its European enemies as religion as Christian powers and Ottomans happily allied against common enemies as needed / required; and encouraged piracy against their enemies shipping).