Welcome to Family Policy Matters, a weekly podcast and radio show produced by the North Carolina Family Policy Council. Hi, I'm John Rust and president of NC Family, and each week on Family Policy Matters, we welcome experts and policy leaders to discuss topics that impact faith and family here in North Carolina. Our prayer is that this program will help encourage and equip you to be a voice of persuasion for family values in your community, state, and nation. Hello, and welcome into the latest episode of The Truths We Hold, where we are unpacking not only the Declaration of Independence and unalienable rights as given to us by God, but also the truths that we hold here at North Carolina Family in celebration of our 250th anniversary as America and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I'm joined by our Director of Research and Education, Adamo Manfra.
I'm Mitch Prosser. I have the pleasure of serving as our vice president here at NC Family, and today we are going to, in fact, take a deeper look at the Declaration of Independence as a special episode for July and July 4th. You're watching this around that time. And so, Adamo, it's certainly notable that as we celebrate this 250th anniversary as a country, or at least as one who had declared independence, let's talk a little bit more about the Declaration: what it is, what it's not, and what it provides for us here 250 years later. The Declaration, what is The Declaration of Independence as we know it historically.
So, as you noted, that is really what we're celebrating. I think we often have the theory that we're celebrating 250 years of independence, and it's often overlooked specifically what is that moment. Is it the victory of the war? Is it the surrender of Britain? Is it the beginning of the war, which it certainly isn't?
Which all come later, and the beginning of the war becomes 1775. But in fact, we're celebrating the Declaration itself, which was declaring not war, which had already started effectively, but independence.
So, declaring we, the people of the United States of America, the first time we see that, are declaring that we are now cut off, we have ended the relationship of being governed by the king in England. And so, as of that moment, they all said we are now an independent, we'll say, nation, an independent collection of states at least, and that that is saying, because of all these grievances, we are now asserting that, based on and appealing to divine justice and extra principles, that for these reasons we are now making the prudential Judgment that we are cut off from an unjust relationship with our current governor.
So, the Congress had actually begun formulating this idea and working through it. And then the Continental Congress puts together this committee of five, if you will, historically, it's known. We know three of them very well: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin. Most people don't know about Roger Sherman of Connecticut or Robert Livingston of New York, but this committee of five come together. They kind of point at one of the younger guys in the room, Thomas Jefferson, and say, We'd like you to write this.
They knew that he had used the pen very well. He had just finished with George Mason writing the Virginia Declaration of Rights.
So, Thomas Jefferson rents a room there in Philadelphia and starts pinning this document. He's influenced by three specific men. I've already mentioned George Mason, but John Locke, of course, and we'll point out some of those as we walk through the first two paragraphs here in just a moment. John Locke and Francis Bacon. Everything's better when you put a little bacon on it.
And so, Francis Bacon, John Locke, George Mason influenced Thomas Jefferson. He takes it back to this committee of five. They pour over it for several weeks, and then they bring it to John Hancock, who was presiding over the Continental Congress at the time. That's why he signs at the top. Actually, I think on July the 4th, only two members of the Continental Congress signed it.
Most of the others signed it in the subsequent days.
So, as we look at this Declaration of Independence, and as I just mentioned, specifically the first few lines, and by the way, it's very interesting to note: in Congress July 4th, 1776, the unanimous declaration of the 13 United States of America. Damo, this was the very first time that the United States of America had ever been written on a governing document.
So, that's notable. We'll drop down to a bacon line: the laws of nature and nature's God. They speak of the dissolving of these political bands and how it's necessary to separate from an equal station to which the law of nature and nature's God entitle them. How does that apply to them then? How does that apply?
Apply to us now when it comes to understanding how government works, how the people are connected to that government, and specifically with the laws of nature, natural law, and the God who gives us those laws. Yeah, so this is definitely appealing to a divine justice and something outside of purely governmental rights, if you will, and appealing to, again, inalienable rights, which they'll talk about. But saying that sort of a natural law perspective almost, but that they're getting at that once human laws or positive laws or governing laws become unjust and in conflict with God's order of things and the laws of nature that God has built into the human person and human society, that at that point it is incumbent upon the citizens upon the citizens to declare such systems unjust and invalid. And that is what they're going at here is saying that based on those principles and that perspective, they are feeling obligated and behooved to declare nullified the unjust governing structure that they're facing. Right, and in the subsequent pages they walk through several grievances by which King George had really torn asunder this relationship because he has done these things.
We must now separate. They're not declaring war. You so aptly put it a moment ago, they're declaring independence. Do you think there's some sense that they're coming to terms with the fact that maybe we can get out of this with some sort of mutual agreement of separation and war will be maybe staved off? Or do you think that this is kind of the stake in the ground where they're saying, okay, this is where we have to declare we are no longer part of the crown, come what may?
I don't think they would be sort of Pollyannish enough to think, oh, we're going to write this document, and then they're going to be like, oh, okay, we're out. George says it's fine.
So I think more likely what it is is redefining the situation from a civil war to a war between nations, right?
So later in the document, you mentioned all the grievances.
So depending on how you hold the document in like the little pocketbook versions that I have a few of is like two and a half pages. All these bad things that the king has done. And then they conclude that by basically calling him a tyrant and saying, if he behaves as such of a tyrant, then therefore he is not fit to govern a free people, which they are recognizing themselves as. And then They go on to say that we've appealed also to our British brothers and sisters and tried to get them to stand up for us and invite the king to right these injustices. But because they haven't, we now see them as effectively foreigners.
That's not how it's written, but it's saying that we now see them as enemies in war and friends in peace.
So they're saying the end of this document doesn't have to be war, but if you're part of Britain at the end of this document and we're at war, then that's war between, we'll say, nations. And so I don't, again, I don't think they're foolish enough to think that peace is the immediate outcome of this document, but I think they're declaring that this is no longer a policing action, like the British troops are not policing their own citizens, that it is now a conflict between independent entities and that it is a matter of war, any conflict that continues. And surely by their closing sentence, declaring their lives and their honors to this, they know that that is what they are committing here.
So in your mind's eye, if you're working through this, John. Trumbull, you've got all these men in this room. That committee of five right at the front. John Hancock is sitting at the desk. Then you've got Robert Livingston and the others there, Roger Sherman, and then Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams.
And so they start this document. They're putting this all together. We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal.
Now, we won't dive too deeply into that particular phrase, but what are they getting at with all men are created equal, and how should that work for us today? Understanding that line itself. Yeah, so again, the founders, we've talked about it a little bit, and the Bartons famously with the wall builders are huge on this. That really they're deriving much, if not all, of this from Christian principles. And so, in the way that they appeal to the natures of the laws of nature and the laws of God, here they're appealing to the fact that our rights are granted by our Creator, by God Himself, and not by government.
That this is not things that are created out of thin air, that the government creates your rights, and then you live subject. To the whims of the government to give and remove them, but that because the rights come from the Creator, they'll go on to say that the government's job is to then secure and defend those rights, not to create or fabricate them. Yes, absolutely.
So, as we continually move through this, they are endowed by their creator. Again, a reference to divinity, to God Himself. And there's a lot of speculation about who Jefferson was, his connection to faith, that sort of thing. He certainly affirms that there is a God of nature, there is a Creator.
So, in one way, shape, or form, he's pointing to the fact that these rights, these blessings, these freedoms are given to us by God Himself with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that pursuit of happiness comes from an idea given to him by Locke and through the reading of Locke. The pursuit of happiness. We've talked a little bit about this. Why does he not use the right to personal property there?
Instead, he says the pursuit of happiness.
Sort of reading it. from our perspective, I think some of the implications of that, so again this whole clause is coming under rights endowed by their creator.
So these are things that sort of can't be taken away.
So life, you can't take that from me and leave me intact. Like, you only take my life with ending me. Not spiritually, right? We go on and have life with God. But in terms of this life and the government issue, you can't take life without ending the person.
You can't really take liberty without ending the person, right? Braveheart, famously, you can take our lives, but you can't take our freedom. As long as you're alive, you're free. Even in prison, certainly you've lost some of your sort of small F freedoms, but your personal freedom to worship God and know God and love God and speak truth can't be taken from you without ending your life. And then private property versus pursuit of happiness fits, pursuit of happiness fits in that latter category where even in prison, you still can pursue happiness and meaning and purpose in God.
But if you say private property, then you have the issue that, well, the government physically could come take all your stuff.
Now it would be unjust, and I think that would be the kind of thing that the government should be designed to protect you from, but it physically. Can be done.
So it would be an unjust alienation to be alienated from your private property, but it's not an impossible alienation. Whereas pursuit of happiness is impossible to be alienated from, though you could be highly restricted in your freedom to express that and practice that. Perhaps mine's an overly romanticized version of this. I like to think that it's aspirational. I like to think that he is saying, We are going to give you, as all men are created equal and given by God these inalienable rights, we're giving you a level playing field here where you have the opportunity to pursue a purpose, a calling that is only given by God.
Excellent stuff there, Adamo. You mentioned something, and as we wrap up here in this extremely wonderfully put episode, celebrating July 4th and the 250th signing of our, I'll call it our birth certificate. These men didn't take this responsibility lightly. It's incredibly noteworthy that they say this. Jefferson pinned these words, and then every last one of the signers signed their name on this birth certificate.
with this as the final line. John Hancock's name is right under this. And for the support of this declaration with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, there it is again, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. What a noteworthy, weighty, burdensome task these men were taking. Many of them did lose these things.
Their families were ruined. Their fortunes were squandered. They paid the price for this. And I think it's important for us to understand they paid for the price for this so that we could celebrate this document on July. July 4th, 2026, 250 years later.
Yeah, I think it's interesting. You've heard of it as our birth certificate as a nation, but all those men knew very well they may have been signing their death certificate. And I think when we honor also, I think July 4th is a fitting time to celebrate our veterans as well, and not just because I am one, but thinking about the people that are willing to lay their lives down to purchase this freedom because they knew good and well that that document would have been worthless without the commitment to back it up. And if they weren't willing to lay down their lives, then they couldn't ask all of the rest of the fledgling Americans to lay down their lives. Their own and fight for that.
And we to this day still have people putting on the cloth day in and day out to go defend these freedoms that they wrote and penned and were inspired to hand on to us so that we can continue to pass on these freedoms to our children because we're always only one generation away from people not defending these rights and protecting them for us. And there's a little bit of Reagan to wrap things up. I love it.
Well, thank you for listening. This episode of The Truths We Hold, where we focus in on the Declaration of Independence and celebration of our 250th anniversary as the United States of America. And of course, the principal foundational beliefs that we hold true here at North Carolina Family.
So go to our website at ncfamily.org to learn more about who we are and how you can partner with us to celebrate and make a difference here on the 250th anniversary of our nation. God bless you all. Thank you for listening to Family Policy Matters. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to the show and leave us a review. To learn more about NC Family and the work we do to promote and preserve faith and family in North Carolina, visit our website at ncfamily.org.
That's ncfamily.org and check us out on social media at ncfamilypolicy. Thanks and may God bless you and your family.
