For a very interesting and 'illuminating' comparison and contrast to this, read this excerpt from Andrew Wilson's 'Remaking the World' (all about the year 1776), where he, ironically, maintains that 'We (do not) hold these truths to be self-evident', and even what Jefferson originally wrote about these truths being 'sacred and undeniable' were later edited by Franklin, 'a very portentous edit' indeed! https://www.crossway.org/articles/we-do-not-hold-these-truths-to-be-self-evident/
Fascinating article! Thank you for sharing! If I may, I'll summarize it for those skimming the comments with this excerpt:
"Jefferson was right the first time.7 Equality and human rights are “sacred” truths, not “self-evident” ones. They are irreducibly theological, grounded in specifically Judeo-Christian beliefs about God and his creation of humans in his image, and there is no particular reason why societies with different theological foundations should not reach very different conclusions. Many have."
This is of course correct.
I think the edit reflects the general belief among Christians then and now in Natural Law. I personally have significant issues with the very idea of such a thing, because though "the works of the Law are written on their hearts," the global prominence of human sacrifice, and sati, and foot binding, and countless other horrors common among pagan cultures, demonstrates far too clearly just how not-at-all universal the ideas we hold to be "natural" truly are. I believe our standards of right and wrong come from God's revealed Word, full-stop.
But I also know that it had become the common position among the Christians of that era, and still is among those Christians who think about such things, to disagree with me.
Understood that way, it is very likely that Franklin's edit was not intended to be as starkly different from Jefferson's as it might otherwise seem -- which seems likely since it didn't trouble the many Christians in the room -- and may have mostly been a matter of style.
Anyway, I could write at least three essays in response to your post, which by itself would make it a good one. Thank you!
For a very interesting and 'illuminating' comparison and contrast to this, read this excerpt from Andrew Wilson's 'Remaking the World' (all about the year 1776), where he, ironically, maintains that 'We (do not) hold these truths to be self-evident', and even what Jefferson originally wrote about these truths being 'sacred and undeniable' were later edited by Franklin, 'a very portentous edit' indeed! https://www.crossway.org/articles/we-do-not-hold-these-truths-to-be-self-evident/
Fascinating article! Thank you for sharing! If I may, I'll summarize it for those skimming the comments with this excerpt:
"Jefferson was right the first time.7 Equality and human rights are “sacred” truths, not “self-evident” ones. They are irreducibly theological, grounded in specifically Judeo-Christian beliefs about God and his creation of humans in his image, and there is no particular reason why societies with different theological foundations should not reach very different conclusions. Many have."
This is of course correct.
I think the edit reflects the general belief among Christians then and now in Natural Law. I personally have significant issues with the very idea of such a thing, because though "the works of the Law are written on their hearts," the global prominence of human sacrifice, and sati, and foot binding, and countless other horrors common among pagan cultures, demonstrates far too clearly just how not-at-all universal the ideas we hold to be "natural" truly are. I believe our standards of right and wrong come from God's revealed Word, full-stop.
But I also know that it had become the common position among the Christians of that era, and still is among those Christians who think about such things, to disagree with me.
Understood that way, it is very likely that Franklin's edit was not intended to be as starkly different from Jefferson's as it might otherwise seem -- which seems likely since it didn't trouble the many Christians in the room -- and may have mostly been a matter of style.
Anyway, I could write at least three essays in response to your post, which by itself would make it a good one. Thank you!