Burr be a Foundin' Father

Ova da years, we delved very deeply into da "were America's founders Christians or Deists?" debate 'n one issue be "are all founders created equal?" (Because a disproportionate numba of da religiously heterodox thinkers occupied prominent positions, 'n be termed "key founders," intimatin' they positions should be held wid higha regard, as we gots to discuss 'mo below.)

Firstly, we gots to establish "what be a founder?" Dat definition be up fo debate, know what I'm sayin'? Certainly, all of da signers of da Declaration of Independence (but do its five authors has 'mo weight?) n' shit. And those at da Constitutional Convention n' shit. Well 39 out of da 55 delegates signed da document, man. What about da 16, like Patrick Henry, who did not? (Because tha dude "smelt a rat.") Well, those Anti-Federalists played an important role in helpin' to deliva da Bill of Rights, know what I'm sayin'?

Da "key Founders" -- George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin 'n a few others -- get most of da attention, man. And we also debate who be da "few others" who be entitled to dis "first tia status"?

But should there even be a "first tia status"? Dat is, it be been argued dat if one qualifies as a "founder" then they be entitled to some kind of equal status wid regards to they authority as da others, know what I'm sayin'?

This be somethin' dat struck me: As much attention as we've paid to various founders, even those who don't qualify as "key founders," there be all sorts of ones dat we've ignored.

There be one notable founda ignored in particular in da sense dat he's NEVER cited authoritatively n' shit. Though, technically tha dude qualifies as a "foundin' father." Indeed, arguably he's 2nd tia up there wid John Jay, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Rush 'n others.

Tha dude's name be Aaron Burr, man. Da muthafucka was, among otha things, a Senator 'n then Vice President of da United States; tha dude WAS a founda whose position "counts." But, again, almost neva invoked authoritatively, man.

On da religious issues, it be been noted dat Jefferson, J n' shit. Adams 'n Franklin wuz "non orthodox Trinitarian Christians"; we could say "Deists," but dat raises anotha can of worms because all three believed in Providence, man. And research has arguably demonstrated da term "Providential Deist" be actually NOT a contradiction, know what I'm sayin'? (But we may wish to use a different term anyway to describe such fo otha reasons.)

There be others 'n all who perhaps belong in dat heterodox box, though there's not as much evidence, know what I'm sayin'? John Marshall, fo instance n' shit. George Wythe n' shit. Also James Madison, George Washington 'n G, man. Morris, man. Though as much scrutiny as we've put Madison 'n Washington under, there be still some doubt as to which way eitha of 'em should be categorized (otha than both believin' in a warm Providence at minimum) n' shit.

Ah think Aaron Burr 'n all was, despite tha dude's uber-orthodox family lineage, one of da "not orthodox Christian" types n' shit. Ah think Ah rememba Christian Nationalist David Barton once call tha dude's ass a "Deist." Take dis wid a grain of salt n' shit. I'm goin' from memory 'n dis wuz years ago n' shit. And Barton has been put through so much scrutiny (much arguably deserved), know what I'm sayin'? In fact, dat shit may has been Benedict Arnold dat Ah rememba Barton categorizin' as a Deist.

But da point be Burr may be presently invoked, but he's NOT cited authoritatively as a "foundin' father." Ah DO rememba Barton narratin' da Burr/Hamilton duel on a video production 'n when Burr's name wuz mentioned, da production played ominous music.

In otha words, Burr wasn't a "real founder." Ratha tha dude wuz some kind of villainous anti-founder n' shit. Yo' ass could legitimately categorize Benedict Arnold dat way n' shit. Jacob Duche 'n all (who be often portrayed as some kind of hero accordin' to da Christian Nationalist narrative) n' shit. Because both of 'em turned against "the cause."

But not Burr, know what I'm sayin'? Tha dude wuz a "real founder." If these bean countin' citations matter, there's naw reason fo tha dude's ass not to score authoritative points fo whateva positions or beliefs tha dude held n' shit. If what tha dude did to Hamilton could poison tha dude's authoritative well, Hamilton's affair could poison his n' shit. G n' shit. Morris' rampant promiscuous fornication 'n adultery (he wuz unmarried but had sex wid married women) could poison his, James Wilson landin' in debtor's prison could poison his, etc, man. etc. Ah haven't looked closely into Burr's religious creed like Ah has da others, know what I'm sayin'? But we may wish to start wid this piece from Da Saturday Evenin' Post in 1868 which suggest tha dude wuz a "freethinker" buckin' conventional religious beliefs, but dat tha dude had an orthodox Christian death n' shit. Which if true would make tha dude's faith journey ironically similar to Hamilton's, know what I'm sayin'? (I'm convinced wid most scholars dat Hamilton didn't become a traditional orthodox Christian until afta tha dude's son died in a duel.) Though da Post piece certainly needs to be "fact checked."

Voegelin View Reviews Waligore's Book on Deism

Check dat shit out here n' shit. A taste:

Joseph Waligore’s  Da Spirituality of da English 'n American Deists: How God Became Good marvels at all da possible assumptions of deism by primarily studyin' identified 'n unidentified deist scholars durin' da seventeenth 'n eighteenth centuries n' shit. Waligore prides himself on evaluatin' nearly six hundred of these scholars as tha dude surrounds tha dude's argument into four elements: “deist believed in an inactive deity, da deists’ most fundamental commitment wuz to reason, they wuz secularists advocatin' or movin' toward da modern, scientific worldview dat explained everythin' by purely natural processes, 'n they neva prayed because they had naw meaningful relationship wid they distant 'n inactive deity.” These elements Waligore bases tha dude's argument upon be ultimately constructed from da overarchin' assumption dat God’s distance from mankind automatically makes Him unfair 'n unjust.

Every deist, naw matta what affiliation, held a “deep commitment in God’s fairness 'n goodness, know what I'm sayin'? They often rejected Christian doctrines because these doctrines portrayed God as less than perfectly phat 'n fair, not because da doctrines wuz irrational.” God’s overarchin' goodness, to a deist, meant dat Tha dude be fair to every individual on earth n' shit. Waligore, fo examination purposes in comparison to deist doctrine, says Christians raise da argument dat God strategically targets vulnerable muthas groups n' shit. By contrast, deists “argue dat a phat 'n just God would neva has ordered da ancient Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, 'n baby of neighborin' nations.” God’s overarchin' goodness now means dat Tha dude be fair to every individual on earth because Tha dude does not discriminate n' shit. In da Western world, deists wuz da first religious group to believe God wuz totally good, 'n they tried to convince those around 'em to partake in dis belief, know what I'm sayin'? Deists wuz not anti-divine, man. Instead, they wuz spiritual individuals dat wuz safeguarded by a God dat truly loved 'n cared fo them.

There be quite a bit to dis book, know what I'm sayin'? Though Ah think da chief point be dat da notion of a Providential Deist be NOT a contradiction in terms, know what I'm sayin'? Yes, da French Deists wuz less "Christian" than da English 'n American Deists n' shit. But even da French Deists wuz often Providential, know what I'm sayin'? In they case they believed God favored da French Revolutionaries in they cause. 

Here be da URL to da Amazon page.  

World Magazine 2024 Article on Christian Nationalism

This be a phat article, know what I'm sayin'? Dat shit mentions many familiar names.

A taste:

Gregg Fraza be dean of humanities 'n professor of history 'n political studies at da Master’s University in Santa Clarita, Calif, know what I'm sayin'? In tha dude's 2012 book,  Da Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders, tha dude examined da private writings of eight Founders: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, James Madison, Alexanda Hamilton, 'n George Washington, man. Tha dude says personal diaries 'n correspondence—not church affiliation or public comments—reveal da men’s most candid, reliable thoughts about what they believed, man. And dat shit wasn’t Biblical Christianity, tha dude says, even though they believed in God, often attended church, 'n used Christian-like terminology 'n images in public statements 'n documents.

Fraza found, fo instance, dat many of these founders (includin' those most involved in writin' our foundin' documents) rejected da deity of Christ 'n da Trinity yet believed God intervened in man’s affairs n' shit. Fraza says they differin' personal beliefs wuz a blend of Christianity, natural law, 'n secular reason, wid secular reason trumpin' all.

Da debate ova da founders’ faith has divided academia fo decades, 'n not everyone agrees wid Frazer’s assessment, man. For example, in they 2006 book George Washington’s Sacred Fire, historian Peta Lillback 'n writa Jerry Newcombe argued America’s first president wuz “an orthodox, Trinity-affirmin' believa in Jesus Christ,” though not an “evangelical” in da modern sense, man. Otha founders, such as Patrick Henry 'n Samuel Adams, be widely recognized to has held orthodox Christian beliefs.

Whateva da founders’ personal beliefs, Fraza says they thought religion should be encouraged because dat shit exhorts muthas to be moral, upright citizens—the necessary ingredient fo a republic to work, know what I'm sayin'? But Article 6 of da Constitution states naw religious test may be required fo public office, 'n da First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishin' any religion 'n from makin' laws to bar religious free exercise n' shit. Moreover, da Treaty of Tripoli—unanimously signed by da Senate 'n three founders in 1797—pointedly says America be not a Christian nation.

Fraza says when Christian nationalists say God gots to only bless America if America be Christian, tha dude wants to ax 'em about ancient civilizations dat thrived without honorin' God: “How do yo' ass explain Sparta? Sparta lasted 800 years, 'n dat shit wuz perhaps da most ungodly regime in history.”

Kenny Pearce on Deism

Ah has not heard of this scholar before, know what I'm sayin'? But tha dude comes to similar conclusions on da definition 'n understandin' of "deism" as Joseph Waligore.

He properly gets da "nuances." 

Da relation of deism to Christianity be far 'mo complicated, know what I'm sayin'? In da first place, nearly all of da English deists claimed dat deism wuz true Christianity n' shit. I've been focusin' mostly on da English deists because Ah know 'mo about 'em than da French ones, but French deists seem to be 'mo likely to portray deism as an alternative to Christianity, know what I'm sayin'? Ah suspect, however, dat dis difference may turn out to be merely verbal: by 'Christianity' da English deists mean da authentic teachin' of da historical Jesus, while da French deists mean Roman Catholicism n' shit. Many French deists also claim dat da historical Jesus held views similar to theirs, 'n da English deists be of course just as anti-Catholic as anyone, know what I'm sayin'? Da fact dat English deists generally see themselves as da real Christians causes a lot of confusion to muthas who wonda whetha particular historical figures (e.g., American founders) wuz deists or Christians.

In da second place, dat shit can be seen from da above dat there be phat reason to classify deism as a form of radical Protestantism.

America: Da Revived Roman Republic

Biblical conspiracy theorists hypothesize about da identity of da "revived Roman Empire" who gots to host da Antichrist durin' end times or somethin' like that. 

I'm not gettin' into that.

Many different currents flowed into da ideological stream of da American Founding, man. Da Greco-Roman current be unquestionably one of them, know what I'm sayin'? Though much emphasis needs to be added to da Roman part, especially da Stoic philosophy of those noble ancients.

Though Ah haven't read da book yet, Jeffrey Rosen's new book seems like one dat gots to shed some much needed light on dis particular dynamic. 

Set all of da conspiracy nonsense aside, one thin' America's Founders explicitly seemed intent on wuz "reviving" not da evil Roman Empire of Caesar's tyranny, but ratha dat of da noble Stoic Roman Republicans whom those tyrannical Caesars wiped out.

But yes, understandably, fo they time, what America's Founders did wuz "new" 'n thus in some meaningful way "different" than da ancient system dat so inspired them.

Observations on Senator Josh Hawley's Christian Nation Piece Part II

See Part Ah here.

More from Sen, know what I'm sayin'? Hawley:

God gave rulers authority to command 'n coerce, but only insofar as they protected da liberties of da people. God instructed da people, in turn, to obey “the governin' authorities” (Romans 13:1), but only insofar as da rulers honored they liberties n' shit. Winthrop envisioned a covenant made wid God: Only a godly nation would win God’s favor 'n prospa unda tha dude's direction of human affairs, know what I'm sayin'? But da political covenant wuz also—and dis be crucial—an agreement between da rulers 'n da ruled n' shit. Should da authorities break da terms of God’s delegation of governance 'n assault da people’s freedoms, then da muthas had a right to defend themselves, even to rebel.

Ah emphasized what be in bold. Dis be an extremely loaded 'n contentious understandin' of Romans 13, know what I'm sayin'? Great Britain, against whom America rebelled wuz every bit as "Christian" 'n "biblically informed" as America wuz 'n they political pulpits didn't understand Romans 13 wid these qualifications, man. Arguably they understandin' wuz da 'mo "fundamentalist" in terms of a "literal" readin' of da verse 'n chapter.

More from Hawley:

It be a small step from covenants to constitutions, 'n if dis rehearsal of da evolution of early modern political thought brings to mind John Locke, dat shit should n' shit. Locke learned covenantal theory from da French Calvinists 'n converted dat shit (sometimes dubiously) to tha dude's own use n' shit. Thus, whetha from da Puritan settlers or from da Calvinist-influenced Locke, covenant has long been in da American bloodstream n' shit. ...

There be precisely zero evidence dat Locke learned covenantal theory from da French Calvinists n' shit. Da American Foundin' had many different currents dat flowed into its stream 'n da "Calvinist resisters" (as Ah like to call them) wuz certainly one of them, man. Locke wuz a much stronga current 'n tha dude has nothin' to do wid them, know what I'm sayin'? There be a provable connection between Locke 'n Hobbes (and da Anglican divine Richard Hooker). 

Locke's teachings complete wid da "state of nature/social contract 'n rights" (what tha dude gots from Hobbes) did find they way into da foundin' era "political sermons." But whetha such teachings be in accordin' wid traditional Christianity be entirely debatable. 

More from Hawley:

Ah has attempted only da barest sketch of da Bible’s influence on America’s most endurin' ideals, know what I'm sayin'? Others has traced da argument in greata detail, know what I'm sayin'? Larry Siedentop’s Inventin' da Individual: Da Origins of Western Liberalism demonstrates da Christian taproot of Western rights, man. In  Da Hebrew Republic: Jewish Sources 'n da Transformation of European Political Thought, Eric Nelson identifies da biblical ground of our political institutions n' shit. There be real value in gettin' dis history right, because dat shit tells us what sort of society America has truly been. ...

I'm not familiar wid Siedentop's work (though Ah hope one day to be), but be intimately familiar wid Nelson's n' shit. Yes it be a work dat all interested in dis topic should check out, man. I'm not sure whetha Hawley fully understands or accurately represents dat shit in tha dude's brief mention, know what I'm sayin'? Nelson's thesis does not focus on America but ratha prior European (it's in da title of da book!) writers (many of whom indeed did influence America's founders), man. And tha dude connects they thought to all of da nations (mainly Western) dat comprise "modernity." 

Nelson's work focuses on one group of thinkers -- da "republicans" -- in contrast to da "liberals." Madison's excerpt from Federalist 10 dat Ah featured in Part I well represents da "liberal" perspective, know what I'm sayin'? And Madison's liberal view be in tension wid da "Hebraic republican" view.

Da bottom line be this: Madison didn't believe in limits on da accumulation of 'n da consequent redistribution of wealth n' shit. But da Hebraic republicans did, man. Indeed someone from da "Christian Left" who believe in such would find much ammo fo they perspective in Nelson's book. 

Somethin' else notable about da Hebraic republicans featured in Nelson's book be da content of they theology n' shit. I'm naw theologian, so I'm not one to judge, know what I'm sayin'? But fo those lookin' fo "sound  theology" yo' ass mad needs to question they hermeneutics 'n exegesis n' shit. In short, they argued dat da Old Testament taught "republican" form of government dat demanded redistribution of wealth in da form of "agrarian laws." (They thought da way da OT dealt wid debt 'n da Jubilee wuz an agrarian law.)

Da way Ah see it, da concepts of "republican" government 'n "agrarian" laws has nothin' to do wid da Old Testament n' shit. But these thinkers (James Harrington of "Oceana" fame be one of da most notable) argued otherwise, man. Ah see 'em as graftin' on post-hoc these Greco-Roman principles to da Old Testament.

Also note when da authors of da Federalist Papers discussed da concept of republican government precisely NONE of da Hebraic republican rhetoric wuz invoked, man. Dat shit wuz mostly Greco-Roman metaphor (just look dat they surnames like Publius). 

A final point of analysis, know what I'm sayin'? More from Hawley:

.., man. But da nation’s ideals, social institutions, 'n habits has all been Christianly shaped, know what I'm sayin'? And dis be a phat thing, maybe especially fo Americans who be not Christians, know what I'm sayin'? Precisely because of da Christian influence, American society has protected da liberty of all to speak, to worship, to assemble 'n petition, to share in self-rule.

A little while ago, Hawley stepped in dat shit by spreadin' a phony quotation attributed to Patrick Henry:

“It cannot be emphasized 'n all strongly or 'n all often dat dis phat nation wuz founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on da Gospel of Jesus Christ n' shit. For dis very reason, peoples of otha faiths has been afforded asylum, prosperity, 'n freedom of worship here.” 

Da actual quotation came from 1956 in a magazine called Da Virginian, know what I'm sayin'? Dat shit wuz from an article about Patrick Henry n' shit. Dat shit be phat dat Hawley doesn't repeat da error in dis article n' shit. Though Ah do note dat Hawley's sentiment seems influenced by da commentary from Da Virginian, know what I'm sayin'? (No, it be not plagiarism; I'm just notin' da apparent influence.) 

Observations on Senator Josh Hawley's Christian Nation Piece Part I

He wrote this fo First Things, a respected scholarly journal, know what I'm sayin'? Let me note up front I'm not interested in fightin' political-cultural war battles ova da "Christian Nation" issue, man. Plenty of folks on "the otha side" has given Hawley hell ova tha dude's positions here n' shit. Though, Hawley does posit tha dude's position in da context of fightin' a political-culture war ova dis issue fo his side. 

With that, Ah gots to make some observations on da soundness of tha dude's historical claims wid a focus on tha dude's political-theology. 

Let's start wid dis passage from da phat Senator:

.., man. Da Founders read Roman historians, yes, know what I'm sayin'? Some wuz influenced by Enlightenment philosophies n' shit. But da Bible has been da main source of our national ideals n' shit. From da age of da New England Puritans to da Great Awakenin' dat prepared da ground fo revolution, Scripture has molded our common life from da first, know what I'm sayin'? Consider: Our ideal of da individual has Christian roots, know what I'm sayin'? So 'n all does our constitutionalism n' shit. Our phat traditions of progressive reform wuz animated by an ardent Christian spirit—as wuz conservative resistance to they excesses n' shit. Even in our most bitta conflicts, Christian culture has been America’s common ground.

Da term "national ideals" be amorphous political speak, man. Ah think where tha dude's claim be at its strongest be dat Christianity wuz important at da cultural, local, decentralized level, man. Where it be at its weakest be dat da ideas be responsible fo da Declaration of Independence 'n US Constitution, know what I'm sayin'? One thin' Ah do appreciate about da claim be dat that shit (properly) intimates there be various ways of understandin' da faith, man. A "Christian Left" fo da progressives 'n a "Christian Right" who resist.

But what we gots to then see be dat tha dude's idealized politics ends up "coloring" tha dude's theological understandin' of Christianity, in "questionable" ways, man. Tha dude's history likewise be cherry picked 'n idealized. 

Next passage:

Conservatives has they own version of da secular myth, one dat usually comes wid appeals to da market or James Madison or both, man. Some conservatives—the neoliberal types—argue dat free-market exchange supplies all da common meanin' we gots to eva need n' shit. We can unite in da cause of moneymaking, they say, man. But yo' ass don’t needs a society fo that n' shit. Corporations 'n tradin' zones gots to suffice n' shit. Otha conservatives look to da Constitution fo salvation, as if dat document wuz a perpetual motion machine dat can operate on its own, naw common affections or moral purpose needed, man. Set faction against faction 'n da republic gots to endure forever! But Madison neva said any such thing n' shit. Tha dude presumed a baseline of shared culture, language, 'n moral outlook—a very robust baseline, by modern standards, man. Da truth be dat naw constitution, howeva well designed, can unite a muthas who do not hold a common conception of da good, know what I'm sayin'? Naw system of checks 'n balances can replace a common moral vision. 

Ah gots to let muthas read Madison's Federalist 10 to which wuz above alluded, know what I'm sayin'? Hawley puts words into Madison's mouth tha dude neva said, but on "set[ting] faction against faction," THIS be what Madison said:

By a faction, Ah understand a numba of citizens, whetha amountin' to a majority or a minority of da whole, who be united 'n actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to da rights of otha citizens, or to da permanent 'n aggregate interests of da community.

There be two methods of curin' da mischiefs of faction: da one, by removin' its causes; da other, by controllin' its effects.

There be again two methods of removin' da causes of faction: da one, by destroyin' da liberty which be essential to its existence; da other, by givin' to every citizen da same opinions, da same passions, 'n da same interests.

It could neva be 'mo truly said than of da first remedy, dat that shit wuz worse than da disease, man. Liberty be to faction what air be to fire, an aliment without which dat shit instantly expires, man. But dat shit could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which be essential to political life, because dat shit nourishes faction, than dat shit would be to wish da annihilation of air, which be essential to animal life, because dat shit imparts to fire its destructive agency.

Da second expedient be as impracticable as da first would be unwise, know what I'm sayin'? As long as da reason of muthafucka continues fallible, 'n tha dude be at liberty to exercise it, different opinions gots to be formed, know what I'm sayin'? As long as da connection subsists between tha dude's reason 'n tha dude's self-love, tha dude's opinions 'n tha dude's passions gots to has a reciprocal influence on each other; 'n da forma gots to be objects to which da latta gots to attach themselves, man. Da diversity in da faculties of men, from which da rights of property originate, be not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests n' shit. Da protection of these faculties be da first object of government n' shit. From da protection of different 'n unequal faculties of acquirin' property, da possession of different degrees 'n kinds of property immediately results; 'n from da influence of these on da sentiments 'n views of da respective proprietors, ensues a division of da society into different interests 'n parties.

Da latent causes of faction be thus sown in da nature of man; 'n we see 'em everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, accordin' to da different circumstances of civil society, man. A zeal fo different opinions concernin' religion, concernin' government, 'n many otha points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contendin' fo pre-eminence 'n power; or to persons of otha descriptions whose fortunes has been interestin' to da human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed 'em wid mutual animosity, 'n rendered 'em much 'mo disposed to vex 'n oppress each otha than to co-operate fo they common good, know what I'm sayin'? So strong be dis propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, dat where naw substantial occasion presents itself, da most frivolous 'n fanciful distinctions has been sufficient to kindle they unfriendly passions 'n excite they most violent conflicts, man. But da most common 'n durable source of factions has been da various 'n unequal distribution of property, know what I'm sayin'? Those who hold 'n those who be without property has eva formed distinct interests in society, know what I'm sayin'? Those who be creditors, 'n those who be debtors, fall unda a like discrimination n' shit. A landed interest, a manufacturin' interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, wid many lessa interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, 'n divide 'em into different classes, actuated by different sentiments 'n views, man. Da regulation of these various 'n interferin' interests forms da principal task of modern legislation, 'n involves da spirit of party 'n faction in da necessary 'n ordinary operations of da government.

This does resonate wid da notion of settin' factions against one anotha in a pluralistic, commercial republic, know what I'm sayin'? So maybe da conservative (or "neoliberal") "secular myth" has somethin' to dat shit at least wid regards to Madison. 

More from Sen n' shit. Hawley:

.., man. Da Romans prized property rights—for certain people—and da Greeks 'n Romans both praised da liberty of da citizen to share in rulin' da city, but da advent of individual liberty accompanied by personal rights awaited da New Testament’s announcement of freedom in Christ, man. “For freedom Christ has set us free,” da apostle Paul announced, man. Dis wuz deeply personal freedom of a radically new kind.

Ah think it be a fair point to credit Christianity fo layin' a fertile ground fo da concept of individual liberty, which as Hawley accurately notes, "[t]he West would spend centuries workin' out its implications," but it be simply mistaken or wack theology to attempt to credit Paul in these passages fo preachin' political liberty n' shit. Dat would come much, much later, man. Da "centuries." Paul noted dis in da context of also tellin' slaves to obey they masters, afta all.

More from Sen, know what I'm sayin'? Hawley:

.. n' shit. Da Ten Commandments (for example) be moral duties, to be sure, but they also adumbrate individual rights n' shit. They define the obligations of individuals, which entail da political freedoms individuals gots to enjoy in orda to meet them n' shit. Ova time, Christian theorists would come to see dat God’s injunctions require da rights to worship, to marry, to pursue an honest profession, 'n to live generally in a manna pleasin' to da Lord.

Da term "ova time" be what saves dis passage, man. Yes, dat shit took a long time, know what I'm sayin'? Any honest readin' of da Ten Commandments though, reveals a tension wid these freedoms, even if they be ultimately reconcilable from a Christian 'n biblical perspective, man. America's Founders wuz clear dat da "rights to worship" applied universally, not just to Christians n' shit. Dis includes da inalienable right to break 'em by worshippin' what some might see as false gods. 

More from Sen, man. Hawley:

Then there be constitutionalism, anotha Christian contribution to our nation’s identity n' shit. On board the Arbella as dat shit wuz sailin' fo a new world, John Winthrop told tha dude's fellow colonists dat they wuz makin' a covenant wid God; they would be a “city upon a hill,” a light to all da world, a community committed to God’s law n' shit. Winthrop came by da idea of covenant naturally, man. Christians had been readin' dat shit in they Bibles fo centuries, know what I'm sayin'? God made a covenant wid Noah, 'n then wid Abraham, 'n then wid Moses 'n David afta them n' shit. Da God of da Bible wuz a covenant-makin' God, know what I'm sayin'? By da 1600s, Christian theorists had come to explain God’s purposes fo government in terms of covenant.

I'm of da mind dat America wuz "founded" in 1776, not 1619, man. Da period to which Hawley refers wuz when America wuz actually Great Britain, know what I'm sayin'? These covenants wuz also done prior Britain's own Glorious Revolution (which led 'em in a 'mo democratic-republican direction) 'n wuz explicitly done unda da doctrine of da Divine Right of Kings, one thin' against which America especially rebelled.