It's a subversive document, if you ignore the fact that it leans on The Creator as the origin of all of its precepts, surely the least subversive perspective our founding fathers could have taken. And therein lies its weakness, as its power draws precisely from its viability as Gospel.

Gospel, as we know, is accepted or rejected depending on the appreciation or disregard of the ruling (religious) class. One need look no further than the Gospel of Thomas to see how religious interpretations are at the mercy of ideas that appear more compelling to the religious majority.

Until these founding documents are stripped of their religiousity, they will always exist as apocrypha. They will always exist as interpretations of the intentions of a higher authority, interpretations that may be incorrect. As is, powerful religious zealots, such as George W. Bush and John Ashcroft, are known to entertain private audiences with The Lord, and frequently emerge from these meetings with personal scriptural interpretations of their own, ones that frequently contradict those of our founding fathers. The truth is, this is fundamentally not problematic, given our existing legal framework, because how is what God tells Ashcroft different from what God told Jefferson or Franklin? The only way for our society to make unalienable our human rights is to remove God from the texts, and remove our rights from the context of The Scripture. Finally, we may remove God from the lips of our leaders.