I incidentally heard Fareed Zakaria of CNN say in his show on July 5, 2026, somethings to the effect that some say that the Declaration of Independence of the U.S. is the best document written since the birth of Christ.
I immediately inferred that he suggests that there is a virtuous resonance between the declaration of the characteristic nature of Christ at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and the Declaration of Independence of the U.S. in Philadelphia 250 years ago.
If my inference is wrong, the mistake would be mine.
His guest for the discussion was Ken Burns who spoke in favor of the writers of the constitution. He sounded as articulate as biased to give complete credit to them.
I am a student of the first Renaissance and a caller for the second Renaissance.
I understand the writers of the Declaration of Independence of the U.S. to be students of the first Renaissance. Speaking figuratively, their pivot point was Goddess Athena.
In his book titled The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, Stephen Greenblatt suggests that Thomas Jefferson got the idea of the pursuit of happiness from Ancient Greece’s civilization and incorporated it into the Constitution of the U.S.
I posit that ingrained memory of the medieval anarchy in Europe has something to do with the imagination of the idea of inalienable rights. In my view, there is evident history that the declaration at the Council of Nicaea factors in the medieval anarchy in Europe. I don’t think it is doubtful that the ingrained memory factors in one of the greatest ideas of all time, which is the separation of church and state. In addition, I don’t think the idea of promoting the progress of science and neutrality to religion in non other than a constitution would be born without that ingrained memory.
Granted that history substantiates these, I do not think that there is virtuous resonance between the declaration at the Council of Nicaea about the characteristic nature of Christ and the imagination of inalienable rights written in the Declaration of Independence of the U.S.
In fact, I find their histories contradictory. In my view, thinking of them as resonant would be adding insult to the injury of the medieval anarchy in Europe and inconsiderate to the labor of Renaissance men of the first Renaissance.
As a student of the first Renaissance and a caller for the second Renaissance with figurative pivot point Pharaoh Akhenaten, I take a risk of being biased about the contradiction instead of any virtuous resonance.
I admit that I am very much biased in favor of enlightenment instead of persevering in any Dark Age.
As I see it, enlightenment was the basis for the imagination of inalienable rights by descendants of largely British tribesmen. It came with a sin of exclusion.
My perfunctory introductory reading of the old Bible suggests that tribesmen of largely ancient Israel were behind its content. I have come to understand that this old document also has a sin of misrepresentation. Case in point is exhaustive accounts of misrepresenting the African Pharaoh pioneer of monotheism as an Israeli Prophet.
My limited reading of history suggests that humanity is in an era of its greatest enlightenment on a global scale.
Enlightenment may be a necessary condition to chart an enduring path forward. It is not a sufficient condition.
People of imaginations find an enduring path forward out of a field of enlightenment. Critics of history in hindsight are plenty. Pioneers of an enduring foresight are few.
To summarize, the standing question is whether the histories of the imagination of inalienable rights by the students of the first Renaissance and the characteristic nature of Christ declared at the Council of Nicaea have been resonant or contradictory.