Don’t stretch the point beyond credibility. Liberty can have its “blessings” all by itself in modern English, and citing the “year of the our Lord” as proof of intentional theocracy is ridiculous.
It is in there. Maybe they just considered that as understood?
At least we know God is in the Constitution.
And we know the phrase “year of our Lord” is the right way to think of and refer to the general timeline.
Why?
Do you see a difference between the use of "blessings" and the capitalized "Blessings?" Didn't writers of the time capitalize words that referred to God, like they did in the Declaration with Creator, and the unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and Happiness, and in the Constitution with Blessings and Liberty?
-PJ
Yep. "In the year of the Lord" means "Anno Domini" which is AD. It is correct to write AD 1787, 1787 AD not so correct.
I didn’t cite that as proof of intentional theocracy. You made that up.
But the references are there and they are proof of what most of the founding fathers believed.
A theocracy is a top-down political system overtly declaring itself aligned with a specific religious tradition. A society is a natural, organic mass of persons whose beliefs influence their thoughts and order their actions. These two things should have remained distinct in American jurisprudence, so that while church may not intrude upon the state, neither should the state have routinely intruded upon the society of believers in Nature's God over the past 70 years, distorting our republic to its present state of utter moral relativism without a unifying basis in law.
As but one example, over the past fifteen years, two-thirds of U.S. state legislatures passed laws specifically limiting marriage to "one man and one woman", indicating that the societies of those states wished to remain within the JudeoChristian traditions representative of their electorate. All, count 'em, all of these laws were overturned by activist judges.