[unspun]

Is there a "moral" basis for including this in the US Constitution? And by the way, the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments are an integral part of the US Constitution.

And by signing (a very important act, I think) the Constitution "...in the Year of our Lord (1787)" The People make reference to our Creator being sovereign over The People and thereby also base our Constitution upon the Declaration of Independence, which declares that "we are endowed by our Creator with... the Right to Life...."

That may be a very casual way of doing all that, but what footing does anyone have to deny that it is an expressly and fundamentally legal way? What in our nation is more fundamental?

One may say that the language "Year of our Lord" is merely a cultural convention. And the answer to that is, "EXACTLY!" and upon the convention of our culture being founded upon the sovereignty and truth of our Lord and Savior rests America. Whether any individual or group in the nation chooses in their freedom to acknowledge Him is beside the point.

(All that is true, if "words mean things." We will find out, in the case of "Homosexual Marriage" vs. "Our Foundations for Sense, Knowledge, and Reason," whether words still mean things to America.)

[eiffel]

And by signing (a very important act, I think) the Constitution "...in the Year of our Lord (1787)" The People make reference to our Creator being sovereign over The People...

This is laughable.
Don't you think if it was so important to establish the United States as a Christian nation, they would have taken care to include this somewhere else besides what basically amounts to a date stamp?

[William Terrell]

When you start statutoring maxims of the common law known as unarguable fact for millennia, you are clearly acknowledging that a statute has precedence over fact. This is not good, especially at the federal/national level.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!