I wouldn't like it, this is supposed to be a Christian country! At least that's what I concluded from studying American history for my citizenship exam. This is a Christian country and we don't persecute people of other religions, but our laws are (or should be) based on Christian Scripture. Other countries may base their laws on the Kama Sutra, but not this one.Interesting conclusion -- I've taught the citizenship exam study material, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and never encountered the phrase "Christian nation" in these materials, nor did I draw the same conclusion as you.
Funny how a "Christian" country somehow neglected to mention Christ anywhere in the founding documents that define this nation!
The Constitution contains no references to "God" (unless you are willing to read a lot more into the phrase "..in the year of our Lord..." than is reasonable).
The founding fathers were not Christians.
Thomas Jefferson was a heretic (Rationalist) who rewrote the Four Gospels of the Christian New Testament, eliminating all references to the divine nature of Christ! (but don't believe me, buy your own copy and read it for yourself).
I assume you intend to ignore The Treaty of Tripoli (written by Joel Barlow, a friend of Thomas Paine), a treaty with what is now Libya, which reads in part "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". This treaty was signed by president John Adams, and ratified by the Senate in 1797.
Jefferson wasn't a Christian. It is my understanding that he was a Deist. He is one of the founding fathers. However, that does not refute that the nation was founded primarily by Christians.
The article you cited is not well researched, nor is it very accurate.
Our nation is certainly living in a post-Christian, postmodern era. There have been ebbs and flows in both the practice and the expression of faith throughout our history.
I commend to you a book by Peter Marshall and another author whose name I don't recall. The first in the series is The Light and The Glory. It may not persuade you, but you might find it an interesting and different take on the subject.
I think it likely that you would agree it is wrong to kill a baby. Interestingly enough, some have argued that there should be a "buyers remorse" sort of provision for the parents of infants - notably an "ethicist" named Peter Singer.
I'm not very fond of the slippery slope argument, but I think it has occurred in the practice and acceptance of abortion in our country. The justices started with a "we don't know where life begins" approach, and it has slid from there to where, literally, babies that in a few inches/moments would be born normal and healthy have surgical instruments pierce their brain and have their brains sucked out.
The question is not what hath God wrought, but what have we as a "never want to be inconvenienced" society found to be acceptable.
I don't have all of the answers, and I don't think you are implying that you do. However, the notion of abortion as a back up form of birth control has, IMHO, brought us to where we are today.
I would also say that the laws regarding the destruction of a condor egg are far more protective of a developing condor than our laws protecting developing humans. Do you not think that is an odd set of priorities?