Considering the phrase "year of our Lord" was rather ubiquitous in writing at the time, I'd say it doesn't mean much in the teological sense. But then again, as others have pointed out, the word "Lord" is a generic term referring to God. And since most religious scholars admit the Judeo-Christian "God" and the "Allah" of Islam are the same thing, it is a distinction without a difference.
But your original statement is that "the Constitution does acknowledge Christianity as a foundation". Sorry, but there is NO WAY that using the term "year of our Lord" "acknowledge(s) Christianity as a foundation". If that was an important principle, they MUST have said more about it in the Constitution. So where is it?
So was Christianity at that time.
Kinda like: "What kind of music do we have here? Well, we have both kinds, both Country AND Western.
as others have pointed out, the word "Lord" is a generic term referring to God. And since most religious scholars admit the Judeo-Christian "God" and the "Allah" of Islam are the same thing, it is a distinction without a difference
Well then "most religious scholars" are either wrong or lying. Allah is the moon god, one of 650 gods worshipped by the pre-moslem Arabs.
Uhhh...."The Year of Our Lord" when coupled with a year, (which started at "1") counting back, refers to the year of the birth of Christ as a starting point. Before that is referred to as BC (before Christ)
Sheeeesh.
Why am I telling you this?