A continuation of the hijack from this thread.
No. No weight should be given to that phrase because that’s the way many secular documents were dated.
From our various links, we both know that that phrase was often used in secular state documents. So it was just a common way to state the date (if not the only way), just like “A.D.”.
Yes, the US was founded on Christian principles. It was also founded on non-Christian principles, and some conflicting Christian principles. So finding any one case of overlap between the principles the US was founded on and some Christian principles means nothing.
And what Christian principles are we talking about?
As you probably know, we’ve had a number of threads about this over the years. I’ll say what I’ve said in the other ones I participated in:
I think it’s pretty clear that the federal government was meant to be secular. Certainly more secular than any typical European government of the time. But the federal government was much, much weaker then than it is today, and the states played a much larger role in governing. The 1st amendment did not apply to the states, and some actually had Established Churches. Look at this, from Massachusetts’ original constitution:
Certainly the state of Massachusetts seems to have been founded on Christian Principles (especially Protestant Principles). So I guess the answer to your question depends on which level of government you’re talking about as well as an understanding that power was distributed quite differently at the founding of the US.
Old Testament or New? Quite a bit of difference there.
But really, it was a time when most people in a position of power or wealth or prestige not only went to church, but to the *same *church. They mostly got the same religious education along the way. Certainly they’d have been influenced by what they were taught, even if they had the sense to refuse to make the linkage official (see: Separation of etc.).
Truth, justice, and the American way.
ETA: n/m. That’s Superman.
No.
The United States is founded on the idea that legitimate authority flows from the will of the people, rather than from God, from natural law, or from personal moral virtue. That isn’t a point of view that most Christian thinkers prior to the 19th century would have endorsed.
Life, liberty, and the purfuit of happineff.
n/m, that’s Stan Freberg.
Long Life and Prosperity?
n/m - that’s Vulcan.
WHAT?!!! Look at the exchange. It was MY contention that The Constitution did have a nod to religion/God in it, due to the use of “In the Year of Our Lord”. YOUR point was that no credence she be given to that because that’s the way dates were always written back then. I then asked you if you would admit error and concede the point if I could show you other official documents that used a dating mechanism that was unlike “In the Year of Our Lord”.
You said that you would:
[QUOTE=iiandiiii]
If you can show me that the phrase “in the year of Our Lord” was not used in secular documents, then yes I would.
[/QUOTE]
I provided four documents from the same time that clearly showed what you asked. And now you’re trying to NOT concede the point?
Please explain.
I did not say “always”.
No, I said that if you could show that phrase was not used in secular documents then I would concede the point. You showed some examples of other ways of stating the date used, but then I showed examples of that phrase being used in secular documents (in addition the Constitution itself). So I demonstrated that the phrase was indeed used in other secular documents, which is what I asked about.
You did not prove that that phrase was not used in secular documents (which is, admittedly, a very difficult thing to prove but rather easy to disprove – as I did by linking to those treaties, in addition to the Constitution itself).
The very strong secular elements of the founding of the US were actually the first bits of secularism and freethinking items that I found when I came to the US, in one book I read they made notice that that old chestnut of an argument (the one that claims it was Christian principles alone) omits the rest:
Point being that just as soon there was any mention of a deity there was also in the text an acknowledgment that human history is here and that humans are the drivers. Just what one would expect from Deistic founding fathers.
What is important IMHO is to remember that back then many thought and were taught that kings ruled by the grace of God.
That divine rule of kings had also biblical justifications, and there is a lot of evidence that shows that most founding fathers dismissed those justifications, otherwise we would be discussing when Prince Charles is going to replace the Queen.
No, you did not. My mistake. You said “something other than the common format for dates”.
That is precisely what I showed. And here is your original exchange:
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
Is that the best you’ve got? With all his genius, if he meant it to be a Christian-themed document, don’t you think he would have put something other than the common format for dates that was linked somehow to Christianity? That’s the way dates were written – “In the Year of Our Lord” is like “A.D.” – it doesn’t mean the user of the phrase is Christian.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=magellan01]
So, if I can show you a date from that era not written in that form, will you concede the point?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
If you can show me that the phrase “in the year of Our Lord” was not used in secular documents, then yes I would.
[/QUOTE]
And then I showed 4 examples of the date being written in a format other than “In the Year of Our Lord” on official documents from the same era.
YES! As was the requirement for you to concede the point.
You supplied evidence that further supported MY point, which was that the use of “In the Year of Our Lord” should be given some credence because there were other ways to date the document that had zero religious connection.
That’s exactly what I did. What it appear that you’re doing now—which to be honest, I’m not sure about because you seem to be changing your story from sentence to sentence—is trying to claim that your original contention was that you would concede the point that “In the Year of Our Lord” should be given credence only if I could show if every other document from that era showed a different phrase being used. Huh? Like I said, I’m truly confused to what game you’re playing here. Because then you went and provide cites that SUPPORTED MY contention.
The Constitution also had a nod to the long “s”. Absolutely finful how that’s gone.
“f” is not “ſ” 
No you didn’t – you found some secular documents that used a different phrase. That doesn’t show that secular documents do not use the phrase “in the Year of our Lord”. I proved that secular documents do indeed (sometimes) use that phrase, which was my main point – that the Constitution, a secular document, used that phrase, which does not imply anything religious as it was just a common way to state the date.
Which supports my point 
Right – good examples, that show “in the Year of Our Lord” was NOT the only way to state the date on secular documents. And I never said it was the only way. It was a common way, which I said, and then later I demonstrated.
No, for me to concede the point, you would have had to show that “In the Year of Our Lord” was never used (or, at least, not commonly used) on secular documents.
No, my evidence supported my point – that “In the Year of Our Lord” was a common way to state the date on secular documents at the time.
I found secular documents that, like the Constitution, used the phrase “In the Year of Our Lord”. That proves my point – that the phrase was a common way to state the date.
It’s not that hard. Yes, the task I set out for you such that I would concede the point was rather difficult (and, it turns out, impossible, because I was right) – that’s why I set it out! Did you expect something easy? And it turns out I was correct – that is a common phrase that was used in secular documents. Like the Constitution. So it has no relevance as to whether the Constitution (or the nation) was inspired by Christianity.
No changing the story here. I said it was a common way to state the date in secular documents. I said I would concede the point if you could demonstrate it was not used in secular documents. You showed that it was not used in a few secular documents, but then I showed that it was indeed used in other secular documents – thus proving my point: that phrase was indeed used, sometimes, in secular documents, and by itself had was nothing more than a common practice (though not the only common practice) for stating the date.
Was the US founded on principles that are exclusive to Christianity? No.
Was the US founded by men, and on principles, that were influenced by Christianity? Yes.
Was the US founded on Christian principles? The question is vague and ill-defined enough that you could put together a strong argument either way, depending on how you interpret the question.
Says the dude with mad keyboard skilz.