You are confusing a "state religion" with our foundations. By no means am I saying we declared ourselves a Christian nation, quite the contrary. We were formed with the idea of religious freedom, which the Danbury Baptist pointed out. (I could have sworn I brought that up in all these discussions).

What I am saying is our country's foundation is built on Judeo-Christian beliefs. It's easy enough to find references to God in almost every document from that time, and even later. The founding fathers knew what could happen when you have a state religion, becase that is what they left in England.


>I won't argue that our forefathers based their writings on a religious foundation, but I disagree that this country was founded as a christian nation. Either it was not or our forefathers were lying to Tripoli in 1797 when this country made a treaty with Tripoli declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." That was written under Washington and later approved by the Senate under John Adams. I'm also surprised in all our online discussions here no one has pointed to Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists when they questioned the 1st amendment. (Thanks to HBO for refreshing my memory on those)
>
>However, I won't argue that individual states and municipalities have instituted local laws based on their understanding of religious laws or their individual beliefs. However, those laws are voted on by the constitutients or implemented by their congress and any law deemed unconstitutional is eventually struck down.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>You're assuming that only Christianity (and, in fact, only certain brands of Christianity) is a religion. Mormons are allowed more than one wife, even though most don't partake of that right, but it's there (unless they've changed the rules without telling me). Eastern religions also marry. Their marriages are based in religion, and they allow more than one wife.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mormons can't marry more than 1 wife in the US. They agreed to stop that practice quite some time ago. You are agreeing with my points here, the laws are almost all rooted in religious doctrine.
>>>>>
>>>>>But I thought you said the state is amoral. If the state is amoral, then why are there such laws.
>>>>>
>>>>>And no, I wasn't aware the Mormons had changed their rules. My bad. Although, if marriage is based in religion, why did they change? If they can change that rule regardless of their interpretation of God's laws, then why not homosexual marriage too?
>>>>
>>>>That's the point. The state is "supposed" to be amoral, yet all the laws have a basis in religion. Any religion can change their doctrine, if they so choose.
>>>
>>>All laws do not have a basis in religion. You're going astray right off the bat when you say that.
>>
>>Yeah, I thought about that, I should have said, ALMOST ALL OF OUR LAWS. As I recall the earliest laws came under the "Code of Hammurabi". Our laws have their origins in the old testament.