I made plain the separation of the church (Christian denominations), its political activities, and the ethics that it expouses, as being the intellectual base of law found in the Constitution.
The intellectual base of American law was British law. That is 100% clear.
The legal ideas incorporated into the Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights arose as a result of Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and legal advancements like the Bill of Rights of 1689. It was an outgrowth of the philosophical movements that were advanced by the Glorious Revolution but the benefits of which advancements could not be fully realized in Great Britain because of entrenched traditions and political structures.
The history of the political and legal philosophy that led to the Constitution are really well understood, and it seems very clear that this was an outgrowth of intellectual developments that were then taking place in Britain, not in intellectual and ethical developments that took place in Judea 2,000 prior. None of the Constitution, nor federal, nor State laws look to the Bible for guidance. All of them (save Louisiana) were a direct outgrowth of the British legal system. (Louisiana's was an outgrowth of the French legal system, heavily influenced by the legal systems of its neighbors over time.)
Even the complaints that led to the Revolution mostly amounted to, "Americans should have the same rights as the British, and you are denying us those rights," and not "British people are oppressed and we reject that oppression."
There are a few elements of Biblical ethics that can be seen in U.S. law, like the prohibition on murder and theft...but those existed in Roman and other pagan ethical systems as well. The laws that were clearly Biblically derived were things like Blue Laws, laws criminalizing contraception and laws criminalizing adultery and sodomy, not any of the grander ethical principles. (And many of those religious laws have by now been struck down, with good reason.)
If you believe that U.S. law has a Christian base, then why are laws criminalizing sodomy considered archaic (and, unconstitutional)? Why in the Constitution itself would it ban "religious tests" as a criterion for holding public office? Where in the Bible do you see an ethic that suggests pagans should get equal access to being in the leadership?
Indeed, why have American lawyers been quoting Blackstone for 235 years—a famous English jurist?
All of these things are easier to explain if you view our laws as being primarily derived from British law within the historical context of 18th century America.
Regardless of the fact that Christ is mentioned in the document or not,
He isn't.
religion is fundamental to the core of any civilization.
What religion is Japan? Do you really believe that shintoism is fundamental to core of their government? Or do you believe that they have no civilization there?
They have both Shintoism/Buddhism as the predominant religion(s) *and* a state structure that is very much westernized, just as ours is. That is because we established their modern government after WWII, but, if religion must be the "core", then how can their government possibly be stable when only 2% of their population is Christian, and the rest mostly Shinto, Buddhist or both?
A similar question can be asked of India, another westernized democracy in a nation of relatively few Christians.
Do you believe these countries and others in the same position are on the verge of societal collapse?
In the United States, during the writing of the Constitution, that religion was Christian.
It's true that a majority of the people were Christian...but there were others as well. The first synagogue in America pre-dated "America" as a nation. Of the founding fathers, several were deists, some denied Christ's divinity, some denied that Jesus ever performed miracles, many rejected the idea of a "trinity," and many like Franklin did not believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.
All of those men were elites (certainly having little in common with "the people" in general) heavily influenced by the doctrines of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was a largely secular movement that had at its core much of the philosophy of Spinoza, a Jew in Holland, and that spread in part as a reaction to the many wars and civil unrest created by Christianity in Europe. Spinoza in particular was from a family that had to flee Spain in order to avoid torture and death.
The debates (and records of them at the federal convention exist) discussed liberty in terms of Enlightenment ideals and Enlightenment thinking. There was no great discussion of what Jesus would want, or on questions of biblical interpretation.
If they were big into biblical ethics, then why rebel against the Britain at all? After all, the Bible says:
Romans 13:1-5: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."
and
1 Peter 2:13-14: "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."
