Cita Iniciado por Rodrigo Ver mensaje
Yes, but it does not define what morality and religiousity are. The only thing your Constitution does regarding religion is to grant all false religions and doctrines the right to spread their errors and lies. Your Constitution does not admit the truth of any Church doctrines, not even the truth of the Bible. It only acknowledges the "truth" of people's will.
The emergence of the U.S. is a part of the overall story of English history and, given that most of the Founders were of Protestant origin, you're not going to find very much in the way of existential specificity in the Constitution. The Constitution is a political document and not a religious one, but a political document that, at the time, presupposed that the people of the country were of a religious nature.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

A terrifying idea, this comment of Reagan's, but one that exists at the heart of the U.S. and to truly understand this you'd have to understand the history of the English (which does include the early U.S.): Anglo-Saxon tribal law, Rummymede, where King John was forced to acknowledge the rights of freemen, the law of the land, and so on in the Magna Carta; the codification of common law by King Alfred in his Domboc (which was influenced by the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament); the jurisprudence of the Anglo-Norman jurists, and so on up till the Age of Reason and men like John Locke and William Blackstone.

Since many of the so called Christian (Protestant) mainstream Churches today say it's ok and perfectly moral for mothers to kill their children and for queers to marry or adopt children, how can you prove that your protestant or deistic masonic founding fathers didn't mean that kind of distorted and false concept of morality and religiousity?
Purely immaterial as abortion, so-called gay marriage, and other unsavory social practices exist in many western countries. To offer a counter, gays can "marry" in Spain as of 2005 due to a ruling passed by the Cortes Generales whereas no such practice exists at the national level at the U.S. The socially conservative clergy and laity adamantly opposed this ruling in Spain, much as has happened in the U.S. wherever this problem has arisen.

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) has largely remain disinterested in this problem, leaving it to the states to handle. Gay "marriage" has been consistently struck down by the voters, i.e. California Prop 8 (California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but upheld by activist (progressive) judges. The will of the majority of voters is that gays cannot marry and that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is consistent with biblical religion, natural law, common sense, or whichever term you prefer.

There is no State Religion in the U.S. and there was never going to be a State Religion here. What sort of State Religion would you have us create, the sort of Progressive Christianity that emerged in Nazi Germany, when the popular religion was simply used as an arm of state terror and for indoctrinating the German citizens into the ideals of national socialism?

This is the potential slippery slope that politicians like Santorum walk upon when they begin to inject religious commentary into political speeches. Now, I will comment no more except on Mr. Santorum; the thread is going a bit off-topic.