Replies

If you search the Constitution for “nobility,” you get two hits:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Naturally, then, if no title of nobility is to exist in the United States, we can conclude that “Lord” will not appear in the Constitution? Not so:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.
Now the question naturally arises, “What ‘Lord’ was conventionally thought, in the twelfth year of the independence of the United States, to have been born 'one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven’ years earlier?” The answer is plain as the nose on your face. The explicit name “Jesus” is not mentioned in the Constitution - but to say of the year thought to have been the birth of Jesus “the year of our Lord” - capitalized, no less - is to say, “Jesus Christ is Lord.” In sum, it is to claim to be a Christian. And this was in the document which was ratified by the states.
It is illogical to claim that the Constitution is a warrant to tear down Christian crosses.