Again, you are in error. Read the letters. They wanted to be tolerant of other faiths, and primarily tolerant between the Protestant Christian faiths, but there is no question at all which God they served.
All it is, is a statement that it does NOT come from government (because if government giveth, then government taketh away, to paraphrase a quote.) It's just a line in the sand, saying "beyond this point I will not argue, I'll just start shooting."
No, again, Our jurist prudence is based upon the Christian Bible and the dictates of Blackstone's Law. The Judeo-Christian Ethic forms our moral code. I am afraid your position has been compromised by the modern view. Read the founders and you will find that I am right.
Oh, I know that. But what they took pains to say was "Creator," not "God,". And in that, they were wise enough to cover all bases. Because at least one of them recognized that rights are not so much taken away as they are given up by those who don't feel they have the moral authority to fight for them. And of course, that is where we are now, losing rights by the leaps and bounds, because we do not fight for them. And no supernatural intervention halting the process, I notice.
No, again, Our jurist prudence is based upon the Christian Bible and the dictates of Blackstone's Law. The Judeo-Christian Ethic forms our moral code.
Yes, they based on what they knew. We excuse their views on slavery because we know they were constrained by the culture of their time and place. So we must understand that the same minds that accepted slavery would bow to some Middle Eastern religion.
But we today do not have to either condone slavery or bow toward Jerusalem or Mecca. It's a matter of choice.
I found this site helpful to do just that: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?cat=HW