OK, let’s start with the Biblical aspect of your post. I’ll tell you that, yes, I know that Satan was given lordship over this world. But there is a difference between having authority over something and having ownership of it. Ultimately, God has control over this world because He has authority over Satan. Besides, if God does not have the ultimate authority over this world, He couldn’t have given Satan authority in the first place. So, for these reasons, I object to your claim as to ‘ownership’ of this world.
Next, when I mentioned that the Israelites received a King because they demanded one, this is true. If we read the books of Moses as a story first – before we start picking at individual verses and even words – we will see that we are told this by scripture. This demand does not change God’s reaction. So, yes, God could call it a punishment – and I agree with you that it was just that. But it was in response to Israel’s demand. My reading of Scripture is such that man usually does something to warrant God’s punishment before God doles it out. Wouldn’t you agree?

Now, as for the Constitution: the Constitution is only the “how” of our government. The Declaration of Independence is the “what” and the “why” of this nation, and it is most certainly not a ‘secular’ document. Everything about the Declaration can be traced back to Christian philosophy, including Jefferson’s acceptance of the Christian aspects of most of his wording in that document. Remember, Jefferson cited Locke as one of his primary influences, and Locke was a devout Christian who based his version of Natural Rights and Natural Law primarily on the book of Romans. Many forget – if they even knew – that Locke wrote more in defense of Christianity than he did on government. Likewise, Jefferson took his concept of “the pursuit of happiness” from Blackstone. In our founders’ time, this was a legal concept that had nothing to do with pursuing whatever makes the individual happy, it was the pursuit of living in harmony with Natural Law as understood to be God’s Law – the Law of the Bible. This is still in the legal texts of that time. We also have Jefferson’s private letters explain the validity of what I just said.

Now, this does not make the Constitution a theological document, but it is not secular, either. There are references to Christianity in it, as well as to the Declaration. Modern lawyers simply ignore, dismiss or attempt to explain them away. There are also concepts in the Constitution that – at that time – would have been assumed to be understood as having a Judaic/Christian foundation. The founders no more saw need to explain this than they did to defend their claim that God was self-evident (or that we need air to breath). So – by my reasoning – the mistake we make today when we call the Constitution ‘secular’ is one of both etymology and equivocation. After all, anyone who understands Biblical Scripture would understand that the govt. Moses established was not a theocracy, but neither was it secular in the modern understanding of the word. Since our Constitution was largely modeled on that of Moses’ govt. and by men who held very similar beliefs and understandings as the ancient Israelites, I see no inconsistency in treating our Constitution similarly to that of the first constitutional republic: the govt. that Moses established. Point of fact, Franklin said America was the ‘New Israel’ (he did not mean in a prophecy sense) and that our constitution was derived from “those ancient documents.” He went on to specifically say ‘By that, I mean the Bible.”

To further support this, our founders clearly stated that our govt. was meant for a religious people and was wholly unsuited for any other. This makes no sense if they understood the constitution to be secular. These admonitions by our founders only make sense in light of an understanding that they saw our govt. in a similar sense to which I just explained. HOWEVER, this should not be mistaken for a claim to our constitution carrying the authority of God's commandments. As I see it, the constitution is similar to the govt. Moses set up: it is an excellent earthly attempt to construct a govt. meant to be run by holy people and in accordance with religious teachings, but connected to faith only through the people who represent the people within that govt. Every attempt I have heard or read that seeks to explain our constitution in any other way inevitably creates contradictions in the historic record: contradictions which fall away as soon as we accept the understanding I have just detailed.

This is what I mean when I say the Constitution is not a secular document, and why I hold the position I do: not because I wish to make history fit my religious beliefs, but because I wish to understand the historic record that we have available to us with as few contradictions as possible.

There is no other way to describe the govt of Moses other than theocracy. How you can say it isn't is bewildering. Thta anyone paid any attention at all to Moses or the laws he set forth was predictaed upon the recognition of Yahweh as the Ultimate Authority on Right and Wrong, Good and Evil. The defining principle of all actions to be judged was whether or not it was pleasing to God. There is no other way to define a govt such as this other than theocratic because the laws were written by God, enforced by God, and ultimately changed by God in the person of Christ. There is nothing secular about the govt of Moses, or even the monarchy that began with Saul, whose checks and balance involved the judgements of the Prophets who were called by God to speak truth to power in the face of misstepping kings.
Our consitution, on the other hand, despite it's obvious colorings by aspects of the Bible, cannot in any way be representatative of anything in the word of God because at that time the "divine right of Kings" was a clear and widely accepted justification for rule, and the idea of "of the people, for the people and by the people" flew right in the face of what was considered Godly law and governance. We owe this departure more to the changes in England politically than to anything in Bible. The constitution aside, much of the foundational laws that structure our society are found in old english law(see Oliver Wendell Holmes) and ideas found in Rman Law. This is not to say there is no religious influence at all. The founding fathers were religious men to some extent, but it demands a little insight and a bit of appreciation for one to really understand what that meant at that time. The wealthiest in the colonies were the landowners who had property, education, and, of course, religion, as opposed to the lower classes who had practically none of this. See Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States for a bit more insight.
In any case, I object to your conclusions, and found the article here to be on point. It is high time we stopped calling ourselves a "christian nation" as nothing could more insulting to Christ or Christians. Conveniently ignored by you and those very "christian"(many were, in fact, Deists) founders was the excessive violence of slavery, the unique qualifications for participation in that government they established, and the continued obsession with wiping out the "indian savages" whoes land and lives were so easily removed. This alone is a chilling judgement as to the faith and benevolence of this so-called "christian" nation and the faithful fellows who founded it.

Joe: the biblical monarchy was hereditary, the appointments of judges not exactly a democracy per se. Christ is considered King on account of lineage from both the line of Mary and that of Joseph. It is also worth noting the failure of both the government of the Judges and the monarchy. The Judges failed by virtue of the inability to effectively enforce their decrees--that is, a lack of force and/or coercian. The monarchy failed due to an excess of power, that is, excessive force/coercian. Neither is, nor was presented as, an ideal.
As to the validity of either Zinns work, or that of anyone else you might call "progressive", the consideration is certainly based upon the opinion of the reader. One is more comfortable with their primary education story-line will reject it, and those who find the rosy presentations of US history a bit too naive to swallow would consider Zinn's book a refreshing alternative. If Zinn and others like him may be a bit spurious with the facts, they can do no worse than the textbooks we've been given where the "official" history is concerned.
Finally, the objections to slavery, especially those expressed by Jefferson, are considerably dampened by the obvious acceptance of slavery overall. It wasn't until his death that Jefferson freed his slaves. It is clearly on account of the indispuable economic advantages provided by slavery--and not a specific deference to the southern states--that allowed it to continue. And lets not forget some of Jeffersons own words on the subject of Africans: "I wish in my heart I could believe them to be fit for liberty, but I fear they are not." It is very easy to accord our founding fathers any number of super-humna intellectual abuilities, but at the end of the day they were as much victims of their time and it's prejudices as we are of ours. This doesn't make them bad men with bad decisions, but it certainly pulls down that idealistic curtain that attempts to paint some non-existent paradise on the face of what was simply an aristocratic drive for self-determination and power. By your account, it is suprising to think that nearly every day of US history has been a day at war. By my account, it is not suprising at all given the nature of our original leaders and the class they represented. Power is power at the end of the day, and if power does anything it is to protect itself and to expand it's own influence. Consider as one example Manifest Destiny and the chilling reality it presented for any human being alive in the continental United States that was not a white, european "american".

theCL

anarchy is the negation of society

No, it isn't. Anarchy is the negation of the state. The state is the negation of society.

Amazing!