Well intellectual debates are much more entertaining in my mind than Daty during a woman's period LOL.

So why I have great admiration for our founding fathers, I would agree that the founding fathers don't have a clue about modern America.

As I am sure you are well aware, our founding fathers did not think women should vote, did not think people of color should vote, didn't particularly think much of people who didn't own property, thought slavery was an ok institution.

The fact that this country has evolved into the finest country on earth is a reflection of the people who came along after the founding fathers to build on the base they created.

I doubt many of us really think the way our founding fathers do.  I doubt The Adams's felt the same way as Jefferson or Washington or especially the folks from the carolinas or Georgia.  I think Franklin was probably the most intellectual of the lot.  There didn't appear to be a whole lot of agreement at one point.  Remember the war ended in 1783 but we didn't get our present day constitution until 1787.

So I understand your point but they lived then, we live now and it is really up to us to keep the country as great as the one that was given to us.

my .02

[A 1991 issue of the _Sons of the American Revolution Magazine_ included a column by the Chaplain General calling for increasing Christian involvement in the U.S. government. The article concluded:"Compatriots, by inattention or by silence we allow a small but vocal minority to rob future generations of Americans of this precious marriage of Biblical religion and our civil government. To do so would be to forfeit the inalienable human rights of life, liberty, and property, granted by our Creator. As good soldiers of Christ, and in the 'Spirit of 1776', let us hasten to arms"Following is the text of my letter to the editor. It is reproduced here as Setians may find the quotations useful in other situations.]

SAR REBUTTAL

* * * September 1, 1991
Mr. Winston C. Williams, Editor THE SAR MAGAZINE * *
Dear Mr. Williams:
While I respect SAR Chaplain General Paul Butler's personal enthusiasm for his Christian faith, as expressed in his "Chaplain's Call" column for the Summer 1991 issue, I am surprised and offended that he should insist that Christianity be enthroned as an American "state religion" - and that he presumes to label all who defend the Constitutional separation of church and state as "robbers" against whom "let us hasten to arms".As a Society sensitive to the intentions and actions of the Founding Fathers, perhaps we should refresh ourselves as to their actual points of view on the issue of religion:Most importantly, of course, the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbade Congress to create or in any way provide for an establishment of religion. During the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a motion to pray collectively was voted down. Benjamin Franklin noted that there were only two or three besides himself who wanted to open with prayers. Ironically Franklin himself, during his time in England, had been a member of Sir Francis Dashwood's infamous Hell-Fire Club, summarized by Daniel Mannix as "an association dedicated to Black Magic, sexual orgies, and political conspiracies." Adds Mannix: "Franklin was able to meet the Hell-Fire Club on its own ground. As far as any abhorrence of the Black Mass went, Ben announced that he did not believe in the immortality of the soul and he considered evil permissible, since God had created all things and so had presumably created evil also. Even when he was an old man of 84, Franklin wrote to Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale, saying that he doubted the divinity of Christ although he believed in his moral teachings."George Washington, a professed Deist, refused either to take communion or to kneel in church. Pictures showing him kneeling at Valley Forge have nothing more than artists' imagination behind them. [Deists believe that God created the laws of nature but exercised no control over the subsequent evolution of those laws, including the appearance of humanity.]"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity," said John Adams, who became a Unitarian.

In 1802 Thomas Jefferson made the Founders' concept of the First Amendment even more explicit, writing that its intent was to build "a wall of separation between church and state", adding that "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." During the eight years of his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue a Thanksgiving proclamation. "I consider the Government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution of the United States from meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises," he explained in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Miller. Said James Madison: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."Nor did the Founding Fathers put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency. "Under God" was added to the Pledge by an act of Congress in 1954, during the McCarthy era. "In God We Trust" began appearing on coins in 1864 and became the official motto of the United States only in 1956. [The motto conceived by the Founding Fathers was "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One).]If there is indeed a proper "call to arms" for the Sons of the American Revolution, may I suggest it be ever to the defense of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights - documents precious to Americans no matter what their personal preference concerning religion may be. Indeed I find myself wondering, with no disrespect to the person of Dr. Butler, why the S.A.R. feels it appropriate to "maintain an establishment of religion" in the form of a Chaplain's office at all.

Sincerely, Michael A. Aquino
cc- President General G.H. Brandau
(Circulation to national officers & committees requested)

By the time this whole kaffuffle had heightened to the point that a direct order from a superior judge was being disobeyed, I suspect the miscreants had driven themselves into such a religious fervor that they believed they were Doing Right, in the fine tradition of Ghandi, Mandela, King, you know ...

If a law is unjust, it's unjust to obey it, so it's your duty to resist it non-violently, all that stuff? I think the religious adherents congratulate themselves that they are on THAT sort of crusade.

Scary, really ...

Saw a good bumper sticker:

The last time religion and politics were mixed, people got burned at the stake

Heh.

.. I believe on of the "Top Ten" mentions something about graven images....

I like how people just don't understand that the law provides for "A seperation of chrch and state".  That is what this debate is about.  It's not about it being "offensive" to someone as in the art reference you made above.

This has proven to be a fascinating case study in the ways American representative democracy works out problems.  There are a number of interesting and loosely related issues, IMHO.

1. Does a judge have the right to place a statue, poster, tract, or any similar item with a clear religious theme on permanent display on state grounds?

2. Was the ruling of the higher court judge correct, ie was this a situation wherein the "rule of law" was an issue, or was it an issue of government sponsorship?

3. What "truths" or ideas can the government promote (think public schools now) and what truths or ideas can the government not promote?

4. In what ways do forms of expression violate the first amendment?  A corrolary to this question is this: when does the government need to clamp down on expression based on the standards of the community, and when does the government have a duty to protect the first amendment rights of the minority?

5. What moral/ethical systems will guide this country in the future?  (Legislating morality is an not an option -- it is a necessity.  It is impossible to legislate anything BUT morality in some form or another.  Whenever legislation is passed, it reflects somebody's morality.)

6. How do you reconcile removing the tablets from the Alabama Supreme Court building and not (as was suggested by a religious leader in protest of this) sandblasting half the buildings in Washington DC?

7. In what ways should the government change it's ways of doing business to reflect the first amendment?  

These are all questions for reflection when considering this topic.  I have found them useful when trying to sort through all the rhetoric.

I thought this topic endlessly fascinating, and have tried to wade through the tangle of issues presented.  I think the seperation of church and state is an important aspect of our democracy.  I also feel that Judge Moore made the wrong decision -- in regards to placing the statue.  I do feel that the decision by the higher court was the right decision for the wrong reason.  The issue is not one fo the rule of law, but of endorsement -- as has been pointed out, the first commandment is one of exclusivity.  This cannot be reconciled with the first amendment prohibition against state sponsorship.  

There is a deeper question involved here though: Where do the rights found in the Bill of Rights come from?  In this the Founders were universal in their decree: they come from God.  Now I can (and have) made a good argument for a secular basis for the rights and freedoms that all people everywhere should enjoy.  But it's a pretty tough sell, and I'm not sure I believe it all the time.  While it is true that some of the Founders were Deists, they believed that God had placed within Creation not only physical laws but spiritual laws as well.  These laws were just as binding on men as the physical ones, albeit in a different sense.  It was Jefferson (a Deist) who stated, in the Declaration, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ... "  This is a clear invocation of a higher power in reference to the source of these universal rights.  The state constitution for the state of Alabama begins with a mention of God.  Is that constituion unconstitutional?  An interesting and thought provoking question ....

Another question is how to reconcile the clear Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States with the increasing changes in demographics brought about by immigration and education.  Fifty years ago, nobody would have complained about this monument.  But this isn't fifty years ago.  Demographics have changed.  The people making up this country have changed.  The crusade for placing the statue back in the courthouse has its roots not just in the spiritual, but in the history of our culture.  A big part of this is about preserving cultural heritage.  Reconciling that with the changes in demographics is tough.  Whenever a new cultural value system moves into an area and begins to take over (as postmodernism is doing to most areas in America) there is a clash.  Whenever cultures clash, unfortunately, some people win and some lose.  

In the end this is what I think.  I think the monument has no place in a courthouse.  I think Judge Moore, who excercised poor judgment in placing it there, nontheless was correct in refusing the higher court's order --- their legal reasoning was clearly flawed.  In that decision to stand his ground, he was also absolutely wrong --- he is a judge and is sworn to uphold the law.  A lot of horrible things have been perpetrated by the state against the people in the name of "the rule of law," but does that give a judge the right to break the law?  In all honesty I don't know.  It's hard to tell someone to do something they feel is both morally and legally wrong in the name of the "rule of law," but in this case a bg part of me thinks he should have done what was asked of him.  It's tough.  His decision will have ramifications far into the future.

I think that without some sort of national discourse on the nature of truth and the origin of the rights and freedoms we all love so much, the impending cultural clash between left and right will be incredibly ugly.  I think that unless everyone remembers that representative democracy demands a responsible and informed citizenry, we run a very real risk of losing our cherished freedoms.  Ultimately, it comes down to being able to sit down and have a cup of coffee with those you disagree with and talk about this stuff like rational adults.  We don't teach that ability to our students, but I think it is a skill that is increasingly valuable in our increasingly multicultural society.