So some thoughts about what it all means. Have we lived up to the ideals of those wealthy New Worlders who had the spare time to get involved in politics? Were their ideas truly that great, or have we made them great in the process of defining what independence and freedom mean?

Those of a certain mind bent see the actions of the current leadership of this country as redeclaring our independence from the control of European powers. Piss on France, to the doghouse with Germany, lock arms with England and march off to glory. One wonders how the "forefathers," who enlisted the aid of France and Germany in their battle against the British might perceive the current geopolitical reality.

There's yet another mindset that sees this country having strayed far from it's God-focused idealism. They, too, see the current political landscape with hope, although they are at odds with some of the current administration's policies, particularly in Israel. These people are wont to quote from the spiritual contemplations of those long-dead leaders as proof that they DIDN'T believe in separation of church and state and as proof that this country can't survive if it continues to push the church into the background.

I wonder if they want to carry this logic all the way? The author of that declaration (though he had a lot of input) as well as most of its signers owned African slaves. Was it a repudiation of our founding fathers' ideals to abolish both the slave trade and slavery? Dear Thomas, we now know, also had intimate relations with a slave woman, often enough to have children by her. Perhaps these "family" people want to bring back the chamber mistress?

My point is that we cannot rely on someone else's viewpoints as a guide toward a better future. It is even less safe to rely on the record of their actions as a guide to virtuous living. What we must do is to look carefully at their ideas, expand on them, and apply them to the reality of the culture we face today.

The power of the founders' ideas lay in diversity and tolerance. Granted, their personal expression of those ideals left a little to be desired. They also face political reality. They could go no further than the people were willing to follow. The mark of a good leader is not that he or she can take people anywhere -- we call that person a dictator. The mark of a good leader is twofold. First they must lead while knowing the limits of how far they can lead. Second, they must choose the right direction to lead.

There's been a lot of talk about the recently completed Supreme Court term. This same group of justices has been working together for what is a modern record. And yet court observers can't pin them down as leaning either right or left. Personally, I think that's great. The justices are demonstrating that they will act on the basis of the constitution as they define it and with deference to the current socio-cultural environment.

That deference has some people downright livid. They had hoped that appointing controversially conservative justices to the court in the Reagan years would give them the clout to undo the destructive work of previous courts. But these justices seem willing to be bound by precedent, even if that precedent is the "hideously immoral" Roe v. Wade decision. And the surprising decision on the Texas sodomy law has raised blood pressures in the Bible belt and in Colorado Springs.

"What business does the court have in the bedroom?" some have complained. Others accuse the court of stepping out of their role as interpreters of the constitution and into the role of legislators. The current court is willing to make law from the bench, they charge.

I'm not sure it's quite that bad. They didn't make law, they simply unmade law. And they didn't go into the bedroom, they pulled the state of Texas out of the bedroom. They did not rule on the morality of homosexuality, but on the morality of control. Here is where I believe many in this country tread on dangerous territory. They think that all immoral behavior must be outlawed. Thus to strike down a law against a particular behavior is to call that behavior moral. I believe there's a different approach.

Since I've mentioned Roe v. Wade, let me address the issue of abortion. Simply because I believe the state's interests aren't well served by attempting to outlaw abortion doesn't mean I believe abortion is moral and right. I personally believe it is murder, condemned by the sixth commandment (fifth, if you're Catholic). However, I'm a male. It isn't a choice for me to make most of the time. As someone who believes abortion is immoral, however, I do have certain obligations. I must never, in any way, place a woman in a position in which she might consider an abortion as a solution to her problems. That does require that I keep my thing in the right place. But suppose the wife of one of my workers becomes pregnant a few weeks before I lay her husband off. Might she consider abortion as a solution to the problem of being able to afford a child now that her husband is jobless?

People who call on the state to outlaw all immoral behavior demonstrate that they lack the personal fortitude to force themselves to behave properly. They demonstrate that they are weak and shallow, and they prove that they are addicted to controlling other people. Such immaturity does not lead to a great nation, and our leading justices are to be commended for doing what they could to stem the tide.

People who have read much of the other material I've posted on this site might believe that I'm a Bush hater. It doesn't matter what George stands for, I'm against it. I'd like to prove you wrong this time. I think Mr. Bush is demonstrating that he's growing into the job, and has managed to do some things right. For example: Recent news articles quote him as saying we would not be frightened out of Iraq. Finally, George, you demonstrate some backbone. After being frightened into Iraq (or was that frightening us into letting you go into Iraq) you now realize that it would be cowardly and immoral for us to leave Iraq in its current condition.

George has even entertained the idea of sending troops to Liberia. That would help insulate him from the charge of insincerity when he now claims that Saddam's tyrrany was the reason to take him down. And the religious right has begun looking with alarm at his stance toward peace in the Middle East. Understand that if George actually won peace, their predictions of an imminent tribulation would fall by the wayside. They may accuse the Arabs of using the Palestinians as a tool to win the destruction of Israel (probably true) and of not really wanting peace, but I doubt they would be satisfied with real peace either.

If you've labeled me as liberal, then you might also expect me to applaud the president's support for a Medicare drug benefit. Sorry. Can't stand behind him on that one. But that's a topic for a different article in a different section. This plan is a giveaway to two wealthy groups: the pharmaceutical industry's investors, and the businesses that currently offer drug benefits to retired workers. (Oh, I forgot the investors in the private plans that will administer the program.)

So what's the outlook for our country? I'd like to be hopeful, but I hear too many voices calling out their shallow rage and their need to control. The United States of America was not formed as a democracy, but as a democratic republic. We do not live under strict majority rule, though we believe people ought to have a voice in how they will be governed. We have a system of laws and founding principles designed to ensure that the majority cannot trample the rights of the minority. That may occasionally anger the majority, but let us not rip apart the framework that has made this country great as we express that anger.