Martin Burns wrote:
>* Note on Founding Fathers - I'm not sure I like the deification
>of them by some; it's fairly clear that when they wrote the
>Constitution, they had in mind that the 'all' it would benefit
>was 'all' those who were like them - rich male white landowners.
>Pretty much like anyone with that amount of power.
Maybe you should sit down and read the documents before passing judgement on
them and the men who wrote them. If you can find anything in the Declaration
of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights that specifically
grants benefits to rich male white landowners, then you'll have some basis for
making this statement. You won't find it.
Whether you like it or not, Americans who cherish freedom will always revere
the Founding Fathers, just as Scots venerate William Wallace and Robert Bruce,
who were, after all, members of the feudal aristocracy. Those worthy warriors
really were fighting for freedom, but it was freedom in the context of the
times in which they lived, which included a hereditary aristocracy who enjoyed
all the priveleges, and of which Bruce, at least, was certainly a member.
Vestiges of that feudal aristocracy still exist in your country.
The Founding Fathers specifically sought to eliminate the tyranny of
hereditary rule, and I think they succeeded. If they were imperfect, judge
them in the context of their times, not from your 20th century PC point of