[blanknoone]

Seeing things as 'Judeo-Christian' and non-Judeo Christian is just as foolish as seeing things as 'religious' and non-religious (note that that lumps Christians with Islamonazis). There are huge differences between Locke and Kant and Kinsey.

You're right that our founding fathers were not conservative...they were radicals. But it is their radical accomplishments that conservatives should wish to conserve.

[MarlboroRed]

Saying something is Judeo-Christian (or Hellenic-Christian, if you like) means that you're falling back on thousands of years of reality and practice, means you revere the institutions and practices of the West that have emerged from the wisdom of ages. That these Western institutions have religious underpinning and that this religion is Christianity says a lot about the religion of Christianity and its ability to balance freedom and duty, something inherent in no other religion.

I agree entirely with you that we need to perserve the accomplishments of the founding fathers, but I see very little left to conserve. The mass of the public is nothing like the mass was back in the 18th century. We are anything but self-governing and self-sufficient. We are entirely dependent on centralized government. Were one of the founding father to arrive in the US today, they would cry and acknowledge that their revolution had failed.