[aron]

It is an interesting process to evaluate the moral character, or turpitude, of the founding fathers, or the original Pilgrims, either individually or en masse. Certainly one could make a case for either extreme, or somewhere in between.

Let me turn the question: what would some reader think, if this forum's record were preserved, upon reading these posts 500 years hence? Would they be impressed with the "godly character" evinced by the writers here? How much "bearing one another with love" do we display, versus "scoring debating points"? How much "thinking one another more excellent than oneself" versus "I am right and you are not"?

For that matter, what do people think, today? Obviously we don't know because readers read and writers write. We only know what the forum writers think. But if we measure Alexander Hamilton's moral failings, or Cotton Mather's religious dogmatism, perhaps by the same measuring stick we look like a nest of rattlesnakes who only take time off from hurling virtual rocks at Lee and the Blendeds to throw them at one another.

And I speak for myself here. I may be the most self-righteous, closed-minded, self-important, judgmental person of all. When Jesus said to take the last seat at the banquet table, He really exposed my own character. Every time I open my mouth, or write, just where am I trying to place myself, at the banquet table? I would really feel ashamed if I made a big deal about someone else's failures, only to eventually find them sitting higher up than I.