Mandate?

“The separation of church and state” is not in our Constitution, regardless of how hard one tries to convince themselves. This country was founded on Christian beliefs. The symbols of those are all over our government buildings as symbols of these founding beliefs. As such they are hardly acts of ‘a mandated religion’. They are references to our past history. To let a very vocal minority to demand successfully that they be removed is a snapshot of the lack of courage of our leaders. As symbols of our past history they deserve the same respect, care and support as any other such symbol.

It is bluntly ridiculous to use the argument that the government maintenance of these Christian symbols of the early foundation of this country somehow means ‘state mandated’, therefore qualifying the erroneous ‘separation of church and state’ argument used in attempts to remove all references to GOD from our currency, schools, public displays, etc.

The definition of ‘mandated’ according to Webster’s finest is “authoritatively commanded or required”. Considering that, could the spineless accommodation by our government to those that would have them removed from public view be viewed as ‘a mandate’?