Eric --- re: challange that this country was founded on the "principle of free will" (proposed in the discussion of the support/condemnation of Dial) I agree that "free will" is not explicitly stated in either the declaration of independence or the constitution. However, the truths held to be inalienable "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" come close. I suppose it depends on how you define free will -- the right to do anything we want or the right to do anything so long as does not infringe on the public good (constition's term, not my own). Maybe what is key is trying the define the public good, left conspicuously vague -- and probably consciously so -- by the writers of the late eighteenth century. One thing it most definately is not is rule by majority opinion (otherwise known as tyranny to the minority opinion). Rather, the constitution sets up a lengthy, and some have argued deliberately laborious system, of gathering and weighing diverse opinions. The key was a significant number of participants (the voices of a few were not sufficient to determine the minds of the many) and -- ironically, in light of your aptly noted exclusion of a number of those living at the time -- a diversity of opinions. It seems that Dial, the exhibit proponents and detractors, and the museum staff all have valid opinions and we are so much the better for this range. However, I would not agree that "free will" should be couched in religious terms. Rather than "we are in God's hands/how free we seem, how fettered we are", the Bill of Rights specifically states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". That includes the right not to participate in any religion. The writers of these documents, profoundly influenced by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, seem more concerned with the rights of man than the will of God. Thanks for the constitutional segue. And I'd love to see different interpretations of the public good... Michelle L. Craig Traveling Psychology Exhibition [log in to unmask]