The more I see this type of discussion the more useless it seems to me. I suppose it's better to have differing camps have a discussion rather than keep it all to themselves, but does this sort of argument solve anything?
At its core, one side of the argument sees the monument as an endorsement of religion. I know I'd be sweating bullets if I had to go to that court house on charges like... oh, sodomy. That monument shows a certain bias and to Christians of that particular sect it ain't no thing. To us heathens though...
On the other side of the argument people rail about how the country was founded by Christians on Christian values. I don't see anything to their side beyond that. The only "Christian values" that I see in US law are that you shouldn't kill people and that you shouldn't steal shit and those things are hardly Christian-exclusive.
No one on either side changes their mind. It's "the liberal party line" or the "radical Christian party line" and both sides discredit the other from the get go.
Apparently at the same time Bush was saying he'd keep Rummy until the end of his term, he was talking to Gates about taking over at Defense (at least according to the "political insider" on NPR- for what it's worth).