Right on, Professor Cole. To many of us, religion is important. That said, if we are to maintain our rights to freedom of religion, we must also maintain the rule of law. The commandments we strive to obey may not be covered in law. But our right to obey them should be protected. In many instances, US or State law has infringed upon religious beliefs that pose no threat to the community or the nation. Should that be the case? If we believe there should be no sex before marriage, does that mean we have to condone those who revel in sex as recreation? No, but if they are not engaging in illegal acts, we must look the other way. Unfortunate, but true. Once adultery, for example, was illegal. Now it is not. Still, many of us believe it is a sin.
Since pre-Revolutionary days, the poor house, as it was then called, has been a major drain on community (or public) resources. Ever was it so. How to deal with it has been a debate since the founding fathers. I believe it will continue. We rich nations have spent ourselves into debt far greater than we will ever be able to pay. Not just the US. Who stands to suffer. Citizens of course, but if we have no money, how can we afford to give billions to the quake victims in Haiti or the starving women and children (you never hear about men starving) of Somalia?
The more I watch and listen and ponder, the more I think no one person is capable of leading any major country. Things are just too complex for anyone to get their head around the problems.
Thank you for your astute observations, but academia also does not have a very good record of problem-solving.
The United States stopped exports of scrap metal and oil to Japan when it refused to get out of China and Manchuria. Pearl Harbor was the result.
Right on, Professor Cole. To many of us, religion is important. That said, if we are to maintain our rights to freedom of religion, we must also maintain the rule of law. The commandments we strive to obey may not be covered in law. But our right to obey them should be protected. In many instances, US or State law has infringed upon religious beliefs that pose no threat to the community or the nation. Should that be the case? If we believe there should be no sex before marriage, does that mean we have to condone those who revel in sex as recreation? No, but if they are not engaging in illegal acts, we must look the other way. Unfortunate, but true. Once adultery, for example, was illegal. Now it is not. Still, many of us believe it is a sin.
Since pre-Revolutionary days, the poor house, as it was then called, has been a major drain on community (or public) resources. Ever was it so. How to deal with it has been a debate since the founding fathers. I believe it will continue. We rich nations have spent ourselves into debt far greater than we will ever be able to pay. Not just the US. Who stands to suffer. Citizens of course, but if we have no money, how can we afford to give billions to the quake victims in Haiti or the starving women and children (you never hear about men starving) of Somalia?
The more I watch and listen and ponder, the more I think no one person is capable of leading any major country. Things are just too complex for anyone to get their head around the problems.
Thank you for your astute observations, but academia also does not have a very good record of problem-solving.