Whether state and federal governments will support school choice remains to be seen; there seems to be considerable political pressure in both directions. But on the social level, while we may continue to criticize each other’s school choices, increasing numbers of families seem unwilling to bypass choice.
President Trump plays extreme hardball by American standards, some of it blatantly authoritarian. Conservatives lose credibility when they deny this. But Trump’s election and reelection were, in part, a reaction to decades of undemocratic progressive change in the courts, bureaucracy, and public education—itself a kind of hardball. Liberals who deny or downplay these phenomena only feed populist anger.
Social conservatives have long recognized the civilizational value of the quotidian work of parenthood. In an analogous way, we ought to recognize that it is in the small acts of local participation that societies thrive or languish.
Every age has its distractions, and its temptations for a shortcut. But if we are to understand ourselves and our predicament, we have the same resources our predecessors had. We have books to read. We will grow or shrink as human beings according to our willingness to read them. 
While Trump’s ham-fisted assault on higher ed was justified, that doesn’t mean his tactics are—or that this will end well. 
America has long led the world in economic success, entrepreneurship, technology, and innovation. We can and we should lead in human flourishing. To do so, we must invest in the fundamental ingredients of flourishing: marriage and children.
Yes, patriotism can be as simple as flying the flag or even reciting the Declaration of Independence on Fourth of July. But perhaps the greatest act of patriotism is something we can do every day: start to initiate or rekindle friendships with people with whom we disagree.
We are very different people from those who came before us, because of our deficits in social learning. 
If my younger self had understood even this much—that discernment begins with recognizing one’s gifts and offering them, detached from any personal agenda, for God’s purposes—I might have spent a little less time anxiously waiting for the clouds to part. I might have spent more time offering the little I had, trusting that God could use it for his purposes.
Welcoming children surely is a great responsibility; no one can know ahead of time the challenges and joys that are waiting for them. But perhaps the greatest surprise is that every decision and every parenting strategy will find its true home in realities that, blessedly, far exceed them. 
Individuals who want to marry must choose from options that lack the spontaneity and spark many hope for: singles groups, dating apps, speed dating. One is left wondering whether a bad script is preferable to no script at all. And well-intentioned people—mostly married—offer all kinds of conflicting advice about how to date to find a spouse. I aim to tackle these seeming contradictions in order to show how each can be true and helpful for the Tough Mudder that is twenty-first-century dating.
We make friends with particular people in particular circumstances, and for this reason we should not allow ourselves to be distracted by what is remote and abstract. We should delight in and give thanks for those we can know, love, and enjoy in reality. 
Our duties of care to others place limitations and constraints on our choice of career. But these constraints are, in fact, the path to real freedom. 
Justice Sotomayor’s analysis depends on many assumptions that she does not articulate or defend. This lack of clarity leads to unnecessary confusion and inconsistency. In more ways than one, Justice Sotomayor is changing the subject.  
The aftershocks of the sexual revolution continue to play out not only on the legal and political planes but in churches, schools, and charities. For American Protestants in particular, debates about what counts as authority and what faithfulness means for human sexuality are as unavoidable as they are important.  
We must rely on natural law, even as we confess that it cannot bear the full weight of moral resolution. Why? The natural law is not enough, yet the natural law is all we have as denizens of a fractured age. 
“Reason and revelation,” “God’s creation and the natural order of things,” “the biological nature of human beings,” and “Natural Law”: these are Mahoney’s lodestars and the criteria by which he judges not just ideology’s falsehood but its destructive evil. 
Why should we be faithful constitutionalists on matters of war powers in the first place (as opposed to being hard-headed “pragmatists”)? Why should we care about the Constitution, about this violation of it, by this president, at this time?   
Voegelin was capable of striking turns of phrase and bold arguments. It is easy to see what was attractive about his work for a Christian conservative.
There’s this very deep part of the Jewish religious tradition that understands children to be a blessing. I think Jews have deeply internalized that. 
Over the past few decades, we have seen incredible progress in the fight against HIV, hunger, and other infectious diseases. We could choose to either accelerate that progress and demonstrate American greatness, or to shrink back from the moral responsibilities that love places on us. 
As AI disrupts the dominant credentialing model in higher education, only a return to the university’s formative mission—rooted in the pursuit of truth—can secure its future.  
Here’s to the good ruling protecting children from pornography. 
All we have seen and heard indicates that the crucified and risen Christ who sends the Spirit is the very heart of Leo’s spirituality and theology.