fbpx

Grave Evil and Political Responsibility

Morally responsible, prudent voting seeks to defend the common good to the extent realistically possible, even if that means only preventing further damage to an already highly degraded culture.
If marriage is to be preserved in the present struggle, our task is to sort through the influential kinds of arguments about same-sex marriage and abortion that have been introduced by Justice Kennedy.
Though racial and religious profiling offends our better feelings, it is nevertheless constitutional.
The Supreme Court has helped to foster a culture that encourages the sexual exploitation of children.
A recent appellate court ruling in favor of a Westboro Baptist protester shows the decline of judicial ability to protect decency standards for public discourse.
The balanced budget amendment would rob the federal government of an essential power.
The attempts by both the right and the left to politicize our Constitution must be firmly rejected for the sake of our nation’s health and prosperity.
Public recognition of unions contrary to human flourishing will hurt, not help, the happiness of those who participate in them.
America has an obligation to look after its own interests.
What exceptionless moral norms are we willing to discard for the sake of a good cause?
Though Christmas is a religious holiday, secularists should appreciate its great contribution to Western Civilization: the lesson that all men are equal in their fundamental human dignity.
Laws regulating immigration are analogous to those requiring the payment of taxes or the licensing of physicians. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is not in itself unjust, but it may be imprudent.
To stimulate job creation, Democrats favor government spending and Republicans favor tax cuts, but is there a more direct way?
Both realists and idealists should cast off cold neutrality and take up friendship’s warm embrace.
Liberal intolerance is rooted in a secular disregard for the dignity of individuals, coupled with the veneration of Progress and the belief that liberal ideologies can’t win in public debate.
It is natural and good to have loyalty and love for one’s own.
Attempts to promote judicial restraint have failed to rein in a judiciary run amok. Is it time to consider more drastic measures?
Kagan’s advocacy for a living constitution should kill her Supreme Court chances.
Our failure to engage in substantive political debate can tempt us to write our opponents out of the political community.
Promoting a sexually permissive pop-culture in the Muslim world gets the true foundations of ordered liberty wrong. In defining our ideals by rejecting our enemy’s, we go from one extreme to another, and miss the virtuous mean.
The claim that health care reform “made history” highlights how fully the political debate hinges on ideas of progress.
Are we prepared to acknowledge the moral stakes in Obama’s new push against “Don’t ask, don’t tell?”
A political scientist explains why the concept of “strict scrutiny” is alien to the Constitution and why it poses a threat to a constitutionally defensible judicial review.
As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of the Species, it is time to realize that the best way to honor his legacy is to fight its over-extension and misapplication into the realm of politics. The second in a two-part series.