I agree with Professor Tollefsen that we should seek a morally consistent approach to organ donation, and one that does not involve intentional killing. I also agree that this leads us to the conclusion that existing criteria for ethical organ donation after cardiac death are untenable. These patients don’t seem to be dead in any metaphysical sense and so it is difficult to say that the Dead Donor Rule is being respected in these cases.  
Our public policy should be based on the biological truth about death, and the moral truths governing permissible and impermissible actions. We should not let policy desires drive our factual claims about when death takes place. 
Whatever else one might say about the therapy bans in question, they undeniably burden the free exercise of religion for same-sex-attracted or gender-confused persons who seek not to identify with or live according to those conditions.
As institutions examine their DEI initiatives and consider what to keep and what to eliminate, they should do so with the purpose of the university in mind. If they do, they’ll see that, consistent with public opinion, DEI has a role to play. Properly ordered, it should focus on goals like promoting access to the life of the mind and ensuring that people from all walks of life feel welcome on campuses.
Death must never be reduced to content. To promote the general welfare in our age means to place the soul of the nation above the gatekeepers of the algorithm.  
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, but Congress should make a law abridging the freedom of Pornhub. 
The whole world is God’s creation, an expression of his love. The truth about ourselves as dependent creatures who he loves, whom he sent his Son to redeem, is out there for us. We can blind ourselves to it, we can ignore it, but it’s very loud. And the more we help each other see it, the happier we will ultimately be. 
The latest elite orthodoxy threatens children’s minds, bodies, and family relationships. It is time for the high court to clarify that parents—not the government, unions, or advocacy groups—are the primary decisionmakers for children’s education, upbringing, and care.
In the end, Siraganian’s seven theses mostly collapse from their own structural inadequacy as arguments. Sneers, exaggerations, false comparisons, and non sequiturs are what her theses have going for them. In these respects, she neatly illustrates the need for the intellectual challenge viewpoint diversity promises, on her own campus and others.
Commitment to America as a whole must come one of two ways—as a “community of communities” in which one’s sympathy for the nation comes channeled through a commitment to locality; or through ideological abstraction. 
Art is useless, and perhaps that is why it’s meaningful.
In a culture that has forgotten the sacred, to see with the eyes of moral imagination is a quiet revolution. And it is one my generation desperately needs. 
My generation needs help discerning what the good life truly is.
I wish my elders knew that, in the face of what seems to be an increasingly frightening technocratic reality, we want to live free from deceit and as true humans. 
I have been strongly drawn to pick up several recent books of history and historiography that tackle anachronisms and reifications, because such clarifying works can keep us from making facile conclusions about the past—and about its effect on the present.
If stillborn children could inspire one of the most-loved children’s books in the twentieth century, then maybe a grandpa with dementia will inspire one of the best stories in the twenty-first. 
Lewis is needed, now more than ever, to help men and women of faith move “further up and further in.” Jews will be much better off for the journey with him. 
If Augustine’s two cities can’t be neatly mapped onto the modern distinction between Church and State, how can his thought help illumine Church-State relations?
The Holy Spirit is still reliably and certainly at work in aiding the selection of the successor to the Chair of Saint Peter. That the process of getting there often leans on friendships, acquaintances, impressions, hope, and trust should not concern us. We’re human, after all. It couldn’t be otherwise. 
The loving union of persons in even the best marriage is imperfect, temporary, partial, and prone to failure. To expect more than mortal love from marriage is to put a strain upon it that it cannot, and was not intended, to bear.
Many of us find it difficult to be forced to revise our assumptions and change our views, but for Brown, it seems to be one of the great joys in life.
Carl Trueman has delivered an invaluable explanation of Marxist critical theory, and of why it resonates with so many in our troubled times. 
Pro-union conservatives have raised real questions about the tensions latent in conservative thought. But they haven’t shown how unions can resolve those tensions.
One of the film’s deeper provocations is a question we should all ask ourselves: How much time do we spend online? How much of our political outrage is merely performance—anger stoked by algorithms and designed more to entertain than to inform? How often do we confuse the trivial with the profound, devoting our attention to surface-level controversies while neglecting the slow, difficult pursuit of real knowledge?