I am an old-school left of center moderate. I was taught from high school through law school by mostly conservatives. I, myself, through having looking at the world am leery of any idealogy, left or right, which claims it can solve all our problems. Nothing. Not government, not corporations, not community, not individuals alone can be trusted to build a better society, and both provide freedom and make certain people are responsible for their own actions. This is why I am a big fan of what the Founding Fathers wrote, and our system of governance. It seemed to take into account all these forces, and at least, attempt to reflect these values in how our government is supposed to work.

Yet, it seems something is broken.  I constantly hear people say things that suggest, for example, that they think we are a society based on majoritarian rules or that thinks of debates as sound bites. There are many who would blame the Republicans, but I think there is a deeper problem than that. This is too simple.

I believe the problem is that most Americans no longer have any connections to how our government works, either in theory or practice. Sure, they know they pay taxes, but do they really understand why outside of soundbites? They say they have freedom of speech- but do they really understand what this means?

This brings me to the concept of equality. Do most Americans know what equality under the law means? I know when most Americans hear special rights by the Republicans they think that means some additional rights other than the one's that they themselves enjoy. But, do they understand their system well enough to understand that there can be no additional rights granted other than those that all other Americans enjoy. We can only inlude more people inthe rights already there- not increase the rights granted.

I wonder if they understand that we don't live in a majoritarian democracy? Seriously, when I hear Christians complain that their religion isn't being respected because they have to listen to the concerns of others- I think several things. First, I think participation in the public square means we are all subject to criticism. So why should they be spared? isn't that what freedom of speech- and what the founders intended to happen? Isn't Bush's NSA discussion really a debate about whether we believe in freedom of the press anymore?

I also think when I hear the Christians say what they feel is a slight that I am witnessing an odd discussion because I don't see how saying that we are all equal under the law prevents the Christian from entering heaven. There are two main rules for entering heaven according to evangelicals- accept Jesus as your personal savior and love thy neighbor. Now, it's true, the later is Christian love which means coversion. But, how is forcing doctrine into the public sphere the same as true conversion of others? Can one have conversion by force? I think this is maybe why they think you can have democracy by force? They are kind of a natural evolution of pure belief without reason.

I know that Obama was trying to argue that people of faith shouldn't be excluded from the public square. But, inclusion- to me shouldn't require that their faith define their public action.

Do we have public virtues that go beyond personal faith in God, and indeed, are separate from them? Is equality under the law merely what the Bible says it is or is it something more than that? When look at gay marriage for example- I think- who should be justifying to whom? It seems gays must be justify to Christian straights that they should be included under equal protection (as they we are having a theological argument), but shouldn't it be the reverse. Shouldn't it be that the Christian must show how their theological arguments and personal faith will be hurt by co-existing with gay people who want to be married, not under theological laws, but secular laws? Isn't this the core problem with Obama's false conflict between secularim and people of faith?

It's not just here that we see this. When Joe L talks- you can sense that maybe he doesn't separate out his personal ambition from public good. What do you think?