How Now Shall We Live?

     How do you separate church and state? If The Bible and all other religious books are not utilized to form or at least inform law, then what moral basis is used? Who even defines what morality is and if it's a good thing? Perhaps immorality would be better? Perhaps some things religion has called moral are really immoral and vice versa? Who can say?

    I think President Obama was right in recognizing that America does still have a very large Christian population, but there are also Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and other faiths- and people of no faith.

   Yet the thing that America has to recognize in its history is that many of its laws in place echo the commands of religious texts, primarily The Bible because there were many Christians who helped found the country, alongside Deists and others who at least had a general respect for The Bible and Christianity, even if they themselves were not Christ followers.

   (This is not to suggest that America has had a good record of consistently following The Bible in its decisions because all are sinners and fall short of God's glory. In any case, I don't like the term "Christian nation" because a nation can't follow Christ- only individuals. One of the main points of America's founding is freedom of religion, which allows for anyone to worship God in any faith they choose or to not do so at all. It is always a voluntary choice- never forced upon people by government. In that sense, separation of church and state certainly exists.)

    That said, it must be clarified that here I am speaking of people forced to follow a religion, of which there are a number of countries that practice this, with harsh penalties in place for anyone following or promoting anything other than the state religion. Thankfully, America does not have this system in place. Yet there are some laws that certainly comport with Christianity's tenets (along with a number of other religions) that inhabitants are compelled to follow or face consequences.

    Laws against theft and murder would certainly resonate with religious texts- should these laws be overturned because of their religious nature? The main value behind such laws is a respect for human life and property of human beings. Why do we regard human life with such supreme value? For the Christian, it's because human beings are made in the image of God and are the pinnacle of His creation. God commands us to respect and value human life because He loves us eternally and holds us in a status of infinite importance in His kingdom. To steal from someone or murder someone would not only be a grave evil to the person, it would also be a besmirchment to God and His creation.

    I think most would agree, regardless of their religious status, that these are good laws that should stay in place. I recognize some would offer vastly different reasons for valuing and upholding such laws but we would still be agreed on their worth and need to be in place. Is that the solution then? Should we establish laws by consensus? Perhaps within the election cycle for leaders there should also be moral surveys in place to determine the nation's general consensus on morality.

Otherwise it could just be left to each individual to determine what is right in their eyes and live accordingly.

(Of course, at least one society did that for a while in history and it didn't work out well for them. See Judges 17:6 and 21:25 in The Bible.)

   In the end, it comes back to the question, "How should we live?" We must then address the question, "Why should we live that way?" Who is the ultimate authority in governing the affairs of men and women?

In order to build a building, you must have a foundation. If the foundation is not sure, the building falls. The same is true for nations.

Blog in Your Eye

I wish I could get as passionately outraged and morally indignant at my own sins first as it's so easy to become at others'- and then learn to show more mercy and grace and let God handle the judging.
(Psalms 139:23-24, Matthew 7:1-6, Matthew 5:7, Romans 7, James 4:11-12, 1 Peter 4:8, James 2:12-13, Philippians 3:18-4:1, 1 Timothy 1:15-17)
(Note: Yes, there is a place for rebuke within the church and we should do that with love and humility. Titus 1:13-16, Ephesians 4:15, 1 Corinthians 5, Philemon- particularly verses 1:8-9) As two of my favourite songs say- "I'm starting with the man in the mirror. I'm asking him to make a change. And no message could have been any clearer- if you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change." ("Man in the Mirror" by Michael Jackson- his best song, in my opinion)
But we must do this by The Holy Spirit and His power in us, not by our own strength. (Galatians 5:16-26)
And before we look to judge other Christians and help them with that speck, let's remember the log in our own eyes.
"It's me, it's me, it's me, oh Lord- standing in the need of prayer! ....It's not my father, not my mother, my sister, not my brother- but it's me, oh Lord- standing in the need of prayer." (Classic Sunday School song)
Thankfully, Jesus is there to help us. His death and Resurrection paid for all sins for one time and He has forgiven me because I've put my faith in Him and His righteousness because I know I've got none of my own. And He's still working on me and sanctifying me more each day (Philippians 2:12-13, Ephesians 2:8-10) and in the end, He'll lead me Home to Heaven with Him. :-) (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24)
Thank You, Lord. Help me to love more, judge less and when I do make a judgment- to make a righteous one, never forgetting that we are all equally in need of Your grace.

The Standard

Note: This is actually something I wrote for a graduate class. The essay is addressing the question of why schools have standards for curriculum, but in doing so I addressed the idea of standards in the world at large- including the moral standard, which points out to us our need for God because we know there is a standard of right and wrong in the world- and we don't naturally do what's right. We are sinners who need a Saviour- and God has provided the world the only One Who can save us-The Lord Jesus Christ. For further reading, see also
Romans 7:7-25, Romans 1-3 (and particularly verse 2:4), Ecclesiastes 3:11 and Galatians 3 in The Holy Bible.
............................................................................................................................................     


          As human beings, we are born into a world of standards that govern our lives and that we must adhere to in order to succeed. We are created to recognize the natural order of laws as well as the moral order. Though people disagree on some moral imperatives there are basic ones that most everyone in the world ascribes to and aspires to achieving. Drawn from these, each country has its own sets of civil laws that govern the citizens. In a world that now tends to sway toward chaos, we as a people generally desire some sense of order in order to not only make sense of the world but also since it helps draw us back to restoration of injustices. As teachers and librarians, we also desire to add to this process through education and thus we develop standards that will help all students reach their highest potential and equip them to help bring the change we want to see in the world.
         To this end, appointed bodies like the AASL, ISTE and Common Core creators have worked to establish the bottom line of learning for all students. Through careful observation and study, these entities have determined skills and knowledge deemed necessary for survival in the world and for contributing to society in a positive manner. Through ages of collected knowledge and observation, we as human beings know that the world is ordered in a certain way to ensure survival. We know that careless acts of litter of waste materials will bring damage to the world and ultimately to ourselves. Thus, encouraged and sobered by such findings, we share with students the scientific findings that have been made and help them learn how to discover still more. This is but one example of skills that help human beings develop into meaningful contributers to improvements in society. There is also social studies and history to be considered so that we may learn from the past and improve the present and help secure a better future. Mathematics are necessary to understand how to measure and order things, which also helps with medicine, which helps preserve human life. And English language arts contribute to our moral and spiritual components as we seek to know the human condition and share with each other our enlightenment and understanding of life and even reach transcendence of the temporal as well.
           Standards themselves are still different from objectives. Whereas the standard for driving on the highway may be to maintain a speed of no less than 45 mph and no greater than 70, individual drivers set their own objectives. The objective might be to reach a certain destination in optimal time and thus this is carried out by driving the maximum speed limit. Other drivers may prefer a leisurely drive for pleasure as they cruise and listen to music. These drivers may hover closer to the minimum speed limit. In either case, the standard is still met. It is much the same for educators. Objectives are developed differently by individual teachers to communicate certain aspects of the standard for the day, but these are distinct from the overarching standard itself. "When those standards are written in terms that are too broad, teachers have to unpack those standards and dissect them until they reach specific statements of the knowledge and skills that should be taught. From those statements, teachers can then develop their lesson objectives." (Tate 44) In presenting these objectives, teachers who start with the end in mind can more easily decipher how best to assess the knowledge of the skills in question as informed by the standards. The standards inform teachers as to the overall general knowledge that must be known in the end and the teacher develops the objectives to get to the nitty-gritty details that teach measurable skills that demonstrate not only knowledge but understanding of it as well. Thus, a teacher tasked with a general standard to teach the nuances of figurative language might make a goal of having students learn a specific example in the form of metaphors and be able to formulate their own to demonstrate knowledge so that the school might spawn its own.
          In our search for meaning and structure in life, the standards of nature, morality and civility are what shape us. They speak to to all of us on every level even if we only may recognize some on particular levels. They drive us to establish mandates that will aid us in aspiring to those standards and thus drive our individual objectives for how best to do this. We utilize the standards to decide how best to determine if we are meeting them and we allow the results to drive us further in this search. And in all these pursuits, we are ever restless as we continuously and tirelessly stretch for the infinite, which may seem so very far away yet it is not far from any one of us.

Work Cited

Tate, Marcia L. Formative Assessment in a Brain-Compatible Classroom. West Palm Beach, FL, Learning Sciences, 2016.

Season for the Reason: Good and God- and Perfection

Note: This is another entry in my series of apologetics-based reflections, based on questions and conversations that have come up in real life. It is in response to an article discussing the possibility of being good and where God plays into that. Can you be good without God? While I think there may be some remnant left in us that still recognizes good and evil (as Romans 2 talks about, along with Ecclesiastes 3:11- we all have some form of a conscience testifying to us about God's Law); however, The Bible clearly teaches that we are all born in sin and are sinners by nature. (Psalms 51:5, Romans 7:5-6- basically just read the whole book.) I think a better question to ask is this- can you be perfect without God? Because perfection is God's standard for entry into Heaven and only One person has ever met it- Jesus Christ.


I'm curious about this key passage in the article:

"But so what? What’s the practical significance of rejecting belief in a deity? Why should humanists band together in local or national groups, publish magazines, hold conferences, and so forth? It can’t be simply to show that we are right and others are wrong about the existence of God.
Humanists do share a number of beliefs, of course, and not just their belief that there are no gods. So humanists form a natural affinity group of sorts. But although being a member of a like-minded group with similar interests has its attractions, the level of commitment of most of those who are members of the Center for Inquiry or the American Humanist Association or other humanist groups indicates that we think humanism is much more important than being a member of an astronomy club, sewing circle, or softball team. There has to be more to joining and supporting humanist groups than the opportunity to hang out with people with similar worldviews.""
Does the Center for Inquiry or the American Humanist Association have elected officials? Is there any kind of organization to these groups?
(Apparently the answer is yes; the AHA has a board of directors page here- http://americanhumanist.org/AHA/Board_of_Directors and the CFI has a message from the president and CEO here- http://www.centerforinquiry.net/support/secularism_and_science_need_an_advocate/)
I ask this mainly because it seems incongruent with a statement highlighted in another passage in the article, wherein the author states that humanists have no authorities. This would appear to not be the case. Do these boards of directors think and reason together to come up with the guiding moral principles for their organizations, and by extension, the world at large that all people should apply? If humanists all reason together to find common moral principles that promote a common human good, it seems all human beings in existence (at any time) should be included in the consultations in order to have the maximum amount of brain power and human reasoning involved. [I realize that this would be a rather impossible endeavor, but surely the history of mankind and moral principles of all cultures are included in the study and quest for finding moral standards appropriate for human society? It seems like the research and reading of much books would be in order, along with efforts to poll all interested parties. Unless of course, these said principles would only be in effect for humanists.]
This gets to my larger point. How do humanists determine what is good and what is not? What are the measuring standards and how are they determined?
I can't speak for all religions of course, but I don't appreciate that the author insinuates that religion does not seek to justify its moral standards by the fact that they improve the human condition. I would say a relationship with Jesus Christ does just that ad infinitum. (Of course, the worldview framework of Christianity says that all human beings at all times, since the sin of Adam and Eve, have been born in sin and wrongdoing and all of us are evil and in need of God to save us from our sin. This is why Jesus came and lived the only perfect life ever lived and died and rose for us- to pay the penalty we deserved because of our failure to keep God's moral standards of perfection.) [As Jesus stated in Matthew 5:20, if we're trying to get to Heaven by our own merit, unless our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, we will never enter the kingdom of Heaven. And those guys worked to keep all the Law to the nth. degree and still didn't really match up by a long shot, as Jesus made clear in Matthew 21:31 and all of Matthew 23. Note that in the context of the verses in Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus is stating that He has come to fulfill all of The Law and the Prophets and that's just what He did. If we falter at even the least command anywhere during our lifetime, we're already done. (James 2:10) God's standard is absolute perfection- Matthew 5:48 says it plainly. We all fail to meet it, as Romans 3:23 tells us.] Jesus says that He comes to give us life and life more abundant. (see John 10:10) The Bible also makes clear that life in Christ improves our lives immeasurably in the here and now as well as in eternity. Those who are in Christ have a new nature that desires to do good, rather than to do evil as the old nature would have us do. (This is not to say that Christians are perfect in doing good, by any means, but we are in the process of becoming more like Christ, Who is perfect- and we have the promise that one day that process will be complete and we will be perfected upon our entry into Heaven. [see Philippians 1:6])
Thus, following Christ makes people more loving, more caring for all those in need, more generous, more truthful, more helping, more self-sacrificing, more patient, more peaceful, more kind, more gentle, more faithful, and makes them have more self-control. In short, they are more good. (These and other traits are some of the identifying marks of a Christ-follower because Galatians 5:22-23 says that these are some of the fruit of the Holy Spirit. That is God's work in people's lives.) I would say that is a huge improvement to the human condition. (Which we've already established is evil at its core, from a Christian framework, in any case.)
And yes, that is certainly God's will for people to know Christ and develop these traits and live lives like Christ.
God is definitely focused on the good of humanity. Jeremiah 29:11 assures us that He has thoughts of good for us and not evil. (I realize this verse is aimed specifically at Israel, but the principle certainly applies to all people, as evidenced in other Bible verses. See Ezekiel 18:23 as well.) He wants everyone to live- both the full measure of life that He desires for humans in the here and now and the eternal life He wants all to have in Heaven with Him through faith in Christ. (see Ezekiel 33:11 and 2 Peter 3:8-9)
My other point of contention is the implication that religion (and again, I'll specifically speak for the point of view of Christianity) has no rationale behind it. I have to disagree with this notion. God gave people brains for a reason; I believe He expects us to use our brains and truly contemplate things before making any decision for Him. In fact, God invites us to come reason together with Him in Isaiah 1:18- herein, He entreats us to consider the truth of this statement: "Though your sins be like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool." God offers to wash away our sins and make us clean and pure. But I don't think God ever expects anyone to make a choice to follow Christ without using reason, evidence and intellect. Christ Himself cautions us to count the cost of following Him before we make any rash decisions. (Note that He gives strict warnings that if we do not hate our family and even our own life, we cannot be His disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after Christ cannot be His disciple. [To clarify, in the language used in the passage I'm referencing- Luke 14:25-35- it has the meaning of loving Jesus and following Him above all so much that the love we have for our family looks like hate in comparison. Jesus often used stark hyperbole to emphasize points- I just wanted to clarify that He is not advocating hating people here.]
Jesus also speaks to this point in Luke 9:23-27, where He tells us again that we must take our cross, deny ourselves, and follow Him in order to come after Him. Whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for Christ's sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits his soul? In Matthew 10:16-42, Jesus warns His followers that persecution will come upon as part of following Him. Even some of a man's own household will be among his enemies because he follows Christ. In John 15:18-27, Jesus tells His disciples that the world will hate them because they follow Jesus and claim His Name. (Of course, they hated Jesus first anyway.)
It is also worth noting that Jesus even turned people away from following Him because they weren't committed enough to Him and hadn't fully counted the cost yet. (See Matthew 8:18-22 and Luke 9:57-62) In Mark 10:17-31, Jesus encounters a rich young ruler who asks Him how to inherit eternal life. After Jesus reminds him that he should know the commandments in The Law ("Do not murder", "Do not commit adultery", "Do not steal", "Do not bear false witness", "Do not defraud", "Honor your father and mother"), the man claims he has kept all these from his youth. Jesus tells him that he still lacks one thing- "Go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven; and come, follow Me." The guy is disheartened by this saying (because he had great wealth) and went away sadly. (This is where Jesus gives us His famous statement that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. However, take heart- when the disciples asked Him who then could be saved, Jesus reminded them that with man this is impossible, but nothing is impossible with God.)
In naming these examples, I wanted to demonstrate that Jesus clearly not only invites but demands people use reason and much consideration of the evidence and the cost before deciding to follow Him. In Matthew 11:1-19, Jesus is visited by friends of John the Baptist, who is imprisoned for speaking out against Herod's sexual immorality [he had taken his brother's wife]- and John has sent these messengers to ask about the deeds of Christ that he has heard about. The messengers ask Jesus if He is indeed the One who was to come or if they should look for another. Jesus tells them to examine the evidence and and go back and tell John what they see and hear- the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by Jesus.
(Jesus also goes on to exhort the people listening to Him to consider what the Scriptures prophesied about John the Baptist [referencing Malachi 4:5-6, which likens the one who prepares the way for Christ [i.e. John the Baptist's role] to Elijah.] and compare what they've seen to the Scriptures.)
So, at least for Christianity, God does call people to use reason, evidence and intellect in making up their minds about Him and He does seek for people to put faith in Him through Christ and follow Him and His moral standards (the latter part of which can only be achieved after doing the former part) in order to improve the human condition to an infinite degree.
I think maybe a better question to ask would be, "Can you be perfect without God?" Because perfection is God's standard for morality [Leviticus 11:45 states as a command from God and Matthew 5:48 reiterates- "Be perfect as I am perfect."] - a standard that all of us miss. (Romans 3:23) And that is precisely why Jesus came to live out the standard of moral perfection for us- and He took our punishment as well- and thereby through His death and Resurrection, provided the means for us to have our moral failings forgiven and for us to have Christ's righteousness imputed to us. In myself, there is nothing good. The only good in me is Jesus. And as I noted earlier, Philippians 1:6 promises followers of Christ the end result of reaching perfection in Christ- which is what He made us to be all along. (And certainly, the goal of Christianity is to be like Christ, Who is perfection Himself because He's God.)

Season for the Reason: Parenthood- Planned or Unplanned, It's all in His hands

Note: This is another entry that is based on real life conversations and questions raised regarding morality and our responsibility. My post here is based on the following post at Ravishly.com

I am only seeking here to present a Biblical response to the idea of abortion, always remembering that we must speak the Truth in Love and extend grace to everyone in our dealings on these difficult matters.

o    Nice piece of satire indeed. I don't agree with it all, but that's okay. I always get confused about the second point though. Surely there's a bit more to abstinence-based sex education than that, right? I would want students to be aware of safe sex procedures regarding condoms and birth control and so forth-but I also would want to encourage students to reserve sexual activity for the marriage bed alone. (Of course, I'm not naive enough to think everyone will choose to do so, but we can rest assured that it really won't happen if no effort is made to instill this as the best choice for sexual health and the best moral choice. [I know people will have differences on opinion on that second point though- but because of my Biblical view from my faith in Christ, I believe that God designed sexual intercourse to only happen between a man and a woman in the bonds of holy matrimony. Anything else is a perversion of His creation and a violation of His laws.])

Leaving the religious and moral arguments aside though, I think it is simply a matter of logic that should be impressed to students that it is simply not a good idea for teenagers to get pregnant as they are generally wholly unprepared for the responsibility that comes with children and they often are unable to complete schooling and of course, will possibly face ridicule with a reputation as a slut, as the article pointed out. [And I don't think that ridicule is right of course- I don't think we need to have Hester Prynne walking around with that red scarlet letter 'A' emblazoned on her blouse. I would also hold Roger Chillingsworth to that 'A' as well- but it helps neither one to ridicule them and that's not right anyway.]

Teenagers and people in general should certainly have information; as a librarian, I would highly encourage them to come to their local library for such information. The library strongly believes in freedom of information (so this means information from all points of view) and many do offer programs for this particular topic of sexual activity and healthcare.

I would also like to think that there are some men of moral character that, given the possibility of being pregnant, would not be getting abortions like going through a drive-through. (Again, this gets into the issue of the morality of abortion, which of course, is where the contention lies in this matter.)

If Planned Parenthood were simply providing information regarding sex and birth control and sex control while they're at it, along with cancer screenings and health checkups- I would have no problem funding such a program. I don't believe in funding abortion, which is a process that kills babies. I believe murder to be both morally wrong and legally wrong.

The two issues that seem to come up the most are in regards to the definition of life itself and when and where it begins, as well as the rights that men and women have in controlling their bodies. Of course, men and women are already limited in the rights they have to control their bodies. Laws from the government force all people to clothe their bodies on the upper torso and legs and particularly over private parts. Other laws restrict the use of drugs for recreational use in people's bodies. Other laws restrict the sale of alcohol and tobacco products (and thereby intending to limit the use of alcohol and tobacco products as well) in the bodies of minors. There are even some laws in some places that restrict the consumption of particular beverages and food products that are otherwise legal in the bodies of men and women.

Thus, it would not seem inconsistent for the government to issue a law regarding the control of a woman's body, insofar as requiring the woman to refrain from destroying the life placed in her through coitus. It would be great to see the law also require a man as well as a woman to refrain from the act of coitus itself outside the bonds of holy matrimony. However, this would be legislating morality, which I don't particularly believe works anyway, as it doesn't really produce a genuine heart change on the parts of people. (The only One who can do that is Jesus Christ. And I believe He desires people to come put their faith in His death and Resurrection for forgiveness of their sins willingly- and then, as an act of obedience to Him in gratitude for His saving work, in conjunction with the convicting and molding work of The Holy Spirit, willingly choose to follow Him in all His laws, and in this case, particularly the ones regarding sexuality.) And certainly I don't believe that can or should be forced upon non-Christians. I would want people to willingly choose to abstain from sexual contact until marriage and reserve it only for that special expression of love between a man and a woman on the marriage bed, not the cheap and casual thing that so many make it to be, sadly.

However, since many will not choose that, it is necessary to provide sound sexual education.

In that education, it would be good to define where life starts. In a worldview that for many evolution is accepted as that origin point, it is easy to see how the developmental stage of babies still in the womb is disregarded as nothing more than "a clump of cells", as I noticed one commenter referred to the result of procreation. After all, in an evolutionary worldview, human beings themselves were, at some point, nothing more than "a clump of cells" that slowly turned into increasingly progressing lifeforms, both in form and complexity.

This gets to the other question that is so often raised in this matter. It seems very weird, to say the least, that most every expectant mother I have ever known or heard of, most always seems to refer to the growth within her uterus as her baby, rather than her foetus or embryo or clump of cells or "parasite that's killing her", as I noticed another commenter say. [That last one was in the case of a pregancy that was causing medical problems for the mother, I believe.]

Also, seeing that Webster's Dictionary defines a child as "an unborn or recently born person", it would seem that "child" is another fitting term for the union of sperm and egg. [The root word apparently is akin to Goth kilthei [i.e. womb] and perhaps to Skt. jathara [i.e. belly] Both terms would seem to be referring, in ancient terminology, to the uterus.]

That is the moral dilemma that surrounds the matter, as I see it. The government has made its ruling, of course, and as a Christian, I am bound to respect the laws of my country, of course (since God is the one who put the government in power and He's the One who can take it down as well- see Romans 13). However, there is also a call in The Bible to stand and fight for justice to "the least of these" [see Matthew 25 and Isaiah 1:16-20, among others.]. God also states repeatedly that He hates the "shedding of innocent blood". [see Proverbs 6:16-19, Deuteronomy 19:1-13, Deuteronomy 21:1-9, 2 Kings 21:16, 2 Kings 24:4, Psalms 106:36-42, Jeremiah 7:1-15, Isaiah 59, numerous others.] And, of course, there are times when "we must obey God rather than men." [Acts 5:29]

(The account of the midwives refusing to obey Pharaoh's order to slaughter the Hebrew baby boys in Egypt, as related in Exodus 1, is a great example. God dealt well with them and blessed them with families because they feared Him.)

In conclusion, to clarify one other point often raised, let me say that all life is infinitely valuable and eternally loved by God. (see Jeremiah 1:5, Jeremiah 31:3 and others.) This is because all human beings are made in the image of God. (Genesis 1:26-31) And I value and love the lives of not only innocent babies, but also the mothers and fathers who are driven to such extremes that they feel they must make the choice to have an abortion. I always want to consider their plight and consider how best I can help them and love them.

I think the government should seek to support and help all parties involved and provide the resources needed as much as possible, as I have discussed earlier. However, I think the government should also make a stand against allowing the slaughter of human life at any stage of development.

I know this is a very touchy and tough subject for many people and I also want to clarify that I mean no disrespect or disregard for the concerns, feelings and rights of others. This certainly includes those who may vastly disagree with me. I am also called by Jesus to love them as much as I love myself. (Matthew 22:34-40) So let's seek to love one another and come together to see how we can work together to minimize abortions at the least and increase healthcare and support for pregnant women and sexual education for people (something I think most people agree on) and be willing to listen to each other in the conversation regarding the morality of the matter- and how we want to be defined as a people in regards to what is acceptable or not.