LiberalOrConservativeQuiz.org

12. Religion

A. Whatever religious character our nation had at its founding, in our modern pluralistic society there is no place for religion to intermingle with government. People can still be as religious as they’d like to be, so long as the setting in which their religious sentiment is expressed is not linked to the government in any way. Members of minority religions and atheists can feel uncomfortable if religious expression is exhibited in a public setting that suggests, even tangentially, governmental involvement. This includes, for example, placing a plaque of the Ten Commandments in any government building. There should be a strict wall of separation between religion and state, with secular government being a unifying value and religion being a personal value.

B. Most of our forefathers, including the founders of our nation, were religious people. Many of the values and virtues that inspired them were based on the contributions made by religion and scripture. While secular government, modernism, and science have also made vital contributions to our society, religion continues to play a vital and meaningful role in the lives of many people. This role should not be dismissed and suppressed so casually by the minority of people who opposes any role for religion in public life. So long as no one is forced to profess any faith or adhere to any sectarian practice, benign expressions of our nation’s religious heritage and the personal religious convictions of its citizens should be allowed through public means. Permitting a voluntary ‘moment of silence’ in school, allowing speakers to say “God Bless You” in a school graduation ceremony, making available some public facilities to be used for religious functions, funding and supporting religion-based programs that engage in non-discriminatory public service, and many other wholesome expressions of religious faith should be sanctioned and encouraged.

Which argument is, overall, more persuasive to you?
A
B

13. Free Speech

A. In recent decades free speech has been curtailed gradually through both legal means and through social pressure. Political correctness is a prime example of how we are all made to walk on eggshells verbally to avoid giving the slightest offense to any oversensitive group. Political correctness is the antithesis of genuine freedom of speech, by mandating that discussion and debate not center on what one believes to be true but on avoiding words that allegedly mask one’s discriminatory intentions. University speech codes delineate between what is permissible discourse and what is impermissible discourse based on what college administrators deem sensitive or insensitive speech. Some mainstream speakers invited to speak on college campuses are met with disruptions and hostility from students and are often unable to complete their speeches. Workplace speech guidelines are so restrictive that men are afraid to compliment women for anything other than job performance lest they be viewed as harassing them. Hate speech laws prevent citizens from criticizing what they believe to be destructive elements in other people’s world views, religious practices, and lifestyle choices.

B. Speech can sometimes be as harmful as action. We will never develop into a fully civilized, tolerant society if we have no boundaries between what is acceptable speech and what is speech that’s designed to offend, marginalize, and discriminate. Setting the broad contours for proper discourse creates an environment in which minority groups and victim classes no longer feel threatened by inciteful language that actually tends to shut down discourse rather than promote it. Criticizing others with whom you disagree is one thing, but using language that undermines the dignity of another person serves only to perpetuate societal ignorance and legitimize divisive social policies. Workplace speech codes are there for a reason—to ensure, for example, that men do not create a hostile work environment for women by making comments about their physical appearance that are laced with innuendo, which could easily escalate into demeaning, abusive, and threatening speech.

Which argument is, overall, more persuasive to you?
A
B

14. Laws, Lawyers, and Judges

A. Our society is becoming ever more litigious, ever more bogged down by rules and laws and lawyers that do considerable harm, even if they have good intentions behind them. We should pass laws only to proscribe behavior that is truly harmful and not, as we do now, so casually. We ignore at our peril the fact that laws often have unintended consequences. We need to reduce the high level of litigiousness in society and the resulting debilitating fear of lawsuits experienced by individuals, groups, and companies. We need to stop legislation from the bench by judges who don’t respect the difference between the legislative branch that makes law and the judicial branch that merely interprets it in specific cases. In a free society, some disagreements, differences, and inequalities will always remain among people. Many of those differences are best worked out through person-to-person contact, mediation, etc.—not through the judicial system. For all truly harmful behavior, let us not only have laws on the books but also enforce them more vigorously, but otherwise let us return to a simpler and freer society not dominated by laws, lawyers, and activist judges.

B. Modern life is increasingly and unavoidably complex. This requires our legislators to keep up with complex developments by passing laws designed to address the intricacies of many new challenges. Laws are also crucial in addressing inequalities and in offering more protections to citizens against increasingly powerful corporations and technologies. Laws promote health, safety, and well-being, and when an area of concern is unregulated, laws introduce order, certainty, and a means of redress. Judges should use their legal expertise and good judgment to ensure justice is carried out in every case, without being limited by a need to adhere to a narrow reading of the law. We often vilify lawyers, but we forget how important it would be for us to obtain their services if the need came up for us to do so. And the only way many of us could afford to get justice is by utilizing their contingency fee arrangement whereby the attorney, in effect, takes the financial risk on our behalf. Restrictions on lawyers and judges, including mandatory sentencing guidelines, damage award caps, ‘loser pay’ provisions, etc. should all be rejected.

Which argument is, overall, more persuasive to you?
A
B

 
  Previous Page  Page 5 / 11  Next Page  
 
© 2016 by Dean Michaels