A case for why unbelievers need to come to their ‘What do I know?’ moment and be less critical of others as they explore belief and disbelief.
Which foundational ideas, assumptions, and seemingly-semantic debates mold how we interpret our world in relation to science and faith?
To have more success, free speech advocates should stop seeing this issue through a strictly political lens and start considering censorship as a moral problem.
In his major religious defense, John Henry Newman is indeed engaged in a battle, but he maintains a detachment that allows him to preserve a true charity towards his opponent.
Today on our televisions, radios, and social media the take-all approach dominates. There is very little room for synthesis, a moment that requires intellectual clarity.
We could use more good men skilled in speaking. We could also use more honest persuasion. That is why we could all stand to ramp up our rhetoric.
This barbaric hatred is beneath us, and call me a Pollyanna, but I truly believe it’s not too late for us to start hating each other like civilized human beings again.
The solution to bad speech is not more speech when nobody agrees on the ground rules. We cannot have a marketplace of ideas without rules of engagement.
Sex scandals and outrageous accusations, even violence, have long been part of American political discourse—but that doesn’t make it okay.
- The 15 Biggest Box Office Bombs Of Summer 2019Here's an entertaining list of the worst offerings to gcontinue reading >
- Slavery In America Did Not Begin In 1619, And Other Things The New York Times Gets WrongThe 1619 Project isn’t mostly about helping Americanscontinue reading >
- Scholastic’s New School Catalog Hawks Books To Saturate Kids With Identity PoliticsThe world's largest publisher and distributor of books continue reading >