This is too large for this post, but one issue I've been working over is morality without religion. A few months ago, I heard a lecture about the U.S. law system and how it's based on a Christian morality. This gentleman's argument was that if you take religion out of the law system (as law schools are doing today), then you have no moral foundation for the law. I don't think this is true, but I have to do a little more research and thought into the issue.
Today, one of those talk shows was discussing Mexico's president's criticisms of the Arizona immigration law and American pundits who agreed. This became a discussion of loyalty. Their view was that it's your country, right or wrong, and you shouldn't be agreeing with foreign presidents. She's still your mother- drunk or sober, they say. Yet the conversation blurred the lines between agreeing with the criticisms and agreeing with the Mexican president. If we believe something are we to ignore those views when someone else, an outsider, states them in a public forum? If the Pastor said your drunk mother needed help, would you disagree with him? I don't know the comments that preceded this show and can't even remember who's show it was. The comments could have been extremely anti-American and perhaps the comments agreed with the President, simply because he was an 'outsider'; however, this situation can't be reduced to loyalty. Maintaining and voicing a critical thought process is not disloyal.
