Should the government take a role in promoting certain moral attitudes? When the United States made Matin Luther King Day a holiday, it (intentionally) endorses the moral attitudes Martin Luther King dedicated himself to. These may be admirable attitudes, but it seems to me that citizens should project their attitudes onto the government, not the other way around. Has anyone written on this topic?

In a democratic society, should felons retain the right to vote?

I am an American who has embraced the ideals of the Enlightenment, specifically the inherent value, perspective, and rights all humans on this planet. How do we reconcile these values with contemporary ideologies, specifically Zionism, that posits a racially, religiously unique group with "overriding" rights?

Having just read Dawkins's The God Delusion I was appalled to learn how reviled atheists are in America. In Europe a person's stance (including politician's) on religion is largely irrelevant unless they draw attention to it. What is going on in America? What should skeptics and atheist philosophers do there to point out that atheism is a reasoned and logical viewpoint that doesn't presuppose immorality, etc.? It beggars belief that all presidential aspirants have to (in some cases as Dawkins remarks) probably pretend to be Christians in order to have any chance of being elected. I know of the Atheist's Wager, acceptance of which seems braver to me than blindly accepting the religious promises of heaven as dictated by those who brought you up. And what place do 'faith-based initiatives' have in an ostensibly secular government where church and state are separate under the constitution?

What duties (if any) does a person have in rejecting a nomination to elected office if that person does not feel qualified for the requirements of the office? Or, in a democracy, is there no (strict) requirement for competence before holding office? Sure, the easy answer is that the voters will establish competence requirements, but this seems incomplete considering voters (in many cases) seem to be swayed by issues not relevant to the requirements of the office. I guess there is another question nested in the first: What sort of qualifications can be reasonably expected for officials in a democracy (i.e., age and nationality seem to be accepted, but what of education, experience, temperament, etc...)? Thank you.

I'm a person living in a muslim country. There are lots of problems/discussions between religious and non-religious people about the limits of freedom. For example, some religious people say that they feel offended when someone nearby drinks a alcoholic drink. On the other hand the non-religious people say that it is their freedom to drink alcoholic drinks. There are many other cases of this type, that is, one say that they get offended (generally the religious ones) and the other say that it is their freedom to do such and such. My question is how should we think about such issues? Are there general principles about limits of freedom that we can use to solve such cases? Also, can you suggest introductory reading material on this issue? Thank you. Ahmet

Is there really a Social contract? Many supreme court cases have upheld that the government is not liable to protect you. For example, if a police officer dawdles around while your house is burglarized, he isn't liable to you for not upholding his duty to protect you. How do we consent to government to govern us when it has a monopoly over our area?

My friend and I were discussing the nature of justice and we couldn't define it in a way that differentiates it from revenge. Both involve the idea of causing pain/suffering to the perpetrator of a crime since he/she has caused a certain amount of pain/suffering to a person or society. Is the only difference that justice is supposedly 'objective' in the sense that non-involved persons determine the amount of suffering the perpetrator should receive as opposed to the 'subjective' nature of revenge when the victim decides? This led us to wonder what is the opposite of justice/revenge and we thought it might be mercy, when you do not inflict suffering on the perpetrator. My friend pointed out that each Muslim prayer begins with "In the name of Allah, the most just and most merciful". Is it possible to be both just and merciful at the same time? Isn't there a contradiction there?

Should a political leader let his faith influence his decisions that he makes for the people he leads?

Suppose I bought a $80 ticket to highly anticipated concert. Two weeks later, the organizers announce they will allow any one to enter free. They do not offer me a refund. Do I have justified reason to be mad?