Dangling Conversations

Between "gotcha" questions and the ubiquitous gaffe-watch, there hasn't been much serious moral debate in the endgame of this presidential campaign. In fact, there hasn't been a serious exploration of the moral kernel of so many of today's contested issues since the forum at Saddleback Church in August. In the hope that it's not too late to raise the level of a public discussion too often conducted in sound bites, here are some urgent moral questions to be pressed on those who would lead us.

ON MATTERS OF FOREIGN POLICY
1. This past April, Pope Benedict XVI spoke at the United Nations of the "duty to protect" and described it as the litmus test of political legitimacy. Does the United States have a moral obligation to act, alone or in concert with others, when governments manifestly fail in their "duty to protect"?

2. Religiously-shaped moral conviction plays multiple, dynamic roles in 21st century world politics. Very few people at the Department of State, the Department of Defense, or the Central Intelligence Agency understand this. What will you do to change that?

3. Forget the chatter about "preemption." The correct term, within the classic just war tradition, is "the morally justified first-use of armed force." Do you think the first use of armed force is ever morally justifiable? Is so, when? If not, why not?

4. What role does distorted religious conviction play in creating the dangers we face from terrorists? How can American public diplomacy address those convictions?

5. What is the responsibility of the United States to help ensure that the new Iraq is safe for all its religious communities? What is the moral responsibility of the U.S. government toward displaced Iraqi Christians, many of whom have fled the country?

ON MATTERS OF DOMESTIC POLICY
6. Do you consider homosexuality the equivalent of race for purposes of U.S. civil rights law?

7. Is any public defense of classic biblical sexual morality a de facto act of intolerance and discrimination against gays?