The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.
Armed conflicts between nations have always been and remain, unfortunately, a constant fact of life. How politicians and governments seek to avoid of these conflicts, however, varies greatly. Many leaders and political thinkers insist on the importance of demonstrating military might in order to reduce the likelihood of such conflicts. Others argue that flexing military muscle is basically inviting armed conflict, and that the best way nations can avoid conflicts is simply by keeping an open line of communication with one another. When forced to choose between a strong showing of military might and diplomatic efforts, which should nations choose in order to avoid armed conflicts?
The same types of responses are already being documented on divisive topics facing the current administration. Take the “Ground Zero mosque.” Using information from the political myth-busting site , a team at Ohio State presented subjects (PDF) with a detailed rebuttal to the claim that “Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam backing the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque, is a terrorist-sympathizer.” Yet among those who were aware of the rumor and believed it, fewer than a third changed their minds.