The first part is another way of saying, “Should we have (or, to what extent should we have)separation of church and state?” I strongly affirm the separation of church and state (at least, in its original context, which did not include a disdain and denigration of faith). My position is based on a variety of considerations that are practical, personal, and theological.

The second part basically boils down to a the question whether we should have broad rights of free speech, free speech only in specified areas (which increasingly is becoming the norm on college campuses in the U.S. and with some of our allies), or restricted freedom of speech.

We tried to settle this issue in America by adopting the First Amendment, which I think is the best possible answer — especially in a pluralistic democracy: “Congress shall make no law….” That we’re backsliding in some areas is quite troubling.

2. The second question (what responsibilities do scientists have for decisions to pursue certain inquiries?) seems more difficult, but in the end I think the issue is one for individual scientists to decide. They ought to be able to pursue whatever lawful research (e.g., no human cloning under current U.S. law) that they want to explore (and can get funding for). If one chooses to forbear a line of research based on ethical considerations, that’s up to him/her, but I don’t think society can or should try to hold scientists responsible for how others use their discoveries.

BTW, why did you enclose the word “truth” in quotation marks? I can understand a nonbelieving postmodern using this device, but why did you use it?

I’d like to hear how they wove the WOT into these topics. I can think of one connection, but I’m sure it’s not what the playwrite had in mind because it would make Pres. Bush look good.