That's a central part of philosophy of ethics. What do I owe to strangers? What do I owe to my family? What is it to live a good life? Those are questions which we face as individuals.

The question of the family now divides our society so deeply that the opposing sides cannot even agree on a definition of the institution they are arguing about.

Positive feelings come from being honest about yourself and accepting your personality and physical characteristics warts and all and from belonging to a family that accepts you without question.

I have frequently been questioned especially by women of how I could reconcile family life with a scientific career. Well it has not been easy.

It would make life much easier if I could have total faith and not question everything all the time but I can't do it and I won't do it.

But back to your question it was a wonderful experience with the Art Ensemble and I keep in contact and sort of follow what's going on but it was also very important to make this step you may say this leap of faith.

At issue was the question whether this man's faith could prevail against a man whose equal faith it was that this society is sick beyond saving and that mercy itself pleads for its swift extinction and replacement by another.

At issue in the Hiss Case was the question whether this sick society which we call Western civilization could in its extremity still cast up a man whose faith in it was so great that he would voluntarily abandon those things which men hold good including life to defend it.

To imply that religious believers have no right to engage moral questions in the public square or at the ballot is simply to establish a Reichian secularism as our state faith.

The question Americans should ask is not whether a candidate is affiliated with a particular faith but rather whether that candidate's faith makes it more likely he or she will support policies that align with their values.