In the Western world, we take the separation of religion and government to be self-evident and concrete. Yet, the claim “religion should be separate from politics” implies a well defined distinction between the two terms allowing them to operate as mutually exclusive, which arguably isn't the case. What does it truly mean for a government to be secular?

How can we differentiate between terrorism and revolution, both as an ideology and operational force? What do we consider to be a legitimate use of violence?

The United States' militaristic approach to foreign policy has often revealed significant shortcomings, from unclear objectives and cultural unpreparedness to the lack of effective post-conflict planning. Do the destructive consequences of militarism outweigh its short-term effectiveness?

Bertrand Russell suggests that achieving objective thought requires setting aside emotions, hopes, and biases. However, this raises the question: can we ever truly separate our understanding of the world from the subjective experiences that define us as human and should we?

While seemingly almost self-evident, the question of the moral and practical responsibility that one's belief warrants is more nuanced. Not only must we examine if belief warrants responsibility, but exactly why it does.