This seems to be the crux upon which the debate over modernity rests. Certainly, modernity has yielded amazing material gains. However, even as it satisfies physical needs (and even physical desires far exceeding needs) does it satisfy the non-material yearnings that man has? If not, then can modernity be considered a teleologically “good” thing?

There’s an atheist historical fray?

Much of the Sanskrit Buddhist literature survives only in Chinese or Tibetan translation. The only complete collection of the earliest traditions (they were oral, so “texts” is a metaphor) is the Pali Tipitaka of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. The north Indian Sanskrit forms of the stories of the Buddha teaching – the Suttas or Sutras – differ in only in minor ways from the Pali. Amazing, considering the cultural, geographical, and temporal distance between them. That forms a field of research, if not a quest, for the oldest form of “Buddhism.”

The picture of pre-Asokan Buddhism that emerges is an artifact of Western scholarship. But it is the best picture we have. Using it as a Procrustean bed on which to trim the existing Asian Buddhist religions is a bad idea. But as a Western Buddhist myself, I find it a good standard to apply to them in my selection of what shall constitute Buddhism for myself.

The addiction to newness that Dumm refers to it is not necessarily a negative component to an American identity; regeneration, re-birth and transformation are all powerfully effective themes for humanity and have inspired projects of immense difficulty and tremendous benefit for many. It is this addiction or attraction to newness that will be useful in the formation of a new American identity, one in which our voice will not be the loudest in a chorus of international concerns and global initiatives. America has been described by Obama and others as being in a time of crisis and at a pivotal point in regards to its own future success and well being. The challenges that America faces however are not simply of internal import, they are of global significance. No one leader or even the entire American populace can single handedly tidy up the economic and environmental injustice that strains the country, for the nature of the modern world is marked by inextricable links and relationships between industrialized nations. American needs to find its place amidst a pantheon of powers and finally relinquish its self prophetic vision as omnipotent savior and benevolent leader of the world.

I will also suggest that decline need not be perceived as so catastrophic an occurrence. Dumm points out that what we need at this point is someone to manage our decline without destroying the world, and I agree with this statement. Yet what if our decline as a superpower that greatly affects the welfare of so many millions worldwide, signals only a more equitable distribution of power and political efficacy? It is an error I think to cast ourselves as the super hero in a world drama trying to reclaim his infallible identity and use his power for good before another country (or superhero) uses it for evil. Prevalent in some of the discourse about the possible decline of America as a super power is the idea of its right to power, despite countless examples of its insufficiency as the world’s sole arbiter of justice and charity. Obama will indeed have to face the possibility of America’s decline as a superpower but this in itself may not be the challenge.

Can America maintain a sense of its exceptionalism in a world in which it is not the mightiest, or is the age of exceptionalism, as the author suggests, passing away altogether? Even if Obama’s task is not to place America once again on a pedestal of benevolence and power, a test that requires his dynamic leadership is still at hand. Obama’s greatest accomplishment could be to help Americans realize the effectiveness of embracing our weaknesses and allying our frailties to the strengths and wisdom of other nations. It is a transformation that does not require us to abandon what is beneficial in our power or what remains valuable in the enduring things of “old”.

Ms. Jakobsen and Ms. Pellegrini suggest that by separating religious marriages from civil unions we will be able to truly maintain a separation of church and state as we have claimed to do throughout much of our nation’s history. However, how can we separate religious and civil unions so that religious marriages do not provide the secular benefits that couples are accustomed to receiving upon their marriage? Is it realistic to think that the change can be made? This adjustment would require that all couples wishing to receive a religious marriage would also need to acquire a civil union. Without taking both steps couples would no longer be recognized either by their god, or by their state. Both of which can be considered problematic. Even if we were able to successfully enact this policy, unfortunately I am not certain that it would be able to solve the problem that it is aiming to eliminate. Although technically this solution would separate civil unions for gay couples from the debates regarding homosexuality and religion, it would not eliminate the strong views that many individuals posses. While some people concerned only with the sanctity of religious marriage might be pleased with the change, others who are opposed to homosexual relationships in general will likely maintain their current stance on this issue. It is important to recognize both of these parties when trying to solve the issue at hand. I believe that people would continue to fight against gay marriages using the arguments of religion even if civil marriage was entirely separated from religious marriage.

In theory, these claims seem true. American history, both domestic and international, seriously undermines the idea of American superiority and dominance over other nations. Consider, for example, the Bay of Pigs fiasco or the seemingly pointless War on Terror. Having become the first black president, Obama seems to embody the American melting pot: a racial minority has become the American figurehead.

The first reality that the author fails to acknowledge is the fact that Obama is continuing American vertical exceptionalism. In his inaugural address, Obama expressed his belief in American superiority and uniqueness in the world: he followed John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill” ideology. According to Obama, because “we remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on earth” and our “ideals still light the world,” we can be secure in “the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.” God has given America, the New Jerusalem, to his chosen people so that they can serve as the “city upon a hill” for all other nations to admire and imitate.

The second unacknowledged reality is the mythic nature of the American melting pot. In practice, the melting pot represents assimilation, not multiculturalism: it seeks to eliminate differences, not celebrate them. Although Obama does embody different races and nationalities, these diverse social locations were extremely problematic for both the news media and the general public during the presidential campaign. Questions raged about whether Obama, black in appearance but not descended from slaves, was either too black or not black enough. Some even suggested that with a name like Barack Hussein Obama, he clearly associated with – and perhaps even was! – an Islamic terrorist. Rather than confirming the American melting pot, whether imagined as assimilationist or multicultural, the presidential campaign highlighted how problematic race, religion, and national origin still are in the United States.

Religion as business, which is what all churches and religions to one degree or another are.

And in the case of the “Catholic” church, big-time business—the worlds first power seeking transnational corporation. A “religious” corporation which would, if unimpeded, take whatever steps it could to “rule” the entire world, which did not become world dominant by practicing the Gospel of Jesus.

Plus anyone who quotes George Weigel on the future of religion is admitting how deluded he or she is.

Remember that George wrote a book in which he claims that there is no “salvation” outside of the “Catholic” church. Protestant churches, especially those of a liberal persuasion, are of course completely beyond the pale—so too with liberal catholics.

Such a claim is of course completely untrue and and offense to all other Faith Traditions.

Plus Weigel associates with USA right-wing religionists who have no time at all, in a now instantaneously connected globalized world, for the necessary project and process of Ecumenicism.

We possess the “truth” and you are therefore inherently. Therefore what is there to talk about, or agree upon.

Defining democracy and its practices remains an illusive challenge. What exactly is it? What’s its relationship to public institutions, most importantly, to public education? Is America’s crusade to democratize the world just (or democratic!)? More critically, although some feel that it has the potential to exist, we should ask, as Whitman does, whether democracy has a life beyond theory? Whitman wrote that “We have frequently printed the word Democracy … yet … it is a word the real gist of which still sleeps, quite unawakened…” In any case, these are some of the questions that continue to plague concerned Americans, citizens around the globe, philosophers, educators and democratic politicians.

Nevertheless, I believe that the vast majority of Americans (and the globe’s democratic people) have an intuitive awareness about what makes a democratic society, about its foundational principles—justice, shared-responsibility, equality and equity, stability, security, critical citizenship, compassion, and a commitment to human rights—and this is the case, even if we cannot define it absolute, or claim it to be entirely real.

I take the time to discuss the “meaning” of democracy because (given Mr. Lofton, Mr. Goswick and Mr. Rowe’s discussion about the necessity for the meaning of democracy and of American politics) I think it is important to point out that Mr. Ayers’s analysis of American education also works with a definition of democracy and of democratic education that is not perfect, but hopeful.

The Brother has a vision of the future. Wherein our schools are committed to equality and equity, and to empowering students of all races, creeds, and class; where all students receive the necessary tools to be critical thinkers, and agents in the world; of educational spaces that promote diversity in its broadest sense, and invite dissension and non-conformism. In this future classroom, student-teacher power dynamics will not take precedence, neither will routine testing; indifference will be neither taught nor tolerated, and imagination will be fostered and encouraged. It is a vision. But environmentalist Susan Griffin aptly states, “Let us begin to imagine the worlds we would like to inhabit…”

There is a prophetic tone to Mr. Ayers’s condemnation of American public education. On the one hand, he castigates America for not fulfilling its promise of equitable education to all, and points to future danger/a dangerous future for all our children and this nation; yet, on the other hand, there is a light named Hope. Ayers challenges and encourages us when he states: “The power of rising expectations, of imagination unleashed, of hope for something better than the politics of division and war and fear – all of it is in the air and on the move.” And this is why I agree with Mr. Ayers that as a nation we need a strong and committed to deconstructing our current system, and to a radical REconstruction of our public schools. If democracy is to persist, than this “re-imagining” of American education can and must take place.