Philosopher Kings
Plato AND/OR Socrates postulated that it would best for A NATION AND/OR THE WORLD to be GOVERNED by philosopher kings. What does that mean? Should Rawl’s have been elected president. Should Einstein have been appointed the leader of the free world during WWII?
I guess that depends on how we define the “philosopher.” Philosophers, to me, are not limited to people with a published dissertations in Philosophy. The a philosopher is any lover of knowledge. Anyone can be a philosopher…but only a few people truly love knowledge. I know I could stand to love knowledge a little more, sometimes I don’t truly love it. For that reason, I don’t always love myself. I disappoint myself too frequently!
Now back to politics…who should lead us? Democrats? Republicans? Socialists? NO NO NO, we should be led by those that can prove that THEY are lovers of knowledge. How will we know who the lovers are? By the pureness of her words and how her words inspire their actions. Philosophers will live the Beatitudes–Matthew 5:3-12. Therefore, we should rejoice at the idea OF a dictatorship headed by philosophers.
BUT THE PHILOSOPHERS WILL happily turn the power over to the people they govern. They will speak to the masses not from their mouths, but from their hearts. All the rights and freedoms will exist in their proper orthodox. They will think several times…and only then speak once!
“We will live as one…a brotherhood of men.”
~John Lennon
A Personal ELENCHUS 
Well done Chris. I never thought about the effect of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Personally, I think the Court should just recognize homosexuals as a discrete and insular minority so that they would have the protection of the Equal Protection Clause. In Romer v. Evans (1996) the Court struck down a Colorado Constitutional Amendment that prohibited homosexuals from ever claiming rights as a protected class. In other words, if homosexuals wanted to bring a suit for discrimination against their class, they would have to amend the state constitution before ever reaching protection from a federal court. The Court overturned this statute based on Equal Protection, but said nothing about whether or not homosexuals are a protected class….
I think there are Justices on the Court that know that homosexuals deserve this status as a discrete and insular minority, but they are possibly afraid of the implications (possibly being held back by their religious morals). The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the minority. Homosexuals are a class that is in need of protection from the oppressive Christian majority.
Thoughts? Too strong of an argument? (lol)
ok…so this comment was supposed to be left on the gay marriage entry. Woops 🙂 My bad.