it at times reflects the move of statesmanship, where people recognize aquinas, they don't impose onas. it may not apply the principle -- i do not doubt that the principle bars racial discrimination, as applied to the choice of a spouse, but they cannot be drawn that far and deposit a flop. the maine buys comes when people say that -- the main vice comes when people say they take their principles from what the possible loss says. -- the positive law says. some people say that there are no natural light-- there are no natural rights. we don't care what they say, as long as they do it in a democratic way, what is right or wrong has the support of the majority. if that is the measure of right and wrong, then we cut the ground out from under the constitutional rights and the rights of the majority, because as soon as the majority has spoken, it is given is the definition of right and wrong. we have no other source to which to appeal. james wilson said that america begins with a revolutionary principle, because america begins with the possibility that you can have an unjust law. things th

and if aquinas were living today he would be studying evolutionary biology and psychology of understand what god meant us to be. i look at the world and the universe as a catholic who believes in god, as an amazing, very diverse, fascinating, complicated, beautiful place. and i believe that also applies to sexuality and to human gender, and i know what i do not know. i believe in what the great catholic poet hopkins called tied to beauty. the beauty of those who are freckled and different, the fact that the universe,.com requires diversity. the fact of course as we now know, the diversity of individuals and of genes is a strength. it is the driving force of human life and human civilization. my view is, therefore, again, by reason, not by feeling, this argument is over. the last desperate act of the people supporting it has been the decision of the current pope to insist that gay people are simply, as he put it, i objectively disordered, unquote. he doesn't quite explain why or how. he has even gone so far as to say that even if it gay men are utterly celibate, if they obey the church's

and at times of course positive law reflects the mood of statesmanship, people who recognize with aquinashat they don't impose under the bulk of imperfect burdens those who are already virtuous. we may not apply a principle in its fullest sweep. and i don't doubt the principle that borrows racial discrimination, that bars as from joining nascent race would apply to the choice of a spouse, but our legislators have not-- drone it that far into positive law. they have held back, so there is always the main vice comes when people say that they take their measure of right and wrong simply from what the positive law says-- sets forth. we have all been tutored by harry jaffa and stephen douglas and in the debate with lincoln. there are no natural rights. all men are created equal simply meant the rights of white men. whether slavery was right or wrong we will leave to people to vote it up. we don't care what they say as long as they do it in a democratic way. what is right or wrong is that that has the support of the majority and as lincoln quickly pointed out if that is the measure of right and

even more impressive when we know that lincoln was not familiar with the writings of aristotle and aquinas, it might be said his mind moved matchally along the ages. i suggest something similar was at work with reagan. he read widely, but even though he could not bring out the writings. the striking thing about him was that on his own, in his own curiousty of mulling over puzzles or more questions, he often moved along paths of reflection that had been trod before him by writers more accomplished and celebrated than he. it's curious as to how this turn of mind went unnoticed, even among journalists like luke canada who effected to have watched him closely. one of the most notable examples occurred early in the new administration. it seems to be faltering in the winter of 1981-'82 with a severe recession setting in. the political predicament seemed to be caught around the time reagan's future and the fate of his administration would come to depend on where interest rates would be in the fall. that sense of things moved me to write a critical piece for the national review back in may of 1982

even more impressive when they know that lincoln was not familiar with the writings of aristotle and aquinasbut move naturally along the paths of these greater mines. i think that something similar happened with reagan. he read widely [unintelligible] the striking thing about him was that in his own curiosity, he moved along the paths of reflection followed by writers more accomplished than he. one of the most notable examples here occurred earlier in the ministration. it seemed to be losing traction and the winter of 1982, and the political predicament [unintelligible] reagan's future would depend on where interest rates would be in the fall. that led me to write a critical piece in 1982, "oh lovers lament for the reagan administration." how could be that the standards a prospect for the administration with could hinge on something as the level of interest rates? [unintelligible] abortion, suffocating taxes, regulation, i am voting for people were trying to protect unborn people from the killing of abortion. for people who are intensely concerned over abortion or anything else, the ups and

it at times reflects the move of statesmanship, where people recognize aquinas, they don't impose on perfect man, those who are already burch was. it may not apply the principle -- i do not doubt that the principle bars racial discrimination, as applied to the choice of a spouse, but they cannot be drawn that far and deposit a flop. the maine buys comes when people say that -- the main vice comes when people say they take their principles from what the possible loss says. -- the positive law says. some people say that there are no natural light-- there are no natural rights. we don't care what they say, as long as they do it in a democratic way, what is right or wrong has the support of the majority. if that is the measure of right and wrong, then we cut the ground out from under the constitutional rights and the rights of the majority, because as soon as the majority has spoken, it is given is the definition of right and wrong. we have no other source to which to appeal. james wilson said that america begins with a revolutionary principle, because america begins with the possibility

as a thomas aquinas said, a man has free choice only to the extent that he is rational. in these dangerous, difficult, and immensely challenging times, when our young troops fight two wars overseas, while their loved ones back home fight to keep their families together, when everything from the economy to the environment instills fear and uncertainty, let us exercise our own free choice. let us leave rationally and calmly. let us take the time to ask ourselves, what or doing, what are we not doing, and how can we make up the difference? we may not always like the answers. i know i seldom do. but we can always learn from having posed the questions. now, please tell your heads and join me in prayer. father in heaven, we gather today to ask your blessing over the lies and decisions of those who lead us around the world -- the lives and decisions. theirs is a mighty task and a noble calling. upon their shoulders rest the hopes and dreams of billions of people, not only of this generation, but of future generations who know us not. may guide them in that pursuit, give them th

has i believe a stronger network of individuals who haven't read aquinas' with close ties to south asia closer ties to south asia than in the united states which present a different threat to the u.k. than to us. spinet what we turn to another subject for you, director panetta. do you or your associates have an estimate about would take to drive al qaeda out of the pakistani trouble aerias? i want to touch briefly on the question of pakistan and what is your assessment of what it would take to drive al qaeda out of that area? >> senter wyden, fast that a number of times because obviously our operations are very aggressive and very directed and as i said, very effective with regard to disrupting the operations. having said that, the reality is that they continue to operate. they continue to move within the fatah and troy o'leary -- tribal areas. i think to effectively be able to disrupt al qaeda and into their threat we need to have boots on the ground in addition to our operation. >> one last question if i might, madam chair. what else, mr. panetta, can the pakistani government if pakis

my view is that aquinas, for example, was desperately seeking the truth about what human beings were. in the 13th century, 14th century it wasn't -- what i feel in the discussions of natural law is exactly that, actually a resistance to understand nature they resisted. but i have to say also that if darwin didn't do it we are 150 years after darwin. religious fundamentalists have never been stronger in this country or around the world. the great problem, i think, is that the more we know the truth about who we are and all our complexity the more terrifying it will become for us to abandon the easy certainties and prejudices of the past. what we are really seeing in the world right now, and this goes far beyond the question of homosexuality. it is the central question of my book, the conservative soul." i think that fundamentalism is an erotic response to the truth as is being revealed by science, as is being revealed by human experience. it is sometimes humankind cannot bear much reality. the reality, neuroscience is opening up. the possibility of seeing a revolution in thinking which