Over the last twenty years especially, homosexuality has been reframed as an issue of rights. The debate over same-sex marriage has been redefined that way as well. Overall, both issues are now viewed exclusively as a civil rights issue. One of the primary results of viewing these as civil rights issues is the tendency to limit First Amendment rights, especially the freedom of speech and the freedom of religious expression. In other nations, we are already seeing this occur. In England, a Catholic school was forbidden to fire its openly gay headmaster. In Canada, the Alberta Human Rights Commission forbade a Christian pastor from making ?disparaging? remarks about homosexuality or even repeating biblical condemnations. Such blatant challenges to free speech are not quite yet occurring in America, but we are almost there.

Since America was founded as a nation, religious liberty and freedom of conscience have been cherished values. In many ways, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is testing those cherished values. For that reason, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is challenging one of the key parts of the ACA on the basis of religious liberty. The Supreme Court recently heard the case and will hand down its decision no doubt sometime in June. What is behind the Hobby Lobby challenge of the ACA?

Vladimir Putin?s annexation of Crimea in Ukraine has upset the world order established after the fall of the Soviet Union. Its ramifications are still being analyzed, but it is at best unsettling, at worst destabilizing. Can we discern Putin?s worldview? Can we figure out his motives and goals in Crimea? Several thoughts:

With the flight of the former president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, a few weeks ago, Vladimir Putin moved his troops into Crimea, in southern Ukraine, and thereby created an international crisis. It is an act of aggression. It is a provocation. It is an act of bullying by a weak, narcissistic autocrat. But it is also one of the most serious developments in this already troubled young 21st century. This crisis says much about Putin, much about the European Union (EU) and much about the US. Let me explain.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been controversial since it was passed in March of 2010. It was designed to completely reform the American health care system, with the US government providing subsidies and penalties to fund and enforce these reforms. Among others, these are the salient aspects of the ACA as a reform mechanism:

In President Obama?s State of the Union address it was one of the primary themes. It is the centerpiece of almost everything MSNBC features in its cable news coverage. The Democratic Party is banking on this as the cornerstone of its 2014 campaign to retain control of the Senate. Income inequality is once again a ?hot issue? in American politics. Talk of increasing the minimum wage, taxing the wealthy to fund additional programs for the poor, and extending unemployment insurance are all examples of federal programs being discussed. More specifically, significant tax-the-rich proposals are being suggested to fund pre-Kindergarten educational programs. That there is income inequality is a given in America; in many ways it has always been so. There is a growing gap between the very wealthy and the very poor.

Speaking of the detached nature of higher education, we often hear of the ?ivory tower? or of the ?absent-minded professor.? Both metaphors communicate a separation from the real world, even an intentional detachment from reality. Usually, we use such figures of speech with humor or even mild criticism. But, the American Studies Association (ASA) and its recent actions concerning Israel reflect a deep-seated academic bigotry, not a detached pursuit of academic freedom. Why would a group of American scholars bitterly attack Israel? Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. Further, as columnist Charles Krauthammer observes, Israel has ?the freest press in the Middle East, a fiercely independent judiciary and astonishing religious and racial diversity within its universities, including affirmative action for Arab students.?

In terms of the Middle East, President Obama?s major goal has been US withdrawal and disengagement from this region. This is evident in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Syria and in his negotiations with Iran. Many foreign policy specialists are lamenting Obama?s policy decision. . . That disengagement from the Middle East is defining Obama?s foreign policy is seen by most as a given. However, we are now beginning to see the consequences of this foreign policy decision. What are some of those consequences?

The terms ?liberal? and ?conservative? are a part of our cultural and political language. Each has taken on an ideology that is often rigid and uncompromising. Each has champions in the media and there are even two cable networks devoted to the opposing positions: Fox News represents the conservative viewpoint and MSNBC the liberal viewpoint. Neither is objective, for each presents its position on the cultural and political issues of the day as the only reasonable and possible position to hold.

Without question, when it comes to President Obama?s foreign policy legacy, his decision to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program will define his presidency. He assumes that the new president Hasan Rohani can be trusted and that he will break decades of duplicity, lying and manipulation on the part of Iran. It is risky at best, utterly foolish and stupid at worst. We will know in 2014. Several important thoughts on Iran, its nuclear program and President Obama: