Parents should have primary responsibility for their children, including health insurance. The more parental rights that are ceded to government, the more authority we relinquish to government.

Jesus's admonition to care "for the least" is personal, not governmental, but since the Left thinks government is God it believes in constantly expanding government. Notice the same Scripture it twists to justify more spending and bigger government, it ignores when it comes to sex, abortion, marriage and all sorts of other things. The Right does the same, of course, when it mostly ignores poverty and justice issues.

The more power government exercises over us, the fewer rights we are likely to retain. For families that are poor and unable to afford insurance for their children, the current S-Chip program remains to cover poor children.

By that I assume it is meant torture by the West, since terrorists are famous for using all sorts of torture, including physical, mental and religious torture, such as forced conversion.

There is a double standard when it comes to this subject. We in the West are supposed to adhere to certain rules so we "won't be like them." But if the other side adheres to no rules and sees our standards as a form of weakness, such things are counter-productive to our objectives. It is not coincidental that the trailer for the new season of the TV series "24" features Jack Bauer testifying before a congressional committee on the subject of torture. Bauer is asked if he defends torture and responds that if it is needed to save lives, he will use it.

That seems to me to be the proper balance if it is reasonably certain the person being tortured (and how do we define torture?) has information that will save innocent lives. To do otherwise might satisfy certain civil libertarians, but they should know that terrorists do not discriminate between those who favor torture and those who oppose it.

There has long been a debate about how widely we should apply Jesus' admonition, in what has come to be known as the Sermon on the Mount, to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matt 5:43-48)

Does this mean we should not resist someone (or some nation) that wishes to do us harm? Some consistent pacifists believe that. Others say this should be applied only in personal relationships and that we should love someone at the office who means to short circuit our career, or a neighbor who has a different political philosophy or religious faith.

It is difficult to parse this saying. Should we -- can we -- love terrorists who hate and wish to destroy us? Does doing so violate Paul's instruction that those who do not care for their families are worse than an infidel? (1 Tim 5:8)

I know loving my enemies works for me in personal relationships. When I truly love my enemy as God loves them, they eventually cease to be my enemy. It changes me first and sometimes it changes them.

About the terrorists who wish to destroy us, perhaps I have more to learn, but for now I intend to resist them until they give up trying to kill me. Then I will try to love them.

Go ahead, send me your emails telling me how wrong I am, but I want to see my grandchildren grow up in freedom and not bondage and to me that is worth fighting for.

I think it has to do with expectations. The Norman Rockwell-Ozzie and Harriett-Father Knows Best stereotype of the "normal" American family has been so ingrained in us that when we fall short of that standard it makes us simultaneously angry and sad. In addition, some relatives rarely see, speak or write each other between holidays. There is a sense of obligation to show up to celebrate holidays in order not to give further offense. When they arrive, the actual and perceived grievances are often magnified and multiplied.

Families with such dynamics might consider preparing and formally signing a "Holiday peace treaty." In it, they might pledge to find something positive to say about others and to express gratitude for something the other person has done. Affirming words do much to reduce tensions and conflict ("A soft answer turns away wrath" (Proverbs 15:1). It might also help to remember that story Jesus told about getting the log out of your own eye, before condemning the speck in someone else's eye (Matt 7:3), because often what we see as character flaws in others is a mirror held up to our own faces. Some best selling psychiatrists have written a book called "Happiness is a Choice." Choose to be happy this holiday season, no matter the provocations.

If one begins with the premise that Man is perfectible, one will always be frustrated about the deplorable condition of much of the world (in Romans 8, Paul writes about how God has built "futility" into the world "in hope" that the world will turn to Him). We have conflict with each other, because too many of us are in conflict with God: not accepting His existence; not obeying His commands; rejecting His salvation.

In the midst of conflict and chaos, we can be thankful that we live in America which still guarantees the freedom to worship, or not, according to one's own conscience and that until recently we have largely been protected from the consequences of religious and ethnic tensions that grip much of the world. That has changed since 9/11, but America remains the last best hope on Earth. If it didn't, so many would not want to come here -- legally and illegally!

Thanks must have an object and Thanksgiving has traditionally been understood in the context of thanking God for His many blessings. That never changes, no matter our political surroundings or personal circumstances.