Humanity is always searching for answers, and for leaders that can supply them with answers. We ponder questions regarding our existence and the way things ought to be, organize into tribes according to the conclusions we make, and then develop some form of public policy to create order. This tendency of humanity is most evident in modern times in politics and religion. In the American government system, the church and the state are meant to be kept separate, meaning the state is not allowed to have an established religion. However, this concept becomes controversial when public policy decisions have moral implications because people inherit their moral sentiments from their religion and/or the things they choose to worship (and this by no …show more content…
As a liberal Catholic politician, Ted Kennedy is about as far from the Baptist conservative students on the political spectrum as can be. Yet, instead of shying away from this disparity in their beliefs, Kennedy confronts it head on in his introduction by saying that he knows they “begin with certain disagreements” and that he “strongly suspects that at the end of the evening some of [their] disagreements will remain” (Kennedy). He then transitions into his argument by saying, “but I also hope that tonight and in the months and years ahead, we will always respect the right of others to differ, that we will never lose sight of our own fallibility” (Kennedy). By introducing himself as one who holds different beliefs than his audience, and then encouraging them to respect the views of others, he frames his argument around tolerance in politics, and supports that argument by using himself as living and breathing evidence. Kennedy, by coming to a place where many would consider him unwelcome and establishing that from the beginning, becomes a credible source of insight and wisdom about tolerating others and supports his claim that differences must be set aside in political discourse for it to be