[x]

This was and is an extremely important speech. It's also far more subtle, nuanced, and penetrating than Solzhenitsyn's critics claimed. It's hardly the call to theocracy that it was made out to be at the time. Contrary to what his opponents said, Solzhenitsyn has been able to adapt to representative government in Russia.

I do worry about the rest of us, though. From a balanced view of the strengths and weaknesses of our culture, we've moved on to the idea that democracy and free markets will be enough in themselves to secure our survival and flourishing. Solzhenitsyn's emphasis on the moral and spiritual is much missed today.

[William McKinley]

I do worry about the rest of us, though. From a balanced view of the strengths and weaknesses of our culture, we've moved on to the idea that democracy and free markets will be enough in themselves to secure our survival and flourishing. Solzhenitsyn's emphasis on the moral and spiritual is much missed today.

I agree with you x.

Cathryn, here is an interesting question for you. Is it possible to persuade those, who normally do not 'speak' the language of spirituality and morality, that society needs spirtuality and morality?

Note, I am not so much asking if you agree with that premise, but rather I am asking if you think it is possible for a person who does agree with that premise to be persuasive to someone who does not? Is there, in some cases, an unbridgeable language gap?