From the Acton Institute:
Classical liberal and “moderate” intellectuals were concerned that after the forceful defense of objective truth in Veritatis Splendor, the Church would to revert to imposing this truth by promoting coercive legislation. Yet this wasn’t the case. At the time of the encyclical, the Pope visited Sudan, a largely Muslim country, and argued forcefully that majorities do not have the right to impose their religious and moral views on minorities. The Wanderer, one of the most conservative Catholic newspapers, editorialized in favor of the “libertarian” slant of the Vatican Sudan statements.
Cardinal Ratzinger focused on teaching the importance of convictions, rather than force. On November 6, 1992, at the ceremony where Ratzinger was inducted into the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences of the Institute of France, he explained that a free society can only subsist where people share basic moral convictions and high moral standards. He further argued that these convictions need not be “imposed or even arbitrarily defined by external coercion.”
I’ve been giving a lot of thought to places like Lebanon and Israel where you have several different ethnicities and religions co-existing, but barely.
America is one of the few nations where ethnicities and religions co-exist, but as government has grown we’ve noticed a trend that has increased groupthink to some degree. People identify themselves in tribes, not as Americans, and that is precisely what is causing so much violence in so many parts of the world.
Can anyone suggest an ethical system of government that has succeeded in bringing people together as the free market has done?