I believe there should be moderation between fearing the government and not fearing the government. Government must be feared to some extent. The fear is what prevents disorder and chaos in society. People think twice about stealing and killing because they realize that there are consequences for those actions. An example of this is the situation Iraq was in before the U.S. and its allies overthrew Saddam. The dictatorship of Saddam was very harsh. It was the harsh conditions of the dictatorship that kept the peace in Iraq and made the country stable. The different groups in Iraq never went to war with each other because Saddam's regime would not allow that to happen. Another example of the importance of fearing the government is the fear of capital punishment. Fearing capital punishment sometimes prevents people from committing capital offenses. A third example of the importance of fearing the government is getting a ticket for speeding. Fear of having to pay a fine to the county or state prevents deaths that are caused by speeding.
Government does not always have to be feared. People tend to love their governments when when their governments do things that are just, moral, and fair. I think it is important for government to not abuse its power. Government has a responsiblity and obligation to protect and improve the lives of the people it governs. A government that fails to live up to that is not a good government. An example of a government that has abused its power is the government in Iran. I think the Iranian government abused its power during the election in Iran that took place a while back. The Iranian government failed to listen to other Iranians who disagreed with the results of the election. The Iranian government even used force to get the Iranians who disagreed to settle and accept the outcome of the election. Another example of a government that has abused its power was the regime of Saddam. The regime aggressively went after and punished those who spoke out against Saddam and his dictatorship.

I agree with Huntington and Said that the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. However, I believe that the differences in the ideologies and economies of different civilizations do play a significant role in breeding conflict. The ideologies of Islamic countries and the ideologies of Western countries have clashed just like the different cultures of Islamic countries and the Western countries. Many times I find that ideology and culture sometimes overlap each other. An example of this is democracy and theocracy. Democracy is considered to be an ideology in Western countries. It can also be considered part of the culture. Theocracy can be considered to be an ideology of Islamic countries. It can also be considered to be part of Islamic culture. The source of conflict during the Cold War was ideological and economical. It was ideological because it involved democracy versus communism. It was economical because it involved capitalism versus communism or socialism.
I believe the best way to avoid conflict is to not degrade other people's cultures and ideologies. It is important to realize that it is fine to favor a certain culture or tradition unless that culture or tradition does things that are immoral. However, it is not fine for people to consider their culture and tradition to be superior to someone else's culture and tradition. This breeds conflict. I favor democracy and other Western ideologies. However, I would not degrade Islamic culture or other cultures. I realize that Islam preaches and teaches many good things. Certain Muslims have the wrong understanding about the teachings of Islam. They use the teachings of Islam to justify and support killing people. This not only goes on within the Islamic religion. It wen on within the Christian religion. People who lived in the 1600s would use the teachings of Christianity to justify not embracing science and killing those who did embrace science. People were killed during the witchcraft trials in New England because they embraced and understood science.

I think that there are advantages and disadvantages in regard to having either a governmental system dominated by two political parties or a governmental system dominated by more than two political parties. One advantage in regard to having a governmental system dominated by two political parties is that it is easier for voters to make decisions when they vote. The more choices you have the harder it is to make a decision. One disadvantage to having a governmental system dominated by two political parties is that voters only get two perspectives about an issue. I think having more than two political parties would offer ideas and perspectives that have not been considered. Just having two political parties that dominate the governmental system limits options for the voters.
I would choose having more than two political parties in the United States government over just having two political parties. I like and support the idea of having many options when I vote and think about political issues. Many Americans think that both the democratic party and republican party do things that are not good for the United States. Republicans claim to be the party that is financially responsible even though they really are not. Democrats claim to be good at certain things as well even though they really are not also. I think that this assessment of the two parties that many Americans have is the right assessment. Their assessment is the reason why America needs more than two political parties.
I realize that there is no perfect political party. I consider myself to be not a democratic and not a republican. It is important to take the best ideas from each party. Being attached to a political party can cause problems. It causes government officials to do what is in the best interest of the party instead of doing what is in the best interest of the United States.

I agree with the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution about freedom of religion in the United States. I think it is fine for people to wear crosses and other religious things in public. What people wear is not always the problem. The problem arises when people become too extreme about religion. There is no threat when it comes to wearing Christian or Islamic related items. There is a problem when people impose their religious views on others. People should not use violence to make others fall in line with their religious beliefs. What the Taliban in Afghanistan does to impose certain religious views on others is wrong.
I believe it is important for people to be exposed to other people of different faiths. I think this offers more advantages than disadvantages. People are not as prejudice and negative toward people of different faiths when they understand differences. This concept is similar to racial situations. White people now are not as prejudice toward black people as they were in the 1950s and 1960s because there has been integration. White people now are used to being around black people. Many white and black people are now friends.
I believe it is wrong to fight over religion. The function of religion should be to promote peace and influence people to live good and moral lives. People tend to see their religion as too much of a social identity and heritage rather than a philosophy that encourages people to live peacefully and morally. I see religion as something that would support being tolerant of people of different faiths. Others may see it as something that promotes violence against those who are considered to be disbelievers. I think that religion has helped and hurt mankind. Religion can be as much of a strength as it is a weakness.