Almost a decade ago, a single question completely changed my life.

Sitting in my catechism classroom with a dozen other 5th graders, we had just finished discussing some Biblical story and the instructor was taking a short break to transition to our next subject. I raised my hand and she called on me.

How do we know any of this is real? I asked.

This question was not some type of challenge to authority or cross-examination it just seemed natural that I should ask for confirmation about all of these fantastic stories I was being exposed to. Rather than my teacher citing historical record or some scientific study which was for some reason what I expected her to do she simply responded by saying, We just have to believe. Thats what it means to have faith. You just believe.

All of a sudden my perceptions of God, religion and the meaning of life were completely shattered. By the time I reached middle school I had completed my transition to agnosticism, on my way to full-blown atheism.

It all started with a single question, one that challenged the status quo and, in essence, authority.

Today, American political and media culture seems far too afraid of these types of questions. Im not talking about questions challenging religion, but rather questions that ask for hard verification of what were all told every day. Journalists and citizens alike take too many statements at face value, backing down from challenging people in power and asking them to verify what they claim. Despite an established history of government and big business peddling half-truths and flat-out lies about their more controversial activities, we too often sit back and accept what people or organizations say rather than what they actually do.

Years after asking my catechism teacher to prove what she was telling me, I found myself sitting in another classroom facing a similar situation.

Last June, journalist Glenn Greenwald began publishing articles with The Guardian about the vast meta-data collection of the NSA thanks to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden. In my public policy class we spent time debating the merits of our massive intelligence state, with a central question asking whether or not such a huge system was necessary. Like seemingly all debates about the NSA, the conversation quickly became a matter of safety weighed against liberty.

Most of my classmates were apprehensive about such an invasive surveillance system, but deferred to threats of terrorism as justification for its existence. Over and over again, students shot down any challenge to the NSAs behavior by referencing the claim that meta-data had stopped some 50 terrorist plots. It seemed to be a closed case; programs like PRISM were saving American lives, plain and simple.

More here:
James Brennan: A profession in crisis