The fact that I attempt, very carefully, to show how
a Christian public philosophy needs to take into account the contending views of various Christians» as well as our entire liberal / conservative political tradition» does not weaken my appeal for something more fully, integrally, and distinctively Christian.
Not exact matches
That is so because our constituting purpose» to advance a religiously informed
public philosophy for a society of freedom and virtue» requires a secure partnership between
Christians and Jews.
We can not avoid the fact that this new
philosophy, once it is fully instantiated, will in all likelihood deprive
Christians of effective participation in the
public square.
The Catch - 22 for
Christians pondering the relationship of religion and
public policy in a culturally diverse society is that if Christianity is to have a voice in shaping
public philosophy, it seems that equity demands that it do so in a way that gives
Christians no special voice.
The word went out in education, mass communications,
public philosophy and political life: «Be the first kid on your block to reappropriate the values of the Judeo -
Christian tradition.»
Among them were pantheism and the positions that human reason is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood and good and evil; that
Christian faith contradicts reason; that Christ is a myth; that
philosophy must be treated without reference to supernatural revelation; that every man is free to embrace the religion which, guided by the light of reason, he believes to be true; that Protestantism is another form of the
Christian religion in which it is possible to be as pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church; that the civil power can determine the limits within which the Catholic Church may exercise authority; that Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have erred in defining matters of faith and morals; that the Church does not have direct or indirect temporal power or the right to invoke force; that in a conflict between Church and State the civil law should prevail; that the civil power has the right to appoint and depose bishops; that the entire direction of
public schools in which the youth of
Christian states are educated must be by the civil power; that the Church should be separated from the State and the State from the Church; that moral laws do not need divine sanction; that it is permissible to rebel against legitimate princes; that a civil contract may among
Christians constitute true marriage; that the Catholic religion should no longer be the religion of the State to the exclusion of all other forms of worship; and «that the Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself to and agree with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.»
In this particular case, it can reasonably be inferred that the B.C. legislature did not consider that training with a
Christian philosophy was in itself against the
public interest since it passed five bills in favour of TWU between 1969 and 1985.»