Sentences with phrase «for liberal societies»

For liberal societies, intellect and liberty are intimately related.

There is, for instance, the conclusion to a C. S. Lewis Lecture on Christian apologetics: «This means, of course, that we need to rethink the Christian basis for a liberal society, in which the rights of individuals and communities are founded upon a Christian understanding of man which is widely shared by non-Christians.

He toys with the idea that for a liberal society to accept killing in war while not accepting torture is inconsistent, then he rejects this idea, and then he qualifies his rejection, saying that distinguishing between torture and killing combatants in war «fails to capture the potential dangerousness of disarmed and helpless subjects.»

Not exact matches

Liberals believe that government is a force for good in society — that while there are problems to be addressed, government exists to find solutions.

They are communitarians, that is, «if philosophical liberals are those who believe that all our problems can be solved by autonomous individuals, a market economy, and a procedural state, whereas communitarians believe that more substantive ethical identities and a more active participation in a democratic polity are necessary for the functioning of any decent society.»

As a consequence, Burnham did not see that commissars and liberal managers and technocrats were rivals competing for dominance in post-traditional societies.

Jesus death and resurrection changed the world for the good forever so all of you liberals Christian haters should live with it or go live in societies that show no tolerance.

In their view, the American political experiment is liberal to its rotten core, and Baxter in particular thinks the very core of the core is the First Amendment that pretends the state is «neutral» to religion when in fact it is an insidious instrument for taking Christianity captive to provide «legitimation» for a capitalist, consumerist, warmongering society.

Dalahäst So, like I said, you are actually a product of our modern, more liberal, egalitarian society, but you are insisting on giving credit for this to «Christianity», as if Christianity has always lined up with your beliefs.

For liberal Christians, such victories embody the justice of the social gospel, the idea that believers should do God's work — even aid the Second Coming - by improving society.

However, the Roman Catholic module exam questions almost invariably allow the Catholic view to be stated; therefore it is important to teach a robust apologetic for the Catholic world view, while also critically presenting the opposing arguments of contemporary society and liberal Christianity.

Formerly, when the liberal arts college was the major form of higher education, and when it understood its mission as the prepartion of leaders for society, there was some chance of such health.

The decisions we make — for ourselves, for our families, for our churches, for society — rarely fall into neat and tidy liberal or conservative categories.

It was disappointing, therefore, to see church agencies such as the United Church of Christ's Office for Church in Society side with unreconstructed liberals like Hawkins and oppose the bill's work provision.

On my blog, I explain how the liberal agenda in France ignore anti-white racism, with dire consequences for our society:

In an exclusive interview ahead of May's general election, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg explains why he's not the atheist many assume him to be, and outlines his vision for church and society.

For such strategies are but glosses on the liberal society and do not begin to suggest the virtues we should ask of ourselves and others as citizens of a polis.

But as they emerge as leaders of our society, they can find in the now somewhat despised and ignored liberal theology important resources for relating the legitimate concerns of Christian faith to the pressing problems of our time.

Indeed, to ignore liberal theology's resources is to run the double risk of relinquishing any chance for Christian influence on the future direction of our society and of surrendering the uniqueness of the Christian witness itself.

The point the New Oxford Review is making in the ad is that liberals have consistently and successfully pressed for changes in our society that transform conduct that once caused women to be condemned as «whores» and «sluts» into behavior to be accepted and even encouraged as healthy.

[7] Not only do conservatives identify mission with the «conversion» of the «heathens» to Christianity and the expansion of Christianity in the «heathen - lands,» but many of the relatively liberal Christians also comply with this understanding of mission, with the result that they perceive mission to be irrelevant for contemporary society.

Conservatives, despite their substantive disagreements about the ultimate nature of things, have resisted liberal and radical calls for «transparency» in social life precisely because they understand that society can not withstand a too systematic or energetic analysis of its sometimes fragile foundations.

But if Spengler's quip has at least a kernal of truth to it, it suggests that reconsidering this relationship will be vital to any post-liberal political theory, especially ones interested in resisting late - liberal urges to globalize ever - larger swaths of society as a way of covering up for centralization's previous disappointments.

Soviet spies were of the left generally, they supported liberal causes, they defended the Soviet Union in all circumstances, they were often secret members of the Communist Party, they were uniformly suspicious of American initiatives throughout the world, they could be contemptuous of American democracy, society, and culture, and, above all, their offenses were often minimized or explained away by apologists who felt that no man should be called traitor who did what he did for the cause of humanity.

This hope for the Good Society was justified in liberal theology both by its ultimate faith in God and by what it took to be experiences of real victory over evil.

Liberal political societies are characteristically committed to denying any place for a determinative conception of the human good in their public discourse, let alone allowing that their common life should be grounded in such a conception.»

Though this liberal - conservative spectrum preoccupies many Americans, it is not the decisive issue for churches, societies or theology generally.

Is there nothing more here than an appeal for an aristocratic spirit of service to society in a bourgeois liberal world?

We can not have a just society made up only of what conservatives call «fuzzyminded liberals with bleeding hearts,» who express compassion only for the criminal and forget the victim.

Yet I can think of no more conformist message in liberal societies than the idea that students should learn to think for themselves.

It should be emphasized that to say this is not thereby to invalidate any particular claims made on behalf of the liberal agenda for the society — just as one does not invalidate a political program simply by pointing Out that it may benefit the business community.

Johnson, out of his own liberal roots, spoke boldly of building the Great Society, but the streets of this land were increasingly unsafe even for the president, who more and more found himself to be a virtual prisoner in the White House.

The reason liberal democracy may be appropriate for our civil society is that as a pluralistic society, we have little hope of reaching complete agreement concerning the human good and the proper way to pursue happiness.

The liberal readiness to see the world (with Calvin) as «the theater of God's glory» has its own tortuous history, and modem evangelicals have something to learn from that history for example, how «success» in secular society often demands compromise with that society.

As a Jesuit seminarian in the 1950s (he left the Society of Jesus well before ordination), he rebelled against the liberal editorials of the Jesuit opinion weekly America and soon began writing for William Buckley's flagship conservative periodical National Review and penned a fine study of G.K. Chesterton.

The liberal center is now so permeated by the culture of the left that institutions like the Times and the Washington Post (which recently presented Farrakhan's views in a lengthy and respectful format suited to a world - important statesman) are unable to recognize such enemies of liberal society for what they are.

In trying to assess the possible meaning and role of our groups in the future I would like to outline three possible scenarios for American society: liberal, traditional authoritarian, and revolutionary.

I was liberal - leftish politically and yearned for a better society.

For the burning question for Hauerwas is now clearly this one: How can the Christian church live with integrity and in faithful witness to the God revealed to it in the history of Israel and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in the midst of modern liberal society where narcissism and nationalism threaten its very existenFor the burning question for Hauerwas is now clearly this one: How can the Christian church live with integrity and in faithful witness to the God revealed to it in the history of Israel and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in the midst of modern liberal society where narcissism and nationalism threaten its very existenfor Hauerwas is now clearly this one: How can the Christian church live with integrity and in faithful witness to the God revealed to it in the history of Israel and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in the midst of modern liberal society where narcissism and nationalism threaten its very existence?

In this light, Muray's third quotation from Hauerwas is apropos:»... if the church is to serve our liberal society or any society, it is crucial for Christians to regain an appropriate sense of separateness from that society» (84).

The collectivist view encourages the ruthlessness of which Heilbroner wrote, liberal society is somewhat restrained by its commitment to individuals, but it has paid a high price for its individualist economic theories.

Fox tells the story from beginning to end: childhood in the German - American parsonage; nine grades of school followed by three years in a denominational «college» that was not yet a college and three year's in Eden Seminary, with graduation at 21; a five - month pastorate due to his father's death; Yale Divinity School, where despite academic probation because he had no accredited degree, he earned the B.D. and M.A.; the Detroit pastorate (1915 - 1918) in which he encountered industrial America and the race problem; his growing reputation as lecturer and writer (especially for The Christian Century); the teaching career at Union Theological Seminary (1928 - 1960); marriage and family; the landmark books Moral Man and Immoral Society and The Nature and Destiny of Man; the founding of the Fellowship of Socialist Christians and its journal Radical Religion; the gradual move from Socialist to liberal Democratic politics, and from leader of the Fellowship of Reconciliation to critic of pacifism; the break with Charles Clayton Morrison's Christian Century and the inauguration of Christianity and Crisis; the founding of the Union for Democratic Action, then later of Americans for Democratic Action; participation in the ecumenical movement, especially the Oxford Conference and the Amsterdam Assembly; increasing friendship with government officials and service with George Kennan's policy - planning group in the State Department; the first stroke in 1952 and the subsequent struggles with ill health; retirement from Union in 1960, followed by short appointments at Harvard, at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, and at Columbia's Institute of War and Peace Studies; intense suffering from ill health; and death in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, in 1971.

Professor Stanley Fish submitted his article on why we can't get along together in this liberal society, and we were greatly interested in it for two reasons.

I view the rise of liberal societies more as usefully compensatory, but also as a kind of divine rod, a Joab bringing with him a (misplaced) order for a failed David.

The dominant script of both selves and communities in our society, for both liberals and conservatives, is the script of therapeutic, technological, consumerist militarism that permeates every dimension of our common life.

In these days of rampant atheism and relativism among critical elites in Western societies, of genteel nihilism and «liberal irony» a la Richard Rorty, it is not difficult to see that both Judaism and Christianity are being slated for disappearance by a number of our most «advanced» thinkers.

Most liberals today call for selective increases in federal spending, but few if any urge a return to the practices of the Great Society.

I do of course think there was «something wrong with society at large» when homosexuality was barred; and still a problem for liberal autonomy when it was legal but very widely abhorred stereotyped, discriminated against and discouraged.

I think your summary of the differences between the liberal and social democratic positions is a fair one, but I do think that post 18 education and training is a fine example of a «merit good», and that there is considerable benefit to both individuals and society from earmarking this funding for education and study.

Richard Reeves, a former adviser to the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, chastised me for sins varying from my opposition to the coalition Government's threefold increase in student fees to my suggestion that British society is the second most dysfunctional in the rich developed world.