British Humanist Association accuses attorney general of trying to turn
debate over faith into «war of words about religion»
You have in your packet a blue sheet that gives you the order of the day, so I won't belabor that too much, but I will just remind you that we're going to start out with a session on history this morning; then go to a lunchtime segment that will focus on some of the relevant federal constitutional issues, including evaluations of the federal attacks on and defenses of the Blaine amendments; then we will finish off the day with a session that will focus on litigation strategy related to these amendments and some of the arguments being made for and against them in that litigation, as well as a focus on how
debates over faith - based initiatives and school vouchers are affected by these particular state constitutional restrictions.
Not exact matches
Come on, I have had
debates with Atheist but I have also had to pretty much break up potential fights between two persons of
Faith over an interpretation of a scripture.
Professor Chung's speech resurrected the ancient
debate over «syncretism» — the degree to which the Christian
faith can and should accommodate other religious practices, and whether other
faiths have sufficient truth without being troubled by the gospel of Christ.
Then there is the whole
debate which rages
over the statement in James 2 that
faith alone does not save.
The pontiff has requested a
debate over allowing married men in the Amazon region of Brazil to be ordained if they are men of great
faith.
The overall problem to this
debate over who is right and who is wrong with their
faith is where do people put their
faith.
Back in the «70s, when evangelicals were
debating Reformed - versus - Anabaptist perspectives on
faith and politics, I participated in a forum in which a self - proclaimed «radical Christian» urged all of us to «stand
over against everything this American political system stands for.»
Nonetheless, eager for an evangelical partner, President Obama named Wallis to the President's Council on
Faith - Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, giving Wallis the ideal platform from which to try to subvert the
debate over health - care reform for his anti-choice cause.
In a Guardian article on November 3rd the prominent Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan wrote concerning the «
debate between
faith and reason, and
over the virtues of rationalism»: «The Pope's remarks at Regensburg have opened up new areas of inquiry that must be explored and exploited in a positive way, with a view to building bridges and, working hand in hand, to seeking a common response to the social, cultural and economic challenges of our day.»
The
debate over whether liturgy or catechesis is most important for saving the
faith of the young has taken a new turn in the recent revival of the Liturgical movement.
In secondary schools immeasurable damage has been caused to the Church, families and students by the manner in which our
Faith is «
debated», wastage rates of
over ninety per cent of pupils leaving school are quoted.
And, if you really want to
debate numbers, those of
faith ALWAYS fail to acknowledge the
OVER 150 MILLION DEATHS OF THE INDIGINOUS AMERICA»S POPULATION BY THE SPANISH, aka Christians.
Humility does not prevent us pointing out that
Faith has published numerous articles
over recent years which have addressed in detail many of the attacks levelled against the Church in the
debate.
Dr. Hayhoe is the co-author of the book A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for
Faith - Based Decisions and describes herself as «a spokesperson with one principal goal — to bring public awareness to the simple truth that the scientific
debate is
over, and now it's time for all of us to take action.»
When the churches can no longer avoid controversy by smoothing things
over, the positions that emerge in
debate have little relation to the Christian
faith.
Actually there is no
debate between
faith believers and atheists because atheists use science and logic and facts, you can see that this can never be
debated over fairy tale.
While there is
debate over his actual private feelings about the
faith, he was a publicly practicing Christian.
Most Americans assume that the separation of church and state is a fundamental principle deeply rooted in American constitutionalism; that the First Amendment was intended to ensure that government does not involve itself with religion (and vice versa); and that contemporary
debates over such vexing issues as school prayer, voucher programs, government funding of
faith - based organizations, and the rights of religious minorities represent ongoing attempts to realize the separation intended by the Founders and like - minded early Americans.
By necessity, this religious system suppresses discussion and
debate, favoring blind
faith over knowledge and obedience
over questions.
The phrase lent an august tone to this fiscal tug - of - war, as if Socrates and Saint Augustine had been in a secret location
debating the acquisition of knowledge (the Greek favors inquiry, Saint Augustine
faith; no word on salary caps) instead of owners and players arguing
over which economic system should define a $ 2 billion business.
The
debate over Scotland's future has, especially recently, served up the incongruous (and unromantic) image of a nation of «bean - counters» basing its decision about independence on the expected profitability of either outcome, yet calculating this expectation (on either side) off the back of political and economic assumptions that resemble nothing so much as declarations of blind fear or
faith.
The Bishop's decision caused an uproar in Scranton's heavily unionized Catholic community and reignited the national
debate over union protection under state law for teachers in religious schools of all
faiths.
Baas also pointed to lawmakers»
debate over the Common Core standards and the Smarter Balanced test, which resulted in discussions that included misconceptions about the standards and that «the ultimate outcome was that people lost a little bit of
faith in the validity and the credibility in that piece of our assessment package.»
I have spent the past three and a half months working as an ebooks assistant for an Oxford based Christian publishing house producing books that aim to illuminate, detail,
debate, commodify, beautify, and question the Christian
faith in non-fiction and fiction offerings, and with
over 300 ebook titles already selling on all major retailer / online portals.
* The role of the US in global efforts to address pollutants that are broadly dispersed across national borders, such as greenhouse gasses, persistent organic pollutants, ozone, etc...; * How they view a president's ability to influence national science policy in a way that will persist beyond their term (s), as would be necessary for example to address global climate change or enhancement of science education nationwide; * Their perspective on the relative roles that scientific knowledge, ethics, economics, and
faith should play in resolving
debates over embryonic stem cell research, evolution education, human population growth, etc... * What specific steps they would take to prevent the introduction of political or economic bias in the dissemination and use of scientific knowledge; * (and many more...)
I was hoping that the book would be accessible to a pretty broad range of readers because I really wanted to use my personal story as sort of this reluctant and accidental public figure in the
debate over climate change, to talk about the bigger issues, the reality of the problem, the threat that it represents, the need to have a good
faith discussion about what to do about it.
Part of the «kick - back» is the refusal of the AGW crowd to engage in the first place — looks like «bad
faith» right from the start («
debate is
over», «denier!»
Posts about the
debate over whether law societies should accept degrees from
faith - based university Trinity Western with its controversial community covenant as well as matters involving judicial appointments and independence also feature on this list.