Not exact matches
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.»
It is significant that the terms of the
debate about
faith in the world are deemed to have been set by people like Richards Dawkins, just as it is significant that the
debate is seen as a «
political and secular», rather than a religious, one.
Cults, then, tend to close down more detailed or complex discussion, reducing
political debate to content free slogans and
faith in the qualities, real or imagined, of leading individuals.
* 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...)
Regrettably «the amount of change we could apply
in the future» isn't a «given» — at least not
in a scientific context (it could perhaps be a tenet of
faith in a religious or
political context, but that is a different kind of
debate).