Sentences with phrase «good liberal arguments»

To be sure, there are many good liberal arguments to be made against religious preferences in our immigration and refugee policies.

Not exact matches

The argument gains a good deal of persuasiveness from the sharp contrast in religiosity between that period and the «50s, when liberal and moderate Protestants were not only happily a part of the American way of life but enjoyed a growth curve comparable to that of conservative Protestants.

He here offers a persuasive practical, as well as unabashedly moral, argument that personal merit and competition are in the short and long term interests of minorities, drawing on his own rise from poverty, which he describes as an escape from «the liberal plantation.»

Lindbeck's «experiential - expressivist» model does a reasonably good job of accounting for the romantic and mystical streams of liberal theology, but it does not account for variants of liberal theology that make gospel - centered claims (such as the tradition of evangelical» liberalism), that base their affirmations on metaphysical arguments (such as the Whiteheadian process school) or that appeal to gospel norms and metaphysical arguments (such as the Boston personalist school).

The most prevalent argument currently offered on behalf of liberal education is that it best prepares the student for graduate or professional school, for executive leadership in business, or for being a wife or mother in a professional or executive family.

My argument is not for some holy campaign, as Bushman suggests, but for a good ol' liberal arts education as most conducive to the full exercise of divine intelligence.

Pacilio leaned liberal, and making me research things like Kent State did have something to do with my becoming fascinated with 1960s radicalism during my high - school years, but he was scrupulously fair and like the great debate coach he was, typically made us aware of the best arguments either side had.

And what's more, I think liberals are absolutely right to be laying their emphasis on this point: It's the best argument (and, indeed, increasingly the only argument) in favor of the current legislation.

Even had Spadaro and Figueroa made their argument well, taking account of the liberal tradition in American Catholicism, they would find themselves in opposition to the tradition of the Church, and to the pope they want to vindicate.

there are some good videos on youtube where people mimic arguments with liberals.

And he, much to the shock of vegetarians, liberals, animal - rights activists and grocery - store shoppers everywhere, makes an enthusiastic and palpable argument (palpable in that it is entertaining and well thought - out, albeit full of name - calling like «tofu breath») for the supposed ecological, physical and familial benefits of killing your own food (including growing your own veggies).

@MarkMessa... but it is an argument, or a point that appeals to the typical liberal, and proves as a good counter point to the «guns are only people - killing machines» sentiment that's common on the left.

I'm pretty sure a good number of upstaters have no idea who Bill de Blasio is, but the «we're your last line of defense against the liberals in NYC» argument is one they've certainly heard before from the Senate GOP.

Laws opened The Orange Book by declaring that «liberalism is arguably one of the most successful creeds in political history», and went on to note that «there is a good argument that Liberalism and the Liberal Democrat Party will be more attuned to the aspirations of an educated and self - confident citizenship than either of the outworn creeds of socialism or conservatism».

Notably, the best evidence for the weakness of the union's position came from the court's liberal bloc of Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg, who made little effort to dispute the plaintiff's First Amendment arguments.

I know figures like Naomi Klein, as well as a wide array of Green Parties and advocates of both liberal and more explicitly socialist versions of «the Green New Deal» have been anchoring their arguments for 100 % renewable by 2050 on studies like the Jacobsen et al. one for the last couple of years.

That section of the article has post-modern vibe that makes me gag, and surely makes the more educated deniers chuckle to themselves: «Is that the best argument the alarmists writing in their liberal totem can come up with?»