In a liberal society, people should be free to have the odd drink or two, but tackling binge drinking requires encouraging more people to do so responsibly and minimising the number who drink harmfully.
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.
Hans Reinders carefully argues this point in The Future of the Disabled
in a Liberal Society.
The Future of the Disabled
in Liberal Society, by Hans S. Reinders.
In his seminal book, The Future of the Disabled
in Liberal Society (University of Notre Dame Press), he reflects:
Eliot's answers to these questions may not be persuasive, but he does show the perennial significance of such questions
in a liberal society.
Yet I can think of no more conformist message
in liberal societies than the idea that students should learn to think for themselves.
As enthusiasm for deliberative democracy
in liberal societies is «driven by a perceived distance between the drives and motivations of citizens and the political decisions made in their name,» live - blogging in all its informational immediacy may be able to narrow the temporal distance between lawmaker and subject, as the latter is able to instantly respond to the actions of the former.
Not exact matches
«That's something we can not accept if we hope to maintain a
liberal, democratic
society here
in Canada, let alone the rest of the world.»
Jackson, who was raised
in what was described as a churchgoing,
liberal family
in a Baltimore suburb, said his ideal
society is «1950s America.»
While the 20th century will be remembered as the era of failed social humanism, with the fall of communism and a move away from socialistic values,
liberal humanism seems to be taking hold
in our
society.
Liberals believe that government is a force for good
in society — that while there are problems to be addressed, government exists to find solutions.
Significantly, however, the
liberal mainline Protestant churches, which had grown to resemble and imitate the surrounding secular
society, have declined
in membership while growth continues
in the evangelical and Catholic churches that have created communities of deeply shared meaning.
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.»
The
liberal principle accepts the truths of God's revelation
in Christ only to the extent that they cohere with natural reason, correspond to pious feelings, or serve the needs of civil
society (cf. Apologia, chap.
As a consequence, Burnham did not see that commissars and
liberal managers and technocrats were rivals competing for dominance
in post-traditional
societies.
Isaac Chotiner explains that the expressed desire / hope / prediction of many
liberals that the Boston bombers turn out to be white non-Muslims was based on a «reasoned reactions to a
society that is still full of racism and bigotry» and that «
in times of national emergency or stress,....
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.
The
liberal that takes happy meals away is somehow better
in your eyes than the conservative that wants to limit $ exualization of our
society by corporate interests.
Get out from your circle of
liberal, collegebrainwashed, associates and you will discover a wholesome reality that your professors are trying to keep you
in the dark about; after all they need to perpetrate the dumbing down of
society to keep their hefty paychecks coming.
Your involvement
in the
liberal «mainstream» media, and those like you, are a big reason there is a war on Christmas, and everything Christian, and undermining every traditional thing and value that American
society was built on.
Even so, the sexualization of
society is driven
in large part by commercial interests, not
liberals.
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 societ
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 societ
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 societ
in fact it is an insidious instrument for taking Christianity captive to provide «legitimation» for a capitalist, consumerist, warmongering
society.
The other theme, regularly expressed by those on the right
in our politics, is to blame everything on the failures of «Great
Society liberals,» to chalk the situation up to the follies of big government and big spending, to see the problem as the legacy of a tragically misconceived welfare state.
I think our problem
in society is that we label ourselves as things like «Christians» and «
liberals».
Let
liberals be the party
in favor of transforming the United States into a caste
society.
Does this mean we can't compromise or engage
in «the given - and - take that makes a
liberal society possible»?
However, the more insecure the future of a
liberal, secular
society appears to be, the more confident I feel about the future of religion — not a future
in relation to emancipation and economic and / or political liberation.
Both of the major camps of social conservative reaction to the challenges of the last few years are right
in part: We have always had to struggle against the inclination of our
liberal society to furiously pound itself into what Edmund Burke called «the dust and powder of individuality,» and to resist its elevation of choice above commitment.
Like the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which Madison authored a few years later, it was a Madisonian addendum to the Lockean ideal of
liberal toleration
in a
society with an established church.
Voices on all sides of the religious and political spectrum have begun to recognize — not least because of the increased presence of Islam
in Western
societies — that a purely secular,
liberal approach to public discourse is not sustainable
in a world increasingly shaped by religions.
Now, much more ambitious
liberals hold that religion must be private
in the extreme sense that it must not be allowed to engage,
in its own way, with the
society at large.
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:
Liberal society celebrates toleration, diversity, and free inquiry, but
in practice it features a spreading social, cultural, and ideological conformism.
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.
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.
Both those who have identified with Niebuhrian realism and those who have criticized it have continued to share a commitment to extending
in some manner the «benefits» of
liberal society.
Given the latest medical data concerning the distinct characteristics of the fetus and its ability to survive outside the womb at a startlingly early age, it is little wonder that
in the past few years several of the denominations that once took a more open position on abortion have retreated somewhat: the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is now studying the issue;
in a 1980 statement on social principles, the UMC moved to a more qualified position; the Episcopal Church and the recently formed Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America seem to be
in the process of toning down their earlier positions (or those of a predecessor body) The Lutherans defeated a resolution
in their 1989 Assembly which would have been consistent with the
liberal position of the LCA predecessor body, and a 1988 Lutheran - Episcopal dialogue report refers to the fetus as «embryonic humanity» with claims on
society.
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.
Novak identifies the United States as a
liberal society in the process of maturing, and proposes that the liberty of this
society has and always will be dependent upon vigilance of mind with regard to such concerns as free speech, terrorism, and freedom of the press.
The inability of the Gallicanist state to co-opt Catholicism's social energy exposed a tension inherent
in liberal democracy: between the people empowered as a sovereign whole, on one hand, and those partial
societies of individuals which diversify the nation, on the other.
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.
In thus explaining and championing religious pluralism on affirmative theological grounds rather than on negative or concessionary ones,
liberal Protestants could make one of the more important of their distinctive contributions to the moral coherence «and consensus that our sprawling
society needs but has found it difficult to maintain.
The usual assertions are (1) that this kind of religion is today on the defensive; (2) that the defensive posture is occasioned by the flourishing of «conservative churches» (although the alleged
liberal enervation is also seen
in more autonomous terms); (3) that the growth
in religious conservatism and conservative churches is itself the result of widespread reaction against «secular humanist» values and against those who hold such values; (4) that our
society as a whole has been experiencing a breakdown
in moral consensus, a loss of moral coherence somehow connected with a decline
in oldline Protestant dominance; and (5) that some or all of these happenings have been quite sudden, so that the early 1960s can be taken as a kind of benchmark — as a time before the fall.
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.
In this regard, Hertzke notes one of the great paradoxes of American politics today, namely, that blacks — among the most traditionally religious communities within American
society — continue to identify with an increasingly secular and culturally
liberal Democratic party.
The ecumenical social thought
in this century has also been
in transition from the context of the
liberal society, to the challenge of the socialist
society and, then, to the Cold War context, and then to the post-Cold War situation.