Sentences with phrase «in liberal democracies»

But when I say «I believe in evolution,» I mean something rather different than when I say «I believe in liberal democracy.»

Transparency of action and judgment and the ability to openly test all of the evidence is absolutely necessary in liberal democracies as such processes hinder shoddy practices, poor conduct and bad government.

The bottom line is that although immigrants to the United States today are less likely to have experience with liberal democracies than Americans, they are much more likely to have lived in liberal democracies than the ancestors of most Americans when they first arrived here.

It is now almost universally admitted in liberal democracies that discrimination according to extraneous categories like skin color is morally wrong, and for that reason in most democracies it is also illegal.

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.

Orwin says what ends up happening for traditional religious believers in a liberal democracy is they have to settle for a watered down version of their practice e.g. Catholic Lite, Jewish Lite etc..

There is no reason to suppose that what happened in Nazi Germany can not happen in liberal democracies, though the devils will no doubt be disguised very differently.

I think it is appropriate in our liberal democracy for Christians, along with adherents of other religions, to make decisions about political issues on the basis of whatever considerations they find true and relevant.

But surely churches serve a more fundamental» even founding» function in liberal democracies than the sundry special interest groups that flourish within them.

But if endowments are conceived solely as instruments, rather than equal partners with the state in pursuit of the public good, then the classic principle of private association in liberal democracies has been lost, for instrumentality implies that government alone is the public good's ultimate arbiter.

We have recognized that the concept of the free individual subject in the liberal democracy is precarious and illusory in communication, just as in all other areas of power relations.

The proposal is that Catholic social thought can contribute significantly to revivifying the American experiment in liberal democracy.

But in the final analysis, there is less danger to life, limb, and faith in liberal democracy rightly understood than in a hypothetical Christian monarchy.

The Catalan case constitutes a clear empirical point of reference within the sphere of comparative politics on secessionist processes in liberal democracies, and constitutes a dynamic element in the European Union in an increasingly globalised world.

Most of these needs are found in liberal democracy paradigms to different degrees — although not all — which serve to explain the inequalities and disenfranchisement in some of these societies.

If we take dignity as a standard for good governance, it exposes the numerous inadvertencies in liberal democracies.

Numerous forms of marginalization or exclusion can exist in liberal democracies as well, and the mere existence of political rights does not guarantee a dignified life.

The final conceptual conclusion from this exercise is that dignity is not only essential to human beings — and that governance based on the fulfilment of dignity is most likely to remain sustainable in the long run — but also that dignity - based governance is not intrinsically present only in liberal democracies.

However, it must be stressed that even when such a choice is made decision - makers, particularly in liberal democracies, try to get legal advice in order to explain or even justify their actions on the basis of international law.

Your charge of hypocrisy presumably depends on the premise that I would usually hold a strong secularist position, such as the response to a society of many faiths and none should be (i) there should be no public recognition of religion whatsoever in a liberal democracy; or (ii) religious reasoning should be «kept at home» and is not legitimate in the civic square or public discourse.

What are the main differences and similarities between the marxist and elitist theories on the distribution of power in Liberal democracies?

Public opinion and its liberal / anti-liberal critics: A reinterpretation of popular sovereignty in liberal democracy through Lippmann, Schmitt and Dewey

Public science in liberal democracy.

It recaps the major differences between philanthropy and government, beginning with a useful distinction between two «different worldviews about the role of foundations in a liberal democracy.»

These countries are cited to us as reassuring models of such funding in liberal democracies much like ours.

His words ring true today: «We whites are living perhaps in a liberal democracy, but the black lives, like it or not, under a paternalistic, authoritarian, imperialistic regime.»

This is bad from a human rights perspective, as well as from the perspective of those who seek effective and appropriate counter-terrorism policies in liberal democracies.

The requirement is (i) quite clearly contrary to my rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (ii) in my opinion, ultra vires the powers of the Law Society, (iii) contrary to, and indeed ignorant of, the role and function of a lawyer in a liberal democracy, (iv) the result of political ideology, rather than any evidence - based process, and (v) deeply offensive to me personally in terms of its clear implication that I and my profession and society are racist.

That is not how social progress is achieved in a liberal democracy.»

To paraphrase my own words from my Wall Street Journal op - ed last December... Scientists may not like it, but Mooney's analysis explains precisely what it means to live in a liberal democracy; when it comes to making decisions, especially big decisions, politics must always trump science.

Yet in a liberal democracy such as the United States, the proper ordering of those mechanisms is beset by paradox: if free citizens are to rule the state, does the state have a legitimate role in shaping their values and beliefs via its public schools, universities, and other institutions?

Trump does not believe in liberal democracy and his voters do not believe in liberal democracy, and that makes the liberal press part of the opposition.

In no country is that consent unanimous, and it need not be secured in the way that it is secured — or approximately secured — in liberal democracies.

When Ignatieff quickly adds that in a liberal democracy all use of force is a lesser evil, something has, it seems to me, gone wildly astray.

But in a liberal democracy all power must be accountable.

No wonder demonstrations of angry young people across Europe were full of banners suggesting that «vote» does not amount to «voice» in liberal democracies.

In liberal democracies, however, the relationship between art and politics may be less didactic, but it is arguably more complicated.