Sentences with phrase «in liberal society»

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 societIn 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 societin 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 societin 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.