Sentences with phrase «law in a democracy»

As a theocracy, the Levitical laws functioned much like the laws in a democracy.

And without the rule of law in democracy, you have chaos.»

The governor urged the retired military and paramilitary senior officers to use their contacts in the military to prevail on them to respect the rule of law in a democracy.

But criminal law in a democracy and freemarket economy must be restricted to defined or discrete conduct which is regarded by most as immoral.

Is that a problem for access to law in a democracy?

Not exact matches

Take a look at Poland, where the hard - right Law and Justice party became the first party to govern alone since the restoration of democracy when it swept to a resounding victory in October's parliamentary elections.

«The European sense of privacy as a fundamental human right has been codified in law for a long time,» Michelle De Mooy, the director for privacy and data at the Center for Democracy & Technology.

Yes to democracy: proportional representation, a Parliament held in respect, not contempt, and laws that encourage rather than suppress the vote.

The term implies that when the citizens of Cambodia or Argentina see their country's war criminals or dictators tried and convicted, they will place more faith in the rule of law, and the society can move more easily toward a peace settlement or democracy.

«The European Court of Human Rights ruled back in 2003 that Sharia law is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.»

To allow the CEO of a company to dictate what laws the company will or will not follow based on his personal beliefs flys in the face of democracy.

The biblical word says the government shall rest on his shoulders, which means that the love, respect and kindness the bible breathes i life should always serve as inspiration for our laws, Which indeed it does in every major democracy.

I say unless you can back up a law with facts and logical statements then it shouldn't be considered in a democracy.

Well I think that a republic is technically when leaders are elected to represent the people, and democracy is when the people are in charge and actually vote on their own laws.

I'm against allowing any sort of moral law decided by some, even if it is a majority in a democracy, to be forced on the rest with no other support than «thats what God wants».

Through a series of brief questions at the end of his book, Sigmund invites liberation theologians to seek ways of fusing capitalist market «efficiency» with the «preferential love for the poor,» to consider how private property is not always oppression but may in fact free people from it, to develop liberalism's ideal of «equal treatment under the law,» to nurture the «fragile new democracies» in Latin America, and, finally, to develop «a spirituality of socially concerned democracy, whether capitalist or socialist in its economic form,» rather than «denouncing dependency, imperialism, and capitalist exploitation.»

Whatever doubts may exist about the sources of this democracy, there can be none about the chief source of the morality that gives it life and substance... [From the Hebrew tradition, via the Puritans, come] the contract and all its corollaries; the higher law as something more than a «brooding omnipresence in the sky»; the concept of the competent and responsible individual; certain key ingredients of economic individualism; the insistence on a citizenry educated to understand its rights and duties; and the middle - class virtues, that high plateau of moral stability on which, so Americans believe, successful democracy must always build [Seedtime of the Republic (Harcourt, Brace, 1953, p. 55)-RSB-.

Just last year at a Republican state convention in Arizona, new Christian rightists managed to pass a floor resolution declaring that the U.S. is «a Christian nation» and that the U.S. Constitution created «a republic based upon the absolute laws of the Bible, not a democracy.»

Imagine no Enilightenment, no democracy... only a world dominated by the Koran and Islamic law, just the way it is in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Pakistan or the other extremist countries today.

In a democracy there is no prince furnished with an army to maintain the laws by force.

In its ideological foundations political democracy is derived both from the Stoic conception of a natural law of human equality and the Christian idea of the worth and dignity of all men in the sight of GoIn its ideological foundations political democracy is derived both from the Stoic conception of a natural law of human equality and the Christian idea of the worth and dignity of all men in the sight of Goin the sight of God.

In a democracy of worth, then, since law is viewed as an expression of the good, it is not only respected but it is also loved.

In a democracy of desire, laws are made by the people and express their will.

Tocqueville said religion is «the first political institution» of American democracy because it was through religion that Americans are schooled in morality, the rule of law, and the habits of public duty.

He should know the laws of his country and pay the price if he chooses to live like he is in a Democracy.

Iran is NOT a democracy its a «Religious» country, and those who choose to live in Iran must Live by their Laws, America does nt have the MONEY to be policing the World over each countries Policies, especially when OUR country is in such critical state to be on Life Support.

He highlighted Britain's achievements as a «pluralist democracy which places great value on freedom of speech, freedom of political affiliation and respect for the rule of law, with a strong sense of the individual's rights and duties, and of the equality of all citizens before the law and noted that there was much in common here with Catholic social teaching.

This Asian authoritarian form of governance with democratic ways today can be seen in varying degrees in countries and places such as Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong — all with intimate experience of Confucianism.4 Lawyer Randall Perenboom suggests that just as law in any country must be «context specific,» so also is democracy.

The only reason why women have it better in the US Church is because of Western law and Democracy.

Common Law jurisdictions have been known to make laws that embody democracy in the decision of a judge.

It will have to lead them towards the «slow and difficult construction» of new habits in the temporal life of nations, supportive of «the soul of democracy,» that is, «the law of brotherly love and the spiritual dignity of the person.»

And there is nothing controversial in the documents commitment to freedom and democracy throughout the world, to peaceful cooperation in international relations, and to «the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity; the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property.»

It places pleasure above love, health and well - being above the sacredness of life, the participation of special interests groups in governance above democratic representation, women's rights above motherhood, the empowerment of the selfish individual above any form of legitimate authority, ethics above morality, the right to choose above the eternal law written in the human heart, democracy and humanism above divine revelation — in a nutshell, immanence above transcendence, man above God, the «world» above «heaven».

But immigrants have come here not because Canada has no core political identity, but precisely because of Canada's core political identity: a stable democracy with a vibrant tradition of the rule of law rooted in British and French precedents.

I realize that they are representatives of the people (we live in a republic, not a democracy), but that doesn't mean that they get to pass «bad» laws just because the people want them to.

I don't think that «strictly biblical» belongs anywhere but in what one can practice within the laws of our socialist democracy.

The trend poses a grave threat to American democracy: as Sarat quotes from Thurgood Marshall in his dissenting opinion in Payne, this return of revenge signals «one major step toward the demise of a conception of law as a «source of impersonal and reasoned judgments.»»

Many of these laws are in DIRECT opposition to democracy, the Constitution or any respect of human free will or individual conscience.

More than the laws or the physical circumstances of the country, said Tocqueville, it was the mores that contributed to the success of the American democracy, and the mores were rooted in religion.

For us, it must start with the vision of a peaceful world, where gradually the production and distribution of armaments gives way to the production and distribution of goods and services that benefit the human race instead of threatening to destroy it, a vision of the rule of law rather than of economic domination, a vision of democracy where people are able to have a real say in what their own future will be, a vision of smallness and community involvement, a vision of cultural pluralism and a diversity of ideas, a vision of leisure spent meeting human needs.

While leading a week - long seminar on deep secularization and its effects in Europe (and on the democratic project throughout the world), I met younger Israeli scholars, deeply immersed in their Judaism and keen students of political philosophy, who were trying to articulate a Jewish theological rationale for human rights, democracy, the rule of law, and so forth.

We are a democracy, so just like many laws are based on Christian ideals (regardless of what other citizens believe other than Xtianity) laws in the future could be based on Islamic ideas - all it takes is enough voters becoming muslim.

Early in the twentieth century, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the states the «laboratories of democracy,» where novel ideas and laws could be tried without risk to the rest of the country.

If the moral law is anything like what Christians and Jews have long supposed it to be, then there are profoundly important respects in which the institutions of American democracy — particularly the courts — have made themselves its enemy.

Where I part company with Lauritzen is where he suggests that in a democracy it is acceptable, after losing the battle to frame the law» the Senate having not once but twice rejected legislation to criminalize waterboarding as torture» to try to prevail on professional disciplinary authorities to punish those who choose, for reasons just as conscientiously held as his own, to follow a law he finds objectionable.

The Consultation for Promoting British Values in School is a hastily thrown together set of amendments to the Independent School Standards (2013) which ensured all independent schools» activities and teaching be informed by the 2010 Equalities Act.The consultation proposes strengthening the Independent School Standards regulations and extending these to all schools (state and independent), emphasising that a school's «written policy, plans and schemes of work -LSB-... must] not undermine the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.»

For indigenous institutions to work, however, the constitutional fundamentals of democracy, human rights and the rule of law must be in place.

As noted in the introduction, for me constitutionalism should include the fundamental elements of democracy, rights and the rule of law and elements of local institutional embodiment, what I call indigenization.

Tocqueville is surely correct: the principle of association is, in fact, the first law of democracy.

In a democracy, and under law that applies to all, you can not just expect your own will to be done.