Sentences with phrase «liberal argument for»

You can construct a liberal argument for this, saying that you are protecting the right of individual to withhold their labour according to their own personal conscience.

The old liberal argument for never doing anything about anything.

Not exact matches

OPINION: The government is finding out the argument that «it's the Liberals» fault» will only hold for so long.

Liberals bring Jesus into the argument when it is convenient for them, disregard their support for abortion.

Your argument appears to be that because liberals tend to support freedom of speech, they are responsible for all the negative effects of speech.

Such identification is the theme of a famously influential essay by Lynn White, Jr. in the March 1967 issue of Science magazine entitled «The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,» an essay which prompted a reply by Thomas Derr in the January 1975 issue of Worldview magazine — which Richard Neuhaus, then a political liberal, edited even before he edited This World, the immediate predecessor of First Things — entitled «Religion's Responsibility for the Ecological Crisis: An Argument Run Amok.»

The argument is less persuasive, however, when one expands the historical perspective to note that for liberals, especially, the growth of the «50s was more the exception than the norm.

However, the Roman Catholic module exam questions almost invariably allow the Catholic view to be stated; therefore it is important to teach a robust apologetic for the Catholic world view, while also critically presenting the opposing arguments of contemporary society and liberal Christianity.

The idea of Q is too liberal of an argument for me.

Third, there are liberal constitutional arguments for requiring, not just permitting, the study of religion in public schools.

Responding to this «religion is for private life only» position, Greenawalt argues that in some circumstances citizens of a liberal / modernist state may rely upon their personal religious values in casting votes or framing arguments.

So we read, on the first count, that philosophy is prized in Silicon Valley; or, in arguments made popular by Fareed Zakaria, the liberal arts are essential for innovation and so the promotion of prosperity.

So the reason THE FEDERALIST is LIBERAL EDUCATION is that's a great tool for teaching how to follow partisan but deep political arguments in tough — but not that tough (each FEDERALIST is pretty self - contained and short, for one thing)-- texts.

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.

For some time, an argument has been made that the liberal left, in refusing to examine the problems of Islam, has betrayed its Enlightenment roots.

That his concern is legitimate few will deny, and wholly apart from the theoretical issue noted above, this concern constitutes a strong practical argument for a liberal polity (which does no more than promote «some kind of equilibrium, necessarily unstable, between the different aspirations of different groups of human beings»).

As it has been absorbed by liberalism, this victimhood argument is meant to put some steel in the liberals» appeal to compassion as a rationale for paying for the welfare state.

The form of argument in this presentation has emphasized several specific points: first, that the Asian values argument, as a challenge to the implementation of constitutional democracy, is exaggerated and fails to account for the richness of values discourse in the East Asian region - local values do not provide a justification for harsh authoritarian practices; second, that the cultural prerequisites arguments fail because they ignore the discursive processes for value development and they are tautological, excessively deterministic and ignore the importance of human agency it, therefore, makes little sense to take an entry test for constitutional democracy; third, the difficulties of importing Western communitarian ideas into an East Asian authoritarian environment without adequate liberal constitutional safeguards; fourth, the positive role of constitutionalism in constructing empowering conversations in modern democratic development and as a venue for values discourse; fifth, the importance, especially in a cross-cultural context, of indigenization of constitutionalism through local institutional embodiment; and sixth, the value of extending research focused on the positive engendering or enabling function of constitutionalism to the developmental context in general and East Asia in particular.

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).

In his brief and argument, Robert urges that he be * 277 given custody, «with liberal visitation to Carla...» We assume that Robert will stand by this advocacy of liberal rights of visitation for Carla so that the children may gain the benefits of companionship with both parents.

In a bit of Fabian pluralism, and disagreement, I posted this in the Liberal Conspiracy thread, which is more about Lucas» article challenging Labour than your own Labour argument for PR.

The answer is for the left to win arguments with real people and stop is time honoured Fabian strategy of, manipulating the system to vastly exaggerate the power held by a small minority whilst simultaneously complaining about their inability to concentrate even more power with Left Liberal courtiers via PR What the left hate and what they can not admit is that their leaders despise the views of many of their voters, perhaps a majority.

The test now for both sides is which argument over the current two - year cycle will win: The Cuomo branded «Getting Things Done» in Albany versus the ideal of liberals holding power in the Trump era.

The Queens Democrat, reappointed to the number two post in the mainline conference and the leader of its fundraising operations, opened up what will likely be a main argument for Democrats sticking together: Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress could threaten liberal gains made under President Obama.

However, for reasons which are still entirely unclear, the leadership of the Liberal Democrats has chosen to ignore hundreds of party members, ride roughshod over party policy, overlook reasoned argument, and rely instead on shoddy logic and misleading arguments to support this unfair, unnecessary and unbalanced Bill.

The case for assigned revenues simply reflects the Liberal Democrats» ideological argument that the Scottish parliament should raise more than 50 % of its revenues.

Of course the arguments for improving the world of work are rooted in strong liberal tradition.

The point for me is, whether I'm Labour or I'm not Labour, even if there's Conservatives or Liberal Democrats, I'll work with anyone to get this argument across in the country.»

The Liberal Democrats said the report reinforced their argument that the government should order drug treatment for non-serious offenders, rather than send them to prison.

«Let's imagine for sake of argument the Tories reached 302 seats... with the Liberal Democrats on a more realistic 22.

But not at all surprised to find a Labour politician slipping into the default liberal elite setting of completely failing to engage with the arguments made by large sections of the working class that Labour claim to speak for.

In October 2014, researchers for the liberal advocacy group Center for American Progress cited the Pygmalion Effect as an argument in favor of the new, more rigorous Common Core State Standards, a bold education reform adopted by more than 40 states starting in 2010.

Locke's and John Stuart Mill's arguments for individual autonomy retain power today, but in the 20th century Dewey and others, influenced by Hegel and other German thinkers, put forward an arresting claim: that the proper education of children requires a role for government so large that it would have shocked their liberal predecessors.

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.

Let me state that as a liberal with an eye for history, this argument is certainly intriguing.

The big argument for pursuing liberal arts degrees and taking general education courses is that by doing so, you will learn how to learn.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

«The liberal blogosphere reserves its bitterest contempt not for the loathsome battalions of the right — Bush loyalists may be criminals and sociopaths, according to the left, but at least they are true to their beliefs — but rather for the centrists and pragmatists in politics and the media who apparently believe nothing, and who in their intellectual and moral depravity affect to see both sides of an argument.

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.

The rightist hack argument is that global warming is a fraud engineered by godless liberals for political reasons.