Sentences with phrase «liberal societies»

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.

People in a free, liberal societies should have the right to modify themselves, whether for increased longevity or any enhancements they might conceive of whatsoever.

The value of freedom in the democratic liberal societies depends on the capacity to maintain the balance between the individual freedom in one way and the rest of the rights, the guarantee of which comes to limit these freedoms in one way or another (24).

«We found children at a very early age — from the most conservative to the most liberal societies — quickly internalize this myth that girls are vulnerable and boys are strong and independent,» said Robert Blum, director of the Global Early Adolescent Study based at Johns Hopkins University.

Allegedly liberal societies like the Netherlands have their own issues.

It is at least conceivable that liberal societies such as West Germany, Great Britain, France, and the United States pay a more just respect to the rights of persons on the one hand and, on the other hand, to the building up of intermediate social bodies through reflection and choice than do some existing Catholic countries.

I view the rise of liberal societies more as usefully compensatory, but also as a kind of divine rod, a Joab bringing with him a (misplaced) order for a failed David.

Yet I can think of no more conformist message in liberal societies than the idea that students should learn to think for themselves.

For liberal societies, intellect and liberty are intimately related.

Our preaching and theology has been one ceaseless effort to conform to the canons of intelligibility produced by the economic and intellectual formations characteristic of modern and liberal societies.

Our liberal societies have allowed these islamists to leave their countries to get away from some of their crap and come to civilized countries, and now they want to impose their crap on us.

Does this mean we can't compromise or engage in «the given - and - take that makes a liberal society possible»?

Nor is it an act of aggression designed to destroy the «middle ground» Sullivan would like us to agree to occupy as members of a liberal society.

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.

It is about sustaining our liberal society itself, and about producing the kinds of free citizens it needs.

Opponents think likewise, so how does a liberal society resolve the point?

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.

For such strategies are but glosses on the liberal society and do not begin to suggest the virtues we should ask of ourselves and others as citizens of a polis.

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.

Eliot's answers to these questions may not be persuasive, but he does show the perennial significance of such questions in a liberal society.

A liberal society is a negative society, he said; it does not work toward any end, it merely creates a vacuum.

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 religious zealots who have hounded Rushdie, we are told, have only literal minds and are thus a danger to liberal society and its cultivation of the ironic mind.

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.

On the pro-choice side, is the basic motivation a desire to feel self - righteous in relation to others who are seen as politically and philosophically «backward» in our modern liberal society?

The advisor to the interior minister, Halla Gunnarsdóttir, says, «We are a progressive, liberal society when it comes to nudity, to sexual relations, so our approach is not anti-sex but anti-violence.

Thus the liberal experiment contradicts itself, and a liberal society will inevitably become «postliberal.»

In his seminal book, The Future of the Disabled in Liberal Society (University of Notre Dame Press), he reflects:

It looks to some as if liberal Protestantism self - destructed as it accommodated itself to secular liberal society.

The Future of the Disabled in Liberal Society, by Hans S. Reinders.

That's hardly the essence of a liberal society, is it?

Hans Reinders carefully argues this point in The Future of the Disabled in a Liberal Society.

Much of the current theological critique of liberal society focuses not so much on democracy as a system of political representation as on liberalism as a form of society that operates, or seeks to operate, without a substantive conception of the good.

Presumably, a liberal society is one that does not affirm any vision of the good life, but only affirms each individual's right to seek his or her vision of the good life.

If we care about sustaining a liberal society, then however repugnant we may find ubiquitous online pornography, we need to double - down on the weakening patterns of the postwar era that minimize boundaries and lift restrictions.

The liberal center is now so permeated by the culture of the left that institutions like the Times and the Washington Post (which recently presented Farrakhan's views in a lengthy and respectful format suited to a world - important statesman) are unable to recognize such enemies of liberal society for what they are.

The claim to absolute knowledge, the appeal to a form of universalism that should inform civilization that is not based on empirical indexes alone, and the regulation of human sexuality that religious traditions promote make religion seem a threat to modern liberal society.

For the burning question for Hauerwas is now clearly this one: How can the Christian church live with integrity and in faithful witness to the God revealed to it in the history of Israel and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in the midst of modern liberal society where narcissism and nationalism threaten its very existence?

In this light, Muray's third quotation from Hauerwas is apropos:»... if the church is to serve our liberal society or any society, it is crucial for Christians to regain an appropriate sense of separateness from that society» (84).

The collectivist view encourages the ruthlessness of which Heilbroner wrote, liberal society is somewhat restrained by its commitment to individuals, but it has paid a high price for its individualist economic theories.

Aside from those who, like Richard Rorty, are content to say that the liberal society is their «ironic» preference, thoughtful citizens recognize that this kind of experiment must be philosophically and morally legitimated if it is to be sustained.

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.

He toys with the idea that for a liberal society to accept killing in war while not accepting torture is inconsistent, then he rejects this idea, and then he qualifies his rejection, saying that distinguishing between torture and killing combatants in war «fails to capture the potential dangerousness of disarmed and helpless subjects.»

People do very important things, they pursue matters of ultimate concern, in churches that offer «somewhat different ideals and practices than liberal society can... Indeed, this perception of difference is much of what attracts people to religion or, at least, to church and synagogue.»

«By refuge,» he makes it clear, «I mean a retreat in a religious sense, a place where one escapes liberal society or its costs and enters into another... realm.»

Suppose that it is true that the philosophy of the liberal society is inferior to, say, Catholic social thought on these two points.

From that it does not follow that the institutional praxis of the liberal society is inferior to the institutional praxis of existing Catholic social orders.

He has a great deal of fun suggesting that public rhetoric should not be ironist even in «the ideal liberal society.»

Specifically, what kind of liberal society we want to live in?