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.
Not exact matches
For
liberal Christians,
such victories embody the justice of the social gospel, the idea that believers should do God's work — even aid the Second Coming - by improving
society.
Formerly, when the
liberal arts college was the major form of higher education, and when it understood its mission as the prepartion of leaders for
society, there was some chance of
such health.
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.
When
liberal Christians or socially conscious evangelicals challenge the failure of this view's adherents to articulate social and cultural concerns, the reply is that
such concerns are not part of the church's proclamation, but that individual evangelicals have always been motivated to reform and renew
society, almost automatically.
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.
Eliot's answers to these questions may not be persuasive, but he does show the perennial significance of
such questions in a
liberal society.
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 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.
Liberal political
societies are characteristically committed to denying any place for a determinative conception of the human good in their public discourse, let alone allowing that their common life should be grounded in
such a conception.»
The people who built
liberal Protestant institutions
such as national mission agencies, local churches, colleges, universities, social reform agencies and public libraries in the rural heartland were people secure in their social position who assumed a leadership role in
society and whose sense of social responsibility was born of religious conviction.
Such views could blend with those of
liberal Protestantism because they too promised to liberate American
society through science.
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.
Even granted the unspeakable crimes committed in the 20th century by communist nations (a close inspection of the history of the century, however, would disclose that
such societies have had no monopoly on unspeakable crimes) the morbid anti-Communism of the American right, and the tendency to assimilate every kind of socialist or even
liberal position to that of Communism, indicates, I believe, some serious failure to come to terms with the balance between dependence and independence, solidarity and autonomy, that are part of any mature personality or
society.
If he simply means that a just
society should accept and promote the basic right of individuals to control productive property,
such as a small business, then high
liberals can agree.
And never did I think that the
Liberal Democrats would ever collude in mounting
such a vicious attack on the most vulnerable people in our
society as they have done with the bedroom tax.
The
Liberal Democrats did not sign up to the Conservative formula of cutting # 4 for every # 1 raised in additional revenue and it would be impossible to pursue
such a policy without adversely hurting the most vulnerable in
society.
Campaigners
such as the Electoral Reform
Society and the
Liberal Democrats want a fully proportional system where the number of seats a party wins is more closely aligned with the number of votes they get.
equality (sex, gender, social economic status, race), freedom from war, innovation; it actually brought tears to my eyes to know that i am living in a
society that has re-elected a man with
such liberal and wonderful views.
In a democratic
society people are free to be as conservative or
liberal as their intelligence and conscience lead, but institutions built to nurture and sustain
such a
society are not, nor are their programs.Whether we wish to admit it or not, every education system tries to produce a certain kind of human being, attempts to develop in people dispositions to think, feel, and act in certain ways.
The conservatives (denialists) in a
society see themselves as being near the top of the heap, mechanisms that bring about major social changes are likely to be bad for their position, in comparison the
liberals (alarmists) see
such mechanisms as an opportunity to bring about social change to their advantage, examples of how conservatives fight against
such changes can be seen all over the place, from giving women the vote, to civil rights legislation, to gay marriage, etc..