It amazes me that
liberals think freedom of speech is appropriate only if their views are the one's being voiced.
Not exact matches
The B.C.
Liberal leader made the announcement Wednesday at a paper products company in Surrey while campaigning for the May 9 provincial election, saying an impasse over softwood lumber «gives us the
freedom to do what I
think is unquestionably the right thing.»
In other words, plan fiduciaries now will have greater
freedom to expend portfolio resources to effect
liberal social goals simply by claiming that they
think doing so will have long - term benefits without having to quantify those benefits.
There is a certain way to talk about the past sounds exclusionary, like you
think that America was all about
freedom until Obama, or the
liberals, or whatever.
But to seek a political vision more adequate than liberalism is not necessarily to repudiate liberalism entirely, and I will also discuss how the basic
liberal affirmation of
freedom and individuality is appropriated in Whitehead's
thought.
Alternatively, if we apply a more
liberal definition and suppose that free will is synonymous with
freedom of choice, then surely this is the better stab: the true servants of God are those who tirelessly and unremittingly do and have done His will; the worthless are those who
think for themselves.
The religious denominational pluralism and the puritan desire to prevent the state from interfering with their religious
freedom along with the forces of secular
liberal thought brought into being the secular democratic polity with its clear separation between religion and state in the USA.
(John Dewey, «Qualitative
Thought,» reprinted in Richard J. Bernstein, ed., John Dewey on Experience, Nature, and
Freedom [New York:
Liberal Arts Press, 1960], p. 187.)
Classroom ridicule of religion was merely harmless joking, Kernan
thought, and it was absurd to imagine that
liberals could ever violate the academic
freedom of conservatives.
This understanding of
freedom follows from the natural - rights
liberal thought of John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Robert Nozick, but it is also consistent with the rights - generating rule - utilitarianism of Herbert Spencer and others.
Peter learned two things from the dissidents: the notion of «living in the truth»; and the disconcerting
thought that Communism and Western
liberal democracy had things in common, modern science to begin with, that challenged human
freedom and dignity.
Thirty - two Muslim essayists affirm conventional Western
liberal doctrines such as the separation of church and state, the equal rights of women, and
freedom of
thought and speech.
It is the merit of
liberal thought to have taken human
freedom much more seriously.
For that reason,
liberal Christians are indulging in a pipedream if they
think the Church has the
freedom to alter her teaching on sexual morality.
Liberals celebrated their
freedom to
think freely, shape their lives responsibly, and be confident in God's love and acceptance.
An early work in political
thought influenced by Whitehead's philosophy that stresses reason, individual
freedom, and
liberal democracy is Samuel H. Beers The City of Reason (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1949).
His Utilitarian
thinking is not directly related to
liberal notions like equality, private property and
freedom, even though these may naturally arise from maximising utility.
I particularly
think the idea that it «would strike a fatal blow to one of the basic
freedoms of a
liberal society:
freedom of association» is overstated.
According to O'Neill, the case for press
freedom, in the
liberal tradition, posits that the open debate of
thought through an uncensored media produces unfiltered knowledge and gives way to «truth - seeking.»
Liberals want: 1) individual rights; 2) equality of opportunity; 3)
freedom of
thought and speech; 3) limitations on the power of governments; 4) the rule of law; 5) individual's right to private property; 6) a transparent system of government; 7) open and fair elections; and 8) commitment to scientific inquiry.
I'm not a libertarian, nor do I agree with most Americans of
liberal inclinations that
freedom of political speech should be practically absolute, but I do
think restrictions on it with the force of law should be imposed very cautiously and under intense public scrutiny.