Sentences with phrase «liberties of freedom»

people who truly love liberty as much as the «right» claims to need to respect the liberty of freedom of, and FROM, religion!

Not exact matches

I don't want public attention because I don't want the story to be about me... I want it to be about what the US government is doing... I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building.

you can also fill the airwaves of all these surrounding nations with disruptive ideas / propaganda like freedom of the press, individual liberty, economic opportunity, etc. — dangerous ideas to the surrounding kleptocracies / oligarchies.

«My profound attachment to Canada stems from the great liberty and freedom that my ancestors were able to enjoy in building their lives in a new country, the same liberty and freedom which allowed me as a young French Canadian from Northern Ontario to realize his dream in building a business in all parts of Canada and abroad.»

But had Sony stuck to its guns and released the movie as planned, it would have made a strong statement about standing up for freedom instead of giving in to fear and threats as Ben Franklin once wrote, «Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.»

Cook wrote that the government should drop the legal request and instead «form a commission or other panel of experts on intelligence, technology, and civil liberties, to discuss the implications for law enforcement, national security, privacy, and personal freedom.»

Nothing is more important to advancing freedom in the global economy and the liberties of the world's peoples than is breaking up the powerful cartel of businesses and governments in the U.S. and E.U. which have created and administer those rules for the world they have established to serve their own interests.

More than 100 years ago, Dostoyevsky wrote: «Money is coined liberty, and so it is ten times dearer to the man who is deprived of freedom.

I begrudgingly acknowledge that freedom of religion is an essential component of liberty, but it must have checks & balances.

Second, the image of God entails that men must be allowed freedom in their own minds («soul liberty») from coercion from other men.

Lots of well meaning Tea Party folks talk about taking the country back, worry about losing freedom, and want to restore liberty.

John Quincy Adams warned of the «inevitable tendency of a direct interference in foreign wars, even wars for freedom, to change the very foundations of our own government from liberty to power.»

I'm reading NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare decision) in preparation for teaching the case to my constitutional law students and came across the following most interesting passage in in Justice Ginsburg's opinion: «A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.»

This congress and Administration have violated that definition and Oath to protect the liberties and freedoms of the American people.

That freedom is for securing one's own life, one's own liberty, and one's own pursuit of happiness.

Metaxas explains that the US is not bound by ethnic identity or geography, but by a radical idea based on liberty and freedom for all, and that Americans must reconnect with this idea or risk losing the foundation of what made the US exceptional in the first place.

He also favored Toryism against Whiggism in politics and in history, and urged the cause of economic freedom as a precondition of political liberty.

Metaxas fervently believes that America is on the edge of losing that ability to govern itself unless it returns to the common values of freedom and liberty on which the republic was founded.

We can debate the «were a Christian nation» thing back and forth without getting anywhere, but to imply that the freedoms we have now came only from Christian roots ignores the rest of world history as well as the fact that its often been the Church impeding civil liberties and progressive movements.

Because there is only a small amount of academic literature on religious freedom (including virtually no mention of it in the four major academic human rights journals) the State Department should make a short - term commitment to provide seed funds to better understand the linkages between religious freedom, national economics, political development, and other fundamental liberties.

They should pick some lead from western nation about secularism, freedom of speech and liberty and manage their affairs in those terms with believers and nonbelievers equally.

* My point, again, as I understand it in terms of our 1st amendment, and freedom of speech, was to (build in) a «wall» of separation of church and government... (because) of «Christianity,» since you are talking about our country, so as not to have - anyone's freedom of speech and their civil liberties trampled on.

what i disagree with — is when people who suffer from delusional thinking attempt to legislate their theistic morals onto the rest of society — depriving people of their freedom, rights, liberty and equality.

At Public Discourse today, I explain what led the Left to rebuke the authentically American understanding of religious liberty after the 1993 passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

There are many variants of this school of thought, one of the best known being John Rawls's conception of justice as fairness: every person has the maximum freedoms consistent with others» enjoyment of the same liberties; and inequalities are permitted only to the extent that such disparities benefit the most disadvantaged.

At Public Discourse today, I explain what led the Left to rebuke the authentically American understanding of religious liberty after the 1993 passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Understanding why religious liberty became politically controversial requires more than just identifying....

Thus, only when self - interests are assumed to be preferential, so that liberty itself is the only goal of politics, can freedom be uncompromisingly pursued.

Since political principles identify the proper relations between humans, and since these relations are not constitutive of happiness, freedom has meant the absence of authority or coercion, i.e., the liberty to pursue happiness without human interference.

George Will argues that American politics is divided between conservatives, «who take their bearings from the individual's right to a capacious, indeed indefinite, realm of freedom» and progressives «whose fundamental value is the right of the majority to have its way in making rules about which specified liberties shall be respected.»

If this is seen simply as a struggle between a somewhat venal monarch and aggrieved barons, the Church's role in promoting basic liberties is completely obscured, as is the significance of Magna Carta for religious freedom in this country.

«In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty,» the letter continued and was read at all English and Spanish language Masses, the diocese said in a statement.

Therefore, in practice, religious liberty now frequently describes the freedom of a community to live in accordance with a moral vision shared among its members.

The three great «fundamental» liberties of capital which are total freedom of capital movement, the freedom to invest which the MAI cast aside for a short time, and the freedom of free trade, on these main principles - which are the great principles which are destroying our planet - there is total agreement.

The emphasis we are compelled now to put upon our first freedom risks distorting the moral message of religious and social conservatives in a number of important ways, and in the process undermining our case for liberty and tolerance.

Religious liberty is plainly essential for the endurance of our free society and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the many millions of Americans who dissent from the caustic Gnosticism that increasingly dominates our culture.

However, in seeking unity of thought as a basis for legislation, freedom of thought must be ensured for all those participating and no authority should bring to bear any pressure which would restrict the liberty of thought.

That is an important part of freedom, no doubt; in this respect it must be admitted that the liberties of bourgeois capitalist society are no small achievement, and that they are not to be casually forsaken.

Major newspapers have begun to put the phrase «religious freedom» in scare quotes, as if everybody understands that it is just a cover for bigotry abusing the sacred name of liberty.

And again, while there is a lot of freedom and liberty here, we are talking about keeping it Scriptural, and so I have found that by far, the best thing I can do is use Scripture.

For instance, inasmuch as the founders» notion of free self - government rests on an essentially Lockean conception of freedom as power outside and prior to truth (however much God or truth imposes an extrinsic obligation to obey, and however reasonable it is to do so in view of future rewards and punishments), then American liberty will eventually erode the moral and cultural foundations of civil society inherited from Protestant Christianity.

«As a family ministry concerned with the sanctity of life, marriage, and religious freedom, we are optimistic that Judge Gorsuch will continue to protect our cherished liberties, and earn the entire country's respect as a member of our nation's highest court,» said Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, in a statement.

Still, several prominent religious liberty advocates — including the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention — that opposed the Utah compromise model aren't on board with Fairness for All either.

Your sense of liberty and freedom is what I have experienced as well, and so many thousands of others who are on the same path.

But insofar as liberal freedom is atomistic and precludes the claim of others on the property that is my person, the state tasked with securing this liberty will exist to protect me from God's commandments, the demands of other persons, so - called intermediary institutions, and, ultimately, even nature itself.

If we win the political struggle, we will not even know what we want unless we have a new vision of man, a new sense of human possibility, and a new conception of the ordering of liberty, the constitution of freedom.

We Americans flatter ourselves as citizens of a «land of liberty» where religious freedom is sacrosanct.

We live in an age whose chief moral value has been determined, by overwhelming consensus, to be the absolute liberty of personal volition, the power of each of us to choose what he or she believes, wants, needs, or must possess; our culturally most persuasive models of human freedom are unambiguously voluntarist and, in a rather debased and degraded way, Promethean; the will, we believe, is sovereign because unpremised, free because spontaneous, and this is the highest good.

Hence the liberties that permit one to purchase lavender bed clothes, to gaze fervently at pornography, to become a Unitarian, to market popular celebrations of brutal violence, or to destroy one's unborn child are all equally intrinsically «good» because all are expressions of an inalienable freedom of choice.

Will America abandon religious liberty for the sake of erotic freedom?

Freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols was limited only by the demands of love: «Take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak, lest your eating offend any brothers for whom Christ died.»