Sentences with phrase «liberty of thought»

the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of thought and feeling, absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practi - cal or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological... liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impedi - ment from our fellow - creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong

You should give liberty of thought more of go, and consider that whats up, not.

«The selector begins, ideally, with a presumption in favor of liberty of thought; the censor does not.

It thereby secures that liberty of thought and action, required for the upward adventure of life on this earth.40

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.

The free press is a cornerstone of democratic culture, providing a public mechanism to call power to account and preserve liberty of thought.

Not exact matches

«That was honest - to - God college beer money that I gave up to be associated with Cato, so you know about my commitment to the cause of liberty,» he said during a forum at the think tank last year.

He is a senior scholar at the school's conservative Mercatus Center, and has ties to the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is «dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty.»

In «A Tale of Two Popes» and «Papal Eco-Hysteria», we have contrasted Francis and John Paul II and quoted from the latter's seminal encyclical «Centesimus Annus», which probably contains the most clear - headed thinking on human liberty and economics that has ever emerged from the Vatican.

I have a peculiar framework for thinking about the American idea of liberty, which I first developed for a class, but which I'm now hoping to develop into a book.

that is a new place and that is going to be a bad place for American liberty, and I think, at that point, it's effectively game over for the United States of America.

That is the key thing for us, but I'll add that they are right to suspect that economic individualism was (and is) a real creed for not a few Americans, even though that actual creed went beyond what its purported official spokespersons put forth (I think usually sincerely) in the name of natural rights and constitutional liberty.

Some think of it as no more than a libertarian system, concerned with economic liberty alone, exaggeratedly individualistic, indifferent or even antithetical to welfare programs for the poor, unconcerned with the public good, focused solely on markets and private profit.

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.

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.

You would think it would be a hard sell given the fact that the real estate mogul and reality star has boasted about his extramarital affairs, profited off casinos and strip clubs, said he doesn't need to ask God for forgiveness, called for targeting innocent civilians in war, mocked a reporter with a disability, threatened the religious liberty of minority groups in the U.S., and gained wide support among white nationalists for consistently lying about and demeaning blacks, Mexican immigrants, Muslims, and Syrian refugees.

If understanding our case as above all a matter of protecting religious liberty rights means that social conservatives don't think or talk that way anymore, then we are in great trouble.

When we think of religious liberty, the concept usually revolves around matters like whether the government can allow prayers at public events.

You would think that someone who had any rationality to them at all would be focusing on real issues, such as stripping away of our civil liberties, or the ongoing wars that actually cost this country billions of dollars and hundreds of lives, or the trillions of dollars in our deficit.

Liberals generally are for the killing of babies and other horendous ideas that war against the sanctity and liberty of human beings... Giving men with this kind of a world view «equal time» isn't what I think God desires.

Three of the terms used most frequently in Catholic social thought» and now, more generally, in much secular discourse» are social justice, the common good, and personal (or individual) liberty.

Accordingly, he thought that a certain amount of personal liberty was preserved in the contract.

And social conservatives should think twice before linking the concern for religious liberty to a vindication of Robertson.

I think «building for God's Kingdom,» if you'll grant me the liberty of redefining our terms, is synonymous with what you could call creating a culture that reflects God's Kingdom.

Even if you think something is morally wrong, it may be morally okay for someone else leading you to remove some of their liberties if you get your law based on your morals passed.

and i don'think public opinion is any closer to decriminalization of exhibitionism, or even prostitution the majority of the public still thinks breast feeding is erotic Same sex marriage rights, have nothing to do with erotic liberties.

«I think God is in favor of liberty and justice and He is against oppression, he told the troops, comparing the contra struggle to the American Revolution.

But, when members of the government start shutting down businesses because the proprietors don't toe the politically correct line, I think that is an obvious transgression of American liberty.

Many who accept this determinism still think, however, that self - interest will continue to ensure for us the enjoyment of our civil liberties.

And when we think of this we begin to wonder whether civil and religious liberty can indeed be based on the position of Edwards's opponents or only on the kind of foundations he provided not in but in connection with his determinism.

Anyone who thought that these ancient arches and cloisters were a safe home for justice and liberty has now been disabused of his illusions.

Just as Winthrop thought of Moses so Captain John Smith thought of Aeneas in what Howard Mumford Jones calls the «prose Aeneid» that he composed to recount his establishment of the English Colony in Virginia.23 But it was not so much Latin myth or legend that dominated the minds of educated Americans in the late i8th century as it was the history of Roman liberty.

I know there are at least a few libertarians who will stand up and shout at this formulation, on the theory that it's possible to think of liberty economically as an end.

It was thought that, since all power in a democracy proceeds from the people in their corporate capacity, the lawmaking bodies of government (the executive, legislature, and judiciary), being representative of the public will, would sufficiently protect these liberties.

But I believe strongly in the separation of religion and state, not because of my own beliefs in religion but because I think separation protects religion and individual liberties.

Yet I think that I do not exaggerate when I say that the chief impression received by an observer is precisely the divine impassibility, the intransigence of the divine demand, and the requirement from men of a servile obedience rather than life in «the glorious liberty of the children of God».

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?

Those of us who think that, while the role of the polity should be strictly limited, that role includes a responsibility to foster the virtues of active and self - governing citizens and not merely to defend their liberty, will find in Irving Kristol a great and welcome ally.

We think in terms of liberty, equality, representative government, popular elections, and office holders as public servants.

Historically, we can also see that individuals — Adams, again — might simultaneously support the King in this battle while having been deeply influenced by Whig thought, a love of British liberty and self - government.

Finally they transform thought: Members of the contraceptive culture think liberty from the natural consequences of their decisions is somehow owed to them.

But to think that the appearance of liberty is actual liberty is foolish.

«The American episcopate has been strong in its defence of the liberty of the Church against the attacks of the Obama administration, and a healthy majority of our bishops now think of themselves as evangelists as well as administrators.

Science develops most fruitfully when there is freedom of inquiry, thought, and discussion, and the liberty to follow the truth wherever it leads.

And I just think the state society is in will appreciate that type of freedom and that type of liberty.

Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.

Thus, the Court claims, there is precedent for the view that the procreative potential once thought essential to marriage is in fact no more central to the institution than the race, precedents embodied in the Court's previous affirmation of liberty rights to contraception and sodomy in Griswold and Lawrence.

You are correct... many times in history it was the Republicans that were forward thinking and fought for civil liberties for those that didn't have it, but that was because they were the more progressive party once upon a time while the Democrats (particularly the southern Democrats) that championed segregation and subjugation of minorities.

They merely thought about their academic concept of liberty.

shunning religious idiocy — reviling delusional thinking — and intolerance of antiquated ideals that usurp the freedoms, liberties, equality and rights of others IS progress.