Sentences with phrase «modern liberalism in»

@zipporah @Statuesque I don't know... this «fetish» has a shelf life much older than modern liberalism in American culture, and it certainly was more prevalent in the agricultural South where Blacks and Whites had more direct social contact.

Modern liberalism in the Democratic Party began during the Progressive era.

In the second part, «Unanticipated Consequences of Emancipation,» Wisse sketches» through the lens of the Jewish experience» the crisis of modern liberalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Not exact matches

So - called conservatism and so - called radicalism in these contemporary guises are in general mere stalking - horses for liberalism: the contemporary debates within modern political systems are almost exclusively between conservative liberals, liberal liberals, and radical liberals.

The New Communitarians and the Crisis of Modern Liberalism by Bruce Frohnen (University Press of Kansas) is a sharply critical treatment of the movement that highlights the ways in which the communitarian impulse has been hijacked by people such as Mario Cuomo and Hillary Clinton.

The notable exception, in the alliances of modern conservatisms against statism, corporatism, and centralizations are some libertarians (neo-liberals) who wish to conserve an economic liberalism (meaning an elevated «liberty» and «right» in the public sphere).

The great Founder of modern liberalism — John Locke — said that in a free country you'd better be rich if you're going to get old, and, unfortunately in some ways, that's probably more true and more difficult than ever.

Born takes literature seriously and writes lucidly, though he is to a great extent enmeshed in the critical paralysis of modern literary liberalism: desiring «good» while rejecting a transcendent Good.

When, in the great movement of modern liberalism, we demythologized the state and rejected most of the metaphysical foundations of politics, we gained much» but we also lost something, and one of the things we lost is any coherent theory about the nation's continuing authority to enact such metaphysically fitting punishments as the death penalty.

The target is, rather, those forms of broader modern liberalism which have produced certain ways of thinking about faith and the church which can be found in both conservative and in so - called «liberal» churches.

What defines this line is the way in which all positions on it, from one end to the other, are committed to a form of modern liberalism which, as we noted above, prioritizes the individual and the present.

«One theme that I keep encountering in SR sessions,» he says, «is the idea that there's something called modern discourse, which operates according to rigid rules dictated by secular liberalism.

Precisely because the inspirations of modern religious liberalism now come from all quarters, the person in the pulpit is as likely to quote Erich Fromm as Theodore Parker, and more likely to quote either than Augustine or Aquinas.

The evidence in support of Johannine authorship is overwhelming... it was only called into question in the 20th century with modern theological liberalism.

Still, such theorists also continue, as did Kant himself, the modern natural law tradition, at least in the following way: The duties prescribed by nonteleological liberalism are defined in terms of rights that are prior to any inclusive good; that is, these rights are separated from, and respect for them overrides, any inclusive telos humans might pursue.

Yet liberalism as a political theory, understood as a cooperative enterprise for mutual advantage among free and equal persons, is considered by friend and foe alike the essential expression of what it means to he a political animal in the modern West.

The Syllabus of Errors, issued in 1864 under the auspices of Pope Pius IX, famously ends by condemning the proposition that «The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.»

Though Barth grieved in his later life that most theologians rejected his approach to theology in favor of current cultural and hermeneutical fads, he looked for Word - oriented allies wherever he could find them, and for the most part he did not persist in claiming that liberalism was the fatal problem in modern theology.

They have to speak the gospel in ways that secularized modern people can hear: «That's what led me to imagination in the first place, and I still believe that one can be true to the task of theology without compromising the essentials as did theological liberalism.»

By the end of the 19th century the scholars of Protestant liberalism had fully accepted the humanistic origins of the Bible, come to terms with the scientific notion of biological evolution, and were completely confident that the essential core of Christian doctrine could be salvaged intact and re-expressed in terms relevant to the modern age.

It provided an ideological framework within which the many religious communities of India as well as the plurality of linguistic caste and ethnic cultures (in the formation of which one or other religions had played a dominant role) could participate together with the adherents of secular ideologies like Liberalism and Socialism (which emerged in India in the framework of the impact of modern humanism of the West mediated through western power and English education).

As Niebuhr contemplated the shambles of the Depression, he became deeply convinced that modern liberalism, whether in its secular or its religious form, could not provide relevant guidance for social and political reconstruction.

He said, «Modern liberalism is steeped in a religious optimism which is true to the facts of neither the world of nature nor the world of history.»

As it happens, Hauerwas is much more diligent in being fair to individual liberals and moderns than he is to «liberalism» and «modernity,» which become handy labels for what he most reviles.

Earlier liberalism saw in the proclamation of the Kerygma itself a stumbling block to modern man, and thus sidled away from its eschatological message, preferring to center upon the ethical dimension of Christian faith as this was expressed in the life and teaching of Jesus.

By far the most complicating factor in the debate is that conservatism lives and dies as the antithesis to liberalism, the modern Antichrist.

Demopolis: Democracy Before Liberalism in Theory and Practiceby josiah obercambridge, 222 pages, $ 24.90 Liberal democracy is a modern synthesis.

Fosdick sensed this weakness in liberalism when he declared in the 1930s: «What Christ does to modern culture is to challenge it.»

To them, both theological liberalism (in all its varieties) and theological conservatism (with as many varieties) were and still are obsessed with «the modern mind.»

The modern utopias of liberalism and of Marxism have asserted the possibility of the order which overcomes evil emerging either through gradual development or catastrophic struggles in history.

In the Calvinist tradition this was first coupled with the attempt to create a form of theocratic society in Geneva, and then broadened out into the reformist temper of modern Christian liberalism with its effort to bring a wider democratic justice into all social relationshipIn the Calvinist tradition this was first coupled with the attempt to create a form of theocratic society in Geneva, and then broadened out into the reformist temper of modern Christian liberalism with its effort to bring a wider democratic justice into all social relationshipin Geneva, and then broadened out into the reformist temper of modern Christian liberalism with its effort to bring a wider democratic justice into all social relationships.

Since the heart of liberalism was its endorsement of the best in modern culture, scientifically based free inquiry, together with its technological benefits, would automatically advance Christian civilization.

As Saint John Paul often declared, Christians today are called on to be «signs of contradiction» (rather than signs of the kind of unvarying conformity with «progress, liberalism and modern civilisation» which you will find in the pages of The Tablet and of Cornwell's books).

One of the genuine alternatives in our time to the «dialectical» or «Continental» theology as a constructive advance upon liberalism is the mode of theological thinking which seeks to reinterpret the force and meaning of the Christian faith within the new intellectual framework that is being provided by modern metaphysics.

On the other hand, Italian liberalism and socialism, especially since World War II, have tended to give up their totalistic claims and opt for a civility and a tolerance of difference that Hammond sees as essential in a modern civil religion.

Beer ignores the fundamental sense in which it is liberalism in modern thought and experience which has totally trivialized reason by making it a mere calculative device for self - interest, passionally and habitually understood.

liberalism, socialism, and fascism in modern Italy have each shown tendencies toward an archaic regression in which political authority claims its own sacrality.

Among them were pantheism and the positions that human reason is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood and good and evil; that Christian faith contradicts reason; that Christ is a myth; that philosophy must be treated without reference to supernatural revelation; that every man is free to embrace the religion which, guided by the light of reason, he believes to be true; that Protestantism is another form of the Christian religion in which it is possible to be as pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church; that the civil power can determine the limits within which the Catholic Church may exercise authority; that Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have erred in defining matters of faith and morals; that the Church does not have direct or indirect temporal power or the right to invoke force; that in a conflict between Church and State the civil law should prevail; that the civil power has the right to appoint and depose bishops; that the entire direction of public schools in which the youth of Christian states are educated must be by the civil power; that the Church should be separated from the State and the State from the Church; that moral laws do not need divine sanction; that it is permissible to rebel against legitimate princes; that a civil contract may among Christians constitute true marriage; that the Catholic religion should no longer be the religion of the State to the exclusion of all other forms of worship; and «that the Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself to and agree with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.»

By liberal culture I mean not only these values of modern American liberalism but also its practices in our political order, our schools, our media, and the major institutions (except, to some extent, or course, religious institutions) of our society.

A third line of reasoning would have us believe that East Asian intellectuals did not understand Western liberalism and democracy when first confronted with it in the early modern period.

In the eighteenth century, the founders of modern liberalism embraced an argument that posited human wants and needs as infinitely expandable.

Because most people with any sort of knowledge of the recent academic debates / fights in and around modern liberalism would know that Sandel is usually classed as communitarian critic of liberalism.

Without a qualifier, the term «liberalism» since the 1930s in the United States usually refers to «modern liberalism», a political philosophy exemplified by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and, later, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

But once again, it might be argued that this merely attempts to reduce modern conservatism — encompassing UKIP — to free - market liberalism, when in fact it can be clearly distinguished from liberalism in other crucial respects.

We (I was the Liberal Democrats» director of policy between 1999 and 2004) developed a modern restatement of the social liberalism, called «New Liberalism» in its day, espoused by Hobhouse: social liberalism, greened and decentralised to meet the challenges of the 21sliberalism, called «New Liberalism» in its day, espoused by Hobhouse: social liberalism, greened and decentralised to meet the challenges of the 21sLiberalism» in its day, espoused by Hobhouse: social liberalism, greened and decentralised to meet the challenges of the 21sliberalism, greened and decentralised to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

How Nick Clegg can seriously class himself as Liberal is beyond me and given the party's record while in this despicable coalition, I feel many supporters and potential voters will never vote Liberal while Clegg is the two faces of modern liberalism.

According to Wikipedia: Without a qualifier, the term «liberalism» since the 1930s in the United States usually refers to «modern liberalism», a political philosophy exemplified by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's...

For one thing, what we call «libertarianism» in USA today was originally called «classical liberalism» - and AFAIK is still called that in Europe (don't tell any of the modern liberals in America who get allergic reaction from a mention of Mises or Ayn Rand:) If you mean «modern...

A secondary meaning for the term liberal conservatism that has developed in Europe is a combination of more modern conservative (less traditionalist) views with those of social liberalism.

Lamb says the party needs to present a clear vision of what liberalism means in the modern age, arguing that during the election campaign it talked too much about what it was not as opposed to what it was.