Sentences with phrase «moral issues does»

But being on the right side of moral issues does not always a strong film make.

Calling it a moral issue does not mean we need to moralize.

Economic and religious / moral issues do at times overlap, such as when it comes to what we should do to help the sick or poor.

Not exact matches

If companies are looking to attract tech talent, the number one thing they can do is take a stand on some of these social, moral and ethical issues.»

For those who have always been taught that swearing is a moral issue indicating some sort of personal fault, this study (and others like it attesting to the fact that swearing doesn't seem linked with anything too problematic) should be a nudge to reconsider.

Well, if there are HUGE moral issues in the bible that we do not agree with as a society in general, you have cherry - picked something to ignore.

I'm sure the Catholic school issue has absolutely nothing to do with the economy or that Church's absolute moral failings with respect to its pedophile priests (eye roll please).

Be compelled to love, you have purpose, you're more than matter, you do matter... only issue is we have moral framework, sorry.

In short, unless the Court is prepared to think about this issue with greater care than was evinced by the Ninth and Second Circuits» and there is little in its opinions of late to suggest that it has the moral imagination to do so» the question will be not how far we slide down the slippery slope of legally sanctioned killing, but how fast.

I believe we would all do well to focus on the issues that are truly important: the candidates» capabilities, political views, experience, moral turpitude, and likelihood of producing strong results for America's future prosperity and success.

I have no issue with churches or christians as long as they don't try to use the government to impose their morals.

Or if someone says there is nothing of which you are incapable, it does not enhance one's moral credibility to issue a list of things that one would never do.

The abortion issue won't go away because you have a set of extremists who are not content to live by their own moral code and let others do the same.

It also gives rise to her insistence that we must respect the «historical integrity and moral autonomy» of Jesus, Paul, and the evangelists as people of their own time and place, concerned with issues (such as purity regulations) that do not concern us, and unaware of our concerns as modern Christians or Jews.

But if God does not exist, then neither do absolute values, and one should not issue moral judgments as though they do.

I'm glad you do not condone such policy, but I'm sure you can understand my refusal to put any stock in what any Christian has to say on moral issues given the ridiculously splintered interpretation of such.

The moral issue arises because economic affairs have to do with man - in - relation.

Bonhoeffer confronts us as someone who, in following Christ, made a personally costly decision that doing nothing to rid the world of Hitler was worse than doing what he did, however ambiguous the moral issues.

Sadly, they do not have the cross-cultural, intellectual or moral amplitude necessary to address these issues.

I don't ever want to hear a word the Pope has to say on moral issues until he takes definitive action to exclude and remove pedophiles from his infested colony of predators.

Though the Supreme Court is far from a consistent proxy issue for social conservatives or religious voters, it does provide a flashpoint for issues of religious liberty, traditional moral values, and abortion - on - demand.

What I would like to see from the Mosque's Imam is a public, unequivocal statement that he does not tolerate violent teachings or attacks against Americans and issues a Fatwa forbidding any moral, monetary or logistical support for people planning or contemplating jihadist violence.

The Bible does not provide the final answer to a whole number of spiritual and moral issues with which society has subsequently wrestled

He seems obsessed with the idea that because people don't all agree with him on issues such as gay marriage that it is essential we all look to the bible to figure out what's ethical and moral, and all assume that it is the final word on what's right or wrong.

A key challenge faced by the Church one which often goes unrecognised is that the Bible does not provide the final answer to a whole number of spiritual and moral issues with which society has subsequently wrestled.

Does the tradition in fact facilitate shared moral and legal decisions by so labeling issues that they can be adjudicated?

To do this we have to discern what it means to be faithful to the gospel in the vexing moral issues that divide us today.

I did not become an ethicist because my primary interest was social change or particular moral «issues.»

for every priest that violated his vows and the trust of his parishioners there will someday be a reckoning... true the head always suffers for his members that go astray... but the Brits don't understand the Catholic church if they think that we are going to accept practicing man and females gays into the priesthood and except the pope to issue condoms for the prevention of AID they got something else coming... If the Brits want to live in a perverse society where every thing goes that their moral problem!!

It's not a doctrinal issue — we do not, for instance, vote every few years on moral standards or doctrines.

On this issue it is possible to experience such contradictory jolts of conscience that one finally doesn't know whether to list oneself as a member of a society of the courageously righteous who are mature enough to face up to life's ambiguity and do the difficult things that freedom requires — or simply a society of moral failures.

On many of the contemporary, moral issues formal expertise does not dictate rightness or wrongness, for everyone has opinions and convictions and subjective attitudes, involvement, and fears.

They are unhappy with developments in America, but rather than direct their anger against the corporate economic powers that are doing them dirt, they have instead been diverted to conservative cultural issues» race, crime, moral decay, homosexuality, guns, abortion, feminism, anti-Americanism, and on into infinity» that are largely irrelevant to their lives.

While the alacrity with which courts are prepared to step into political / moral issues can be questioned, the religious character their actions assume when they do step in can not be.

Most contraceptive methods of regulating fertility do not raise the same moral issue as abortion because they do not permit the joining of the sperm and the egg.

Morals do not come from belief and in fact we can find a great many immoral issues with belief - the bible is a proponent of such immoral issues - rape; human sacrifice; animal sacrifice; child abuse; mass murder; idolatry (the 1st 4 commandments are exactly that); bigotry (the non-stop judging of gays based solely on what the bible says); oppression of women; incest.

Someone with blond hair or dark skin doesn't choose to be that way, they just are, its a programming issue, not a moral choice.

Since our leaders did not have the sensitivity to feel the moral earnestness of literally millions of European and American people, it is legitimate to ask how sensitive they are to the moral issues themselves.

In over a thousand occasional writings he applied his doctrine of grace to concrete issues, and here it can be seen that his theology did not result in moral paralysis.

But apparently it's a country where good moral people can be manipulated by self - serving politicians into being distracted from the larger issues by high - school debate questions like «when does life begin» or «should gays marry,» or even «is being gay a choice.»

The standard was lowered not by any real point of science but because the standard was lowered because the ability to judge moral issues was given up by the APA.The Bible standard was also given up, so now you essentially have no standard just a set of laws telling people you can or cant do.

In their historical context, however, the issues, in response to which the Pauline formula was forged, no longer existed: because Christianity was well on the way to becoming a gentile religion, separate from Judaism, the question of the salutary benefit of faith in Christ, which earlier had arisen among Christians who did not observe the cultic requirements of Jewish law, and in that sense were without «works of the law, arose now among Christians whose lives exhibited moral laxity, which could be understood in terms of popular moral philosophy.

The test of judicial fitness could hardly be put more starkly: «The issue is too important to American society — and Mr. Clinton's promise too clear — to fiddle around with judicial candidates who don't have a forthright record of legal and moral support for the constitutional right to abortion.»

It is quite staggering how many students do not understand some of the most simple doctrines and liturgical practices and, indeed, do not accept, or feel uncomfortable with the Church's teaching on moral issues.

In every single region of the country, when we asked how people make up their minds on issues of right and wrong, we found that they simply do not turn to God or religion to help them decide about the seminal or moral issues of the day.

Without your proof, we can only assume that you, and groups with which you have affinity in addressing moral issues, whether those groups be churches, people with the same interpretation of the Bible, governments (a theocracy, for instance), also do so subjectively.

When will we take seriously our moral responsibility for the effects of our actions upon the hundreds of millions of people who have no part in the decisions and who do not even share our view of the issues at stake?

In order to do that — and weigh its true moral implications — we have to view climate change outside of the lens of a political issue.

Seldom are the complexities of energy issues seen in moral terms, and seldom does energy appear high on the church's ethical agenda, especially within the local congregation.

Whitehead does recognize that there are tragic conflicts of value, but in his concern for the metaphysics of creation he does not seem sufficiently «under the weight» of the moral issue of duty which Kant pointed up so clearly.