Sentences with phrase «not human government»
No, not human government but a government created by God himself with his son as King.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/ Not exact matches
The massacre was blamed on human error; the government did not warn local beekeepers about plans to spray so they could temporarily cover the hives.
Trump said he was not pleased with Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price following reports on his use of government - funded private jets.
«You don't want some governments saying, «We're combating fake news,» and compromising human rights.»
Now, there is growing awareness among Israeli entrepreneurs and the government that excluding such human capital from a booming industry can have detrimental effects not only on Arabs but also on Israel's economy.
The idea of basic income — in which the government gives all citizens a small monthly stipend — has grown popular in tech circles, not in the least because it's seen as a possible solution to the looming problem of robots, artificial intelligence, and automation taking jobs away from human workers.
Notably, there are no significant differences in attitudes toward an FTA with China between those who believe human rights issues should be the number one priority for Canada government, and those who do not.
In the survey, we asked people whether they think human rights should be the Canadian government's top priority in its relationship with China, and whether they agree that Canada, in considering its trade relations, should not engage with a communist country with different values and cultures.
And here we might suspect that the spirit of Scrooge is conscious government policy, not merely the unpleasant inclinations of one of its Ministers, whose utter absence of human compassion has been in the news before.
Featured The Satoshi Revolution: A Revolution of Rising Expectations.Section 2: The Moral Imperative of PrivacyChapter 6: Privacy is a Prerequisite of Human Rightsby Wendy McElroy (Crypto) Privacy Prevents Violence and Crime (Chapter 6, Segment 1) Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word «anarchy», in a crypto - anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary.
For instance, Hamid speculates about a future political order, based on pure democratic assemblies: «How this assembly would coexist with other preexisting bodies of government was as yet undecided... [U] nlike those other entities for which some humans were not human enough to exercise suffrage, this new assembly would speak from the will of all the people, and in the face of that will, it was hoped, greater justice might be less easily denied.»
Didn't Plato believe human reproduction should be controlled by the government?
They also argue that the amnesty the South African government granted to perpetrators of human rights under apartheid in exchange for their testimony before the Truth Commission compromised justice and could be defended only if it were necessary for a transition to democracy, not by any idea of reconciliation.
«Unless the federal judiciary is to be a floating constitutional convention,» Noonan added, «a federal court should not invent a constitutional right unknown in the past and antithetical to the defense of human life that has been a chief responsibility of our constitutional government.»
(As Robert T. Miller rightly points out, governments are not human....
I don't dispute that equality and different levels of authority can and often do coexist (and your example of governments illustrates only that we have set up certain human institutions that need this dynamic to function).
Domestically and internationally, Ahmadinejad is regarded by not a few as a capricious dictator whose presidency has included serious human rights violations, routine defiance of the United Nations, development of capabilities for nuclear weapons, and massive student protests against his government.
God» not government» is the only sure guarantee of human rights and the blessings of our liberty.
It is unliveable at the level of society: hence, in Britain we have a government that lauds the freedom of the individual (and it should be noted in passing, but noted very well, that our present generation of politicians rarely talk of the «human person» or just of the «person», but usually of the «individual») but which has brought in some of the most draconian legislation in Europe designed to control what people say and do on certain issues so that society can proceed in its life as a unity and not just as a mere collection of individuals.
From the colonial period through the twenty - first century, federal, state, and territorial governments have an unbroken tradition of protecting conscientious objectors who can not abide the government's mandate to kill, cut, or medicate another human being.
The two churches aren't alone: dozens of Christian leaders have complained that even though they fulfill the requirements, the government has denied them permits, according to Human Rights Watch World Report.
On the other hand, he would worry over the competing desires corporations and governments face that might lead to a kind of rational planning that does not see human persons as a whole.
Stupid things such as, «Jesus wants me to be rich», «the Earth is 6000 years old and every human is descended from Adam and Eve», and «my ignorant beliefs should be imposed on everyone by the government, as long as I don't have to pay for it.»
can only occur where there exists some institutional umbrella that can protect human rights advocates and offer both political and material support for human rights activities: a church...; a press sufficiently independent so that it can report information the government would prefer not be made public and that can offer a forum for some opponents of the government; professional associations, academic and intellectual centers which are financially solvent and not directly controlled by military or government officials.
If you need a government contract, sanctioned by the government and granted by the government to make sure you are not discriminated against — for rights to make decisions in a hospital or to pass on your SS benefits or for other human rights — work towards that kind of thing.
We observe that evil has no boundaries — the very existence of torture, and the fact that human rights organisations believe that over 80 % of the world's governments practice some form of it, shows that humans are not just content to be a little bit evil, but are most willing to be CREATIVELY evil, concocting new ways to inflict pain and suffering onto others.
The reason for churches and governments to stop being absolute is not because they are human and not gods, but because God became human, humble, vulnerable, fallible and subject to penalty for the world's defects.
The purpose of instituting governments, as the American framers noted, was not to enumerate human rights but «to secure these rights.»
How about human rights, free speech??? Where is the US government, why don't they raise the issue with the Pakistani government?
The prostitutes have more sense than the Dutch government, which did not realize what it was doing when, trying to make prostitution a job like any other, it made «the buying and selling of human flesh acceptable.»
When the government takes my money and distributes it in a manner that is destructive to human life — that is not a godly use of the resources that God has given me.
Mr Dolan has failed to recognize that soon, not only will the US government, but all of the human governments now existing will turn on the Catholic church, along with all false religion called at Revelation 17:5, Babylon the Great.
Our commitment to human rights, if it is to be sustained, must depend not on practice, law, or the passing policies of governments (though we must be earnestly concerned about all of these), but rather on a promise that bestows dignity upon every person and demands of every person a respect — no, a reverence — for the dignity of all others.
That which is not a product of human activity should belong to the community represented by the government.
If I choose not wear Hijab it is between me and my god and not the government or other humans.
Larger non-human or inhuman systems, such as institutions, economies, governments, families, are not «adversarial,» «competitive» or «cruel» except in our manners of speaking which project human characteristics on groups and corporaton which are literally no thing: can't touch.
As Pope John XXIII wrote in his encyclical Pacem in Terris (1963), «Any government which refused to recognize human rights, or acted in violation of them, would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force.»
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a recent lecture: «A Christian should not support a government that suppresses the faith or one that sanctions the taking of an innocent human life.»
Whether the totalitarian governments collapse or change their ways and whether the change comes soon or late, the epidemic of purges and the spreading disaffection of once enthusiastic followers reinforce the old lesson that power in itself is no cure for man's ills, and that human institutions are not equal to the task of assuring human salvation.
In Conscience and Obedience, William Stringfellow has it right, I think: «The principalities (governments, institutions, and even the church) are autonomous in relation to humans; they are created beings in their own right, not simply projections of human life, and their demonic character as fallen powers is no mere consequence of human sin either personal or corporate.»
A few days later, in a press conference, that bishop repeated that, while he didn't know the particular circumstances of every case, the right of conscientious objection is a human right and enters into every human right, for government officials and for everyone.
he said it is his Father that is to be worshiped, The problems that plague mankind CAN NOT AND WILL NOT be solved by human government.
Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government.
It is time for Christians to recognize that the United States Government (or any human government for that matter) is not the enforcer of biblical guidelinesGovernment (or any human government for that matter) is not the enforcer of biblical guidelinesgovernment for that matter) is not the enforcer of biblical guidelines and laws.
It is unique in human history, for although this Muslim state was fundamentally religious, it established two principles which are not found elsewhere except in a nonreligious state or in a religion which has no state government associated with it.
It finally could not, or at least did not, fundamentally challenge the Marxist interpretation of democracy, constitutional government, human rights or economic life.
Leviticus 24:20; the much - maligned «eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth» passage, actually has as its purpose the establishment of government by law, not of humans.
Because belief empowered and shaped political life, they granted all religions the right of free exercise, and knowing the human desire to dominate, they courageously insisted that government not infringe upon religious life.
But since they regard that truth as refracted through human finitude, they can not insist that their version of it must now become the one way for everyone — and been forced by the government.
To be sure, there is a hierarchy of human organizations from families right on up to the central government - but this is a hierarchy of scale and power, not of dignity or resemblance to the Almighty.