Sentences with phrase «of civil debating»

If a researcher is very lucky, the reaction from defenders of the intellectual status quo may consist of civil debate and attempts to produce countervailing evidence.

My ideal for this blog is as a place of civil debate among the members.

Not exact matches

It was aimed at critics of the deal known as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, including left - leaning politicians in Europe as well as the clamouring anti-trade civil society movement, as an «unambiguous statement» to assuage concerns over «provisions that have been the object of public debate and concerns.»

There would need to be a whole fierce debate first which would turn the whole community into a metaphorical state of civil war, then a vote, then miners have to agree, then there might be a coin - split, price would probably dive, and so on.

Canadian Universities like UBC, the University of Toronto, McGill, and others have just experienced lively and civil debates that pit students of Hong Kong origins against students of Mainland origins.

October 11, 2017 — As the debate over investor protections was heating up with the start of the fourth round of NAFTA talks in Washington, D.C., US, Mexican and Canadian civil society organizations delivered over 400,000 petitions to Capitol Hill demanding that NAFTA's expansive corporate rights and protections and Investor - State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) be eliminated during -LSB-...]

October 11, 2017 — As the debate over investor protections was heating up with the start of the fourth round of NAFTA talks in Washington, D.C., US, Mexican and Canadian civil society organizations delivered over 400,000 petitions to Capitol Hill demanding that NAFTA's expansive corporate rights and protections and Investor - State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) be eliminated during renegotiations.

But in his Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry (1990)-- where he notes that a university represents a «universe» of discourse only where rival and antagonistic views are afforded the opportunity both to develop their own positions and to debate other viewpoints — he implies that his quasi-Benedictine community will be one of civil conversation across the barricades.

They have seen themselves pilloried as «racists» by civil rights lobbyists for taking the opposite side of legitimately arguable policy debates.

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.

It was that consensus that unraveled in the debates over Vietnam, civil rights, abortion, sexual morality, women's issues, and the limits of tolerance.

Civil rights overriding universal values is akin to the tail wagging the dog; therefore, the pastors are on the correct side of the debate.

Reality check: The household codes have been debated by American Christians before, but it wasn't in the context of disagreements regarding gender; it was in the context of disagreements regarding slavery in the buildup to the Civil War.

It is precisely such a perspective that is needed in current debates on homosexuality and the issue of civil unions for homosexual persons.

In this debate, the «traditionalists» were in favor of truth (you can't receive Communion if you are in a state of sin; if you intend to have relations outside a valid marriage, you are in a state of sin; ergo, etc.), while the «progressives» were in favor of mercy (shouldn't those who have had a conversion after a divorce and civil remarriage be able to approach the Eucharist?).

I love how you and so many other atheist / agnostic individuals accuse «believers» of acting in emotional, unscientific ways, yet it is often your side that fails to debate in a coherent, logical, and civil manner.

By claiming, for example, that Arkes has incorrectly interpreted the reasons for the Civil War and the debate over abortion, and has neglected to provide a fuller picture of the Founders and their beliefs, Prof. Smolin is presupposing a moral notion that is logically prior to his analysis: historical texts and events should be interpreted accurately.

I hope Kohn can come to know better the millions of loving Christians who believe in the traditional definition of marriage and debate with them respectfully, rather than cast them out of civil discourse.

The debates will continue and, if they are to be both civil and clarifying debates, it is important that we not impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree.

Prescinding from the conventional debate over the relative importance of civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic and social rights on the other, we ought to be able to agree on those elementary rights that have priority over any political or economic program, regardless of that program's ideological label.

Still others have debated the specific involvement of Puritans in such developments as the early scientific academies or the cadres that advanced ideas about civil insurrection.

Further, reducing all marriages to civil unions by recognizing marriages as business contracts removes the argument from debate by recognizing equality for all regardless of their beliefs.

If we are to engage in a discussion, debate, or civil argument it is imperative that we share some understanding of the ground of discussion; in this instance some comprehension of the «matrix of reality,» because recent developments clearly illustrate the pernicious effects of the....

However, if you look at other opinions being posted on all of the news sites, there no longer is a civil debate in the social media environment.

That debate is poised to go public again because of the upcoming release of two potentially explosive books, one of which examines King's close relationship with an openly gay civil rights leader, Bayard Rustin.

The most ready - to - hand sources of ideas for dealing with such questions are no doubt to be found in the centuries - long Western debate about «civil society.»

It is instructive to note, however, that in the debates of 1964, proponents and opponents of the proposed Civil Rights Act both listed all of the forms of federal financial assistance that would be cut off if the act passed, and neither side mentioned tax exemption.

He stated that he didn't believe any of the nonsense he posted and thanked all those who took the time to honestly debate him in a civil manner, or words to the effect.

Sadly, most of the debate is anchored in an analysis that freights these bronze statues with the racial politics of our own time — rather than considering the motives of those who raised Confederate monuments in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, during the great period of Civil War memorialization.

If they were taken out of context, a mature individual who wanted to participate in a «civil debate» would clarify their original meaning, rather than call names and point fingers.

You sound just like the people in the dark ages did when they were against civil rights for African Americans and women, you're the one on the wrong side of the moral debate with no facts to back yourselves up.

Since your initial appeal was for a more civil debate, is it now your contention that any criticism of gay people, no matter how it is phrased, loving as long as the critic claims biblical support?

I just feel like I ought to be on the right side of our generation's civil rights debate.

We will be devoting future posts to discussing the biblical and political aspects of this issue, at which time we are free to whip out our Bibles and constitutions and engage in civil debate... but now is not the time.

While no conclusive decision is reached, the kind of intelligent and civil debate represented here is always refreshing.

My initial essay on civil religion in America opened a debate that has continued to this day.1 Much of that debate has been rather sterile, focusing more on form than content, definition than substance.

While the exact application of the term civil religion can be debated, the ubiquity of what can be called «the religio - political problem» can hardly be doubted.

In this vision, he seeks to move beyond debates about the «welfare state» or East / West power politics and to find a way of speaking about a reliable, humane, and caring form of civil society.

Thus, the civic debate about sexuality has shifted from the ballot box to the civil courts, and the rhetoric of individual liberty has been exchanged for that of civil rights.

In the civil rights era, methods of nonviolent resistance and social reform were cultivated, tested, debated and refined.

When potential for the violation of civil rights and the abuse of privacy are mentioned in the debates, the president and other defenders of the status quo say, in effect, «Trust me.»

The civil rights debate, such as Gay marriage, there are tons of LGBT and LGBT accepting churches that are in agreement with you and have been pushing for Gay marriage.

The blog Civil Eats recently turned to food expert Marion Nestle to get at the root of this issue, asking her: «How Did Junk Food and Obesity Become a Red State / Blue State Debate?»

That could mean that religious believers, of all stripes, find it hard to be heard dispassionately in public debate but it might herald worse, such as children mocked for their religious beliefs, the curtailment of civil liberties in the name of secular equality, or even physical attacks, such as several mosques endured in the wake of Woolwich.

But my opponents are implacable: instead of a rational discussion of ideas and a civil debate about how to grow our economy, reduce our debt, and create jobs, voters are being subjected to a barrage of filthy ads and commentary filled with half - truths and overt lies.

Now, with blogs driving a lot of the political debate, hundreds of millions of emails sent by tens of millions of citizens to Congress, social networks boosting civil society, and millions of political dollars and volunteers being raised and organized online.

In any case, there have been loads of articles on civil liberties and there are debates in the comments (I've never seen you there?)

By the time of the Civil war, the political divide is about how much power should be given to various levels of government in a federal system (a debate which still rages).

As Lord Harries of Pentregarth and Iain McLean have pointed out, and as the Guardian recognised at the time; in the main debate on the civil partnership bill in 2004, six bishops voted in favour of (and one against) a wrecking amendment.

It's a sign of a civil society which is pushing for debate.