Sentences with phrase «political debates with»

We will clutter political debates with religious arguments which most people find irrelevant and make it harder to reach consensus.

Fill the popcorn bowl and gather around the TV to watch the political debates with your older children.

Often I hear from folks who are struggling to engage in political debates with their friends and parents in a respectful, loving manner.

Strong - willed and smart, she held her own in political debates with my grandfather.

Before tucking into some turkey and informed political debate with your relatives, millions of travelers like you will face the joys of modern commercial air travel.

On a related note, it's nice to actually have a political debate with you, Sunder, because I recall that when I was interning for you at the Fabian society as an ickle 20 year old, before I was famous - on - the - internet, you wouldn't give me the time of day.

The Renaissance Forum (# 10,000), pitched at the party's «closest supporters to enjoy dinners and political debate with eminent speakers from the world of business and politics».

In this satirical, sophisticated black comedy, five graduate students gather every Sunday to engage in a political debate with a guest.

«I will not engage in political debate with board members... My duty, my sole concern, is for the academic and career success of our Hartford school children and youth.»

, or making grandiose gesticulations when I get into a political debate with someone — waving my hands or pinching the air.

Nuccitelli's and his colleagues» rage intensified when the Guardian's Political Science blog hosted views from Tamsin Edwards, Nottingham's Warren Pearce and Robert Wilson, each of whom criticised the framing of the political debate with respect to science.

I don't see why everything has to be a political debate with everyone taking sides.

Geia said she opted not to have a political debate with these two guests (although the conversation elicited a valuable commitment from Wyatt to the Indigenous rangers program, and allowed other participants to make some important points on funding — see below).

Not exact matches

The presidential race of 2016 has been nothing if not grand political theater, with animated town halls, noisy debates, and an attendant media circus.

Recent confusion at the political level and a philosophical discussion with some friends has prompted a revisit to the taxi debate.

The pressure is now on CNN, according to Sesno, to ensure that next week's debate questions move beyond America's fascination with Trump's personality to take a harder look at candidate Trump's actual political plans, while also giving his rival candidates more time in the spotlight.

Despite the fact that Trump was widely viewed as having lost the recent debate with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and that the election itself is just over a month away, the candidate chose to tweet not about the political issues in the campaign but about his dislike of former Miss Universe contestant Alicia Machado.

There are strong suspicions that the people leading the debate are less concerned with the country's future than with their own political careers.

On Sept. 5 of this year, the Dow dropped 234 points amid a series of potentially volatile political events, including the debate over raising the debt ceiling, a possible government shutdown, and threats from Trump over trade policy with China.

But the fact that the Fed came up in the debate was a positive; «there's no reason such an important public institution — one with such a large impact on people's lives — should be off limits in political debates.»

The political calendar in Washington — where Republicans are occupied with a make - or - break debate over tax legislation — means there is little prospect of a dramatic breakthrough or angry walkout in Mexico City this week.

I think (having) political differences is great... but I think that the best way to deal with that is through intelligent, thoughtful, respectful dialogue and debate.

But the mass shooting version of the theory naturally has more legs since it intersects with a longstanding partisan political debate.

With a high corporate tax rate, an onerous regulatory environment and a populist tilt to the political debate emphasizing equality over growth the US is not, in my opinion, moving in the right direction.

While many are willing to concede that they agree with the basic definition of feminism — «belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes» — debate soon moves on to the finer points of specific beliefs and campaigns.

Now that the Republican and Democratic Conventions are over with, we can move on to the actual debate portion of the election, which means that your Facebook feed is about to get stormed by a barrage of thoughtful, reasonable, measured political opinions that will never be inflammatory hyperbole packed to the brim with dubious facts.

Opposing views of right and wrong are best addressed and accommodated in a democratic political debate, with the judiciary serving the vital but secondary role of ensuring that basic rights are protected to prevent oppression of minorities by majoritarian rule.

Again, religious groups are well advised, as a general rule, to avoid political partisanship — but not because the Constitution prohibits their active engagement in public debate, nor because they might get in trouble with the IRS.

Individual Christians who sense that they are called to it should jump into the political fray and the policy debates with gusto.

In its more common contemporary use, it contrasts with political «conservatism,» such that contemporary American political discussion is often largely understood as a debate between the two.

The willingness to classify political views which should be respected, such as leaving or staying in the EU, as «extreme», shows the danger of focusing the extremism debate on beliefs we may find uncomfortable or disagree with, rather than on actions that threaten lives.»

According to Wallis, while he disagrees with Land on most political issues, they were able to have a civil debate - something Wallis hopes politicians can learn from.

The phrase «public square» evokes images of the political arena with its partisan games and intense debates over public policy.

In most cases they have overcome both political fragmentation and government overload by replacing their old governmental bureaucracies with an innovative and effective form of governance: coalitions (composed of business, government, nonprofits, universities, neighborhood and minority associations, and religious groups) that develop a cooperative agenda to improve the city and that assume many of the city government's traditional functions (economic development, long - term planning, educational reform, even care of the homeless), and that also operate like political parties of yore (providing the point of access for new groups and a public realm for discourse, debate, and negotiation concerning matters of the common good).

That Kierkegaard's thought is an important contribution to the debates over social and political philosophy is my firm belief, as against those who would dismiss such an idea with a wave of the hand and a chuckle.

The upshot is the suppression of political debate about the common good, which is why thorough - going libertarians are such a destructive force in our political culture, perhaps as much so as contemporary liberals whose main vice is the serene smugness that assumes that all we have left is administration because everybody worth talking to already agrees with them about first principles.

Their discomfort with cultural issues is reflected in their protests that matters such as partial - birth abortion, school prayer, or same - sex marriage are not proper items for political debate; they are rather «wedge issues» that conservatives illegitimately bring into the public arena in order to divide the nation (read: in order to cost Democrats votes).

Now, after Ronald Reagan rewrote the rules of political debate, it's backwards: the Democrats find themselves promising to follow Republican market initiatives, only with more heart and less human cost.

He also involved himself in political controversy (he was a supporter of Italian unification, while striving to retain a place for the temporal power of the popes), and ecclesiastical debate (it was largely his theological duels with the powerful Jesuit order which resulted in the condemnation of certain of his works and theses).

Childless and independent, with far more interest in the latest political and theological debates than trends in cloth diapering, I, like so many others, dismissed «mommy blogging» as trivial, jejune.

Religious differences need not fracture political peace if religious adherents are concerned above all with the truth and, therefore, are willing to advocate their political convictions in full and free public debate.

This event is usually a rather sedate affair, with scholars debating such recondite subjects as «Bayesian approaches to political research» and «The political?theological problem in Xenophon's thought.»

Indeed, disputes between (and sometimes within) these cultural combines structured and restructured political debate, clothing the public square with a richly woven tapestry of values.

I am particularly concerned about the attempt to wed so closely this debate over the nature of the church with religious and political communion.

(i) the question of gay rights — funny I agree with gay rights, must be a political debate at its heart (ii) a wonan's right to choose — funny I agree with this, see above thought (iii) teaching evolution in school — again I agree (iv) my ability to buy a glass of wine on Sunday — definitely politics here (v) immunizing teens against HPV — got my kids immunized, not even politics here (vi) population control — this is religions fault??? no this is cultural (vii) assisted suicide at end of life — agree with that, still have my religion (viii) global warmning — agree it needs to get fixed, doesn't have anything to do with religion

In an interview with an Atlanta magazine, «Carter fittingly used a parable to illustrate how he'd like to see the political / religious debate unfold.

You have argued that Christians (along with other believers) have every right to make religious arguments in the public sphere — that they don't need to turn to some neutral, universally rational language before they engage in political debate.

We come to debate narrow political topics and leave knowing more than we did, not only about the issues, but about those with whom we are arguing and about the world we share.

So long as the political debate is within the relative sphere, the Christian can play a part with his own proper methods and forces and his own responsibility, as we have seen already.

Even though many of the theologians with these concerns have public political commitments (the most forthright tend to be on the political left or center - left, such as Elaine Graham, Timothy Gorringe, Kenneth Leech, Michael Northcott and Denys Turner), the main debates have not usually been about current political issues.