Not exact matches
I think a lot of agnostic / atheist people would be perfectly content to live their lives without
making their personal
convictions a crusade if the other side didn't
make a crusade out of their
religious beliefs.
In Christianity as well as other
religious traditions besides Taoism there is a fundamental
conviction that «power is
made manifest in weakness.»
Distinguished men of letters, essayists, novelists, and poets, have recently asserted their
conviction that the only thing which can save our sagging culture is a revival of
religious faith, but many of these men
make no contact whatever with the particular organizations in their own communities which are dedicated to the nourishment of the very faith they declare necessary for our salvation.
And if many establishmentarian religionists were dragged screaming by the Enlightenment and practical necessity to grant
religious freedom, some very firm believers, from colonial Baptists to Jesuit John Courtney Murray in the Second Vatican Council, also kept
making the case for
conviction blended with civility, commitment tempered with empathy.
They had inculcated a deep sense of sin and a conscious need of personal salvation; they had overpassed national and racial lines and had
made religious faith a matter of individual
conviction; they had emphasized faith in immortality and the need of assurance concerning it; they had bound their devotees together in mystical societies of brethren fired with propagandist zeal; and they had accentuated the interior nature of
religious experience in terms of an, indwelling Presence, through whom human life could be «deicized.»
«We support an executive order
making clear that people of
religious conviction will not be pushed aside by the federal government as we seek to serve our neighbors, including those who disagree with us.»
In one of his last writings, Niebuhr describes «the guiding principle» of his mature life in relating
religious responsibility to political affairs, as a «strong
conviction that a realist conception of human nature should not be
made into a bastion of conservatism, particularly a conservatism which defends unjust privileges» (Man «s Nature and His Communities [Scribners, 1965], pp. 24 - 25).
European societies through 14 centuries had assumed that a political community requires
religious uniformity, and the logic of that assumption seemed impeccable: Religion involves the most fundamental commitment of people's lives, their
conviction about what
makes life ultimately worthwhile; consequently,
religious diversity within a political community opens the possibility of serious political conflict.
He also
makes quite a few arguments from omission, concluding from the fact that the text doesn't explicitly report that Esther «went to synagogue» that she must have been a worldly, lukewarm Jew, forgetting that Esther is the one who calls for a fast later in the story, reflecting something of a
religious background and personal
religious conviction.
... this movement to procure civil rights is distinctly a
religious movement, rooted in the
conviction that God has «
made of one blood all the nations of mankind» and it is His will that all should stand erect in their full manhood.
Christians
make their witness in the context of neighbors who live by other
religious convictions and ideological persuasions.
There is an astringent relish about the truth of this
conviction which some men can feel, and which for them is as near an approach as can be
made to the feeling of
religious joy.
God forbid we should
make it a hate crime to express our
religious convictions!
In all honesty, the «
religious people» that don't legislate against things based solely on their
religious convictions and thereby hurt the rights of individuals, and who don't condemn science and medicine and societal progression and other religions and other denominations and people who are not
religious, and who don't claim to know that something is true beyond all other truths, are probably a very slim minority, and I'd have to argue that they aren't really
religious, they are just doing whatever
makes them feel good, which could be accomplished through secular means as well.
They crafted a constitutional order that intended to
make a person's
religious convictions, or lack of
religious convictions, irrelevant in judging the value of his political opinion or in assessing his qualifications to hold political office.»
t just seams wrong to me to push my
religious convictions on others, these are the things I do, it's unreasonable to ask others to
make that choice.
It withdraws protection from the weak and vulnerable, allowing the strong to define the status and rights of the weak; it privatizes matters which, in any legitimate political order, must be public in nature; it sets innumerable roadblocks to the rectification of the problem through mutual deliberation of citizens in legislative assemblies; and it has
made what used to be its most loyal citizens —
religious believers — enemies of the common good whenever their
convictions touch upon public things.
Above all, the authors wish to refute the suggestion that
religious convictions may injure one's physical or mental health, a claim that has been
made since Nietzsche referred to the
religious European as «a herd animal... sickly and mediocre.»
I am (a) A victim of child molestation (b) A r.ape victim trying to recover (c) A mental patient with paranoid delusions (d) A Christian The only discipline known to often cause people to kill others they have never met and / or to commit suicide in its furtherance is: (a) Architecture; (b) Philosophy; (c) Archeology; or (d) Religion What is it that most differentiates science and all other intellectual disciplines from religion: (a) Religion tells people not only what they should believe, but what they are morally obliged to believe on pain of divine retribution, whereas science, economics, medicine etc. has no «sacred cows» in terms of doctrine and go where the evidence leads them; (b) Religion can
make a statement, such as «there is a composite god comprised of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit», and be totally immune from experimentation and challenge, whereas science can only
make factual assertions when supported by considerable evidence; (c) Science and the scientific method is universal and consistent all over the World whereas religion is regional and a person's
religious conviction, no matter how deeply held, is clearly nothing more than an accident of birth; or (d) All of the above.
Rather than either simply dismissing the validity of his confession or rejecting the sincerity of Savonarola's
religious convictions, Weinstein argues that torture
made Savonarola doubt his own status as a prophet» a reading that both psychologically perceptive and humanizing.
More was voicing his fundamental objection to being compelled to accept the king's new title of being the supreme head: it was an invasion of prerogative of conscience of that in part of the divine law of God since it applied man -
made law to the deeply held
religious conviction of the individual.
This allows traders of the Muslim faith to
make their trades;
make profits and keep their
religious convictions intact.
Thanks for showing that you can, indeed,
make it all the way through to the end of a passage, when it's
made up of small enough words, gives you an opening (intentionally) to descend to juvenile muckthrowing, and understanding what it says doesn't violate your deep
religious convictions about climate.