Example collocations logo

Religious in sentence

2625 examples of Religious in a sentence

The intermingling of religious passion and political radicalism makes the Iraqi insurgency particularly dangerous and difficult to quell.
Some go so far as to argue that the recent rise of the lower castes in northern Indian politics and the implementation of reservations by the central government amount to a silent revolution, and that the politics of caste is secular and a bulwark against religious sectarianism.
It will be particularly difficult in an environment in which the sharia – that is, Islamic religious law administered not by judges but by priests – is never far away.
The hijab, the headscarf that some Muslim women wear, is already banned in French public schools, where the “ostentatious” display of any religious symbolism is forbidden.
Khamenei’s political standing is closely associated with the current nuclear policy, and he lacks the charisma and authority necessary to move the political and religious elite toward compromise.
Hallucinated voices are also known to occur during states of religious or creative inspiration.
The Soviet Union had repressed or destroyed every vestige of civil society – professional associations, religious groups, charitable societies, the independent media – the types of social organizations that would normally help to limit widespread government corruption.
This concept is a legacy of Judeo-Christianity, and in the 18 th century the earliest evolutionists--people like Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus--framed their ideas within the context of this religious account of origins.
Elsewhere he attacks religion directly: "The kinds of views of the universe which religious people have traditionally embraced have been puny, pathetic, and measly in comparison to the way the universe actually is.
In fact, Pope John Paul II, a man not usually described as soft in his religious commitments, has openly endorsed evolution, even Darwinism.
It is remarkable that some of the most critical concepts of Muslim religious terminology have now become part of the international language of current affairs.
Theological disputation has moved far from Islam’s religious academies.
Numerous Muslim scholars have raised their voices to challenge the terrorists’ defense of suicide bombings or attacks on civilians, offering long citations from centuries of religious jurisprudence.
Muslim intellectuals are being encouraged to press the religious argument against fundamentalist violence in order to deprive the terrorists of their most fearsome and potent arguments.
A quick survey of the history of religious conflict shows that theological controversies have never been resolved by theological arguments.
Looking more closely, one finds that while these controversies were often framed in religious terms, they were not at all about religion.
The range of opposing interpretations of religious texts is virtually unlimited, and disputes are seldom resolved by rational argument.
The coalition confronting him had no difficulty finding religious arguments that led to precisely the opposite conclusion.
Today, it is clear that fundamentalists and their supporters are completely closed off to even the most elaborate theological refutation of their views, even when produced by distinguished religious authorities.
Allowing them to frame these problems in religious terms legitimizes the perspective that they are attempting to impose, particularly in their own societies.It also allows them to camouflage their very worldly thirst for power.
Repeatedly, the Muslim religious establishment has been urged to issue statements denying fundamentalists the right to use religious terms like jihad.
In fact, debates about the use of religious terms lend credibility to fundamentalist efforts to apply these ideas to conditions in the modern world.
Such debates concede that these religious concepts are generally valid, even when, as in the fundamentalists’ case, they simply do not apply.
Invariably, fundamentalists dismiss religious critiques of their views as evidence that religious authorities have been corrupted by hostile influences.
In this way, the terrorists oppose the “purity” and “authenticity” of their arguments to the compromises presumably forced upon religious establishments.
Speaking to Muslims exclusively in their own religious terms also excludes them from broad ethical frameworks that defend essential human values, most notably the protection of innocent civilians.
These values are the foundation upon which all religious and cultural traditions rest.
Instead of fighting on behalf of political and religious liberty, we risk engaging in a conflict with the false images that the terrorists have created.
Worse still, we would bring this conflict into our own societies, where different religious and cultural traditions are now inextricably mingled.
The revulsion provoked by the murder of innocents is deeply felt by all, and it is reprehensible by any standard, religious or not.
BackNext