Suggestions(1)
Exact(12)
The agency "does not, has not and will never support coercive activity of any kind".
According to advocates of the standard view, citizens should not support coercive laws for which they believe there is no plausible secular rationale, although they may support coercive laws for which they believe there is only a secular rationale.
These commitments, they add, are not in tension with the claim that citizens may support coercive laws that they believe to lack a plausible secular rationale.
Citizens, according to these thinkers, should adhere to several constraints on the manner in which they support coercive laws, including the following.
No doubt, those who support coercive laws that require a religious rationale might do so in an insular, intransigent, irrational, or otherwise defective manner.
But this negative constraint is typically conjoined with a permission: although citizens may not support coercive laws for which they believe themselves to have only a religious rationale, they may support coercive laws for which they believe there is only a plausible secular rationale.
Similar(48)
Three fact-finding missions, including one by the State Department, have discredited the original charge that the population fund supported coercive abortion policies in China.
President Bush is responding to concerns of a group of 55 congressmen led by Christopher Smith, a New Jersey Republican; they complained in a letter to the White House that the fund's program in China "supports coercive abortion and sterilization and therefore is in violation of our conscience and our law".
The DRR, after all, does not forbid citizens from supporting coercive laws on religious grounds, nor does it forbid citizens to articulate religious arguments in public.
Third, the DRR places few restrictions on the content of the secular reasons to which citizens can appeal when supporting coercive laws.
Again, liberal critics deny that even the most conscientious and assiduous adherence to such constraints precludes citizens from supporting coercive laws that require a religious rationale.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com