Quotes About Neutrality

in the United States, where public schools are run by local lay authorities, Churches still exert important influence, by way of school boards and other supervising bodies. Their involvement is weaker in Europe, where religious neutrality of the public school system is strictly enforced and respected;

Even in the United States, where public schools are run by local lay authorities, Churches still exert important influence, by way of school boards and other supervising bodies. Their involvement is weaker in Europe, where religious neutrality of the public school system is strictly enforced and respected;

There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn't mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing.

Toute connaissance est le produit d'une situation historique, qu'elle le sache ou non. Mais qu'elle le sache ou non fait une grande différence ; si elle ne le sait pas, si elle se prétend "neutre", elle nie l'histoire qu'elle prétend expliquer, elle est idéologie et non connaissance. Toute connaissance qui ne reconnaît pas, qui ne prend pas pour prémisse l'oppression sociale, la nie, et en conséquence la sert objectivement.

She pointed out that to claim to be apolitical or neutral in the face of such injustices would be, in actuality, to uphold the status quo - a very political position to take and on the side of the oppressors.

Fire is the most tolerable third party.

Self-governed nations do not fill their neighbor states with spies

I have found that a story leaves a deeper impression when it is impossible to tell which side the author is on.

This famous Prussian neutrality is nothing but a trap.

A bridge has no allegiance to either side.

if the main reason we listen to music in the first place is to hear passion expressed- as i've believed all my life-then what good is this music going to prove to be? what does that say about us? what are we confirming in ourselves by doting on art that is emotionally neutral? and, simultaneously, what in ourselves might we be destroying or at least keeping down?

it was not simply a matter of musical taste; whether you preferred the Beatles or [the Rolling] Stones said much about your personality and character. People who were happy, intelligent, well-adjusted, popular, clean, decent and punctual tended to be Beatles fans. Those who were evil, cretinous, scabby, drug-ridden, filthy, criminal perverts liked the Stones. As for your author, I personally take no side in the controversy, remaining strictly neutral.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that 'Oryx and Crake' is anti-science. Science is a way of knowing, and a tool. Like all ways of knowing and tools, it can be turned to bad uses. And it can be bought and sold, and it often is. But it is not in itself bad. Like electricity, it's neutral.

If blockchain technologies ignore the eventuality of standards, we are going to see less adoption. Maybe we should think of the blockchain as a public-good utility and encourage an evolution that is not unlike the Internet's in terms of openness and neutrality of access.

Do not take the side of those already in the right.

There is still a popular fantasy, long since disproved by both psychoanalysis and science, and never believed by any poet or mystic, that it is possible to have a thought without a feeling. It isn't. When we are objective we are subjective too. When we are neutral we are involved. When we say 'I think' we don't leave our emotions outside the door. To tell someone not to be emotional is to tell them to be dead.

My work is drawn to the political but avoids an agenda. There is no inherent critique or support.

In all disputes between conflicting governments, it is our interest not less than our duty to remain strictly neutral.

Even to observe neutrality you must have a strong government.

Religious power, which, as I have already said, frequently identifies itself with political power, has always been a protagonist of this bitter struggle, even when it seemingly was neutral.

I never rooted against an opponent, but I never rooted for him either.

Apparently, all foreign media organisations have to follow an approved script of acceptable coverage, lest they are accused of interference. And make no mistake: we're not talking about neutrality. The only acceptable approach was, 'Support Clinton, attack Trump'.

We are a fact-gathering organization only. We don't clear anybody. We don't condemn anybody.

We actually probably do nothing very special for women. But what we do in a very special manner is to remain an absolute gender-neutral, merit-based organization.