Sentences with phrase «do with religious practice»

Not exact matches

What the Haredi have done is simple, even admirable: they've attempted to find a way to integrate modern practices with their religious ideals, which we ought to, as citizens of a nation which values religious freedom and upholds the right to practice, respect, not bemoan.

There is much that could be said about this, but I will stick with one thing, based on discussion at about the 2 minute mark: When atheists insist that atheism does not drive behavior, and then then campaign on behalf of atheism, ridicule religion and religious believers in the name of atheism, seek to change laws in favor of their atheistic positions, recommend the extermination of religion, and practice falsehoods like Dawkins's in support of atheism, they prove that their atheism drives their behavior and that their premise is false, disingenuous, and (as far as I can tell) useless for anything but giving atheism rhetorical cover from being implicated in atheists» atrocities.

you sir are practicing a religion one that means so much to you that you use it as your online name also please show me where I call you a fool or is telling someone not to make a fool of themself the same as calling them a fool which would mean you are very religious as far as Colin he said nothing that related to the debate I was in with you... we are talking about Atheism as a religious view not debating the existence of God now look over the definitions I have shown you and please explain how Atheism does not fit into the said definitions And you claim that evolution is true so the burden of proof falls in your lap as it is the base of your religion.

1 Billion Muslims care, and we should have an obligation, as a civilized nation, to take care with their religious practices so long as it doesn't not violate a tenet of our law.

How does one of the most ruthless killers of our time deserve any kind of respect that is in keeping with any religious practice?

Mormons do not run religious schools that take public aid from the state, such as secular textbooks, though that is a practice approved by the Supreme Court in states with substantial numbers of parochial schools.

And especially after the Noachian Flood, did false religion take a leap, with false religious doctrines and practices such as the trinity, immortality of the soul, that God torments people in a «hellfire», the establishment of a clergy class, the teaching of «personal salvation» as more important than the sanctification of God's name of Jehovah (Matt 6:9), the sitting in a church while a religious leader preaches a sermon, but the «flock» is not required to do anything more, except put money when the basket is passed.

In other words, they intended the U.S. to be a safe haven for people to practice their faith or lack thereof without government interference — as long as the religious didn't interfere with the secular.

The American bishops did much better: while also making the matter optional, they offered a powerful and sympathetic discussion of the religious reasons for the old observance and urged American Catholics to continue the practice as a gesture of solidarity with, and gratitude for, the passion of Christ, as an act of fidelity to the Christian past, and to help «preserve a saving and necessary difference from the spirit of the world.»

you sit there in your home having nothing to do with anything that happened, then blame someone else who is in that same position for what happened, and he has to condemn it, and apparently he's guilty because of his religion... and about «no other religious freedoms in muslim countries»... you cant name a SINGLE muslim county that denies religious practice... not a single, including saudi arabia... just because they don't premit building religious buildings doesn't mean they don't respectively let you practice whatever you want to practice... unlike in some WESTERN countries they are banning religious practices such as; the headscarf!

I hate to see creatures killed, but I know enough about my Native American friends and their religious practices, to know that this is really important to them, and that they treat animals with a lot more reverence than we do!

Buddhists as Buddhists do not promote ethnic nationalism, but they do not understand their religious thought and practice to deal with issues of this sort.

Why can't we just eliminate religious practices in any public forum and be done with it?

In response to Ben's statement, since when is a businesses buying practices from a particular country have anything to do with how religious someone is.

I am going to weigh in, being a catholic and the whole shabang... First of all this is not infringing on anyone's right to practice their religion... Requiring insurance companies to provide contraception for women does not mean the woman has to use it or purchase it... Catholic hospitals take federal funds for their patients, therefore they are not exempt from employment laws... If the Catholic Diocese doesn't want to provide the insurance claiming religious beliefs, then they can no longer accept federal funded patients... They also know that they will be subjected to discrimination lawsuits based hiring and religious discrimination — non-catholics work there, and therefore are being denied healthcare due to catholic beliefs... Majority if not all Catholic women do, have, or had used contraception in their lifetime... God does not nor does the bible say anything about contraception, since it had not been invented yet — so this is a man - made law, made by a bunch of men, who have never had a menstrual cycle — and the pain that comes with it....

I will fight for any religions right to practice as they wish as long as they don't stomp of individual rights and freedom of religion which means each person can make their religious moral judgements for themselves which is why there are millions of Christian women who have no problem with these 4 forms of birth control but they are now having their freedom of religion taken out of their hands and decided by their employer.

The State had no right to interfere with religious practices so long as they did not advocate immorality or treason.

It does not care if the facts it proves do not fit with the religious teachings you practice.

Part of the difficulty with creating a new understanding of adoption - including the women who chose it, the families who adopt, and the children who are adopted - is combating archaic adoption practices that not only reinforce negative stereotypes, but also do an incredible disservice to what adoption can be - that is, adoption is a legitimate pregnancy option for all women faced with a pregnancy decision, regardless of whether they identify as «pro-life» or «pro-choice,» religious or not, conservative or liberal... In the face of a pregnancy decision, the women who choose adoption feel no more part of the political discussion around it then the women who choose abortion feel about the political rhetoric characterizing their decision.

It tells your provider how you feel about things like who you want with you during labor, what you want to do during labor, if you want drugs to help with labor pain, and if there are special religious or cultural practices you want to have happen once your baby is born.

Although religious practice is nominally free in France, with completely secular state that does not interfere in religious beliefs, there are mechanisms that could be used against «dangerous» cults which threaten rule of law, especially if said cults endanger human life.

Someone could attend church every Sunday with their family, however, if they do not practice their faith on a daily basis — could they be considered religious?

Does this forbid only those laws with text that specifically targets a particular religious tradition, denomination or practice?

The Strasbourg institutions have not been at all ready to find an interference with the right to manifest a religious belief in practice or observance where a person has voluntarily accepted an employment or role which does not accommodate that practice or observance and there are other means open to the person to practise or observe his or her religion without undue hardship or inconvenience.

Consider crime statistics: the data on which a computer will base its predictions may reflect factors logically not connected with particular defendants: arrest patterns that match or do not match the characteristics of the accused person; the impact of poverty or race on conviction rates of people «comparable» to the accused; hard - to - quantify characteristics of accused or convicted people like educational achievement or religious practices.

My wish for Canada is that it will hold true to its promises in the Charter and protect religious freedom despite the anti-religious sentiment of those who do not agree with the religious beliefs and practices of others.

It does prohibit them (and, for that matter, heterosexuals) from engaging in practices that are inconsistent with the religious nature of TWU (notably having sex outside of what TWU considers to be the Christian construct of marriage).

Employment v. Smith 494 US 872 applies this to criminal acts, holding that «The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use» and «the [Free Exercise] Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons».