Sentences with phrase «establishment of religion by»

U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick of San Francisco rejected arguments that the so - called «off the top» funding method violates the First Amendment's ban on government establishment of religion by giving an unfair edge in funding to religious schools.

Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect «a wall of separation between church and State»... That wall must be kept high and impregnable.

Not exact matches

Existing constitutional provisions against establishments of religion did not bar public spending on education from reaching schools with religious affiliations, and Blaine's amendment did not propose to alter this arrangement except by excluding Catholics.

It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion.

Though the English allowed the Dutch Reformed Church to receive public support by taxation, they sought the official establishment of Anglicanism as the religion of the colony.

It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Govt could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, & that the Xn religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy.

The emigration - fueled growth of religious pluralism and internal religious splits found in practically all of the colonies» combined with the principled arguments leading toward religious liberty put forth by William Penn, Roger Williams, and later Thomas Jefferson and James Madison» led, in meandering and often inadvertent fashion, to the principles of «no establishment» and «free exercise» of religion embodied in the First Amendment.

the purpose why God allowed multiple religions to evolve and exist in the distant and even today is because our minds intellectual capacity has increased tremendously after we became civilized about 10,000 years go.Earlier when we were hunter gatherers our priorities was just to find food to survive, Then we became more knowlegible and our concern includes the intelle tual need to understand the meaning and purpose of our existence, so God allowed the founding and establishment of many religions by humans to conform with their intellectual, social and educational development, Since this is not static, it contiually diversify and change to conform with their times of existince, History showed that this is continuesly improving, so the future expects changes towards Panthrotheism in accordance to His will.

There is no where in any part of Quran or Sunnah where it says people or youth are to be chained... and kept in dungeons... Thisnis ignorance, arrogance and conspiracy done by ill hearted people in the name of religion when it is by no mean a part of religion... I have seen such cases only at remote poor areas when they have mentally sick youth or people who could be dangerous for others and can not afford to hospitalize are being kept chained like that but not in religious establishments, rather at places where fraud witch doctors who claim that those are possessed...!!!

Most of this tamed religion seems even more extravagantly appreciative of official policy than any historic establishment feared by our Founding Fathers.

There is a big difference between government having people in it and policies affected by beliefs (religious or otherwise) but that is a far cry from a theocracy or an establishment of one religion over another which is what the Founders were leery of.

The latter investigations were carried on by a school of students of religion who aspired to emancipation from theological conceptions, working for the establishment of a science of religion on the basis of the critical (historical and philological) and comparative methods.

School - led prayer — Nope that would be an establishment of religion Teaching Creationsism (no matter by what name)-- Nope, establishment of religion.

courses in the curriculum — especially the saturation of home economics courses with pop humanistic psychology — constitute the «establishment of religion» forbidden by the Constitution's First Amendment.

Passage of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment («Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...») was one of the first effective exertions of political muscle by minority groups in the United States.

[1] The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.

By striking down religious exercises in the public schools on the grounds that they were an establishment of religion and therefore in violation of the First Amendment.

Early in this awakening there appeared the new traditionalist movement, led by Timothy Dwight, who preached return to the old order, aroused the populace against the dangers of foreigners, attacked deistic heresies and rebellion among the youth, and urged maintaining the old establishment of religion.

The religious instruction was upheld by a circuit court and the Illinois Supreme Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that the classes violated the First Amendment clause barring the «establishment of religion.»

The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Const.itution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its «unhallowed perversion» by a civil magistrate.»

Judge Graham expresses in his decision thoughts that by now should be quite familiar to our readers: «The Justices of the Supreme Court disagree among themselves on the proper role of religion in public life and the extent of the Court's authority to decide these issues under the Establishment Clause.

Under the test, first proposed by Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor in a 1984 case from Pawtucket, Rhode Island, a display violates the Establishment Clause if it amounts to an official endorsement of religion, that is, if it suggests that the government approves a particular religious message (or disapproves such a message, though that issue does not regularly arise).

This solidarity alone is the best form to counter the obscurantist communalism, a game played by the elite and the state and the religion of the establishment.

This rejectionism had, over time, crystallized — some would say, fossilized — into the view that the legal establishment of the Catholic Church as the official religion of the state was the desired arrangement (the «thesis,» in the theological jargon of the day), while other arrangements (like the American constitutional order) were mere «hypotheses» that could, under certain historical circumstances, be «tolerated» — even as Catholics in countries governed by the «hypothesis» worked for the day when the «thesis» of Catholic establishment could be....

He made a plea for what he called pioneer religion — in which God the trail boss and Jesus the scout lead the church, a covered wagon always on the move, as the minister dishes up for the pioneers fresh meat brought in by the Holy Spirit — over settler religion in which God the mayor and Jesus the sheriff run the church as a courthouse and the minister - banker protects the interests of the religious establishment.

Something I haven't seen anybody mention before is that even though the government does establish nor prohibits religion (Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,) the system of laws can inadvertently end up being setup to practically prohibit being a Christian by the advocacy of certain groups who go above and beyond to have the courts rule in such matters.

Hart's scenario begins with the decline of religion («denatured ecclesial establishments») making possible «late modern secularity» informed by a «purely negative understanding of social and political liberty,» which is to say, freedom from interference with one's desires and goals.

In a set of resolutions submitted by Madison to the First Congress we find the term «rights of conscience» as a third item after the prohibition of the abridgment of civil rights on account of religious belief and the prohibition of the establishment of a «national religion.»

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT — «Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW for the establishment of any religious denomination» --(which BTW — is NOT what it says, if you're going to reference the constitution, try not to look like an idiot by referencing it WRONG)... so you want government out of religion... but you want your happy little tax exempt status?

The Nov. 9 high court action leaves intact a ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that said the voucher program's inclusion of religious schools does not violate the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against government establishment of religion.

A group of state taxpayers has challenged the programs, enacted by the state legislature in 1984 and 1985, as violating the clauses in the New York State and United States constitutions that bar government establishment of religion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, voted 15 - 9 against formal reconsideration of the 2 - 1 ruling last June by a panel of the court that the inclusion of the words «under God» in the pledge was an unconstitutional government establishment of religion.

The Louisiana Supreme Court held that spending tax funds for secular educational services from teachers employed by private schools violated three provisions of the Louisiana Constitution: the prohibition against the enactment of any law respecting an establishment of religion and two Blaine Amendments subsequently repealed in 1973.

All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

I do see parallels between the two, especially given the statement above by Editors in comment 4 — ``... if it is a religion, it is a religion of the establishment.

This viewpoint was rekindled recently by Edward Whelan, writing for the National Review web site: «In every major establishment - clause case during his three decades on the Court, Stevens has concluded that government policies that accommodate or support religion are unconstitutional, even if they are an excepted part of our political and cultural heritage.»

Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion (amended by Chapter 558, Acts of 1970, ratified Nov. 3, 1970).