Sentences with phrase «establishments of religion did»

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.

Not exact matches

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.

What, then, are the real difficulties of the position in which so many of our sensitive contemporaries have halted, the position of the man who has his own religion but who does not throw his efforts into the establishment and enlargement of any religious group or church?

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...!!!

While it is true that the primary purpose of the 1st Amendment is to guarantee freedom of religion, it does, in some very important ways, provide for freedom of religion within the Establishment Clause.

Under the establishment clause every person is also entitled to government that does not sponsor, support or inculcate one religion, religion in general or all religions collectively; that does not prefer one religion over another; that does not build up the real estate or the personnel of a religious institution or set up religious proprietaries not required to supply state - impaired religious access; and that does not compose, initiate or promulgate official prayers, rites or liturgies, or otherwise «play church.»

While it is true that the primary purpose of the 1st Amendment is to guarantee freedom of religion, it does, in some very important ways, provide for freedom from religion within the Establishment Clause.

There are thousands of religions, and I am sick to death of the political establishment pretending that they don't exist.

How did oldline Protestantism become an assortment of establishment «temple religions»?

Standing behind and supporting the separation and the establishment clauses, even when it stops things involving your religion to be done where it affects people not of your religion, is the right thing to do.

Some insist that the Air Force Academy must allow for free expression of religion and that telling someone about Jesus does not constitute establishment of religion.

What does the «going concern» issue or «an establishment of religion» do to our understanding that Congress shouldn't promote one religious idea over another?

Voluntarism in religion, Martin argues, functions as a means of overcoming differences, not aggravating them, while establishment religion may do just the opposite.

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).

Just as abortion, gay rights, and baseball doping will have no effect on the economy, illegal invaders, the wars we are locked in, or the housing market, neither will the candidate's religious beliefs (counting any religion that advocates the murder of others, the subjugating of women, and the establishment of it's own set of laws — though I have no idea or what major religion would do so...).

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.

Those earlier rulings also recognized that a measure extending governmental assistance to sectarian schools in the performance of secular functions does not constitute a «law respecting an establishment of religion» merely because the secular program may incidentally benefit a church in fulfilling its religious mission.

Indeed, the «no establishment» of religion clause of the U.S. constitution says that they may not do such a thing.

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.

The First Amendment does provide that «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof,» but this did not apply to the states (or to public schools as presumed organs of the state) for the first 150 years of the Union.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals examined only federal Establishment Clause precedent and held that Louisiana's special education program did not offend the Establishment Clause because (1) the statute's purpose of improving educational opportunity for disabled students was secular, and (2) the statute did not have the effect of advancing religion because it provides no incentive for parents to select religious institutions.

A federal district court in Iowa held that a state tax deduction for school expenses, including private school tuition, does not violate the Establishment Clause because it is available to parents regardless of whether their child attends a public, private or religious school, neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not entangle the state with religion.

It's too bad that America's Founding Fathers didn't think to prohibit government establishment of religion.

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.

The government disputes that the establishment clause applies here, but says even if it does, the «text, legislative history, and implementation [of the executive order] all confirm that its «official objective» is religion - neutral.»

Although it is certainly true that the Charter (Canada's constitutional bill of rights) does not contain an explicit textual limitation on government establishments of religion, this prohibition is effectuated in other ways...

The Court of Appeal state at para 61 that the undercover officer did not compel any action for a religious purpose, because the Charter does not contain an establishment clause that would forbid state action promoting religion.

Does it matter that the 1st amendment prohibits congress from «respecting an establishment of religion» but does not say anything about the presidDoes it matter that the 1st amendment prohibits congress from «respecting an establishment of religion» but does not say anything about the presiddoes not say anything about the president?

Many countries have a freedom of religion that protects free exercise but does not have an establishment clause.