Sentences with phrase «example of religious people»

Just another example of religious people forcing their garbage where it's not wanted.

Not exact matches

Indiana's law, for example, allows people and businesses to claim exemption based only on the likelihood that their religious freedom could be infringed, said Katherine Franke, a professor of law and director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality at Columbia University, in New York.

Walshe also critically flags how — again, at the point of consent — Facebook's review process deploys examples of the social aspects of its platform (such as how it can use people's information to «suggest groups or other features or products») as a tactic for manipulating people to agree to share religious affiliation data, for example.

This is a good example of why religious people are dangerous and why they were right to fire this quack.

We have plenty examples of governments without religion or people entirely free of all religious ties that make such horrible mistakes.

I have heard deeply thoughtful religious leaders acknowledge that they came late to an appreciation of the pandemic, that preconceptions influenced their initial reactions, that some leaders have taken harsh stances (for example, refusing to bury people whose families acknowledge that they died of AIDS), and that their focus on ideal behaviors can obscure what is real and live.

They are a part of the history of human attempts to control other people — and they are badly written and a truly pathetic example of religious writing as well.

This is an example where interpretation can be very dangerous and people allow themselves to be brain washed and follow evil in the name of religious idiology, next people like this will be blaming the woes on our country on the gay / lesbian community, Hitler and Germany come to mind.

For example, there are people in all religions who use it to convince themselves they have evidence their religious beliefs are correct, even when their beliefs conflict with those of other religions, whose followers also claim they have evidence their beliefs are correct.

History is full of examples of people causing harm to other people justified by their religious beliefs and their «personal knowledge» of what God wanted them to do.

Had a religious leader, for example, cornered Jesus about a certain person who was practicing homosexuality, Jesus might have first deferred to the letter of God's law.

First, its premisses concerning society and modern man are pseudoscientific: for example, the affirmation that man has become adult, that he no longer needs a Father, that the Father - God was invented when the human race was in its infancy, etc.; the affirmation that man has become rational and thinks scientifically, and that therefore he must get rid of the religious and mythological notions that were appropriate when his thought processes were primitive; the affirmation that the modern world has been secularized, laicized, and can no longer countenance religious people, but if they still want to preach the kerygma they must do it in laicized terms; the affirmation that the Bible is of value only as a cultural document, not as the channel of Revelation, etc. (I say «affirmation» because these are indeed simply affirmations, unrelated either to fact or to any scientific knowledge about modern man or present - day society.)

A teacher of religion, for example, must foster in the young people the central Christian experience; hence he ought to be able to help them through his own religious practice without asking them to invent anew everything belonging to the Christian life, which leads to nothing anyhow in ninety - five per cent of the cases.

In a new industrial district, for example, only a single church can be built for all, yet it has to be used by people of the most heterogeneous artistic taste, so that to one a crucifix may seem blasphemous which others find a most genuine expression of their religious feelings.

For example, at one time many religious leaders in the early days of our «Christian nation» and even (some of our) Founding Fathers believed that people of African decent were not fully human and used the Bible as proof.

The state's intervention is justified only when it can show that rights beyond the realm of any religious community are being violated, as, for example, when people are being held prisoner in religious communities or being subjected to other forms of abuse.

«Executive,» «laborer,» «Catholic,» «Southern Baptist,» «Jew,» «Democrat,» «Republican,» «Socialist,» for example, are proper designations of occupational, religious, or political affiliation, but may under undemocratic pressures become class symbols which divide people into comprehensive separate groups for other than occupational, religious, or political purposes.

but fortunately there are psychologists, mental health practitioners and others who do and I have benefitted greatly from their work, personal testimonies and the various articles / publications which they have produced --(for example, The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology; The Religious & Spiritual Problems category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM - IV) published by the American Psychiatric Association; The US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health PubMed.gov database of healthcare and scientific literature)-- about the adverse psychological effects which can arise when persons engage in intense / deep spiritual practices such as intense / deep prayer, fasting and meditation which alter their state of consciousness.

By the examples above taken from the Jewish reading of the Old Testament regarding ethical considerations towards peace and reconciliation, it is evident that there are learnings from the encounter with people of other religious traditions.

In Europe, for example, religious people can no longer ignore the existence of the millions of foreigners with different cultures who are now living there.

I'll give you the last 60 or seventy years or so, but please site any other examples of «centuries» of any organized atheist group killing large numbers of religious people.

Athiests always talk about religious intolerance as an example of how terrible religions are, yet here they are, the biggest bunch of hateful people attacking other people's beliefs because they don't believe.

And the author of this article gives the gift of one more example to explain why so many people identify as «spiritual but not religious.»

In the Genesis narratives, for example, Abraham is depicted neither as a religious philosopher nor as a reformer but as someone whom God «makes his own» and ordains to be the progenitor of a family - nation that would serve as a pilot - people for humanity by keeping God's way — the avoidance of violence and the practice of justice under law (Genesis 18:19).

Though lots of people have many different religious heroes and saintly forefathers, nearly all people of all religions agree that Jesus is, if nothing else, a good example to follow.

For example, «It is no certain sign that the religious affections which persons have are such as have in them the nature of true religion, or that they have not, that they dispose persons to spend much time in religion, and to be zealously engaged in the external duties of worship.

Therefore, one who has potentialities for becoming a religious leader strives to gain knowledge of these three sources and derives specific laws from them; he follows those laws and sets an example for the people.

And to be honest, we TRUELY religious people are cherry - pickers of bible because we only follow whatever good things and examples written on it that would strenghten us and improve our lives both in spiritual and temporal aspects.

Second, America's founding is replete with examples of people absenting themselves from the regnant civil order precisely on religious grounds (think Massachusetts Bay vis - à - vis Great Britain or Connecticut vis - à - vis Massachusetts Bay).

for example, the law of 1886 enacted that only lay persons should teach in public schools and that there should be no distinctive religious teaching.

Millennials are just connecting the dots faster due to enhanced IT capabilities, a myriad of examples of bad behavior from religious people, and a complete absense of results from all of the prayer activities.

The truly intimate God of revelation wishes dialogue with persons, and abhors a religious slavery that in turn invokes the accusation against the divine that we can observe, for example, in the writings of Nietzsche and Sartre.

He's studied the religious patterns of immigrants into Canada and found that when people migrate into a Western society — for example, Buddhists from Southeast Asia — they either become much more devout or much less devout.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same - sex marriage — when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite - sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same - sex married couples.

If the religious people who feel that gay marriage is wrong understood that that opinion applies onto the themselves and not to people who believe differently then there would be little interest in what religious people of any description believed in (as an example).

«This is an absolute perfect example of the separation of church and state, and it takes a 20 - year - old to stand up and say no,» There is something extremely wrong with America and the conservative religious people are the cause of it.

For example, native beliefs and practices, which exclude persons on the basis of caste, race, color, and gender, are not reflective of the presence and activity of God as revealed by Jesus, whereas symbols, rites, and religious motifs that challenge such exclusions are in continuity with the transformation characteristic of the God dynamic expressed in Jesus.

I don't think only a «handful» of religious people, for example, make irrational decisions based on faith.

As suggested above, we can be examples of «good, moral people» even though we belong to no religious group.

I. hope people are taking example from him (religious or not) because he's really giving a good example of how to live in peace.

For example, two persons who are prohibited by religious scruples from transactions with each other may find it possible, through law, to use third parties (for example, the impersonal, universalistic procedures of a bank).

However, 1) by no means is the entire faith «bad» or «wrong» because a handful of people abuse the religion, and 2) arguably, «Christian hypocrites» are not really Christians at all (in the Gospels, for example, the Pharisees, extremely religious Jews who took extreme measures to follow all of Moses» 613 laws, proved to be Jesus» «enemies», because they did not love other people.)

In 1811, for example, Chancellor James Kent of New York, in The People v. Ruggles, declared Christianity a part of the common law, and even as late as 1952 the Supreme Court declared, in Zorach v. Clausen, that «we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.&People v. Ruggles, declared Christianity a part of the common law, and even as late as 1952 the Supreme Court declared, in Zorach v. Clausen, that «we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.&people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.»

For example, most people in the sphere of dominance of the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, think of worship of a Supreme Being or deity as a religious trait.

It has at times carried a distinctly religious flavour, and many of its most significant politicians were people of faith (Hardie the obvious example, but think also of Arthur Henderson, Stafford Cripps, Tom Mann, George Lansbury — or John Smith, or Tony Blair).

For example, under the French ancien regime people were forced to accept the religious preferences of the state (Roman catholicism).

Of note is that the US government already favors secular rights over religious rights for certain things; for example, members of a religion that consider people with dark skin to be evil would still not be allowed to discriminate against such people under current US laOf note is that the US government already favors secular rights over religious rights for certain things; for example, members of a religion that consider people with dark skin to be evil would still not be allowed to discriminate against such people under current US laof a religion that consider people with dark skin to be evil would still not be allowed to discriminate against such people under current US law.

For example, one part says «Pupils must be encouraged to regard people of all faiths, races and cultures with respect and tolerance» - but has no similar reference to respect and tolerance of those with no religious beliefs.

«This avoidance may lead to the rejection of whole groups of people based on their religious differences or perceived incongruence between, for example, their sexuality or gender - based identity and religious teachings,» Exline said.

In them I talked about violence, for example, the abolition of barbaric customs such as torturing people to death for religious heresy, to reinforce the point that human nature comprises many components, some of which incline us toward violence, some of which pull us away from it.