Sentences with phrase «exercise of religion for»

With a subjective interpretation and adjudication of such cases, we need reassurance that such would not restrict the free exercise of religion for our chaplains and military personnel.

They are there in order to facilitate the First Amendment - guaranteed free exercise of religion for our servicemen and women.

Not exact matches

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court's most famous religious conservative today, essentially denied the plaintiffs free exercise of their religion.

First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for - profit business to assert a right to «the free exercise of religion.»

Constitutional Amendment 1: «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances»

«Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should «make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,» thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.»

I'm reading NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare decision) in preparation for teaching the case to my constitutional law students and came across the following most interesting passage in in Justice Ginsburg's opinion: «A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.»

The «double taxation» of parents who choose a religious education for their children unjustly burdens the free exercise of religion, and that is clearly a matter that engages the propria of the Church.

As Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom, observed, this expression implies a narrower scope of the exercise of religion.

The reason Mitchell is not on trial for blasphemy is because the first admendment bans both the establishment of religion and the restriction of the free exercise thereof.

«You can pray» For prayer: Allowed to exercise their freedom of religion Against prayer: Allowed to exercise their freedom to leave

The controversy shows «the stakes of a state that imperils the free exercise of religion and the freedom to dissent» and «how important it is for religious freedom advocates to stand together,» he added.

(Hebrews 10:25) Indeed, so central were these problems to certain of the early Christians that Professor E. F. Scott can say of religion: «For some it is an inward fellowship with God, for some an inspiration to right living, for some the highest exercise of reasFor some it is an inward fellowship with God, for some an inspiration to right living, for some the highest exercise of reasfor some an inspiration to right living, for some the highest exercise of reasfor some the highest exercise of reason.

Federal court rules that secular, for - profit corporations do not have a right to free exercise of religion.

It is not a natural thing for people to draw a sharp separation between religion and politics as distinct realms, to demand responsible participation in both and simultaneously to say that the object of one (God) is the criterion for the object of the other (the exercise of power).

(Using the lowercase «c» with reference to «christianity» is a spiritual discipline for me as a member of a religious tradition so arrogant and abusive in its exercise of power over women, lesbians and gays, indigenous people, Jews, Muslims and members of nonchristian religions and cultures.)

We need to face the facts: The Obama administration and many legal scholars advanced arguments for curtailing the free exercise of religion that draw upon central tenets of liberalism.

In addition, Berns largely ignores the practice of the founding generation, which accommodated a far more public role for the free exercise of religion than the American Civil Liberties Union now tolerates.

c) In line with Americans RIGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS firstly DEMAND that MUSLIMS TO OPT - OUT OF THEIR RELIGION, and also CALL for letting proponents of other faiths to propogate their religion near Mosques and Islamic organizations just as the Muslims do near churches, temples, synagogueOF THEIR RELIGION, and also CALL for letting proponents of other faiths to propogate their religion near Mosques and Islamic organizations just as the Muslims do near churches, temples, synRELIGION, and also CALL for letting proponents of other faiths to propogate their religion near Mosques and Islamic organizations just as the Muslims do near churches, temples, synagogueof other faiths to propogate their religion near Mosques and Islamic organizations just as the Muslims do near churches, temples, synreligion near Mosques and Islamic organizations just as the Muslims do near churches, temples, synagogues.

The First Amendment Defense Act can and should protect the free exercise of religion without ignoring the freedom of speech, press and assembly for the non-observant as well as the devout.

Now, writes his biographer, «Mann was about to preach a new religion and convince his constituency of the need for a new establishment, a nondenominational institution, the public school, with schoolmasters as a new priestly class, patriotic exercises as quasi-religious rituals, and a nonsectarian doctrine stressing morality, literacy and citizenship as a republican creed for all to confess.

For instance, this: «The free exercise of religion has been called the first freedom — that which originally sparked the development of the full range of the Bill of Rights.

IMHO schools should only close for Federal holidays (aside from things like winter / spring / summer break) as that eliminates the risk of First Amendment challenges («establishment of religion» and»... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof»).

This same amendment also calls for the «free exercise» of religion, and the tension between «establishment» and «free exercise» is at the heart of the debate.

The anonymous «Federal Farmer» in letters to «The Republican» joined in: «It is true, we are not disposed to differ much, at present, about religion; but when we are making a constitution, it is to be hoped, for ages and millions yet unborn, why not establish the free exercise of religion, as a part of the national compact.»

Notably for our purposes, at all stages of the Barnette litigation in the courts below — as in Gobitis before it — the issues had revolved entirely around the schoolchildren's claim regarding their free exercise of religion.

Lets look at the 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A substantial sector of religious America, for example, sees the firefight in Waco as an attack on radical religion and places the cutting edge of religious freedom in the defense of cults» free exercise rights.

The religion of Israel exercises this modesty in its care for the naming of God.

For example, in Lee v. Weisman the Supreme Court protects a dissenting student from the burden of having to hear a prayer at graduation exercises, while in Lyng v. Northwest the same court approves the building of a logging road through sacred lands, making it impossible for a whole tribe of Indians to practice their religiFor example, in Lee v. Weisman the Supreme Court protects a dissenting student from the burden of having to hear a prayer at graduation exercises, while in Lyng v. Northwest the same court approves the building of a logging road through sacred lands, making it impossible for a whole tribe of Indians to practice their religifor a whole tribe of Indians to practice their religion.

George Mason, a member of the Con - sti - tu - tion - al Convention and recognized as The Father of the Bill of Rights submitted this proposal for the wording of the First Amendment All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Undaunted, the supposed guardians of civil liberties — except the free exercise of religion, it seems — recently brought a case against a Catholic hospital for refusing to permit doctors to perform an elective hysterectomy as part of a sex - reassignment surgery.

The free exercise of religion allows a religious community to democratically agitate for its legal establishment and for a confessional state.

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.

«Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to peti.tion the Government for a redress of grievances.»

Smith and Black claimed that the denial of benefits was an unconstitutional burden on their free exercise of religion, because it penalized them for taking part in what to them was a religious sacrament.

America has been remarkably favored — «blessed» if you prefer — by a wise and constitutional policy of non-preferential protection for the free and responsible exercise of religion.

The time is running out for Isreal, now for sixty year built on doctrine of religion discrimination.Same as christiian are condemn in muslim countries.But fact is christian are free to exercise their religion in muslim countries.Can Muslims of all world for example have superior claim over Christians living in their countries.hat Answer is no.

Read for yourself, «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...» Congress can not make any laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting it's free exercise.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

«Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should «make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,» thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.»

These historians paid particular attention to the Maryland Act of Religious Toleration of 1649, which provided that no Christian in the province would «bee any wais troubled, molested, or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof,» nor could any person be in «any way compelled to the beleife or exercise of any Religion against his or her consent.»

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should «make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,» thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The resources available will use dyslexia friendly fonts so all students can access the learning - Students will summarise our learning from the previous six topics with some one mark questions and will write down the answers in your exercise books Students will then recall the differences between science and religion on the origins of the universe and life and will make a list of three differences between science and religion Students will study and research the different interpretations in Christianity of the Genesis creation story and will answer four tasks based on research about these different interpretations Students will study the role that science and religion play in people's lives and will make a list of things that attract people to science over religion Students will make a list of things that make people religious and will then plan for a potential 12 mark question

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 equal protection clause and the free exercise clause both prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion unless there is some compelling reason for the discrimination.

(a) Whenever the Attorney General receives a complaint in writing signed by an individual to the effect that he is being deprived of or threatened with the loss of his right to the equal protection of the laws, on account of his race, color, religion, or national origin, by being denied equal utilization of any public facility which is owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of any State or subdivision thereof, other than a public school or public college as defined in section 401 of title IV hereof, and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly progress of desegregation in public facilities, the Attorney General is authorized to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section.

(2) signed by an individual, or his parent, to the effect that he has been denied admission to or not permitted to continue in attendance at a public college by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin, and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly achievement of desegregation in public education, the Attorney General is authorized, after giving notice of such complaint to the appropriate school board or college authority and after certifying that he is satisfied that such board or authority has had a reasonable time to adjust the conditions alleged in such complaint, to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section, provided that nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise enlarge the existing power of the court to insure compliance with constitutional standards.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of people peaceable to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.