Not exact matches
It is easy to see why that seems like the right tool: Free
exercise jurisprudence has frequently involved the crafting
of prudential exemptions and accommodations — precisely the carving out
of spaces — that could allow
religious believers to act on their
convictions even in the face
of contrary public sentiments or (up to a point) public laws.
Greenawalt concedes that citizens
of a secular liberal state have a legal right to vote their
religious convictions, but he is more concerned with when and whether they ought to
exercise self - restraint in the interests
of good citizenship.
That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner
of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and
conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore 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
religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preferrence [sic] to others.
The Supreme Court gave a boost to their
conviction that secularism is a genuine competing faith in the ruling in the 1961 Torcaso case, in which «Secular Humanism» was identified as a religion, and in Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in the 1963 Schempp case, which referred to a refusal to permit
religious exercises in schools as not «the realization
of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment
of a religion
of secularism.»
They simply said a group
of people had a right to
exercise their
religious conviction, even if they happened to be in a government building.
Central to the criticisms has been the
conviction shared by many
religious leaders that the
exercise of social power should be directed by a concern for justice on a representative basis rather than a concern to impose one's own particular standards and beliefs on others.
Such a view
of law would permit for - profit corporations to have the moral culpability
of criminal
convictions, take moral views on a slew
of ethical concerns, and let corporations
exercise other constitutional guarantees as persons while inexplicably siphoning off only for - profit corporations from
religious protection.
The parents» role is now also enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, Art 2, which states: «No person shall be denied the right to education, In the
exercise of any functions which it assumed in relation to education and to teaching, the state shall respect the right
of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own
religious and philosophical
convictions.»