This fall the U.S. Supreme Court will consider arguments in a case that goes to the very heart of the constitutional guarantee
of free exercise of religion.
We enjoy the same
free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and participate, even if from different points of view, in debate on Christian morality and public policy.
Clinton said at the time that the law subjects the federal government to «a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's
free exercise of religion.»
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, after all, forbids the government from passing laws that restrict
the free exercise of religion, and the practice of some religions includes refusal to engage in (or, apparently, to promote) the use of certain forms of birth control.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.
First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for - profit business to assert a right to «
the free exercise of religion.»
The Constitution, unlike the M and R, actually the protects «
the free exercise of religion» — as opposed to «the [mere] rights of conscience,» and clearly our Framers understood religion to be more than «the religion of the self.»
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.»
We can therefore say that the right of religious hospitals to object to performing abortions, which is rooted in their right to
free exercise of their religion, is at best on hold in Alaska.
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.
The free exercise of religion can be inconvenient, and sometimes more than inconvenient.
After all, the first right protected in the Bill of Rights is
the free exercise of religion.
In this age and this country, as Lincoln might say, the limits on
the free exercise of religion must themselves be legitimated to the satisfaction of those who care, and care deeply, about religion.
To contend for
the free exercise of religion is to contend for the perpetuation of a nation that is, in Lincoln's words, «so conceived and so dedicated.»
The free exercise of religion is the irreplaceable cornerstone of that order.
If we are serious about
the free exercise of religion, we should protect free exercise whenever we can, by protecting sincere religion in most cases even if we realize that human error will prevent us from protecting it in all cases.
Mr. Keith Cressman, a Methodist minister, filed suit against the state alleging violations of his rights to freedom of speech, due process, and
the free exercise of religion under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
This tramples on
the free exercise of religion rights of the minority.
The English tradition of religious toleration, which is the source of our legal ideal of
the free exercise of religion, arose in the wake of long and bloody religious wars to secure some peace among conflicting sects by keeping individual belief out of the state's reach.
It is essential to
the free exercise of a religion, that its ordinances should be administered....
But Madison advanced this case not in the service of a protection of
the free exercise of religion but rather in opposition to the establishment of religion.
In other words, the «
free exercise of religion» becomes meaningless or restricted to only those schools that train pastors for ministry.
To ensure the future of
the free exercise of religion in higher education in California and across America, we respectfully call on the supporters of Senate Bill 1146 to immediately withdraw their support of this bill, with the commitment to disavow similar intrusions in the future.
The California Assembly has proposed legislation that is harmful to
the free exercise of religion in higher education.
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.
Becket attorneys argued that the opt - out accommodation still was a violation of the constitutional right to
the free exercise of religion.
Federal court rules that secular, for - profit corporations do not have a right to
free exercise of religion.
The nonprofits say these requirements violate
the free exercise of religion, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Actually this country prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding
the free exercise of religion, meaning that this country is not a country under god.
Perhaps he can confirm — or deny — whether the journal is also rethinking its commitment to
the free exercise of religion.
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.
We shouldn't be surprised, but we still are from time to time, by evidences that most Americans are happily ignorant of continuing threats to
the free exercise of religion.
To be honest, I find myself confused by Maas's contention that this reassessment of our present circumstances suggests a retreat from
the free exercise of religion.
Second, taxing church property and income would destroy
the free exercise of religion that the Bill of Rights seeks to protect.
The power to tax religious institutions must be construed as the power to limit
the free exercise of religion.
So how exactly is he hindering
the free exercise of religion, or restricting the establisment of a religion?
None of the goods humans cherish, including
the free exercise of religion, can flourish without a measure of civic peace and security If evil is permitted to grow, good goes into hiding.
In a ruling that narrowed the constitutionally guaranteed «
free exercise of religion,» the Court said that Swaggart Ministries must pay $ 18
But one wonders why
the free exercise of religion should be burdened at all.
It is, she suggests, only a «marginal» burden on
the free exercise of religion.
Johnson's IRS insertion was then, and is now, a violation of our individual rights of freedom of speech and
the free exercise of religion.
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.