Not exact matches
Some claim violence
in the name of
irreligion has not occured.
In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligio
In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral
in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligio
in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor
irreligion.
Undemocratic conditions
in any sphere of human affairs are symptoms of
irreligion or idolatry.
Querulousness of mind tends
in fact rather towards
irreligion; and it has played, so far as I know, no part whatever
in the construction of religious systems.
[1]
In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligio
In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral
in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligio
in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor
irreligion.
Since matters of faith can not and should not be legislated,
irreligion and idolatry as well as all forms of religion have a right to exist
in democratic society.
If we had a better quality of religion
in our homes and churches, we would have a much smaller problem with
irreligion outside them.
It is equally interesting that after a period of
irreligion or relative atheism there have been signs of a kind of perceptible religious renewal
in certain changes
in theology.
In 1994, in a first amendment case, Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that «government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.&raqu
In 1994,
in a first amendment case, Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that «government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.&raqu
in a first amendment case, Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that «government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to
irreligion.»
The spirit of
irreligion and forgetfulness of law
in international affairs open an altogether readier way for the beginning of illegal and unjust wars, or rather hideous massacres spreading far and wide.»
To unite all Religion against all
irreligion, to make the Golden Rule the basis of this union; to present to the world... the substantial unity of many religions
in the good deeds of the Religious Life; to provide for a World's Parliament of Religions,
in which their common aims and common grounds of unity may be set forth, and the marvelous Religious progress of the Nineteenth century be reviewed... (The World's Religious Congress, General Programme (preliminary ed.; 1893), p. 19.)
Contrarily, the evidence of our century suggests that the totalitarian impulse is implicit rather than accidental
in doctrinaire
irreligion which adores its shrunken vision of humankind.
However, present times are quite different, as
irreligion seems greater than ever
in most of the developed countries (also see atheism demographics
in Europe).
Law societies should not be looking at one's religious beliefs to decide if we are adequate lawyers but dealing with the profession
in a secular way... with attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis... supporting neither religion nor
irreligion.