Not exact matches
Now, however, Silicon Valley's reduced involvement frustrates civil
liberties groups because of a widely held view that Section 702 poses a far greater threat to privacy than the telephone program, which did not harvest actual content.
Liability issues raised by companies and privacy concerns of civil
liberties groups contributed to the failure to implement such laws.
The following year, Facebook outraged civil
liberties groups with a new privacy policy that gave people less control over their what they could do with their data and made sensitive information like profile pictures, locations, and friend lists publicly available.
(Reuters)- A Muslim civil
liberties group said on Wednesday it wants a review of the death of a Chechen immigrant linked to the Boston Marathon bombing suspects who was shot and killed by an FBI agent in Florida.
They have joined civil
liberties groups in demanding more transparency and insisting that information is turned over to the government only when required by law, often in the form of a court order.
After this story was initially published, David Rocah, an attorney at the ACLU of Maryland, said the civil
liberties group also would seek a copy of the proposal.
The bishops are distancing themselves from Catholic
groups that have expressed satisfaction with the «accommodation» offered to them by the president: Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association, for instance, told reporters she was «pleased and grateful that the religious
liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished.»
In addition to civil rights for people of color, women and LGBT, there has been an expansion of religious
liberty for minority sects, enforcement of viewpoint neutrality with respect to access to various public and non-public forums (e.g. religious student
groups must be granted equal access to school facilities as their secular counterparts, etc) greater protections against age and disability discrimination, and recognition of habeas corpus rights even for enemy combatants.
The Romney / Ryan ticket has courted this
group, saying the Obama White House has attacked religious
liberty and American values.
You would think it would be a hard sell given the fact that the real estate mogul and reality star has boasted about his extramarital affairs, profited off casinos and strip clubs, said he doesn't need to ask God for forgiveness, called for targeting innocent civilians in war, mocked a reporter with a disability, threatened the religious
liberty of minority
groups in the U.S., and gained wide support among white nationalists for consistently lying about and demeaning blacks, Mexican immigrants, Muslims, and Syrian refugees.
AFFIRM HEREBY that such cooperation must be based on a «Common Word,» requiring that such cooperation must go beyond mutual tolerance and respect, to providing full protection for the rights and
liberties to all religious
groups in a civilized manner that eschews coercion, bias, and arrogance.
Prominent academics and civil
liberties organizations have raised the prospect of stripping churches of their tax exemptions and pursuing litigation to require private companies and civic
groups to be led and staffed by people who pledge allegiance to the moral creed of the left.
Religious
groups across a wide spectrum denounced the mandate, saying it infringed on their religious
liberty.
The religious
groups» reasons — that only they can identify a substantial burden on their exercise of religion and that the government needs to exempt the insurers of conscientious objectors along with churches and their auxiliaries — actually harm religious
liberty, he argued.
Groups like the Family Research Council continue to characterize religious
liberty and equality for LGBT Americans as an either / or proposition, willfully misrepresenting our nation's historical experience and ignoring the realities of a nation of many faiths and beliefs that has dealt with such questions for centuries.
Groups like the Family Research Council, screaming for preservation of their privilege to discriminate, are not defending
liberty.
, destroy several places that are the only locations hudreds of thousands of women can get a general health and wellness check - up done, single out and destroy the civil
liberties of a minority
group of people in America, oh and start a new war.
Thus, if the commands of one with authority are perceived to lie within what might be called a «circle of permissibility» recognized by the church (or nation), those demands ought not to be considered infringements of
liberty even if individuals or entire
groups within the church disagree with particular decisions.
In 1995, roughly three dozen
groups representing numerous faiths as well as a secular humanist organization designed a joint statement on religious
liberties, showing support for what could be done legally in the schools, and disputing the claim that schools were «religion - free zones.»
If there is any
group of people that should be opposed to war, torture, militarism, the warfare state, state worship, suppression of civil
liberties, an imperial presidency, blind nationalism, government propaganda, and an aggressive foreign policy it is Christians, and especially conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians who claim to strictly follow the dictates of Scripture and worship the Prince of Peace.
Even today, as countless studies show, greater political activity characterizes those Protestant
groups with the more «republican» religion;
groups asserting «the church should stay out of politics» are those whose Christianity rests less easy with religious
liberty or the democratic regime generally.
In April 2016, Christian
groups including the Evangelical Alliance said plans for Sunday schools to be forced to register with Ofsted and undergo inspections amounted to an «unjustified restriction of religious
liberty».
I'll mention one fundamental one: if in these contexts I take the
liberty to outrightly deny that indeed it was God who said, and not some power
group with a dirty political agenda, then WHEN and WHY will I accept «God said...», this and that (and particularly more positive, palatable stuff») at face value?
With strong emotion he called us» Americans searching for the roots of
liberty, Eastern Europeans so lately liberated» to the authentic path of freedom and holiness, centered in the sacrifice of Christ, and raised the host to unite our
group in a bond far stronger than argument.
Religious
liberty groups like hers are watching the Hobby Lobby case closely.
Two
groups of prominent religious
liberty scholars (one led by Robin Fretwell Wilson, the other by Douglas Laycock) have written letters (such as this one from Wilson's
group) to state legislators and governors considering same - sex marriage bills, imploring them to include various statutory provisions that would afford some protection to religious freedom.
The separation of Church and state and the legal recognition of the principle of religious
liberty in both nations have led not only to pluralism through the protection of established religious
groups and the encouragement of spontaneity and inventiveness; but have also fostered voluntarism in church organization and made the clergy largely dependent on lay support.
But we also need to reacquaint ourselves with our «grand tradition» of religious
liberty, and with an equally grand tradition of political conciliation — of putting the common good of our nation above the special interests of whatever
groups we favor.
Religious
liberty has very quickly become of intense concern for religious
groups across the country, especially for those that will be directly affected by the HHS mandate.
Since my aim is to defend a view dialectically rather than contribute to minutiae of scholarship, I take the
liberty of combining his writings into an early
group, ending with The Principle of Relativity, and a later
group, including everything afterwards.
Carl H. Esbeck, an emeritus law professor at the University of Missouri who gathered the National Association of Evangelicals, the Assemblies of God, the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, and other
groups for an amici brief, believes that «specific religious -
liberty protections» will be needed for churches, religious believers, and religious organizations.
If it is true that, bound by the collective interaction of its
liberties, the human social
group can not escape from certain irreversible laws of evolution, does this mean that, observed along its axis of «greatest complexity» (i.e. increasing
liberty) the World is coiling upon itself with as much sureness as it is in other respects radiating outwards and explosively expanding?
Moral Majority and other
groups for what they call «voluntary prayer» in the public schools threatens the religious
liberty of the minority that will oppose prayer in general or particular prayers.
This narrative seems plausible to many, because we have been deeply shaped and trained to associate the word «
liberty» with the freedom of individuals «to pursue their own ends»» requiring, among other things, the liberation of recreational sex from any consequences» and not the rights, privileges, immunities and
liberties of
groups, societies, associations, even a corpus mysticum like the Church.
It is a sad day when the so «called «liberals» on the Court bloc vote against civil
liberties when the dissenter is a
group they deem «atavistic.»
On the other hand, some
groups have been suspicious of Sabbatarianism so strict that it might seem legalistic («If anywhere the day is made holy for the mere day's sake, then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to feast on it, to do anything to remove this reproach from Christian
liberty,» Martin Luther declared) or have emphasized, like the Quakers, that all time is holy with God.
A number of Protestant, Catholic and civil
liberties groups challenged this special nod to one faith, declaring that such recognition jeopardizes the rights of other churches (and of individual Catholics) by creating a direct government link with the Vatican.
Freed this January in a prisoner swap initiated by President Obama, Abedini is now in the United States, where many Christians and religious -
liberty groups had prayed and campaigned for his release.
I am simply saying, without leaving the physical field, that the greatest discovery made in this century is probably the realisation that the passage of Time may best be measured by the gradual gathering of Matter in superposed
groups, of which the arrangement, ever richer and more centralized, radiates outwards from an ever more luminous fringe of
liberty and interiority.
We have become known as a
group of people who sees themselves perpetually under attack, perpetually victimized, and perpetually entitled, a
group who, ironically, often responds to these imagined disadvantages by advancing legislation that restricts the civil
liberties of other people.
Yet the
groups pushing the RFRA want to enact that test into law and leave its interpretation and application to those same «officers of the government» who have thus far shown no preference for religious
liberty.
Truly, the issues you raise are issues involving
liberty (which extends to victims suffering injury as well as the
groups responsible for it) and responsibility for harm caused others.
Terming the protections of RFRA as «extreme religious
liberty rights,» the Foundation and associated
groups go beyond even what the Obama administration requests, asserting not only that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood don't qualify for the law's protections, but rather that RFRA itself is unconstitutional.
Some anti-circumcision
groups, however, say the lawsuit's argument for religious
liberty is just an excuse to defend old tradition that some frown upon as strange compared with mainstream hospital circumcisions.
Because we know what it is to have our own religious
liberties infringed, we are alarmed whenever any religious
group's rights are threatened.
The substantive claim is that Confucian values are anti-democratic; Asian societies, according to Samuel Huntington, are said to favor authority over
liberty, the
group over the individual, duties over rights and such values as harmony, cooperation, order and respect for hierarchy (Huntington, 1993).
One was McIntyre's insistence on total abstinence from alcohol, an issue the Machen
group considered a matter of Christian
liberty, while the Holiness and pietist traditions had long emphasized the importance of a Christian life separated from the world» no alcohol, tobacco, dancing, cards, or theater, along with no short skirts or bobbed hair for women.
Take any war, any struggle, or any fight by any nation or any
group of people in the history of the world, in which their goal was
liberty and freedom, and you will find countless atrocities, murders, and crimes, all committed in the name of
liberty.
Beecher spoke for a vast majority of the American Protestants when he said that these
groups «constitute a sort of disciplined moral militia, prepared to act upon every emergency, and repel every encroachment upon the
liberties and morals of the State.
Rather, they are interested in protecting the security of their ethnic
group and continue to maintain, often with great vehemence, that eternal religious invisibility in our public places is the «price of
liberty.»