The Government are clear that we need appropriate powers to deal with that threat but that those powers must not interfere with the hard - won
civil liberties of the British people.
I think that the best way to approach this problem is to promote
liberty of conscience for people of all faiths.
Going back to the judge's first step: I simply don't know how one makes a distinction between «deprivation of liberty» and «
liberty of movement».
We are
at liberty of performing tasks online, for instance, paying bills, booking flights, shopping, which would have previously required our manual input.
The free press is a cornerstone of democratic culture, providing a public mechanism to call power to account and preserve
liberty of thought.
If there's one thing we still believe in, apparently, it's
liberty of contract — at least when it comes to bearing children.
But in doing so the State must not interfere with parental responsibility, nor hamper the reasonable
liberty of parents in their choice of a school for their children.
This year was certainly no exception, with the court weighing in on cases affecting unions and the religious
liberty of corporations, which just sounds odd.
The secondary issue that the judge pointed out, did have to do with religious freedom and
liberty of conscience.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR stated that the Strasbourg cases, eg Guzzardi v Italy (Application 7367/76)(1980) 3 EHRR 333, «have drawn a distinction between a restriction
of liberty of movement on the one hand and a deprivation of liberty on the other».
Mosaic Community Services 2015 Visionary Award in recognition of Andy's «faithful and relentless» advocacy on behalf of the civil
liberties of individuals with mental illness.
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.
Let's say we agree with Lord Home that there can be room for what he calls «pragmatic» considerations in determining the «ambit» of a fundamental right - e.g., when a restriction
on liberty of movement counts / doesn't count as a «deprivation of liberty» under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Prussian king, weary of the arguments about the Eucharist going on between Calvinists and Lutherans, decreed an ecumenical church that was to be open to diversity and based on a broad consensus of evangelical faith that intended to
protect liberty of conscience.
Liberals generally are for the killing of babies and other horendous ideas that war against the sanctity and
liberty of human beings... Giving men with this kind of a world view «equal time» isn't what I think God desires.
The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of
personal liberty of movement.
And this demonstrates yet again the sovereign
liberty of God in all his decisions and choices.
It rejects restraint from without
upon liberty of interpretation, and at the same time excludes an arbitrary or capricious use of liberty by accepting the intrinsic control of the historical movement within the Bible itself.
Massachusetts and others among the founding thirteen states, while protecting the full religious
liberty of citizens under their new constitutions after Independence, maintained an established church and entrusted important moral and educational tasks to church communities with state support, direct or indirect.
The British Humanist Association has expressed regret and concern at remarks made by Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government writing in the Telegraph, in which he stated that Britain was a Christian country, and «we should, however, recognise that long - standing British
liberties of freedom of religion have been undermined in recent years by aggressive secularism, especially in the more politically correct parts of the public sector.»
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.
With the advice of the «White House Office of Faith - Based and Neighborhood Partnerships,» President Obama reversed his initial position on the issue of the ability of religious employers to hire those who share their beliefs, protecting the religious
liberty of Christian organizations involved in the faith based partnership.
The critical method finds its way between the horns of a dilemma: It rejects restraint from without upon
liberty of interpretation, and at the same time excludes an arbitrary or capricious use of liberty by accepting the intrinsic control of the historical movement within the Bible itself.
That is if they have not surrendered the liquid
liberty of enlightened sonship to the doctrine, dogma and authority of the traditional religions of the races.
But there is a way the church can help the hurting move beyond their wounds to experience the healing and
liberty of Christ.