Sentences with phrase «of free exercise of religion»

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.

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.

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.

Not exact matches

On their surface, the latest batch of Religious Freedom Reformation Act (RFRA) laws, which have passed in 20 U.S. states, not including Arkansas, appear to protect the free exercise of religion.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court's most famous religious conservative today, essentially denied the plaintiffs free exercise of their religion.

The outcry is in response to Indiana's Republican Gov. Mike Pence signing into law a «religious freedom» bill that will free individuals and business owners from abiding by state and local laws that «substantially» burden their exercise of religion, unless the government can prove that it has a compelling interest and is doing so by the least restrictive means.

First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for - profit business to assert a right to «the free exercise of religion.»

Constitutional Amendment 1: «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances»

«Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should «make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,» thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.»

There are so many religions that giving any of them precedence is necessarily preventing the free exercise of the other ones and refusing the others that special consideration, making the whole thing unequal to all?

As a Christian from the South, I've always felt that the biggest threat to my 1st Amendment rights, «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,» was the far right / conservative christians.

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.

«Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...» taken from: http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

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.

The free exercise of religion is the irreplaceable cornerstone of that order.

I would point out, however, that the actual language of the Bill of Rights says, «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.»

The best part about living in a secular country is that religious opinions of marriage are irrelevant to the legal definition as «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.»

If the government takes affirmative action to facilitate the free exercise of religion, does this action have a «secular purpose»?

The reason Mitchell is not on trial for blasphemy is because the first admendment bans both the establishment of religion and the restriction of the free exercise thereof.

In Smith, the Court interpreted its First Amendment decisions as holding «that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a «valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)»» (id.

Never mind that these words appear nowhere in the Constitution, nor even in the First Amendment («Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof»), nor in the debates over its framing, nor in the documents that were its source and inspiration.

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.

The words of the First Amendment would seem to apply: Congress shall make no law «prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].»

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.

One after another the state constitutions had declared that, as North Carolina's put it, «all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences» (V: 71) The state constitutions indicated that the right of «free exercise» was meant to be absolute, at least to the point of not «disturb [ing] the public peace or obstruct [ing] others in their religious worship» (Massachusetts, 1780, V: 77) Equally straightforward was the opposition to «an establishment of religion.»

This tramples on the free exercise of religion rights of the minority.

The «free exercise clause» in the first amendment is only half of what the founding fathers said about religion and government.

Hence, «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof».

«The First Amendment provides, in part, that «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,»» Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the unanimous opinionforHosanna - Tabor v. EEOC.

The emigration - fueled growth of religious pluralism and internal religious splits found in practically all of the colonies» combined with the principled arguments leading toward religious liberty put forth by William Penn, Roger Williams, and later Thomas Jefferson and James Madison» led, in meandering and often inadvertent fashion, to the principles of «no establishment» and «free exercise» of religion embodied in the First Amendment.

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.

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.

Regular First Things readers know that the late Father Richard John Neuhaus never tired of arguing that the First Amendment contains not two religion clauses but one: «no establishment» and «free exercise» are not two free - floating provisions at occasional loggerheads with each other but....

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.

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state.

Perhaps he can confirm — or deny — whether the journal is also rethinking its commitment to the free exercise of religion.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, «I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should «make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,» thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

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.

What part of «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...»

The power to tax religious institutions must be construed as the power to limit the free exercise of religion.

The Constitution reads: «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.»

After Smith, the government would be free to penalize, punish, or prevent the exercise of religion without serious constitutional scrutiny so long as the law applied to nonreligious entities as well.

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