Sentences with phrase «on free exercise of religion»

They contend that the kirpans are religious symbols protected by the First Amendment's clause on free exercise of religion.

According to the bill, any restriction on the free exercise of religion is valid only if:

Smith and Black claimed that the denial of benefits was an unconstitutional burden on their free exercise of religion, because it penalized them for taking part in what to them was a religious sacrament.

Regarding matters relevant here, consider the recent wholly aggressive «Free Birth Control Rule» attack on the free exercise of religion.

One of Marty's voices tells him that the courts should not interfere — it is dangerous to infringe on the free exercise of religion.

It is, she suggests, only a «marginal» burden on the free exercise of religion.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Lt. Cmdr. Christensen went on to say that «all service members are free to exercise their constitutional right to practice their religion in a manner that is respectful of other individuals» rights to follow their own belief systems; and in ways that are conducive to good order and discipline; and that do not detract from accomplishing the military mission»...

In a statement, Broglio's office said: «Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army (about not reading the letter) constituted a violation of his Constitutionally - protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants.»

Whatever views one might hold on that distinct question, in this case the Council has engaged in an obvious violation of the right to the free exercise of religion.

A substantial sector of religious America, for example, sees the firefight in Waco as an attack on radical religion and places the cutting edge of religious freedom in the defense of cults» free exercise rights.

But even if that bastion were, regrettably, to fall, a further protection should be maintained to safeguard the free exercise of religion on the part of organizations seeking to carry out what members believe to be the duties of conscience required by their religious obligations; i.e..

In fact, one could make the case that anyone attending the dinner, even the two candidates, would, by the vibrant solidarity of the evening, be reminded that America is at her finest when people, free to exercise their religion, assemble on behalf of poor women and their babies, born and unborn, in a spirit of civility and respect.

On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority.

The time is running out for Isreal, now for sixty year built on doctrine of religion discrimination.Same as christiian are condemn in muslim countries.But fact is christian are free to exercise their religion in muslim countries.Can Muslims of all world for example have superior claim over Christians living in their countries.hat Answer is no.

In Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), the court found that restrictions on such afterschool clubs taking place at school facilities violated students» rights to free exercise of religion.

Their demand was based not on arguments about double taxation or the free exercise of religion.

The equal protection clause and the free exercise clause both prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion unless there is some compelling reason for the discrimination.

When a one has naturally achieved, by one's natural capacity of reason, a metaphysical / epistemological system that has determined that to live a life of reason then one by necessity must exclusively exercise one's natural free volition to exclusively use man's natural capacity for reason exclusively on the natural world then one does not even reject religion's supernaturalism / superstitionism... one then has achieved the capability to say religion's supernaturalism and superstitionism is irrelevant to their metaphysical / epistemological system.

In addition to the constitutional claims you might expect here — for violations of the students» rights to free speech, free exercise of religion and equal protection — the complaint contains a Fourth Amendment claim based on an illegal seizure of the «rubber babies.»

In the narrower legal context, this Hayekian - Rawlsian debate usually manifests itself in arguments about whether the law should protect «negative rights,» that is, protect persons from government encroachment on their inalienable rights — like private property and free exercise of religion, or whether the law should foster «positive rights,» that is, promote the rights of people to receive tangible things like free health care or housing under the auspices of equal treatment under the law.

That involves the application of s 116 of the Constitution, which provides a prohibition on laws affecting the free exercise of religion.