Sentences with phrase «protect free exercise of religion»

The First Amendment Defense Act can and should protect the free exercise of religion without ignoring the freedom of speech, press and assembly for the non-observant as well as the devout.

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.

The Constitution, while prohibiting a religious establishment, protects the free exercise of religion.

This means that excluding religious schools may violate not one but three separate constitutional provisions: the equal protection clause, the free exercise clause (which protects the free exercise of religion), and the free speech clause.

Not exact matches

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.»

After all, the first right protected in the Bill of Rights is the free exercise of religion.

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.

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.»

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.

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

As I understand their argument, it is this: The Blaine amendments have the effect of restricting the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion protected in the 1st and 14th Amendments.

In particular, Gates refers to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and the free exercise of religion.

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.

The proposition that section 2 (a) incorporates, to an unclear degree, both «free exercise» and «anti-establishment» values in a unitary guarantee of religious freedom can be supported by the language of the text itself... the Charter is not restricted to protecting only the free exercise of religion, but «freedom of... religion» in a larger sense.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights similarly protects only free exercise and does not prohibit governments from having an established religion.

Many countries have a freedom of religion that protects free exercise but does not have an establishment clause.