Sentences with phrase «religious opinion as»

But I do think the authority that teaches religious opinion as fact to children are wrong and unethical.

Not exact matches

As data accumulates, Morning Consult can to identify small changes in public opinion and parse responses across narrow demographic attributes like employment status, prior voting activity, or religious affiliation.

The problem is that in four different places in an opinion barely five paragraphs long, Justice Stevens used the word «indoctrination» as a synonym for religious education.

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.»

Might a church that believes in and practices diversity in religious opinion, as well as «Biblical equality» of men and women work better for you?

I know people who for personal reasons are for or against certain religious / social / political issues who migrated to religious groups which identify as Christian (and agree with these peoples» personal opinions) so they presumably might have an ultimate authority to support their opinions.

«Even though starting a government meeting with a religious prayer is offensive to many, considered a violation of our const.itution by many, makes many feel ostracized and as if their voice will not be given equal consideration to those who are religions, I think we should still start of government meetings with prayers because this is a country that believes in the free expression of ones beliefs and opinions without fear of percecution.»

We don't buy into the very conservative religious opinion that sees Halloween as an evil holiday.

It is the duty of the Caliph or Imam, the leader in Islam, to consolidate public opinion, execute judgments, administer state machinery, encourage the faithful in the practice of their faith, such as prayers and the religious tax, and look after affairs of public interest with the guidance of a parliamentary democracy, the basis of government in Islam.

In my opinion it probably served a purpose for a time, but I agree that what may have started as a sincere desire to question presuppositions now has become a place where people are about name, career, money, ego, etc. just like every other established religious structure.

As she continues to read, we hear about Paul's incarceration and persecution, about how Jesus is «the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,» about watching out for all those false teachings that circulated through the trade routes, about how we ought to stop judging each other over differences of opinion regarding religious festivals and food (I blush a little at this point and resolved to make peace with some rather opinionated friends before the next sacred meal), about how we should clothe ourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, and love, about how we must forgive one another, about how the things that once separated Jew from Greek and slave from free are broken down at the foot of the cross, about how we should sing more hymns.

religious people such as the owner of this business are permitted to have their opinion on almost any topic; however doesn't make what they say true or acceptible in modern secular society.

ops sorry i meant Amniculi... blah blah blah about Poe's Law,, its hypocrisy!!!!!! talk trash about Christianity should be able to do the same about Islam, not encourging it just saying do nt be scare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do it will its not a felony yet, cause soon you wont be able too... Let me be clear, I meant express your opinions, comments about any religion as you do about Christianity, plus Im not religious, i just believe in jesus christ son of god and the word of the bible which is difference religion is made by people...

Clearly the Founders had minds of their own, as is evidenced by the subtle religious differences among Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe, who, contrary to popular opinion, were neither radical deists nor evangelical Christians.

On the other hand, Christians (or religious people in general) shouldn't be excluded from the political conversation either, as they would be if only agnostic opinions could count.

I think one can be an anti-theist if they perceive religious belief as inherently harmful to society and have no further agenda than that specific opinion.

You've got to give as much airtime to conservative views as liberal ones, equal time in debate to secular and religious views, the same column width to progressive and traditional opinion.

My opinion as far as the lack of contemporary evidence of Jesus is that at the time Jesus was not looked at by most of the religious people as a spiritual leader, but more as a threat to Judaism.

We come on this same experience in popular Hinduism (the proverbial «three hundred thousand gods of India»), in the folk religious of East Asia, in Taoism and Shinto, and even in what first strikes one as the cool secularity of Confucian philosophy (a first impression that in my opinion is somewhat mistaken).

In my opinion all religious figures whom we worship today as God / Son of God / Holy messenger / Incarnation etc were just very wise, maverick and rebels of their age who challenged the entrenched corrupt social practices of their time.

I think this notion that b / c some religious people are jerks and shove their religion down your face that its acceptable to be an atheist (which is in fact blind faith as well, do not confuse agnostic with atheism) jerk that wants to shove their opinion down your throat.

An August 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that nearly half of Tea Party supporters (46 %) had not heard of or did not have an opinion about «the conservative Christian movement sometimes known as the religious right»; 42 % said they agree with the conservative Christian movement and roughly one - in - ten (11 %) said they disagree (based on registered voters).

In my opinion, at least, as long as one is on the job, all peculiarly religious activities should take second place to doing «the job» in sweat, intelligence and the power of God.

The only way religious people are going to be convinced is for them to die and see for themselves — assuming that they will be able to do anything so complicated as form an opinion, perceive anything, or feel anything without a body and a brain for them to misuse.

Doctrine and Covenants 134:7 7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

n 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countrieAs the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countrieas it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countrieas the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

In its report, the State Department referenced USCIRF's opinion of Saudi Arabia: «Since 2004, Saudi Arabia has been designated as a «Country of Particular Concern»... for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.»

One historian summarized the point this way: «Religious freedom was clearly envisaged as the deliberate creation of a situation where every religious opinion and practice, having the right to free expression, would continually contend with all the others in order that error might be exposed to view and the truth be recognizeReligious freedom was clearly envisaged as the deliberate creation of a situation where every religious opinion and practice, having the right to free expression, would continually contend with all the others in order that error might be exposed to view and the truth be recognizereligious opinion and practice, having the right to free expression, would continually contend with all the others in order that error might be exposed to view and the truth be recognized.»

Most scholars praise Jackson for «widening» the reach of his opinion by converting the religious freedom claim into a free speech claim, and the decision is routinely treated as one of the strongest vindications of civil liberties in twentieth - century American law.

I have suggested elsewhere that value - free technology, the military - industrial complex, and narrow nationalism might be modern examples of such principalities and powers.9 Hendrikus Berkhof suggests that human traditions, astrology, fixed religious rules, clans, public opinion, race, class, state, and Volk are among the powers.10 Walter Wink sees the powers as the inner aspects of institutions, their «spirituality,» the inner spirit or driving force that animates, legitimates, and regulates their outward manifestations.11 They are «the invisible forces that determine human existence «12 When such things dehumanize human life, thwart and distort the human spirit, block God's gift of shalom, the followers of Jesus are rallied for a new kind of holy war.

But, in my biased opinion, it offers the most thorough and systematic way around these problems and encourages a form of Christianity that could make a positive contribution to working out the relationship among the religious communities of China as well as their relations to the prevailing secular society.

Furthermore, it must be firmly maintained as a principle both of justice and of religious freedom that opposition to governmental policies, based on sincerely held moral opinions, need not make a man a security risk.17

Origin in immediate intuition; origin in pontifical authority; origin in supernatural revelation, as by vision, hearing, or unaccountable impression; origin in direct possession by a higher spirit, expressing itself in prophecy and warning; origin in automatic utterance generally — these origins have been stock warrants for the truth of one opinion after another which we find represented in religious history.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen, — and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countrieAs the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen, — and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countrieas it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen, — and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countrieas the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Its persistence goes far to explain why, though institutional affiliation remains low, public - opinion surveys consistently show Americans as overwhelmingly affirming religious belief.

«As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.&raquAs the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.&raquas it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.&raquas the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.»

What really got under my skin was that Dobson played the «you don't take the Bible as seriously as I do» card on a guy who, in my opinion, takes it more seriously than most folks on the religious right.

«As several of the dissenting opinions pointed out, though, the majority opinion did not very strongly affirm the religious freedom of persons and organizations that for religious reasons believe in the historic conception of marriage,» said Carlson - Thies.

While I have political differences of opinion with both Obama and Romney, neither strikes me as a man who will drag his radical religious beliefs into the presidency because neither man brags about his radical religious beliefs.

If the religious people who feel that gay marriage is wrong understood that that opinion applies onto the themselves and not to people who believe differently then there would be little interest in what religious people of any description believed in (as an example).

Bill the Cat, as is typical for religious opinions, you're just making that up.

Civil rights do not depend on religious beliefs / opinions... legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.

That is not to say there shouldn't be Christian or other religious values present but it is to say that people shouldn't be conned and public opinion shouldn't be manipulated by claims of righteous values — as we have seen, it is just too easy to fake and sway people to support what may not be in their best interests based on having a cloak of religion.

«As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims], — and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.&raquAs the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims], — and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.&raquas it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims], — and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.&raquas the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.»

This was has so much hatred for a religious symbol that not only symbolizes Christianity but it is also a huge part of Italian culture that she would go as far as taking the matter to court... why is her opinion, her feelings more important than the opinion and feelings of the rest of the Italian population?

However, the world would be a much better place if religious people of all stripes would keep that opinion to themselves and not use it as a stick to beat gay people with.

The letter urges followers to frame this as a debate about religious freedom, not contraception, because it's a more effective way to sway public opinion.

Story says, «The letter urges followers to frame this as a debate about religious freedom, not contraception, because it's a more effective way to sway public opinion.»

Everyone has an opinion about birth control, but the issue isn't really about birth control as much as it is about the government trying to strip away our religious freedom.

«I am heartened by the clear, unequivocal condemnation of this disrespectful, disgraceful act that has come from American religious leaders of all faiths... as well as secular U.S. leaders and opinion makers,» she said.