Sentences with phrase «state establishments of religion»

Very few twenty - first - century Christians would welcome a return to state establishments of religion as the accepted norm.

In fact, the Blaine Amendments are among the clearest examples in the nation's history of a state establishment of religion — and the only reason they have not been recognized as such is that they establish a theologically liberal vision of religion.

Not exact matches

«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.»

The First Amendment states that our government shall NOT RESPECT the establishment of a religion.

That is why the founding fathers forbade the establishment of a state religion.

Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect «a wall of separation between church and State»... That wall must be kept high and impregnable.

Two non-Christian town residents — Susan Galloway (who is Jewish) and Linda Stephens (who is an atheist)-- objected, arguing that this practice violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which states, «Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of relEstablishment Clause, which states, «Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of relestablishment of religion.»

The «establishment of religion» clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.

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.»

The state exists neither for the establishment of religion nor for the elimination of religion but for the freedom of religion.

Strict «Separationists» have questioned the legality of this because they state that it violates United States Const.itution which forbids the government from passing any law respecting the establishment of a religion.

Ever since 1947, when the Supreme Court first applied the First Amendment's establishment clause to the states in Everson v. Board of Education, the court has held that government must be neutral on matters 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.

Under the establishment clause every person is also entitled to government that does not sponsor, support or inculcate one religion, religion in general or all religions collectively; that does not prefer one religion over another; that does not build up the real estate or the personnel of a religious institution or set up religious proprietaries not required to supply state - impaired religious access; and that does not compose, initiate or promulgate official prayers, rites or liturgies, or otherwise «play church.»

When the new United States ratified the Bill of Rights and so stipulated that «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,» it crowned a revolutionary reversal in Western politics.

Passage of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment («Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...») was one of the first effective exertions of political muscle by minority groups in the United States.

Due to what the First Amendment of the U.S. Consti - tution states, «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;» it shouldn't matter what their religion is.

wiki ~ The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofEstablishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofestablishment of religion....

«One of the good things God might bring out of this evil and this tragedy would be now some type of alliance between religion and the educational establishment in a major national campaign to see that this is faced head on,» said Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the top Catholic official in the United States.

The Supreme Court gave a boost to their conviction that secularism is a genuine competing faith in the ruling in the 1961 Torcaso case, in which «Secular Humanism» was identified as a religion, and in Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in the 1963 Schempp case, which referred to a refusal to permit religious exercises in schools as not «the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.»

Two Republican representatives in North Carolina filed a resolution Monday that would permit the state to declare Christianity its official religion and reject any federal laws or court rulings regarding how the state addresses the establishment of religion.

The free exercise of religion allows a religious community to democratically agitate for its legal establishment and for a confessional state.

This solidarity alone is the best form to counter the obscurantist communalism, a game played by the elite and the state and the religion of the establishment.

This rejectionism had, over time, crystallized — some would say, fossilized — into the view that the legal establishment of the Catholic Church as the official religion of the state was the desired arrangement (the «thesis,» in the theological jargon of the day), while other arrangements (like the American constitutional order) were mere «hypotheses» that could, under certain historical circumstances, be «tolerated» — even as Catholics in countries governed by the «hypothesis» worked for the day when the «thesis» of Catholic establishment could be....

Another reason to for Americans to embrace the political wisdom of our Founders in prohibiting the establishment of a civil religion, especially with the challenge of theocratic fundamentalism coming from many Red State Christians.

In some states a condition of de facto establishment of religion already exists.

SIMPLE «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;» The Governor of the State of Texas has used his position as Governor to OFFICIALLY PROSELYTIZE his religious beliefs.

I'm frankly amazed at the number of people who say that this is a Christian nation; from the first amendment to the Constitution: «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...» There is no official state religion.

Christian professors at state universities are afraid if they are too outspoken can be sued for «establishment of religion.»

The State can not finance secular instruction if it permits religion to be taught in the same classroom; but if it exacts a promise that religion not be so taught — a promise the school and its teachers are quite willing and on this record able to give — and enforces it, it is then entangled in the «no entanglement» aspect of the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence [Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 666, 668].

«Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State.»

In 1947, the Court ruled that the establishment clause must be applied against the states, and that no establishment means no «promotion» of religion.

The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.»

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State.

The strict separationists — those who condemn every financial or ceremonial link of government with religion — have succeeded in persuading the courts over the past half - century to dismantle or forbid any church - state association that might be viewed as an «establishment of religion.»

It's enumerated in its entirety in the First Amendment, which states (in part): «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.»

The main points of its platform include the complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967, recognition of the PLO, the separation of religion and state, the Palestinian «right of return» to Israeli territory, lobbying for workers» rights, encouraging Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, and full equality for Israel's Arab citizens.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides (among other things) that «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...»

The religion clauses of the First Amendment, coupled with the 14th Amendment's guaranty of ordered liberty, preclude both the nation and the states from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

A group of state taxpayers has challenged the programs, enacted by the state legislature in 1984 and 1985, as violating the clauses in the New York State and United States constitutions that bar government establishment of relistate taxpayers has challenged the programs, enacted by the state legislature in 1984 and 1985, as violating the clauses in the New York State and United States constitutions that bar government establishment of relistate legislature in 1984 and 1985, as violating the clauses in the New York State and United States constitutions that bar government establishment of reliState and United States constitutions that bar government establishment of religion.

The First Amendment does provide that «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof,» but this did not apply to the states (or to public schools as presumed organs of the state) for the first 150 years of the Union.

But the Court also unanimously adopted the language of Justice Hugo Black in the same case: «The clause [no establishment of religion] was intended to erect «a wall of separation» between church and state.»

A special public - school district set up to serve students with disabilities from a Hasidic Jewish village in New York State represents an unconstitutional government establishment of religion, a state judge has rState represents an unconstitutional government establishment of religion, a state judge has rstate judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. of Cleveland ruled Dec. 20 that the city's state - enacted voucher plan violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on a government establishment of religion.

The First Amendment's prohibition against governmental establishment of religion was written on the assumption that state aid to religion and religious schools generates discord, disharmony, hatred, and strife among our people, and that any government that supplies such aids is to that extent a tyranny....

A federal district court in Iowa held that a state tax deduction for school expenses, including private school tuition, does not violate the Establishment Clause because it is available to parents regardless of whether their child attends a public, private or religious school, neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not entangle the state with religion.

The Lansing School District refused the Pecks» request, stating that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution precluded its provision of those services at Our Savior Lutheran School, because provision of these services at a parochial school would constitute excessive entanglement of government and religion.

All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

Next few tweets will b controversial: Founder's thoughts on «No establishment of religion» applied to the National govt, not the states Apr 04, 2013

The Court of Appeal state at para 61 that the undercover officer did not compel any action for a religious purpose, because the Charter does not contain an establishment clause that would forbid state action promoting religion.