Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), was an opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a state university might, consistent with the First Amendment, withhold from student religious publications funding provided to similar secular student publications.
The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was drafted in 1777 by Thomas Jefferson in Fredericksburg, Virginia, and introduced into the Virginia General Assembly in Richmond in 1779. [1] On January 16, 1786, the Assembly enacted the statute into the state's law.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits states and the federal government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in this case as a notary public.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), a case that had established a constitutional right to abortion; abortion access is now controlled by state legislatures. ADF lawyers did not represent parties in this case, but they wrote a model law that Mississippi's legislature enacted, and the Supreme Court upheld ...
In various counties, school choice and school vouchers have been put forward as solutions to accommodate variety in beliefs and freedom of religion, by allowing individual school boards to choose between a secular, religious or multi-faith vocation, and allowing parents free choice among these schools. Critics of American voucher programs claim ...
A West Virginia school district has passed a policy mandating annual religious freedom training as part of a lawsuit settlement after an evangelical preacher held a revival assembly during the ...
Religious practice may also conflict with secular law, creating debates on religious freedom. For instance, even though polygamy is permitted in Islam, it is prohibited in secular law in many countries. This raises the question of whether prohibiting the practice infringes on the beliefs of certain Muslims.
Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Smith set the precedent [10] "that laws affecting certain religious practices do not violate the right to free exercise of religion as long as the laws are neutral, generally applicable, and not motivated by animus to ...