11

There is no such law in the US, although there many laws prohibiting specific forms of harm, for example laws against murder, theft, assault, arson. All laws are predicated on the idea that an illegal act causes harm, but I don't get to deem, for example, that you are harming society by opposing Satan. There are no laws prohibiting any belief in the US, and ...


7

The United States has two main (and perfectly legal) branches of Satanism: LaVeyan Satanism which dates to about the 1966, and the Satanic Temple founded in 2012. The Satanic Temple has Satanic images recognized in public holiday displays in several states (for example, Illinois and Florida). Satanism is fully protected by the First Amendment to the Bill of ...


7

Women are imprisoned on the grounds that they have confessed to engaging in pre-marital sex. If you're looking for the reason why this is the case even when they've been raped, it's because Islamic law, specifically, Sharia law, states that this is the punishment for engaging in pre-marital sex.


6

The relevant passage from the opinion in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) is: We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against ...


6

Yes: It is legal to deny someone a job as a priest because he is an atheist. Churches are allowed to discriminate in employment based upon religion. See, for example, the EEOC compliance manual. This says, in the pertinent part (citations included after the quoted material): C. Exceptions Religious Organizations Under Title VII, religious ...


4

As another answer has said, in the US people have a protected right under the federal First Amendment, to hold and practice what ever religious views they choose. This includes members of the Church of Satan, and it includes people who do in fact, worship the christian Devil. There is no such thing as "the counsil of the churches" if you refer to some ...


4

In Kuwait, Shari`a law only applies to family law for Muslim residents. However, if there were a hand-chopping penalty for theft, it would derive from Shari`ah. Article 31 of the constitution says "No person shall be subjected to torture or to ignominious treatment", which at least suggests that hand-chopping is not allowed. This also suggests that corporal ...


3

As far as I can tell, one can hold any beliefs or lack thereof, and there is no need to register your beliefs with the government per se. However, there are laws where religion is relevant, such as the Hindu personal laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or the Hindu Succession Act, such as stating who gets your stuff if you die intestate. These laws ...


3

In Saudi Arabia, it is legal to charge (and pay) interest. However, according to this source, a contract clause requiring interest is not enforceable. An interest clause is severable, so the contract is not at risk if interest is charged. This source indicates an exception, that the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority Banking Disputes Settlement Committee may ...


3

I'm just going to talk about the US. The First Amendment to the US Constitution codifies that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... What is clearly prohibited by this Amendment would be Congress (or any inferior legislature via the 14th Amendment) restricting the ability of ...


2

The Supreme Court usually goes to great pains not to describe any particular practice as a "religion" or "not a religion" if it can at all manage to do so. To do so could be seen as a government endorsement or sanctioning of a religion, or a repudiation thereof, and thus a violation of the establishment clause! That's why phrases such as "closely held ...


2

Typical, a judge can be informed in exercising discretion afforded by secular law by an overall religious worldview without infringing upon freedom of religion (e.g. in judging what sentence within a range should be imposed) but may not cite to religious sources as authority for that decision. Many countries, however, have an official religion which is ...


2

Under the Aadhaar Act 2016, Ch. II (3)(1) Every resident shall be entitled to obtain an Aadhaar number by submitting his demographic information and biometric information by undergoing the process of enrolment where biometric information is defined as photograph, finger print, Iris scan, or such other biological attributes of an individual ...


2

The constitutional protection afforded people in the United States for freedom of association is protection from interference by the government and its agents. Until the age of majority, or emancipation by a court of law, parents enjoy broad discretion over the activities of their children including with whom they can associate. Complexities do arise for ...


2

Assume this advice was otherwise UPL and assume the religious advisor is a bona fide religious advisor. As far as I'm aware, the only special treatment given to "bona fide religious advisors" under the law is that certain conversations may be privileged; that is, the parties to some conversations involving "bona fide religions advisors" can not be compelled ...


1

It would certainly be discriminatory if the government just monitored mosques. I am pretty sutr it would violate the right to freedom of worship. If they monitored all places of worship, they would be on stronger ground (but could still be challenged on the basis that they were violating freedom of worship). Note that this is not the forum to discuss ...


1

It is a bit complicated. 42 U.S. Code § 1996a was passed that excepted "use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian for bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion", and prohibits states from passing their own restrictions. This law was passed in response to Employment Division v. ...


1

"Unauthorized practice of law" is not as broad as you appear to assume. If you falsely claim to be a licensed attorney, or if you engage in activities reserved for licensed attorneys (representing a client in court as their attorney, for example), then you would be in trouble. You have a First Amendment right to express your opinion on what the right thing ...


1

College graduates are not a protected class, so discriminating based on that is ok. But the sentiment of referring Christians to employers is against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/coverage_employment_agencies.cfm So yes an employment agency for certain college grads is ok but discriminating based on religion in that agency in ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible