Group items tagged

A Federal Judge had to temporary block on unattended displays in a Santa Monica Park. A group of atheists were protesting the displays of Nativity scenes that were a Christmas tradition of the city for the last 60 years.

It is pretty bad in this day and age when you purchase a house but you have a small group of people that tell you what you can and can't do to it. Where is the ownership in that? Since when should you have to ask your mother if you can put pavers down next to your driveway? Apparantely you have to when it comes to an HOA.

This article describes how the elderly's rights to autonomy dwindles with their age. Their rights to the simple things in life can be taken, especially if forced into a care facility where most of the time they are told what to eat and wear. Does this violate their rights?

This article outlines Freedom or Religion or Belief as established by the United Nations and its members. Discussed is the process and the outcomes of those discussion as well as the enforceability of the agreed upon principles.

A group of doctors and women's rights advocates challenged Arizona's new abortion limits in a federal lawsuit on Thursday, claiming that they violate the Constitution and pose a threat to women's health. The law, set to take effect on Aug.

A group of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents filed against removing illegals saying that listening to policies on what types of illegal immigrants should get priority for deportation could place them in violation of federal law.

Obama issued a memorandum rescinding the Mexico City Policy, also known as the "global gag rule," which President Ronald Reagan originally instituted in 1984, President Bill Clinton reversed in 1993 and President George W. Bush revived in 2001.

Washington, DC- Congressman Neugebauer issued the following statement after learning President Barack Obama signed an executive order ending the Mexico City policy, a ban on federal funds for international groups that perform abortions.

President Obama - the son of a single mother and the father of two daughters - understands that women aren't a special interest group. They are more than half of this country, and issues that affect women also affect families.

What does the future hold for us in health care? Many people such as myself and maybe you wonder if there should be a new health care plan or if we should stay with the old. This article talks about the health care issues from the perspective of two individuals, John Shadegg, and Mark McClellan. They speak on behalf of all groups of people. Very interesting article about how some cannot afford insurance.

A decent archive full of links on the different laws in regards to child abuse and child pornography. Provides a good break of the different groups to help you find what you are looking for faster.

An explanation of what freedom of religion means. It also provides some history about religion.

Alatavista (Original) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, defines freedom of religion and belief as follows: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. (Article 18) (Paraphrased) In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly clearly stated in Article 108 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: that every person has the right to their freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This extends to a community as well as the individual and encompasses practice, teaching, worship, and observance.

Explains why it is necessary to drug test welfare recipients. Some say it is not fair to target this group of people and other feel that tax payers pay for these benefits and it is not fair to them.

This article discusses whether or not welfare recipients should be drug tested. Both opposing opinions are mentioned in the article. Personally, I believe that it should be required and that the opposing opinion in the article did not give a very good argument.

this is a web document containing the US declaration of independance. this is a good example what a group of people should do when their personal freedoms are denied by a government.

In the last 10 years, it has become more acceptable and easier to adopt if you're a single man or openly gay or lesbian. Before attitudes began changing, though, that group of citizens were generally only able to adopt if they hid their sexual identity. While there are still a couple of states where it's illegal for gays or lesbians to adopt, including Florida and Virginia, most state laws now reflect the shift in social attitude and recognize an equal ability to provide a good home regardless of sexual orientation.

Despite how people feel about eugenics whether it be that it is morally wrong or unnecessary they United States will always be faced with this issue of how to regulate it. For many years people have tried to eugenics under wraps so nothing can be done with it, but as we all know there are loop holes and where there is a will there is a way, and people have found ways around them and thus gotten genetic engineering regulated. *Unfortunately the group who wrote it chose to not reveal an author sadly so hard for a bibliography.

The values and opintions of the public are being heard because of the bublic's understanding of the process deeded to form and evolve rules and regulation for the forest protection and management. The values of the special interest groups are not the same and the interest of the public with goods and serviced that are provided by forestland.

From the moment that I started attending school, we were taught the pledge of allegiance. I spoke those words everyday in class for 10 years...but now it is being questioned. Is it consistant with the seperation of church and state? Is it favoring a specific religous group? Amongst many other questions, there is one that I believe should be asked, does taking this small phrase out of the pledge violate our right to the freedom of speech? I think that they should allow students to say if they would like to, and others may stay silent or think of something else they would like to say. And I believe that no student should be penalized for saying it.