19:11
Nah, the fucked up thing about therapists is they try and make you think your parents are your enemy 99% of the time and really they should be telling you that your parents have almost no effect on the rest of your life. If they can get you to keep focusing on your parents they can keep making money.
Warning
Info
LSDefine
Simple English definitions for legal terms
Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
Read a random definition: autonomy
A quick definition of Van Orden v. Perry (2005):
Van Orden v. Perry was a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was about whether it was okay for the state of Texas to have a monument with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capital. The court decided that it was okay because the First Amendment doesn't always mean that the government can't show a preference for religion over not having a religion. The court also said that having religious content or promoting a message that is consistent with a religious belief is not against the First Amendment.
A more thorough explanation:
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capital. The case addressed whether this display violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that the display of the monument did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court reasoned that not all governmental preference for religion over irreligion is prohibited by the Establishment Clause. Additionally, the Court found that having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not necessarily violate the Establishment Clause.
For example, a public school may teach about the history of various religions without violating the Establishment Clause. However, a public school may not promote one religion over another or require students to participate in religious activities.
In the case of Van Orden v. Perry, the Court found that the display of the Ten Commandments monument did not promote one religion over another or require anyone to participate in religious activities. Therefore, the display did not violate the Establishment Clause.