Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
(Session 19- Basel) Anyone who vexes or makes an issue out of property that a convert unjustly held but had given to the church, and which the church then put to pious use. (Session 2 -Ferrara) All who directly or indirectly attempt to molest people attending the Council receive an automatic excommunication reserved to the Holy See.
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: certain public-sector employees can have a property interest in their employment, per Constitutional Due Process. See Board of Regents v. Roth
Scientist Dr. Gregorio Chil y Naranjo was excommunicated in 1878 for his work on evolution in the Canary Islands entitled "Estudios historicos, climatologicos y patológicos de las Islas Canarias." The Bishop of Barcelona, José María de Urquinaona y Vidot, declared the work "false, impious, scandalous, and heretical" and excommunicated the ...
John Stamos has revealed that he was “kicked out” of the Church of Scientology for messing around too much during the auditing process.. The 61-year-old Full House star recalled how he almost ...
The 103-year-old believes the reason she was banned is because she spoke out about the church's pastor, Rev. Tim Maddox. "He told police he wanted to put us out, but the police told him 'you can't ...
California: Voice vote Compelling her congressional office staff to work for her 2010 election campaign and perform personal errands; also fined $10,000. [27] [28] 2020 David Schweikert: Republican: Arizona: Permitting his office to misuse taxpayer funds and various violations of campaign finance reporting requirements, federal law and House ...
Oct. 20—Noise complaints are not a big problem in Wilson County, according to the chief deputy at the sheriff's office, but more than half of the calls from last month originated from a single ...
In the 1964 case of Universal Life Church Inc. vs. United States of America, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the Court would not "praise or condemn a religion, however excellent or fanatical or preposterous it may seem," as "to do so . . . would impinge on the guarantees of the First Amendment . . ."