About: Peters vs. The Throne, 02-1942 CC   Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

Appeal from the Supreme Court. Peters, an Atheist, argued that the Constitution of 1913 went against the principals set out in the Assembly Pact, which was the Constitution's origin and predecessor, by declaring a state religion. The Pact stated that the Constitutional Assembly must draft a constitution which upholds the values of equality and tolerance. By declaring a state religion which will be enforced, Peters argued, the equality of Atheists and non-Christians will be violated, and thus thereby the Constitution does not tolerate opposing beliefs. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, stating that the Constitution had passed the Grand Assembly and thus voided the Assembly Pact, regardless of what the Pact envisioned. Peters appealed. The Constitutional Court recognized the validity of

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • Peters vs. The Throne, 02-1942 CC
rdfs:comment
  • Appeal from the Supreme Court. Peters, an Atheist, argued that the Constitution of 1913 went against the principals set out in the Assembly Pact, which was the Constitution's origin and predecessor, by declaring a state religion. The Pact stated that the Constitutional Assembly must draft a constitution which upholds the values of equality and tolerance. By declaring a state religion which will be enforced, Peters argued, the equality of Atheists and non-Christians will be violated, and thus thereby the Constitution does not tolerate opposing beliefs. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, stating that the Constitution had passed the Grand Assembly and thus voided the Assembly Pact, regardless of what the Pact envisioned. Peters appealed. The Constitutional Court recognized the validity of
dcterms:subject
abstract
  • Appeal from the Supreme Court. Peters, an Atheist, argued that the Constitution of 1913 went against the principals set out in the Assembly Pact, which was the Constitution's origin and predecessor, by declaring a state religion. The Pact stated that the Constitutional Assembly must draft a constitution which upholds the values of equality and tolerance. By declaring a state religion which will be enforced, Peters argued, the equality of Atheists and non-Christians will be violated, and thus thereby the Constitution does not tolerate opposing beliefs. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, stating that the Constitution had passed the Grand Assembly and thus voided the Assembly Pact, regardless of what the Pact envisioned. Peters appealed. The Constitutional Court recognized the validity of the Supreme Court's decision, however, stated that equality and tolerance are a part of the Christian religion regardless, thus the Constitution itself is in fact Constitutional. This decision is, even today, widely controversial.
Alternative Linked Data Views: ODE     Raw Data in: CXML | CSV | RDF ( N-Triples N3/Turtle JSON XML ) | OData ( Atom JSON ) | Microdata ( JSON HTML) | JSON-LD    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software