Error Has No Rights Wikipedia
Contents |
when to remove these template messages) The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide hagia sophia became a symbol of the strength of constantine the great. view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the
During The 18th Century, Traditional Religion Competed In Large Part With:
issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (October 2012) (Learn how catholic church burning heretics and when to remove this template message) This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss
Made Final Push Against Granada
the issue on the talk page. (October 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article gives a historical overview of Christian positions on Persecution of Christians, persecutions by Christians, religious persecution and toleration. Christian theologians like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas had legitimized religious persecution to various extents, and during christians persecuting muslims the Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Christians considered heresy and dissent to be punishable offences. However, Early modern Europe witnessed the turning point in the history of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance. Christian writers like John Milton and John Locke argued for limited religious toleration, and later secular authors like Thomas Jefferson developed the concept of religious freedom. Christians nowadays generally accept that heresy and dissent are not punishable by a civil authority. Many Christians "look back on the centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension."[1] Contents 1 Historical background 2 Christian Roman doctrine in 4th and 5th century A.D. 2.1 The Augustinian consensus 2.2 The treatment of heretics 3 The Protestant theory of persecution 4 Protestant advocacy for toleration 4.1 The English Protestant 'Call for Toleration' 4.2 Developments in 17th-century England 5 In the United States 6 The mid-20th-century Spanish model 7 Modern Roman Catholic policy 8 See also 9 Literature 10 Notes 11 Fur
examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the
Persecution Of Pagans
issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (November 2013)
Virtual Representation Was The Idea
(Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this religious persecution in history article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) (Learn how and when to remove this template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance message) A harmless error is a ruling by a trial judge that, although mistaken, does not meet the burden for a losing party to reverse the original decision of the trier of fact on appeal, or to warrant a new trial. Harmless error is easiest to understand in an evidentiary context. Evidentiary errors are subject to harmless error analysis, under Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a) ("Error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmless_error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected."[1]) The general burden when arguing that evidence was improperly excluded or included is to show that the proper ruling by the trial judge may have, on the balance of probabilities, resulted in the opposite determination of fact. In the case of Earll v. State of Wyoming 2001 WY 66 29 P.3d 787, the Wyoming Supreme Court distinguished between reversible error (which requires a conviction be overturned) and harmless error (which does not), as follows: “ Before we hold that an error has affected an accused’s substantial right, thus requiring reversal of a conviction, we must conclude that, based on the entire record, a reasonable possibility exists that, in the absence of the error, the verdict might have been more favorable to the accused. Jones v. State, 735 P.2d 699, 703 (Wyo. 1987). ” In the evidentiary context, a harmless error is usually one where the evidence had no relevance to the issues to be decided by the trier of fact, evidence admitted actually helped the party seeking the reversal, or the remaining evidence was overwhelmingly against the
by introducing more precise citations. (May 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court (or some other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_review appellate tribunal) in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower court's decision. A high standard of review means that deference is accorded to the decision under review, so that it will not be disturbed just because the error has reviewing court might have decided the matter differently; it will be varied only if the higher court considers the decision to have obvious error. The standard of review may be set by statute, rule or precedent. In the United States, "standard of review" also has a separate meaning concerning the level of deference the judiciary gives to Congress when ruling on the constitutionality of legislation. Contents 1 United States 1.1 error has no Questions of fact 1.1.1 Arbitrary and capricious 1.1.2 Substantial evidence 1.1.3 Clearly erroneous 1.2 Questions of law 1.2.1 De novo 1.2.2 Chevron 1.2.3 Skidmore 1.3 Mixed questions of law and fact 1.4 Questions of trial oversight 1.4.1 Abuse of discretion 1.5 Questions of constitutionality 1.5.1 Rational basis 1.5.2 Intermediate scrutiny 1.5.3 Strict scrutiny 2 Canada 3 See also 4 References 5 External links United States[edit] Main article: Appellate review In the United States, the term "standard of review" has several different meanings in different contexts and thus there are several standards of review on appeal used in federal courts depending on the nature of the question being appealed and the body that made the decision. Questions of fact[edit] Arbitrary and capricious[edit] In administrative law, a government agency's resolution of a question of fact, when decided pursuant to an informal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), is reviewed on the arbitrary and capricious standard. Arbitrary and capricious is a legal ruling wherein an appellate court determines that a previous ruling is invalid because it was made on unreasonable grounds or without any proper consideration of circumstances. This is an extremely deferential standard. Substantial evidence[edit] A finding of fact made by a jury or an administrative a
is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."[1][2] This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, but had been defended before that, existing already in medieval theology and being the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation.[3] According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium." In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. The doctrine of infallibility relies on one of the cornerstones of Catholic dogma: that of petrine supremacy of the pope, and his authority as the ruling agent who decides what is accepted as formal beliefs in the Roman Catholic Church.[4] The use of this power is referred to as speaking ex cathedra.[5] The solemn declaration of papal infallibility by Vatican I took place on 18 July 1870. Since that time, the clearest example of an ex cathedra decree (not the only such decree)[6] took place in 1950, when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith.[7] Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, there were other ex cathedra decrees, for exam