How did the Supreme Court rule in cases involving the free exercise clauses cases

The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Free exercise is the liberty of persons to reach, hold, practice and change beliefs freely according to the dictates of conscience. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits government interference with religious belief and, within limits, religious practice. To accept any creed or the practice of any form of worship can't be compelled by laws, because, as stated by the Supreme Court in Braunfeld v. Brown, the freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions is absolute. Federal or state legislation can't therefore make it a crime to hold any religious belief or opinion due to the Free Exercise Clause. Legislation by the United States or any constituent state of the United States which forces anyone to embrace any religious belief or to say or believe anything in conflict with his religious tenets is also barred by the Free Exercise Clause.

- "ethical issues. deception – the participants actually believed they were shocking a real person and were unaware the learner was a confederate of milgram's. however, milgram argued that “illusion is used when necessary in order to set the stage for the revelation of certain difficult-to-get-at-truths.” "

- "milgram's work was conducted in the early 1960s before the current.the studies ignited a debate about the ethical treatment of participants. what appear to be dangerous, if not deadly, electric shocks and the by today's ethical standards, many questions about the research have gone unanswered."

mali had been a state inside of the ghanaian empire. after ghana fell because of invading forces and internal disputes, mali rose to greatness under the leadership of a legendary king named sundiata, the "lion king." the songhai empire, already weakened by internal political struggles, went into decline.