Question: What court was religion an important part
About the article "Forbidden City", section "Religion".

Candidate passages:
John Milton's religion was an important part of his life.
He wrote many of his works focusing on the nature of religion and of the divine. 
Religion was an important part of life for the imperial court.
In the Qing dynasty, the Palace of Earthly Harmony became a place of Manchu Shamanist ceremony.
At the same time, the native Chinese Taoist religion continued to have an important role throughout the Ming and Qing dynasties.
There were two Taoist shrines, one in the imperial garden and another in the central area of the Inner Court.
Another prevalent form of religion in the Qing dynasty palace was Buddhism.
A number of temples and shrines were scattered throughout the Inner Court, including that of Tibetan Buddhism or Lamaism.
Buddhist iconography also proliferated in the interior decorations of many buildings.
Of these, the Pavilion of the Rain of Flowers is one of the most important.
It housed a large number of Buddhist statues, icons, and mandalas, placed in ritualistic arrangements.
Ancient Religion.
The ancient Maya religion was an important religion in Copan (Honduras), between the fourth and seventh century AD. 
Justice David Souter wrote the opinion of the Court.
First, the Court reiterated its previous holding that the Commandments are "undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths” and that their display in public classrooms "violated the First Amendment’s bar against establishment of religion."
Next, the Court noted that the Lemon Test's "purpose prong" was rarely dispositive.
Nonetheless, it emphasized that that prong "serves an important function."
Indeed, anytime the government "acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion," or "to favor one religion over another," that advancement violates the Establishment Clause.
Although the counties asked the Court to overrule the Lemon Test and, necessarily, the inquiry into governmental purpose, the Court refused to do so.
The Court noted that, in several areas of the law, an inquiry into the government's purpose is an important endeavor.
The Court also stated that it was confident in the inquiry into purpose, because such inquiries had not yielded a finding of "a religious purpose dominant every time a case is filed.
"As to a second issue, whether the Court should consider the evolutionary purpose or the most recent purpose, the Court held that it should consider the evolutionary purpose of the display.
"But the world is not made brand new every morning, and the Counties are simply asking us to ignore perfectly probative evidence; they want an absentminded objective observer, not one presumed to be familiar with the history of the government's actions and competent to learn what history has to show.
"The Court, reviewing the lower court's ruling "de novo", upheld the lower courts' rulings, noting that a pastor was present to testify to the certainty of the existence of God at the dedication of one of the displays, the modified displays contained "theistic and Christian references," and there was a "religious purpose" in the final modification. 
The case involved an important issue of what standard of review should be used by a federal court in measuring the excessiveness of a jury verdict.
The standard typically applied by federal courts was that a verdict was excessive if it "shocked the conscience of the court."
New York had recently enacted legislation changing the standard as a part of a tort reform initiative, codifying in CPLR §5501(c) the standard that an award was excessive if it "deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation."
The question arose as to whether the standard was substantive or procedural, as the Erie Doctrine stipulated that the federal court should apply the substantive law of the state and federal procedural law.