This is governed in all of Europe by the EC Working Time Directive which (in
general, but there are opt outs) provides for a max. 13 hour day and two
days off in a 14 day reference period (base on principle on one day in
seven).
Although if an employer structured his shifts carefully it would
Thanks for this reply;
I am interest by the US principle that 'no rule' is established in
circumstances in which the conlcusion is similar. Mummery LJ held himself
bound, unless over-ruled by the Hof Lords and Rix LJ says Article 9 is engaged
but can't interfere (even though this means th
In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:01:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of
course, in recent times much religious strife is caused by excluding religious
people from equal access to the public square and from equal participation in
the benefits of the welfare state.
In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:47:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the regulatory state in which we live—one that requires
that parents who send their children to religious private school must pay for
both the school tuition as well as taxes to fund public sc
Title: Re: Establisment clause and oppressive taxation
Interesting suggestion. It would be a sort of anti-Blaine amendment. But that would imply that those that offered the Blaine amendment were suggesting what was unnecessary. However, if it was necessary, then the EC, and Paul’s Madisonian ta
I don't think that Rix LJ proposed that just because the employer has a
need its actions are inherently reasonable. I think what he said was
that because the employer had a need, the justification provisions of
Article 9 were engaged and required an offer of reasonable
accommodation (he also said,
fwiw here is the South African Constitutional provisions on freedom of religion and freedom of _expression_:15. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.(2) Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that
Sorry -- I hit "send" before I had finished pasting all of the sections I intended to -- here is the more complete version -- you can see the whole bill of rights athttp://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/constitution/saconst02.html?rebookmark=1#31On Aug 4, 2005, at 8:25 AM, Steven Jamar wrote:fwiw h
Paul,
First, forgive me for the length of this post.
Your view that the principles of the Memorial and Remonstrance prohibit neutral
aid programs may be right, but a couple of recent works on Madison's principles
of religious liberty conclude otherwise.
In a 2003 piece in the American P
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Re: Establisment clause and oppressive taxation
Given the regulatory state in which we live—one
that requires that parents who send their children to religious private
school must pay for both the school tuition as well as taxes to fund
public schools--it seems to
Bobby: I don't carry a brief for Roy Moore. I think this country is a religiously pluralistic country--not a Christian country, but also not a secular country. Thus, I believe that everyone should pay his or her fair share of taxes (including educational taxes) and everyone should receive his or he
On Aug 4, 2005, at 10:46 AM, Rick Duncan wrote: The doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Christ is a doctrine of love and forgiveness. It is not an intolerant doctrine. It is open to everyone. When people say that theirs is the only way and all others are damned to hell, that is not ex
Perhaps the central point of this dialogue is the silliness of using religious strife when evaluating constitutional provisions on religion. People disagree on school vouchers, the ten commandments, etc. The claim that one side of the disagreement is causing religious strife is implicitly based
In a message dated 8/4/2005 10:47:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Suppose you fell off a ship at sea and were drowning and I threw you
a lifeline. And you said, "I don't like this lifeline because it's orange
and I prefer yellow ones." And I said "it's the only
Steve Jamar wrote on 08/04/2005 10:04:08 AM:
> On Aug 4, 2005, at 10:46 AM, Rick Duncan wrote:
>
> > The doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Christ
is a
> > doctrine of love and forgiveness. It is not an intolerant doctrine.
> > It is open to everyone.
>
> When people say that th
Brad,I'm not generally very persuaded by "slippery slope" arguments. We always need to draw lines between what is ok and what is not. I am one who thinks the international norms of hate speech should be followed here and that we can draw the line sufficiently toward the really bad end of the s
If religious strife is the touchstone, then I wonder: What
causes more religious strife: Government bodies posting the Ten
Commandments, or courts ordering their removal?
Sure, you can say that even the latter strife is "caused" by the
initial posting -- but this just further ill
Is this a question of speech or a question of behavior?
Am I wrong in concluding that each person has a right to express their
religious beliefs, even if those beliefs include predictions or
convictions that all non-believers are doomed or that a particular
individual is destined to some undesirab
I agree with much of what Eugene says, but I think there are polar cases where the strife-inducing or strife-mitigating (over the short range or very long range) effect of a decision comes into play not as the determinative test, but as a consideration in an otherwise difficult or close question.
In a message dated 8/4/05 1:05:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the court says the majority religion must leave room for the minority to practice, then this can have another set of effects.
This sometimes ocurrs when a court treats a defunct (or virtually defunct) religio
Re Madison's view.
Madison clearly expressed his position relating to civil rights and of opposition
to use of tax (coerced) money for "teachers of the Christian religion" in
his 1785 "Memorial and Remonstrance," which he distributed just prior to
passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute of Relig
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as p
Title: Re: religiously-motivated political strife
Steve:
I think the real rub here is over what counts as “tolerance.” It seems to me that tolerance is only a virtue if you think the other guy is wrong, since one is not “tolerant” of what one agrees with or what one is apathetic toward. “Tol
off into semantic land . . . about the term "tolerance" . . . we have been here before . . .I would be delighted to see just the "benign neglect" or unthinking acceptance of others or even better, thoughtful acceptance of others and their beliefs, even if I think they are wrong. I would rather se
I'm a few hours behind on these postings, so apologies in
advance if this point has been made: Suppose that the inquiry
into strife is not a direct "touchstone," in the sense that asking
whether X causes religious strife is relevant to deciding whether X
is constitutional. Rather -- as I thin
I much appreciate Mark's point; but I wonder then at what level
of generality we accept (if we do accept) Justice Souter's historical
claim. For instance, it's not clear to me that genuinely evenhanded aid
programs have caused that much strife -- especially not along the lines
of the viole
Well, the central issue in the 19th-century Protestant-Catholic
battles was religious instruction in the schools and refusal to fund
private schools as an alternative. The Protestants said that Bible
reading was neutral and included everybody, just as Scalia says the Ten
Commandments are n
This is not the same as giving money to a synagogue or other religious
institution; a Jew can use food stamps for kosher food; and Hindu for
vegitarian food; a Moslem for Halal meat; but they should not be
allowed to give the stamps to their synagogue, temples, etc.
Rick Duncan wrote:
Or be
Title: Re: Establisment clause and oppressive taxation
What if the synagogue, temple, or mosque also distributes and sells religiously-prepared foods as does the local grocery stores, but some of the believers would rather purchase food with their stamps from those they trust to prepare the foo
29 matches
Mail list logo