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 the
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.
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
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Re: Establisment clause and oppressive taxation
Given the regulatory state in which we liveone
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
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:
Supposeyou fell off a ship at sea and were drowning and I threw you
a lifeline. And yousaid, "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 salvationby 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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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 think
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
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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
