Search results

The violation of religious freedoms is a social justice issue because the loss of the ability to practice one’s faith is jeopardized. Culturally, one’s religious practices can be an extension of their ingroup identity. If one’s faith practices is an extension of their ingroup identity, respectfully, then just as one has the right to dress according to their cultural customs or linguistically share their native language, then too they have a right to practice their religion and or spiritual beliefs. If there is no harm that comes to others, the argument of injustice cannot stand.

The object of this research is the reconstruction of the existing legal response by European Union states to the phenomenon of immigration. It seeks to analyse the process of conferral of protection.

One main dimension is selected and discussed: the case law of the national courts. The study focuses on the legal status of immigrants resulting from the intervention of these national courts.

The research shows that although the courts have conferred an increasing protection on immigrants, this has not challenged the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the states to decide, according to their discretionary prerogatives, which immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in their territories. Notwithstanding the differences in the general constitutional and legal structures, the research also shows that the courts of the three countries considered – France, Germany and Spain – have progressively moved towards converging solutions in protecting immigrants.

The research contributes to a better understanding of the different legal orders analysed.

It is often believed that the type of religion that a group of people follow (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) can account for significant and important cultural differences, with implications for business ethics, corporate and social responsibility, and other business-related variables. The alternative view is that the cultural differences between religions are either trivial or are actually misinterpreted ethnic or national differences. The purpose of this paper is to compare and evaluate these two views.

The authors focus on Africa, the most religious region of the world, whose cultures should therefore be especially susceptible to the effect of religion. We used latest data from 100 religious groups, following 19 religions, and living in 27 countries, from the nationally representative Afrobarometer. The items in the authors’ analysis reveal cultural ideologies concerning key cultural domains, such as inclusive–exclusive society (gender equality, homophobia and xenophobia), the role of government and the role of religion in politics. These domains are related to cultural conservatism versus modernization and have clear implications for management. The authors compare the group-level effect of belonging to a certain nation to the effect of belonging to a certain religion.

A hierarchical cluster analysis produced crystal-clear national clusters, with only one of the 100 religious groups systematically clustering outside its respective national cluster. The authors did not obtain a single cross-national cluster of coreligionists. Variation between nations was far greater than between religious groups and the latter was most often statistically insignificant. A comparison of Muslims with other religions revealed that Muslims are not generally more conservative, although they do have a marginally greater tendency to be less gender egalitarian. The authors conclude that the African national environments have a much stronger impact on cultural differences than do religions. The effect of the latter, compared to the former, is negligibly small and often insignificant. Thus, they find no evidence that religions can produce a powerful discriminant effect on some of the most important elements of culture.

Non-Abrahamic religions are poorly represented in Africa. Therefore, we could not assess their effect on culture. Nevertheless, it seems that attempts to explain cultural differences in values and ideologies in terms of religious differences are misguided, even in a cultural environment where religion is very strong.

The findings could help improve executive training in cross-cultural awareness, purging it from erroneous views on the origins of cultural differences. Managers should avoid simplistic explanations of the values and ideologies of their employees in terms of their religious affiliation.

Simplistic (yet very popular) explanations of culture as a function of type of religion should be avoided in society at large, too. The idea that different religions generate different cultures is not only dubious from a scientific perspective but also socially dangerous as it may lead to religious intolerance.

This is only the second study in the history of the whole cross-cultural field that provides a multinational and multidenominational comparison of the effect of nations versus religious denominations on culture.

1. Religions are often portrayed as sources of important cultural differences.

2. We compared differences in cultural modernization between religions and between nations in Africa.

3. Variation between 27 African countries dwarfed that between 100 religious groups.

4. Practically all religious groups yielded perfectly homogeneous national clusters.

5. We did not observe a single cluster of coreligionists from different countries.

6. We conclude that nations have a strong effect on cultural differences whereas religions have a minimal effect at best.

Religions are often portrayed as sources of important cultural differences.

We compared differences in cultural modernization between religions and between nations in Africa.

Variation between 27 African countries dwarfed that between 100 religious groups.

Practically all religious groups yielded perfectly homogeneous national clusters.

We did not observe a single cluster of coreligionists from different countries.

We conclude that nations have a strong effect on cultural differences whereas religions have a minimal effect at best.

What does it mean in practice to claim a right? Does claiming a right add to the persuasive power of political demands? Does it clothe political demands with a moral urgency, setting such claims apart from the ordinary class of interests? In examining these questions, I suggest that in practice rights’ claims add little to political discourse. This is because Americans equate their policy preferences with rights. I find scant evidence for the belief that Americans have sufficient knowledge of rights to make them meaningful or that pronouncements of rights have persuasive power or imbue issues with heightened moral legitimacy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how managers deal with religious diversity in secular organizations in France.

In total, 28 semi-structured in-depth interviews with managers in France were conducted, transcribed and analyzed.

The findings reveal three distinct strategies. First, the authors identified a “flexibility within the rules” strategy in which managers try to accommodate religious practices by making allowances, create mutual understanding and trust. Second, a “separation strategy” emerged in which managers keep work and religion clearly separated. Those managers expressed a strong adherence to rules and perceived the implementation of allowances difficult not only for their own organization but also in light of third parties with whom they worked. Third, the findings reveal a “common-ground” strategy in which managers stressed the communalities between individual workers, downplayed their differences and sought to create a strong corporate culture to which all employees could relate.

The expression of religious beliefs in the workplace is increasing. However, little is known about how managers deal with the perceived clash of secularism and the presence of different religions in the workplace. Implications for managers such as taking into account perceptions of justice, practical issues as well as the importance of communication and education are discussed.

Religion is a deep-level and understudied aspect of diversity management that deserves more attention given the increase in religious diversity in the workplace.

This study seeks to investigate the availability of creationist and intelligent design (ID) books in UK public libraries, whether any materials held are obtained as a result of donation or purchase, and whether such materials, if available, are classified as religion or science.

A Freedom of Information Request (FOI) was sent to a subset of all the public library authorities in the UK. The FOI requests took the form of three queries/questions asked of the library service of each local authority. From a list of 218 library authorities, 68 were contacted either by email or by online contact form.

There was a relatively low level of reported donations of creationist and ID materials in UK public libraries. However, a high number of library authorities did have creationist and intelligent design materials on their catalogues via their own procurement mechanisms. There was no consistent nationwide pattern with regards to how these materials were classified and there was a wide geographic variation reported, with difficulties evidenced in whether to present creationist and intelligent design texts to the public as religious texts or science texts.

The paper presents results from a subset of local authorities in the UK, thus cannot claim to be anything more than indicative of the sample.

The paper suggests that library authorities may need to be more consistent in how they present controversial materials to users.

The paper is the first to examine the issue of creationist materials in UK public libraries and how they are processed.

Many laws have been derived from the religions' legislations and many of them do not have the capability of uniqueness and publicity, due to a variety of reasons, especially at the level of countries. However, the spirit of legislations is the same and unique in all religions and it is the Tariqah (Sufi path), Sufism, mysticism and ethical beliefs that have been stable and unchangeable for millenniums, and wisdom has accepted and accepts them in all times and locations. Thus, if the international public law is to be defined and designed upon the base of the unique religions' spirit, we will reach a unique law with most publicity. This paper aims to address these issues.

This paper explores the foundation of public international law from the theosophy approach of Islamic Sufism and mysticism.

By raising 38 principles, the paper proposes basic principles of important public international law subjects to prepare a backbone for recompilation of new law in this subject matter.

Comparative researches in other religions' Gnosticism will be helpful.

These principles can be used for applied debates in the field and become new international law.

Delicateness, truthfulness, and righteousness of Islamic Sufism may turn the attentions of scholars and researchers to this viewpoint, and a new set of laws to be codified.

Public international law scholars have not touched the topic from a Sufi viewpoint. This paper opens new challenging arena for those who are engaged in.

Introduces the US First Amendment before considering different freedoms we have and how they relate in the workplace. Uses specific cases to demonstrate what is currently happening with regards to First Amendment lawsuits. Offers recommendations to protect employers and prevent future disagreements and lawsuits. Covers freedom of religion, expression and speech.