Thesis (D. Min.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 243-246).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Ashland Theological Seminary, 2008. / Abstract . Description based on microfiche version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 132-143).

Upset with what they say is the increasingly heterodox stance the national leadership of The Episcopal Church, Episcopalians in Texas and throughout the country are leaving their denomination and aligning under Anglican bishops. In a last-grasp effort to hold on to property and assert control over an often dissident flock, the leadership of The Episcopal Church is arguing Canon law in the unlikeliest of places: the secular courtroom. As parishes and even whole dioceses country break free of the hierarchy and declare themselves independent from the national church, two lawsuits in Texas are raising the stakes and asking the government not just to intervene in land disputes, but to go further and determine the organizational structure of the faith. / text

No description available.

This thesis will critically examine some of the central issues that revolve around the understanding and defense of negative liberty that Isaiah Berlin presented in his famous lecture Two Concepts of Liberty. By taking into consideration a variety of positions we shall observe that theories of negative liberty are not only based on a set of institutional preconditions but also necessitate some idea concerning our ends and our identities in order for us to discriminate between alternative spaces of non-interference. Such a position seems to infer that any concept of liberty must contain both positive and negative dimensions - it must be both an opportunity concept and an exercise concept. In this sense, this thesis presents an attempt to overcome the impasse between positive and negative liberty. Voiced in another fashion, the thesis presents an effort to resolve the dilemma articulated close to two hundred years ago by Benjamin Constant: how do we bring the liberty of the ancients and that of the moderns together?

The problem of any political system is that the principles which underlie and characterize it might also, through their application, endanger it and bring about its destruction. Democracy is no exception. Moreover, because democracy is a relatively young phenomenon, it lacks experience in dealing with pitfalls involved in the working of the system. This is what I call the "catch" of democracy. The primary aims of this research are (1) to formulate percepts and mechanisms designed to prescribe boundaries to liberty and tolerance conducive to safeguard democracy; and (2) in the light of the theory to analyze a case of a democratic selfdefence. Hence, I employ the formulated philosophical principles to the study of the Israeli democracy, evaluating the political and legal measures to which it resorted in its struggle against Kahanism. In the first part of the thesis I examine two of the main arguments which are commonly offered as answers to the question: 'why tolerate?' The first is the 'Respect for Others Argument', and the second is the 'Argument from Truth'. I introduce some qualifications to these arguments, asserting that our primary obligation should be given to the first, and that in case of conflict between the two principles, this former principle should have preference over the latter. Through the review of the Millian theory and some more recent theories I try to prescribe confines to liberty. With regard to freedom of expression, I state two arguments: the first under the Harm Principle, and the second under the Offence Principle. Under the Harm Principle I argue that restrictions on liberty may be prescribed when there are sheer threats of immediate violence against some individuals or groups. Under the Offence Principle I explicate that expressions which intend to inflict psychological offence are morally on a par with physical harm and therefore there are grounds for abridging them. In this connection, I review the Illinois Supreme Court decision, which permitted the Nazis to hold a demonstration in Skokie. Moving from theory to practice, in the second part I apply the theory and the conclusions reached to the Israeli democracy, observing its struggle against the Kahanist phenomenon as it has been developed through the last two decades, and increasingly following the election of Meir Kahane to the Knesset in 1984. I examine the mechanisms applied in this anti-'Kach' (Kahane's party) campaign, the justifications given for the limitations that were set, and how justified they were, according to the formulated philosophical and legal guidelines.

Public health law is in the midst of a crisis of public confidence, which, this paper contends, has resulted from the lack of a thorough normative framework to ground public health law. This paper attempts to fill this gap by articulating a normative framework for public health law, situating it within a rule of law tradition in a limited, democratic state. This paper proceeds in three parts: it begins with a descriptive analysis of public health law; it examines the normative theories of rule of law and liberty; and, it examines public health law in light of the normative theories. This paper concludes that public health law, conceived as government interference, is consistent with rule of law and liberty and that rule of law and liberty help provide public health law with a normative framework.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Canterbury, 2007. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (p. 89-90). Also available via the World Wide Web.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--York University, 2006. Graduate Programme in Social and Political Thought. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 268-276). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:NR19854

Univ., Diss.--Toronto.