Diss.--Theologische Fakultät--Vallendar--Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule, 2001. / Bibliogr. p. 312-330.

No description available.

No description available.

In this paper, I defend Rawlsian Political Liberalism from the integrity objection. Integrity objectors claim that political liberals unjustifiably exclude certain religious citizens from making use of their religious values when voting upon basic principles of justice and constitutional essentials. I argue, first, that the integrity objection does not apply to political liberalism. Second, I claim that there is a place in the public, political culture for citizens to make use of their comprehensive values. Third, I argue that attempts to reformulate political liberalism to avoid the integrity objection are ultimately unsuccessful.

Refusing to participate in war does not only mean refusing to serve in the military. For many conscientious objectors, it means refusing to pay taxes that directly support the military industrial complex. Conscientious tax objectors risk many punishments by withholding tax money that supports war. Politico-social conflicts exist between a citizen's legal obligation to pay taxes and the personal obligation to her/his moral beliefs. My research suggests that the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act (RFPTFA) may be one transformative agent for this conflict. Through examination of relevant case law, statutes, conflict transformation literature, and interviews with conscientious tax objectors, my investigation concludes that members of the conscientious tax objector movement disagree on the merits of RFPTFA. My research suggests that until these various intermovement factions enter into consensus-building dialogue, conscientious tax objection will remain a mere symbolic method of pacifism rather than a powerful tool in the art of peacebuilding.

Tax administration sections have always formed part of the tax legislation in South Africa. South Africans have been warned for years of the introduction of separate legislation to govern the tax administration sections of all the applicable tax Acts. This became a reality with the introduction of the Tax Administration Act (TAAct) on 1 October 2012. This study will focus on the changes from the Income Tax Act to the Tax Administration Act in relation to assessments, objections, penalties and interest. All the different types of assessments have now been defined under the Tax Administration Act. We also see the introduction of a new type of assessment in the form of a jeopardy assessment. This type of assessment can be raised by a senior SARS official where the Commissioner is satisfied that the collection of taxes may be in jeopardy. The biggest change regarding objections is the change to the timeframe in which a taxpayer is allowed to lodge an objection. Under the Tax Administration Act, an objection has to be lodged within 30 business days after the date of the assessment and not within 30 business days after the due date as under the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, SARS will now be obliged to provide taxpayers with detailed reasons for assessments. The administrative non-compliance penalties that formed part of the Income Tax Act have now been combined under one chapter in the Tax Administration Act. The biggest change with regard to penalties can be seen in the movement from the additional tax penalty (old 200% penalties) to the new understatement penalty. Taxpayers will need to ensure that they are aware of the possible implications they may face under the Tax Administration Act. It has now become even more important for taxpayers to seek the advice of qualified tax practitioners when faced with complex tax matters. This will assist the taxpayer in preventing unwanted penalties being raised and would ensure compliance in respect of their tax affairs. / Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / lk2014 / Taxation / MA / Unrestricted

No description available.

Student Number : 0353470 - MA research report - School of Philosophy - Faculty of Humanities / The South African Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of 1996 is regarded as one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. It aims to uphold the rights of women as equal citizens, give effect to their rights to reproductive healthcare and redress past discriminatory legislation. Conscientious objection by healthcare providers to terminating pregnancies is also allowed in terms of the act. This research report considers the justification for the right of conscientious objection by the healthcare provider in the face of the conflicting claims of a pregnant woman seeking abortion. There are good reasons for a pregnant woman’s right to terminate pregnancy, just as they exist for the healthcare provider who objects, on grounds of conscience, to involvement in the process. I will attempt to balance these sets of rights, weigh priorities, and offer possible solutions. A focus on the unique value of each individual demands that each one be accorded dignity and respect. Thus ways of minimizing conflict are explored. Though compromise may be required, it is important that healthcare workers have the freedom to live their lives with integrity.

Cette thèse porte sur le rôle du compromis politique dans des conflits liés à la pluralité religieuse. Comment prendre une décision collective lorsque le désaccord touche aux convictions religieuses de certains groupes ? Le compromis est défini comme une procédure de prise de décision collective reposant sur des concessions réciproques. Nous en proposons une analyse conceptuelle ainsi qu’une défense de type procédural que nous illustrons par des cas précis de disputes mobilisant des acteurs religieux, en particulier les controverses françaises sur l’objection de conscience au service militaire et sur l’avortement. L’intérêt de réfléchir au compromis en relation avec la pluralité religieuse est l’antithèse supposée entre religion et compromis. Tandis que la politique est souvent décrite comme « l’art du compromis », le religieux est perçu comme le domaine de l’absolu et de l’intransigeance. Notre argument n’a pas pour objectif de confirmer cette assertion ou de l’infirmer : il ne s’agit pas de démontrer que les personnes religieuses sont plus ou moins conciliantes que leurs homologues séculiers. Nous soulignons, en revanche, la valeur procédurale du compromis notamment lors de disputes opposant des acteurs à religieux à une loi de l’État libéral et séculier. Si la politique est bien « l’art du compromis », elle ne se réduit pas au seul marchandage des intérêts. De même, si la religion touche au sacré et au non-négociable, la coexistence et la coopération dans une société plurielle ne se font pas sans concessions. / This dissertation deals with the role of political compromise in conflicts stemming from religious diversity. How can a collective decision be made when disagreement affects the religious convictions of some groups? Compromise is defined as a decision-making procedure based on reciprocal concessions. I propose a conceptual analysis and a procedural defense of compromise which I illustrate with cases of disputes that have mobilized religious actors, especially the French controversies on conscientious objection to military service and on abortion. Reflecting on compromise in relation to religious diversity is interesting because of the putative antithesis between religion and compromise. While politics is often described as the “art of compromise,” religion is perceived as the realm of the absolute and the intransigent. My argument is not intended to confirm or to invalidate this assertion. I do not demonstrate that religious people are more or less conciliatory than their secular counterparts. I emphasize, however, the procedural value of compromise particularly in disputes opposing religious actors and the law of the liberal and secular state. If politics is “the art of compromise,” it can not be reduced to a mere bargaining of interests. Similarly, if religion touches the sacred and the non-negotiable, coexistence and cooperation in a plural society are not achieved without concessions.

[Preface] " ... the focus of this inquiry is limited to some of the connections between conscientious objection in South Africa and the worship and imitation of Christ. More specifically, at the most general level this essay is an attempt to explore six questions: What kind of conscientious objection does South African law allow? Why are some conscientious objectors only conscientious noncombatants? Why are some Christians conscientious noncombatants? Is it appropriate to worship Christ? Does Romans 13 undermine conscientious noncompliance? And is there a prescription for servile compliance? These are, however, not the only questions which are raised in this essay. Nor are they the only questions which can and need to be asked. But they are the questions which interest me. In addition, they have not received as much attention as they deserve".