✦ LIBER ✦

Debate: What is so Special About Religion? The Dilemma of the Religious Exemption

✍ Scribed by Sonu Bedi

Book ID: 111029179
Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
Year: 2007
Tongue: English
Weight: 79 KB
Volume: 15
Category: Article
ISSN: 0963-8016
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00269.x

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES

What's So “Special” About Airport Author

What's So “Special” About Airport Authorities? Assessing the Administrative Structure of U.S. Airports

✍ Hunter Bacot; Jack Christine 📂 Article 📅 2006 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 134 KB

Science's twin taboos. Is it premature t

Science's twin taboos. Is it premature to declare that the debates about the role of religion and race in science are closed?

✍ Fuller, Steve 📂 Article 📅 2008 🏛 Nature Publishing Group 🌐 English ⚖ 214 KB

What is Wrong with “Ethics for Sale”? An

What is Wrong with “Ethics for Sale”? An Analysis of the Many Issues that Complicate the Debate about Conflicts of Interests in Bioethics

✍ David N. Sontag 📂 Article 📅 2007 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 149 KB

Theoretical issues in the sociology of c

Theoretical issues in the sociology of contemporary jewries: comments on “what is conceptually special about a sociology of jewry”

✍ Calvin Goldscheider 📂 Article 📅 1987 🏛 Springer-Verlag 🌐 English ⚖ 612 KB

It has been suggested that the practice

It has been suggested that the practice of veterinary science in Australia is over regulated. Do you agree? If so, what should be done about it?

📂 Article 📅 1997 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 308 KB

Ann. Pure Appl. Logic: Erratum to “What'

Ann. Pure Appl. Logic: Erratum to “What's so special about Kruskal's theorem and the ordinal Γ0? A survey of some results in proof theory” [53 (1991) 199–260]

✍ Jean H. Gallier 📂 Article 📅 1997 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 77 KB

Gopalan Nadathur has pointed out that there is a gap in the proof of Theorem 4.5, pp. 2077208. Specifically, there is a gap in the proof of the claim that 5 is a WC~~> on 9 (line 11 of p. 208). The problem is that even though tk 3 t,. the proof does not ensure that k < 11 (line 16 of p. 208). Howeve