Protecting Religious Freedom and Places of Worship - The example of the Eruv
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under Jewish religious law, on the sabbath one does no work. The prohibition on work extends to moving or carrying objects across a public space. To meet the needs of the observant, the rabbis developed the idea of the Eruv; a “fence” inside which Jews can carry on certain activities during Shabbat. That “fence” often can be a simple, continuous wire which marks out an area. But the wire often traverses (and is held up by) poles on public property, and consequently, the Eruv triggers important policy questions, such as (i) should public property be used to enable a minority faith community to observe their beliefs? and (ii) how are religious and secular citizens to live side-by-side in a way enabling each to pursue and enjoy their respective rights?\nThis article reviews the way in which these issues are addressed for Eruvs in the common-law world, giving examples from England, the United States, Canada and Australia. Too often, regulatory barriers are imposed selectively to hinder Jewish religious practice, even when visual amenity arguments fail. In jurisdictions other than the NSW Land and Environment Court, Eruv proponents have succeeded.\nThe recent long-running battle to establish an Eruv for the St Ives Jewish community exemplified how a local government can utilise legal mechanisms to prefer freedom from religion over freedom for religion. Eventually, Kuringai Council backed down, but only after state members of parliament and local Catholic and Anglican religious leaders spoke up for their Jewish brethren, and, regrettably, only after much public money had been spent to delay and hinder religious freedom for the small, local Jewish community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".