This just means that the hours you spend doing religious work (ie going to church, leading worship, etc) can not be counted for pay by the government funded organizations. They just don’t recognize those hours as work, not that you can’t participate in religious things.
Great site this josiahgarber.com and I am really pleased to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor
We all dislike this idea, but why is this clause there? Why did they put it in? So that service is for the benefit of the public rather than a particular religious group?
Personally I don’t think its all that terrible. No-one is making us take those lones, we have a choice.
Yeah, it could be a good clause. I guess. Actually I am more concerned with the idea that those who work (are owned) for the government, will get some of their tax money back in the form of a subsidized loan and those who refuse will be treated differently.
I don’t think this bans church attendance, just doing work _for_ a church. Which is slightly different.
Let’s hope!
I updated this article a little to make it a little more accurate. Thanks Nathan.
This just means that the hours you spend doing religious work (ie going to church, leading worship, etc) can not be counted for pay by the government funded organizations. They just don’t recognize those hours as work, not that you can’t participate in religious things.
excellent point. I thought the wording was rather weird. Thanks for the comment.
Great site this josiahgarber.com and I am really pleased to see you have what I am actually looking for here and this this post is exactly what I am interested in. I shall be pleased to become a regular visitor
Incredible site!
Incredible site!
We all dislike this idea, but why is this clause there? Why did they put it in? So that service is for the benefit of the public rather than a particular religious group?
Personally I don’t think its all that terrible. No-one is making us take those lones, we have a choice.
Yeah, it could be a good clause. I guess. Actually I am more concerned with the idea that those who work (are owned) for the government, will get some of their tax money back in the form of a subsidized loan and those who refuse will be treated differently.