text:
Archives|A Church-State Solution
A Church-State Solution
By NOAH FELDMAN JULY 3, 2005
I. THE EXPERIMENT For roughly 1,400 years, from the time the Roman Empire became Christian to the American Revolution, the question of church and state in the West always began with a simple assumption: the official religion of the state was the religion of its ruler. Sometimes the king fought the church for control of religious institutions; other times, the church claimed power over the state by asserting religious authority over the sovereign himself. But the central idea, formally enshrined at Westphalia in 1648 by the treaty that ended the wars of religion in Europe, was that each region would have its own religion, namely that of the sovereign. The rulers, meanwhile, manipulated religion to serve their own ends. Writing just before the American Revolution, the British historian Edward Gibbon opined that the people believed, the philosophers doubted and the magistrates exploited. Gibbon's nominal subject was ancient Rome, but his readers understood that he was talking about their world too.
All this changed with the radical idea, introduced during the American Revolution, that the people were sovereign. This arrangement profoundly disturbed the old model of church and state. To begin with, America was religiously diverse: how could the state establish the religion of the sovereign when the sovereign people in America belonged to many faiths -- Congregationalist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Quaker? Furthermore, the sovereign people would actively believe in religion instead of cynically manipulating it, and elite skeptics would no longer be whispering in the ears of power. Religion would be a genuinely popular, even thriving, political force.
This model called for a new understanding of church and state, and the framers of the American Constitution rose to the occasion. They designed a national government that, for the first time in Western history, had no established religion at all. The Articles of Confederation, which were drawn up during the Revolutionary War, had been silent on religion -- itself something of an innovation. But the Constitution went further by prohibiting any religious test for holding office. And the first words of the First Amendment stated that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If the people were to be sovereign, and belonged to different religions, the state religion would be no religion at all. Otherwise, the reasoning went, too many religious denominations would be in competition to make theirs the official choice, and none could prevail without coercing dissenters to support a church other than their own -- a violation of the liberty of conscience that Americans had come to believe was a God-given right. Establishment of religion at the national level was prohibited. Religious diversity had ensured it. The experiment had begun.
II. OUR PRESENT PREDICAMENT During the two and a quarter centuries since America's founding, the experiment has progressed fitfully. The nonestablishment of religion, with a simultaneous guarantee of its free exercise, was an elegant solution but not a complete one. Generation after generation, fresh infusions of religious diversity into American life have brought with them original ideas about church and state -- new answers to the challenge of preserving the unity of the sovereign people in the face of their flourishing spiritual variety and often conflicting religious needs.
Consider the influx of Catholic immigrants that followed the Irish potato famine in the 1840's. In the overwhelmingly Protestant world of the framers' America, there was a common belief that taxation for religious purposes violated religious liberty. As a result, when public schools were invented a few decades later, they featured only "nonsectarian" Bible reading and prayer. But Catholic immigrants soon protested that the schools' nonsectarianism -- in which the Protestant King James Bible was free to be interpreted by the individual student but not by the teacher (let alone a priest) -- was in fact sectarian Protestantism in disguise. The unsuccessful struggle of Catholic immigrants to have their own schools publicly financed or, failing that, to take the King James Bible out of the public schools, generated half a century of vituperative and sometimes deadly struggle.
In our own era, two camps dominate the church-state debate in American life, corresponding to what are now the two most prominent approaches to the proper relation of religion and government. One school of thought contends that the right answers to questions of government policy must come from the wisdom of religious tradition. You might call those who insist on the direct relevance of religious values to political life "values evangelicals." Not every values evangelical is, technically speaking, an evangelical or a born-again Christian, although many are. Values evangelicals include Jews, Catholics, Muslims and even people who do not focus on a particular religious tradition but care primarily about identifying traditional moral values that can in theory be shared by everyone.
What all values evangelicals have in common is the goal of evangelizing for values: promoting a strong set of ideas about the best way to live your life and urging the government to adopt those values and encourage them wherever possible. To them, the best way to hold the United States together as a nation, not just a country, is for us to know what values we really hold and to stand up for them. As Ralph Reed recently told an audience at Harvard, "While we are sometimes divided on issues, there remains a broad national consensus on core values and principles."
On the other side of the debate are those who see religion as a matter of personal belief and choice largely irrelevant to government and who are concerned that values derived from religion will divide us, not unite us. You might call those who hold this view "legal secularists," not because they are necessarily strongly secular in their personal worldviews -- though many are -- but because they argue that government should be secular and that the laws should make it so. To the legal secularists, full citizenship means fully sharing in the legal and political commitments of the nation. If the nation defines itself in terms of values drawn from religion, they worry, then it will inevitably tend to adopt the religious values of the majority, excluding religious minorities and nonreligious people from full citizenship.
Despite the differences, each approach, values evangelicalism and legal secularism, is trying to come to terms with the same fundamental tension in American life. The United States has always been home to striking religious diversity -- diversity that has by fits and starts expanded over the last 230 years. At the same time, we strive to be a nation with a common identity and a common project. Religious division threatens that unity, as we can see today more clearly than at any time in a century in the disputes over stem-cell research, same-sex marriage and end-of-life issues. Yet almost all Americans want to make sure that we do not let our religious diversity pull us apart. Values evangelicals say that the solution lies in finding and embracing traditional values we can all share and without which we will never hold together. Legal secularists counter that we can maintain our national unity only if we treat religion as a personal, private matter, separate from concerns of citizenship. The goal of reconciling national unity and religious diversity is the same, but the methods for doing it are deeply opposed.
Yet neither legal secularism nor values evangelicalism has lived up to its own aspirations. Each promises inclusion, but neither has delivered. To make matters worse, the conflict between these two approaches is becoming a political and constitutional crisis all its own. Talk of secession of blue states from red in the aftermath of the 2004 election was not meant seriously; but this kind of dark musing, with its implicit reference to the Civil War, is also not coincidental. It bespeaks a division deeper than any other in our public life, a division that cannot be healed by the victory of either side.
III. CLOSING THE RIFT The split between legal secularism and values evangelicalism was not born in a day. Legal secularism arose in the post-World War II era, reflecting a growing concern about the need to protect religious minorities, especially newly visible Jews who were arguably excluded by public displays of Christian religion like crèches or recitations of the Lord's Prayer. But instead of attacking religion directly, as some antireligious secularists did earlier in the century with little success, organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union argued more narrowly that government ought to be secular in word, deed and intent. In 1971, in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court made this position law, requiring all government decisions to be motivated by a secular purpose, to have primarily secular effects and not to entangle the state with religious institutions. This new standard -- known thereafter as the "Lemon test" -- did much more than simply reaffirm a deeply rooted American norm of no government money for religion; it prohibited school prayer and Bible reading, which had been practiced in the public schools since their founding, and in many instances it removed Christmas decorations from the public square. The framers had neither known nor used the category "secular" as we understand it, but the court made secularism an official condition of all acceptable government conduct.
In many quarters of religious America, there was outrage at this court-mandated secularism, which to many believers soon came to seem of a piece with the Supreme Court's 1973 guarantee of abortion rights in Roe v. Wade. By 1980, the televangelist Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, the political organization he founded, succeeded in mobilizing this frustration to help elect Ronald Reagan president. In time, Reagan's judicial nominees began to roll back the advances of legal secularism by allowing the government to pay for religious education and other activities via vouchers or other neutral and generally available government programs. In a particularly ingenious twist, evangelicals won these cases by depicting themselves as a minority subject to discrimination by secularists who wanted to deny them government support.
But the values evangelicals did not succeed entirely in reversing the Supreme Court's embrace of legal secularism. Throughout the 90's, in a series of 5-4 decisions in which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor provided the swing vote, the Supreme Court refused to permit the government to take any symbolic action that might be seen to "endorse" religion, thus preserving and even expanding the ban on school prayer. The other eight justices on the Rehnquist Court held that government financing and state-sponsored religious symbolism should be treated the same way: either both were permissible or both weren't. But since those justices were split 4-4 on whether to allow more of each or less of both, O'Connor's compromise -- allowing some government financing of religion but no government endorsement of religious symbols -- has been the law of the land for the last two decades.
The resulting doctrine has been the cause of the major church-state controversies of recent years. In 2004, for instance, when a California man named Michael Newdow pressed the court to find that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance impermissibly endorsed religion, the court ducked the issue. The more liberal justices seemed afraid to rule the pledge unconstitutional yet were unwilling to embrace the view (advanced awkwardly by O'Connor, given her usual opposition to endorsing religious symbols) that there is no endorsement when the religious symbol is longstanding and common.
During the same Supreme Court term, a young man named Joshua Davey asked the court to require the state of Washington to let him use his public scholarship money to pay for his studies as a theology major at an evangelical college. But the court, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, refused to overturn the state's policy against paying for religious courses of study, even though Davey was as much the victim of "discrimination" as were earlier evangelical plaintiffs whom the court had granted access to government money to pay for their student publications. In essence, the court, divided itself and uneasy about O'Connor's fence-sitting, is unwilling or unable to take a unified stand on what the Constitution really means when it comes to the relation between religion and government. It will be surprising if the Ten Commandments cases just decided by the court bring to an end the judicial wrangling over the church-state question.
The O'Connor compromise between values evangelicalism and legal secularism may be unsatisfactory, but the truth is that neither approach deserves to prevail. Both are self-contradictory: they fail precisely where they want to succeed, namely in reconciling religious diversity with unity. The values evangelicals want to find shared values, but that leads them to rely on the unexamined assumption that deep down, Americans agree on what matters. The trouble is that "we" often do not agree. The Ten Commandments may appeal to Jews and Christians, but to Muslims, they are an imperfect revelation superseded by the Koran, and Buddhists and Hindus find no appeal in the Commandments' self-attribution to the single God who took the Children of Israel out of Egypt.
Even a joint commitment to "the culture of life" turns out to be very thin. Catholics and conservative Protestants may agree broadly on abortion and euthanasia; but what about capital punishment, which Pope John Paul II condemned as an immoral usurpation of God's authority to determine life and death but which many evangelical Christians support as biblically mandated? To reach consensus, the values evangelicals have to water down the "values" they say they accept to the point where they would mean nothing at all. They are left either acknowledging disagreement about values or else falling into a kind of relativism (I'm O.K., you're O.K.) that is inconsistent with the very goal of standing for something rather than nothing.
Meanwhile, the legal secularists have a different problem. They claim that separating religion from government is necessary to ensure full inclusion of all citizens. The problem is that many citizens -- values evangelicals among them -- feel excluded by precisely this principle of keeping religion private. Keeping nondenominational prayer out of the public schools may protect religious minorities who might feel excluded; but it also sends a message of exclusion to those who believe such prayer would signal commitment to shared values. Increasingly, the symbolism of removing religion from the public sphere is experienced by values evangelicals as excluding them, no matter how much the legal secularists tell them that is not the intent. Despite the gravity of the problem, I believe there is an answer. Put simply, it is this: offer greater latitude for religious speech and symbols in public debate, but also impose a stricter ban on state financing of religious institutions and activities. This approach, the mirror image of O'Connor's compromise, is drawn from the framers' vision and the historical experience of separating church and state in America. The framers might well have been mystified by courthouse statues depicting the Ten Commandments, but they would not have objected unless the monuments were built with public money. Having made a revolution over unfair taxation, they thought of government support in terms of dollars spent, not abstract symbols.
From this logic, it follows that a moment of silence to begin the school day should not be invalidated just because it is intended to let children pray if they wish. Though it will never be easy to determine when schoolchildren are being coerced by peer pressure, at least some older students at optional events like a Friday-night football game surely are not being forced to pray when others are doing so voluntarily. Intelligent-design theory, itself a product of the ill-advised demand that religion disguise itself in secular garb, should be opposed on the educational ground that it is poor science, not on the constitutional reasoning, which some secularists have advanced, that it is a cover for religious creationism. If its advocates can persuade a local school board to put it in the curriculum, the courts need not strike it down as an establishment of religion. On the other hand, charitable choice, which permits billions of dollars in federal money to support faith-based organizations, should not be a vehicle for allowing government to pay for programs that treat alcoholics by counseling them to accept Christ. Schools that teach that Shariah (or Jewish rabbinic law or canon law) is the ultimate source of values should not be supported by tuition vouchers.
Such a solution would both recognize religious values and respect the institutional separation of religion and government as an American value in its own right. This would mean abandoning the political argument that religion has no place in the public sphere while simultaneously insisting that government must go to great lengths to dissociate itself from supporting religious institutions. It would mean acknowledging a substantial difference between allowing religious symbols and speech in public places (so long as there is no public money involved) and spending resources to sustain religious entities like churches, mosques and temples. Public religious symbolism expressed in statues, oaths and prayers reflects citizens' desires to see their deeply held beliefs expressed in those public situations where moral commitments are relevant: legislatures, schools and, yes, courthouses and statehouses. Religious proclamations or prayers may open sessions of Congress without costing anyone a dime.
But government money, even when nominally available equally to all, inevitably creates political competition between religious groups over how and where scarce money will be spent. Zero-sum appropriations drive zero-sum politics. A tuition voucher is never priced out of thin air: its amount is set by a political process that favors some schools (for example, Catholic schools that already have infrastructures and support from a centralized church) at the expense of others.
In the courts, the arrangement that I'm proposing would entail abandoning the Lemon requirement that state action must have a secular purpose and secular effects, as well as O'Connor's idea that the state must not "endorse" religion. For these two tests, the courts should substitute the two guiding rules that historically lay at the core of our church-state experiment before legal secularism or values evangelicalism came on the scene: the state may neither coerce anyone in matters of religion nor expend its resources so as to support religious institutions and practices, whether generic or particular. These constitutional principles, reduced to their core, can be captured in a simple slogan: no coercion and no money. If no one is being coerced by the government, and if the government is not spending its money to build religious-themed monuments or support religious institutions and practices, the courts should hold that the Constitution is not violated.
Admittedly, this approach goes against the trends of the last several decades, which are for stricter regulation of public religious symbolism and more permissive authorization of government financing and support for religion. At first blush, then, the proposal may strike both sides of the current debate as mistaken, since it requires each to give up some victories in exchange for an alternative solution. Nonetheless this approach is not only faithful to our constitutional traditions; it also stands a chance of winning over secularists and evangelicals alike and beginning to close the rift between them.
IV. FAITH IS NOT A CONVERSATION STOPPER The solution I have in mind rests on the basic principle of protecting the liberty of conscience. So long as all citizens have the same right to speak and act free of coercion, no adult should feel threatened or excluded by the symbolic or political speech of others, however much he may disagree with it. If many congressmen say that their faith requires intervening to save Terri Schiavo, that is not a violation of the rules of political debate. The secular congresswoman who thinks Schiavo should have the right to die in peace can express her contrary view and explain why it is that she believes a rational and legal analysis of the situation requires it. She may lose the vote, but she is not excluded from the process or from the body that votes against her, any more than a Republican would be "excluded" from a committee controlled by Democrats.
Legal secularists may fear that when facing arguments with religious premises, they have the deck stacked against them. If values evangelicals begin by asserting that God has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, then, say the secularists, the conversation about same-sex marriage is over. But in fact, secularists can make arguments of their own, which may be convincing: if the state is going to regulate marriages, shouldn't they be subject to the same equality requirement as every other law? Some might even go further and ask the evangelicals how they can be so sure that they have correctly identified God's will on the question. They may discover that few evangelicals treat faith as a conversation stopper, and most consider it just the opposite.
In any event, when the debate is over, the people will vote, and they will decide the matter. Legal secularists cannot realistically expect that they will win more democratic fights by banning the evangelicals' arguments, which can usually be recast, however disingenuously, as secular. Once in a while they may, if the composition of the Supreme Court is just right, thwart the values evangelicals' numerical superiority with a judicial override; but in the long run, all they will accomplish is to alienate the values evangelicals in a way that undercuts the meaningfulness of participatory democracy.
When it comes to religious symbolism, typically some group will ask the state for a display or an acknowledgment of their holiday or tradition -- a crèche or a statue, a song or pageant. Invoking Justice O'Connor's endorsement test, legal secularists ordinarily object that if the state acquiesces, then it is embracing the religious symbol and excluding adherents of other religions. But this interpretation of what state support would mean may not be the best or most natural one. The fact that others have asked for and gotten recognition implies nothing about the exclusion of any religious minority except for the brute fact that it is a religious minority. There is no reason whatever for religious minorities to be shielded from that fact, since there is nothing shameful or inherently disadvantageous in being a religious minority, so long as that minority is not subject to coercion or discrimination.
Take the fact that the government treats Christmas as a national holiday. It would be absurd if Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists felt fundamentally excluded from citizenship by this fact -- and I would venture to suggest that very few do. Most Americans are still Christians who celebrate Christmas, and the state acknowledges that fact, just as the culture does through the songs on the radio and the merchandise in the stores. The celebration may not always be deeply religious, but the atmosphere corresponds to the realities of the Christian majority. Just what is threatening to religious minorities about Christians celebrating the holiday or singing carols in school? What, exactly, is the harm in being wished Merry Christmas even if you're not celebrating? The state has not made Christianity relevant to citizenship nor has it spent taxpayers' money to advance the cause of the church. It has simply acknowledged the preferences of a majority. Some members of religious minorities may choose to spend December feeling bad that they are not part of the majority culture -- but they would have this same problem even if Christmas were not a national holiday, since Christmas would still be all around them. The answer is for them to strengthen their own identities and be proud of who they are, not to insist that the majority give up its own celebration to accommodate them.
In the last 50 years, legal secularists have expressed concern that public manifestations of religion marginalize religious minorities and hence reduce the capacity of those minorities to participate in a common national public life. And at times, that has been a valid complaint, as with mandatory religious exercises in schools. But today the increasing presence of other non-Christian religious minorities, and an attendant atmosphere of religious multiculturalism, mean that public manifestations of religion -- at least at the national level -- are becoming increasingly pluralistic and inclusive. Consider the televised memorial service led by President Bush on Sept. 14, 2001, a day he had designated as a national day of prayer and remembrance for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. With the cabinet, members of Congress and the foreign diplomatic corps in attendance, the president assured the congregation that God created a world "of moral design" and that "the Lord of life holds all who die and all who mourn." Suffused with theology as much as any presidential address since Lincoln's second inaugural, the speech took on the problem of evil while commending the future of the republic to God's grace.
Yet despite the high-Protestant venue -- the Episcopal Washington National Cathedral -- the president was preceded in the pulpit by the dean of the cathedral as well as by the Roman Catholic archbishop of Washington, an African-American Methodist minister, Billy Graham, a rabbi and an imam who quoted verses from the Koran. The display of inclusiveness was driven not only by political imperative but also by the recognition that this extraordinary national-religious moment must reach out to America's religious diversity.
In this latest demographic version of a religiously diverse environment, where Protestants may soon cease to be a majority in the United States, the danger that Christmas crèches or prayer at high-school graduations will marginalize non-Christians is substantially decreased. Some parts of the country are still dominated by particular denominations or trends; but even in the heart of the Bible Belt, diversity is growing as a result of immigration and shifting population patterns. Indeed, the Ten Commandments monument that Judge Roy Moore erected in the Alabama Supreme Court was thought by its supporters, however inaccurately, to be nonsectarian, on the theory that Jews and Christians alike respect the ideals it represents. Although insensitivity and ignorance are still very much with us, today we are unlikely to see the religious majority refusing to allow religious minorities to display their symbols alongside those of the majority. The five-times daily broadcast of the Muslim call to prayer from a mosque may at first raise hackles, but when the comparison to church bells is made, public acceptance is likely to follow, as it did in the town of Hamtramck, Mich., last summer.
V. WHAT INCLUSION REALLY LOOKS LIKE Atheists will doubtless maintain that any public religion at all -- like "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- excludes them by endorsing the idea of religion generally. But this misses the point: it is an interpretive choice to feel excluded by other people's faiths, and the atheist, like any other dissenter from a majoritarian decision, can just as easily adhere to his own views while insisting on his full citizenship. So long as no one is coerced into invoking God, it makes little sense to accommodate the atheist's scruples by barring everyone else from saying words that he alone finds to be metaphysically empty. Complete subjective inclusion is impossible, so if our goal is to include as many people as possible, we need to reach as widely as possible by letting the ordinary democratic process take its course. The Jehovah's Witnesses, who in the 1940's fought for the right not to salute the flag, never insisted that the salute or the pledge should be abolished altogether -- they just wanted their children to be exempt from a mandatory ritual that violated their consciences and hence their religious liberty.
In some instances, pluralistic, public expressions of religion even hold out the possibility of enabling new religious minorities to participate fully in the American public sphere. Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, for whom religion and immigrant status may be closely connected, may well seek opportunities for the symbolic recognition of their citizenship that can be gained in schools, legislatures and elsewhere. Acknowledging holidays like the Muslim Eid al-Fitr or the Hindu Divali in what has traditionally been a Christian country may validate a sense of belonging in a way that no secular civic symbol can. Such an embrace of minority faith might go beyond symbols like legislative prayers, which remain legal despite secularist objections, and extend to celebrating holidays in the schools or granting adherents those days off from work, which would be of questionable constitutionality under current law. Ultimately, the nation may have more success generating loyalty from religiously diverse citizens by allowing inclusive governmental manifestations of religion than by banning them.
Observing the political clout of the values evangelicals, many legal secularists cannot imagine how the former could possibly feel marginalized from American society. They must realize, however, that the evangelicals' political strength has not often extended to the cultural realm, about which values evangelicals care the most. These evangelicals feel defensive not only because they believe they are losing the culture war and have trouble enacting religious values into public policy -- though, in fact, they have made some strides on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage -- but because they have difficulty making the religious sources of their ideas acceptable in the cultural-political conversation. To give a religious reason for passing a law is still to run the risk of that law being held unconstitutional as serving a religious rather than a secular purpose. So evangelicals end up speaking in euphemisms ("family values") or proposing purpose-built dodges like "creation science" that even they often privately acknowledge to be paradoxical.
A better approach would be for secularists to confront the evangelicals' arguments on their own terms, refusing to stop the conversation and instead arguing for the rightness of their beliefs about their own values. Reason can in fact engage revelation, as it has throughout the history of philosophy. The skeptic can challenge the believer to explain how he derives his views from Scripture and why the view he ascribes to God is morally attractive -- questions that most believers consider profoundly important and perfectly relevant.
This kind of exchange need not produce agreement on abortion or same-sex marriage or anything else. To the contrary, hard moral questions will remain controversial. But acknowledging a moral debate as a moral debate in which all sides deserve a say will have the effect of communicating to evangelicals that their voices count. In the long run, this approach is more likely to focus our national debates on substance instead of procedure -- on what God or reason or whatever source of values teaches about human life and intimate choices, not about whether God belongs in the conversation at all. Secularists who are confident in their views should expect to prevail on the basis of reason; evangelicals who wish to win the argument will discover that their arguments must extend beyond simple invocation of faith.
VI. THE PROBLEM WITH MONEY If we are to progress toward reconciliation of our church-state problem, it will not be enough for legal secularists to re-evaluate their attitude toward religious symbols and religious discourse. Values evangelicals must also change their ways and give something up -- by reconsidering their position in favor of state support for religious institutions. The reason they should be prepared to do so is that such state support actually undercuts, rather than promotes, the cohesive national identity that evangelicals have wanted to restore or recreate. When filtered through vouchers distributed by the government and directed by individual choice, state financial aid for religious institutions like schools or charities does not encourage common values; it creates conflict and division.
Today's voucher programs, like the one in Florida that is currently under challenge before the Florida Supreme Court, focus on helping kids in failing schools. But imagine a broader voucher system. Many or most parents might well use the vouchers to send their children to private, mostly religious schools; more than half the beneficiaries of the Florida program do exactly that, and in other, more focused plans, the numbers have been upward of 90 percent. Because we value religious liberty so highly, most Americans would surely agree that it would be wrong to regulate and supervise religious schools closely enough to ensure that they teach some version of prescribed American values. That is precisely why the Constitution has been interpreted to protect the right to educate your children in private religious schools altogether. But given this right to educate according to your own values, what is to ensure that the curriculum in state-supported religious schools will promote common values? It is at least as likely that balkanized schools will generate balkanized values as that they will promote a common national project.
While the great majority of schools run by most religious groups do encourage loyal citizenship by their lights, we cannot simply assume that any school of any religious denomination will teach shared American national identity or values. Some schools will teach that the best form of life is to prefer your fellows -- whether Protestants or Jews or Muslims or Catholics -- to other Americans. No religious tradition is without at least a hint of such particularism, which is just one mechanism by which common citizenship may be undermined by some forms of religion. Different religious schools will also teach disparate values, increasing national disagreement when it comes to controversial issues. There is nothing inherently wrong with that type of values diversity, of course. Private schools unsupported by vouchers can in any case teach whatever they want about citizenship and loyalty. But while values evangelicalism claims to advocate national unity and inclusion through shared values, school-voucher programs cut exactly the other way, promoting difference and nonengagement. Permitting schools supported by private money to teach that there is no common American undertaking is not the same as encouraging that teaching through state subsidy.
Now consider what will happen when some delegate in a state legislature rises to argue that voucher payments should not be extended to schools that teach racism, or anti-Americanism, or sexism. Under the law as it is developing, the state cannot pick and choose but must pay for all the schools or none. Cutting financing for the offending school would require cutting it for every school. There will then inevitably ensue a debate about whether the outrage of financing this one school outweighs the benefits of financing all the others. In essence, this will be a debate about how bad the teachings of the religion under attack are, and how good the others.
This situation, reminiscent of 19th-century legislative debates about the supposed ills of the Catholic Church, captures precisely the sort of divisiveness in politics that institutional separation aims to avoid. Only this time it will probably not be Catholicism in the dock but something else -- Islam, say, or polytheistic Hinduism, or some religion so new that it still seems like a cult. The framers' innovation of nonestablishment was designed so that the sovereign people should not spend their legislative sessions debating the relative merits of different faiths and their compatibility with American values. That is a recipe for real and deep division.
The tradition of institutional separation that must be reasserted goes beyond blocking money for religious schools. All attempts to use government resources to institutionalize religious practices countermand the American tradition of nonestablishment, grounded historically in the belief that government has no authority over religious matters. When government pays for social programs through the rubric of charitable choice, the programs must not be ones that rely on faith to accomplish their goals -- or else the government is institutionally sponsoring the religious mission of the church in question. This is also why the state itself must not compose or mandate public prayers, which then take on the shape of state-imposed religious exercises in a way that is very different from voluntary prayers chosen and led by individuals in public contexts. The founding father James Madison himself understood that paying the chaplains of the House and Senate out of the public till was a constitutional anomaly, and he wisely, if belatedly, suggested that the members of Congress ought to pay for their services from their own pockets.
Surprising as it may at first sound, the changes from existing laws and practices that I'm advocating have a realistic chance of being adopted and even embraced by values evangelicals. It may already be possible to glimpse a growing recognition among values evangelicals that voucher programs do not necessarily promote common values but may do just the opposite. The ballooning of school-voucher programs that some expected in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2002 decision holding them constitutional has not come to pass. Faith-based charities have not yet managed to crowd out secular service providers, although more extensive government financing for faith-based social services remains a stated goal of the Bush administration. Given that voucher programs have not spread, it should be relatively easy for values evangelicals to abandon them -- especially since they will be getting something in return, namely greater recognition and acceptance for their values-based arguments and the corresponding symbols of public religion.
Government financing of religion is, after all, a relative latecomer to the ideology of values evangelicalism. The movement from the start drew its energy from symbolic questions of culture and morality, not from any desire to see a merger of church and state. Catholics may have pressed hard from within the movement to make vouchers an important issue, but even they turn out to be relying little on those voucher programs for educating their own children; the voucher students in Catholic schools in Milwaukee or Cleveland are heavily inner-city non-Catholics. Evangelicals should also be prepared to acknowledge the historical fact that our constitutional tradition, flawed though it assuredly is, has always made institutional separation the touchstone of nonestablishment.
VII. THE EXPERIMENT REVISITED The proposal is a simple one -- and it looks backward to history in order to look forward. If we could be more tolerant of sincere religious people drawing on their beliefs and practices to inform their choices in the public realm, and at the same time be more vigilant about preserving our legacy of institutional separation between government and organized religion, the shift would redirect us to the uniqueness of the American experiment with church and state. Until the rise of legal secularism, Americans tended to be accepting of public, symbolic manifestations of faith. Until values evangelicalism came on the scene, Americans were on the whole insistent about maintaining institutional separation. These two modern movements respectively reversed both those trends.
The novelty of these developments does not mean they are wrong, of course. But in an America grown so religiously diverse that it can no longer easily be called "Judeo-Christian," we need to learn from our history if we are to have any hope of constructing a single nation that will endure. Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus will have to join Protestants, Catholics, Jews and atheists in finding a resolution to our church-state problem that all can embrace. A solution that will work for our generation must bind us to the past. But like all successful nation-building, it will work only if it also a sets a foundation for our future.
Noah Feldman is a professor at the New York University School of Law and a fellow at the New America Foundation. His book "Divided by God: America's Church-State Problem -- and What We Should Do About It," from which this article is adapted, will be published later this month by Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
A version of this article appears in print on July 3, 2005, on Page 6006028 of the National edition with the headline: A Church-State Solution. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe


If you were involved in a partial fault motorcycle crash, you may still be entitled to compensation for your injuries. Call for a free consultation with Las Vegas motorcycle accident lawyer Craig Murphy.
Here is what Nevada law says about being able to collect damages for your injuries if you were partially at fault for causing your motorcycle crash claim. As long as your percentage of fault is less than 50%, you will be entitled to get compensation for your damages. The insurance company for the other driver will always try and argue that you were primarily at fault, whether you were going too fast, or you weren't paying attention, or you had unexpectedly changed lanes. Whatever it is, they will try and argue that you are primarily at fault.
That's why you need a skilled and experienced motorcycle attorney right from the get-go. We will go out and investigate what happened. We will go and talk to the witnesses. We will preserve the testimony to establish that, although you had some fault, it was not the primary fault for causing the action or for causing the accident, and we will preserve your case for damages so that we can protect you for the injuries and the damages that you have sustained as a result of being in a motorcycle crash, even though you were partially at fault.


text:
Controls (8)	 Automation (8)	 Software (5)	 Tooling & Workholding (4)	 Smart Manufacturing (3)	 Quality/Inspection/Test (3)	 Machining & Metal Cutting (2)	 Additive Manufacturing & 3D Printing (2)	 Plant Engineering & Maintenance (1)	 Measurement & Metrology (1)	 Lean Manufacturing (1)	 Manufacturing Management (1)	 Lasers (1)
2019 or earlier (10)
Displaying 10 results for
Search Filters: Manufacturing Management clear Lasers clear Machining & Metal Cutting clear Additive Manufacturing & 3D Printing clear Plant Engineering & Maintenance clear Smart Manufacturing clear Last 30 Days clear
Laser Scanners Demand Attention as Technology Improves
Metrology-grade laser scanners are expanding their range of applications. New users are finding the main attractions of laser scanners—speed and ease of use. What prevented more widespread use in the past were laser scanners' perceived tradeoffs. Using one usually meant sacrificing accuracy or working with noisy data.
ABB's 'Factory of the Future' in China to Demo Safety, Sustainability
SHANGHAI—The $150 million "factory of the future" that the Swiss innovator ABB announced nearly a year ago is becoming reality in this enormous city's Pudong New Area.
Desktop Metal Expands Materials Portfolio
Desktop Metal, the company committed to making metal 3D printing accessible to engineers and manufacturers, today announced the launch of H13 tool steel for the Studio System, the world's first office-friendly metal 3D printing system for prototyping and low volume production.
Sarasota County Manufacturing is Thriving and Changing
Sarasota County, FL is home to three of the seven largest manufacturers in the Tampa Bay region, according to an annual listing by the Tampa Bay Business Journal. The hidden gem of manufacturing is a growing and important element in diversifying the local economy.
Smart Manufacturing Drives Five Key Changes
What do you think of when you hear the word factory? Probably some huge space, with machines humming and personnel walking around with notepads in their hands.
Women Inspire in 3D Printing and Beyond
While looking for inspiration for this column,Ilene Wolff came across a rousing magazine headline. "Why the Women in 3D Printing Innovator Award Is Important," the TCT Magazine headline read.
Manufacturing Management Stay informed with the latest insights, news, resources and products in Manufacturing Management to improve your manufacturing career and operations. manufacturing
CNC Machines Annual Skills-Gap Scholarship Now Open
CNC Machines this week announced it is accepting applications for a $2,500 scholarship for students pursuing a certification, certificate, associate degree or bachelor's degree in a manufacturing-related area of study.
Dual-Spindle Technology a Boon to Automakers
Over its 140-year history, automotive manufacturing technology has evolved in parallel with progress in the vehicles themselves. Early automakers custom made individual "horseless carriages." Later, standardized parts and moving assembly lines delivered mass-produced cars. Development of integrated transfer lines enabled part runs to extend for years.
American, German, Swedish manufacturers gladly adopt factory-within-factory concept
Manufacturers of all sizes see an uptick in productivity after adding a factory within a factory via an automated machining cell. The cells are small-scale, clearly defined production units, often for a family of similar parts or a product, and they typically include a robotic arm and one or more machine tools. These can include horizontal and vertical lathes, machining centers and grinders. The cell may also include a conveyor component.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The Northwest Chapter of the American Society of Safety Professionals offers several sponsorship options to help your organization reach the safety, health, and environmental professionals in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Western Wisconsin. With more than 800 members in safety and health, we offer sponsors a way to directly target the people that buy their products and services. Your support enables the Northwest Chapter to provide assistance to the local student programs and fund scholarships for SH&E Professionals.
Contact Chris Western at cwestern@umn.edu with questions or for more details on PDC Sponsorship or Exhibiting.


text:
BriTay is a Human Resources consulting firm, with the national and international presence. It focuses on the people side of the business. Our strategy is to provide our clients with easy access to various human resource expertise to better serve small, medium, and large organizations for all their human resources needs and thus be Your Strategic HR Business Partner emphasizing on Global Reach and Local Touch.BriTay International was incorporated in Chicago USA in 2001. We started our Beijing operations in 2002, and Shanghai operations in 2004.BriTay Asia (M) Sdn. Bhd. was established in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia in November 2005, thereafter we expand into wider areas beyond HR Consultancy, living our motto "endless possibilities".Known for our fresh thinking and consultative approach, we act as trusted advisors to many organizations – large and small.BriTay Asia develops solutions for our customers and individual clients that are catered to their needs. The goal is to foster positive changes in behavior and performance at each level – individual, team and organizational. Our tried and tested solutions are derived from a culmination of thoughts from highly experienced industry practitioners that have rooted themselves from major multi-nationals over decades of job assignments both domestic and abroad. We pride ourselves in having the learnings and practices from Motorola Inc. on our people management skills that promote positive employee relations and direct interaction with employees in maintaining a harmonious working relationship. A privately-held Bumiputra company, BriTay International Inc. was founded by Zuber Mohd Isa, in Beijing, China in the year 2000, where we lead consulting teams in various projects engaging Chinese GLCs, private and multinational companies. Employees are the greatest asset and we firmly believe in this. Our shared core values and expertise in all facets of human resources makes us the go-to consultants no matter what your HR challenge is. We also support organizations through our HR Outsourcing services that serve companies on a seamless platform.
To be trusted thought and practice leaders for successful organizations and people.
We at BriTay hold a high standard on integrity and credibility, proven through the successful implementation of solutions that we recommend to our clients, based on our industry experience, functional knowledge, and pragmatic skills.
To create a long-term partnership with our clients in which we identify and define the performance requirements of clients' organization and people. We apply our unique insight and understanding to execute comprehensive and high performing solutions.
To inculcate a professional and effective work environment by imparting and disseminating up-to-date skills and knowledge on people processes.
To provide effective tools for efficient and creative problem-solving within organizations.
To provide an effective entrepreneurial incubation.
Skills and knowledge related to our business (consultancy, professionalism, people management, trusted advisors, knowledgeable and expert instructors).
People processes- training development, talent management, leadership courses, career growth.
The tools: 7 Quality Tools
Provide the business startup skills to would-be entrepreneurs in a managed and guided environment.
STRATEGIC CORPORATE QUALITY
Our growth is centered on continuously meeting the challenges of the workforce, acting as a trusted advisor to deliver innovative and measurable solutions through outsourcing and consultancy services tailored to business needs.
We achieve this with the focus on quality by:
acting with integrity every step of the way
By being a trustworthy partner to our stakeholders (clients, vendors, instructors) from start to finish.
ensuring the smooth delivery of HR solutions and services
Through the introduction of a comprehensive implementation plan, progressively measuring every milestone.
enabling our clients to excel in the evolving world of work.
The ability to adapt quickly and make ongoing adjustments or improvements to continue to excel in the challenging work environment.
Tuan Haji Zuber Mohd Isa
Founder / Managing DirectorBIOGRAPHY
Mohd Ata Bin Mohd Isa
Legal & Finance DirectorBIOGRAPHY
Mohamad bin Abu Bakar
Chief Operating OfficerBIOGRAPHY
Stephen Krempl
Principal ConsultantBIOGRAPHY
Jonathan Poh
Pn Hjh Lily Hayati
Senior Finance Manager
Ihsan Yusof
Senior Finance Executive
Nurul Fatihah
Aimie Shahidah
Assistant Accounts
HR & Management
Pn Elyani Iza
Naili Rozmi
Anati Najian
Recruitment Executive
SL1M – Gradu82work
Nurul Aliah
Section Head Client Relationship
Aminnurrasyid
Training & Development Executive
Azrie Yazid
Section Head Recruitment Executive
Siti Fairus
Nang Aifaa
Relationship Executive
Ezrin Izam
Senior IT Executive
Farhana
IT Executive
Zuber founded BriTay in the year 2001, incorporating the company in Chicago, USA. The Beijing office started operations in 2002 and Shanghai in 2004. BriTay Asia in Kuala Lumpur was established in 2005. Both BriTay and BriTay Asia are wholly owned by Zuber.
Prior to Britay, Zuber joined an established Chinese multi-national, Goldwind Science & Technology Inc., a Renewable Energy company, to expand its market into the EU. Zuber was the Corporate HR Leader and Deputy General Manager of International Business. Within 5 years, Zuber managed to grow the company into a global corporation with operations in 12 countries. Zuber left Goldwind to pursue his life-long dream of starting up his own company.
Zuber started his career at Motorola Electronics serving first in manufacturing and then in Human Resources. His last position was as VP and Head of Human Resources for Motorola's Personal Communication Sector, Asia Pacific. In this role, Zuber was responsible for leading every aspect of human resources management supporting a US$ 4 billion business.
Zuber has extensive experience in managing all levels of clients in an organization in the various segments of Human Resources, Staffing, Performance Management, Organizational Design and Effectiveness, Compensation and Benefits, Change Management, Leadership Coaching and Development, and Talent Management. Zuber has been particularly involved in the assimilation of Motorola's Positive Labor Relations and Direct Dealing culture, as a means to sustain a union- free work environment throughout the Motorola Asia Pacific region i.e. Malaysia, Indonesia, Korea and Vietnam (the hot-beds of industrial labor relations activities, to name a few).
Mohamad has served in Manufacturing, Organization Development and Human Resources function in Manufacturing, Logistics, Sales and Marketing, Banking, Fast Moving Consumer Goods, Automotive and Services.
Mohamad has had involvements in Organizational Redesign and Transformation works in the various organizations that he was attached to. His first organization transformation work was with Motorola in Seremban.
At National Semiconductor, he was the Chairman of the Asia-Pacific HR Council promoting the sharing of best practices and implementing common policies across the region. He was appointed the "Leading Change Council" member for the Asia Pacific, (Leading Change was the National Semiconductor corporate-wide transformation initiative). He was also the nominated council member for the Asia Pacific "Factory Lights Out" initiative at National Semiconductor, Asia Pacific.
Mohamad was a member of Core Team at SilTerra, a USD 2billion, the government initiated wafer fabrication green-field mega project. He led in the acquisition of technocrats and high calibre engineers and technicians to successfully implement the technology transfer agreement at LSI Logic Inc., a US semiconductor entity. He successfully managed the technology transfer program involving 300 technical and management personnel in Oregon, the USA over, 6 months to one year period.
Mohamad was awarded the first winner of HR Manager of the Year for the year 2000, by the Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Tuan Haji Mohd Ata Isa
Mohd Ata bin Mohd Isa is the Finance and Legal Director of BriTay Asia (M) Sdn Bhd. Prior to being one of the directors of the company, Ata was with a Timber Integrated Company serving in the Forestry and Finance Department. He then moved to an aviation industry which supplied aircraft for fertilizer spraying for Felda. On completion of the contract, he moved to construction and engaged in projects such as road construction and housing projects.
In 1990 he started his business to supply and install accessories to the car industry, commercial buildings, and Banks. He expanded his business in 2005 to actively involved in facility management projects. From late 2015 till to date he has focused on BriTay Asia (M) Sdn Bhd business activities as the demand for his attention to the business is vital.
Stephen is a principal consultant with BriTay and CEO of Krempl Communications International and creator of Global Executive Mindset (GEM) Curriculum and author of the book 5% Zone. Prior to his current position, Stephen was the VP of Global Learning at Starbucks Coffee Company. The role requires the setting and implementation of an enterprise-wide learning strategy for the 140,000 partners 12,800 restaurants operating in 37 countries. He has spoken at several conferences and conventions around the world and runs training programs in many countries in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Australasia.
He was past President of the Association of Psychological Type, Singapore and Vice President Asian Regional Training and Development Organizations (ARTDO). He is now a member of the National Speakers Association and American Society for Training and Development in the US. He was also an adjunct faculty for the University of London and Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT).
Design and execute modules supporting PLRP while at Motorola University having had country Learning Centres reporting to him.
Jonathan is a principal consultant with BriTay, as well as Founder and CEO of Minds2Excel Ltd. and Managing Consultant for Krempl Communications International Ltd. Based in Singapore, he oversees KCI regional development in Asia. Jonathan has extensive corporate and consulting experience in leadership development, coaching, organizational strategic formulation, talent management, and organization development. These talents provide him with insights into the challenges and growth potential of leadership capabilities in Asia.
He has championed numerous global and regional initiatives during his career, and he is especially passionate about developing and coaching leaders in client organizations to achieve peak performance in a global environment through positive behavioural transformation. He is presently focusing on further research to help leaders achieve peak team performance through Global Executive Management (G.E.M. ) principles in Asia.
At Motorola, Jonathan was managing the regional Talent Management and Succession Planning Program. Jonathan is also a master NLP Trainer.
Carol is a principal consultant with BriTay. For 23 years Carol has worked in multi-national companies (Volvo Group, Lucent Technology, Alcatel Lucent, and Motorola) covering the full spectrum of HR disciplines. Carol has led HR function in various countries. She headed China HR when based in Beijing; Malaysia HR & Admin when based in Kuala Lumpur; Asia Pacific HR when based in Singapore.
During her tenure with Volvo Group, Carol led Malaysia HR team to win the first award of "Employer of Choice" at MIHRM in 2015, and also in 2017. Her passion for talent development, talent retention, employee engagement, competence development, organization effectiveness has supported the companies she has served to excel in the HR arena.


You have enough fascias, soffits & guttering work to get by, but there's always room for more. When you're looking for your next fascias, soffits & guttering job, MyBuilder will be there with leads in Alton that fit into your schedule.
I have a detached house and looking for front and side gutters to be cleaned as water is coming over the gutters where blocked when it rains.
Great service by Barry, arrived on time, did excellent job, all that I asked that needed doing he did, would recommend and use again. Very polite as well.
2.5 metres of fairly new gutter removed to access soffit which may need repair or replace.
Did what was asked of them. Arrived on the day expected, and I was satisfied with the job. They left the area clean afterwards.
Replace some guttering, and clear existing guttering.
Excellent job, completed on time. Always kept me informed of work required and costs involved. Very friendly and helpful. Would have no problem recommending this company.
Very fast, very efficient. Came within half an hour of request and fixed the issue instantly. Water tested when finished. Great value.
I have a leaking gutter and think it is by the joints. It is raining lots today and really notice the leak. I am based in Hampshire. I am not sure if the leak can be fixed while it is raining though.
Andrew did a brilliant job and was very helpful. He fixed the guttering leak. He noticed another problem with our porch roof and fixed it immediately too. Would definitely recommend Andrew and use him again. Thank you.
An excellent meeting with some good ideas considered.
New guttering (approx 1m) required for front of terraced cottage. Old metal guttering is corroded and at an angle and needs either replacing or fixing.
Did a good job on the spot to fix my gutter. Reasonable price. Did not return when it next rained and I spotted that a new problem had been introduced. So can not recommend I'm afraid.
We were very pleased with the completed work and the price we paid. Barry and the two lads were very polite. We would highly recommend this company.
Very kind and polite. Would definitely recommend them.
We have a newly brick built shed that requires guttering and a couple of pieces need replacing on the house.
Amazing service, very helpful and polite. excellent workmanship.
Arrived on time and cleaned up after completion.
So glad we chose you and would definitely use again.
When a fascias, soffits & guttering job is posted in Alton, you'll get the fascias, soffits & guttering lead if you are relevant for the job. You then have the choice to express interest, which is free. If the homeowner likes your profile and decides to shortlist you, contact details will be exchanged and you will get charged a small fee. The size of the fee depends on the estimated size of the fascias, soffits & guttering job, which is determined by our in house team. You'll know what the fee is before you express interest.


Amaryllis Chico is one of the more exotic members of the Amaryllis family, with its arresting spidery blooms. It belongs to the cybister group of hybrids and only became commercially available in the 2000's. These are sometimes hard to find as they sell out quickly so get yours early in the season.
They are definitely a more compact growing Amaryllis with much smaller bulbs(and flowers) than standard Amaryllis–the bulbs are about size of a small apple.
The bloom stalks and buds seem to be a bit slower to develop but the flower are visually arresting and make a nice change from the more flamboyant standard Amaryllis.
Previous PostPrevious Amaryllis growers..in the red?
Next PostNext Is that an orchid in your pocket?


Register your GROHE Sensia Arena shower Toilet and you will benefit from one extra year of guarantee on your product.
In contrast to the predecessor model, in which the decalcification is to be carried out annually by a Grohe service technician, you now have the opportunity to carry out the descaling yourself in 20 minutes - via remote control. Simply add the descaling agent through the opening on the back of the engineering unit. Due to the special surface of the water heater, descaling is usually necessary every 3 years.
The special, innovative ion technology Plasmacluster combats germs and bacteria as well as unpleasant odors - for perfect hygiene. Important to know: The distribution of the ions takes place via the same fan as the odor extraction. Use the function either for odor neutralization in the toilet ceramic or for the daily cleaning and sterilization of the air in the entire bathroom.
Benefit from the automatic pre-wash function with the matching Grohe Rapid SL installation set and mounting element: user recognition automatically detects when you sit on the toilet. An economical pre-rinse wets the ceramic surface with water, so that dirt has almost no chance to adhere. For residue-free freshness in the toilet!
An innovative merging of both toilet and bidet, the Sensia Arena Shower Toilet demonstrates the grasp that Grohe's designers have on the potential of new technology. Rightful winner of the 2019 Iconic 'Best of Best' award, the attention to detail and expertise paid to the Sensia Arena is palpable. Offering a whole new level of cleaning options to the WC unit, Sensia Arena incorporates a fully adjustable shower arm into the bowl. Select from a range of spray patterns, adjustable in intensity and water temperature to give a soothing, intimate clean every time. Formed from clean lines to give a pure and hygienic appearance, the Sensia Arena WC is a sleek and presentable piece. Its rimless design gives dirt and bacteria nowhere to hide, ensuring you can enjoy a clean and hygienic WC unit at all times, with a minimum of maintenance. A strong vortex system delivers a powerful flush to the bowl, with attention paid to efficient water usage. Numerous beneficial features are subtly included into the unit, from odour absorption to an in built night light so you can locate it easily in the dark. Furthermore, a smartphone app allows you to make the minute adjustments you need, right at your fingertips. Essential to this WC unit is the dedicated 1.13m Sensia mounting frame, which may be quickly added on as an optional extra. Matching flush plates, such as the Nova Light LED plate, or the Arena Cosmo plate, are designed to be fully compatible with this unit with easy to use, innovative designs deployed as a trademark throughout.
GROHE Hygiene Clean: with antibacterial glazing HyperClean (SIAA Kokin Japanese standard compliant) and non-stick coating AquaCeramic.


I am a book obsessed middle school Library Media Specialist. BookTasty is a place for me to write about all the Young Adult and Middle Grades fiction I read.
As a school librarian, I am constantly helping my students find books that will appeal to them. Because I do this a lot and love it, the goal of BookTasty is to help readers (parents, teens, adults) find titles for themselves or the reader in their life.
I usually post a few times a week, so please check back often, or subscribe to see what's new.
Readers can also follow Book_Tasty on Twitter!
Thanks for checking up and reminding me! The email said I have until midnight to tonight to post so it'll get done this evening thanks!


In an old list, new choises has been added in a choice field. Now, I want to sort them.
Will this affect the list?
Here is how choice columns work from my experience. The values you have can be re-ordered as long as the values don't change. Choice menus give users new choices when an item is modified and if the choice list is missing choices or has new ones that is the choice list users can use upon saving an item. Items that had old values will retain them until they are modified even if you remove a choice from a choice menu.
Lookup columns are dynamic where if you make a change it will change all existing values. Choice columns are not dynamic when changes are made.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged list choice-field or ask your own question.


The Hospital Program team is starting to see progress on Building our VFW Auxiliary Foundation. Armed with our blueprint, the bricks are stacking up to be an impressive building.
Four bricks – Help Heal Veterans therapeutic craft kits can help restore coordination and concentration. Our goal is to give our veterans what they need to restore health. Order your craft kits from the website www.healvets.org. Follow the application rules. Basic techniques can be fun!
Six bricks – Support a caregiver that may need an afternoon to run errands. Find or start a local VA Voluntary Service Caregiver Support Network. The network offers support and service to those who care for veterans.
Friends and family (and anyone else who is not the source of the PTSD but is standing by while someone attempts to heal) need something that translates PTSD language.
Armed with knowledge, insight and awareness you'll have an easier time knowing how to react, respond and relate to your PTSD loved one during the healing process.
Look at these smiling faces! Who can be first to name the four volunteers in the front?


text:
Kungliga Amiralitetsboktryckeriet var Karlskronas första tryckeri och grundades 1728. Tryckeriet existerade med detta namn till 1821. Dess förste innehavare var boktryckaren Johan Happenius.

Referenser

 Sveriges periodiska litteratur / 1. 1645-1812

Svenska tryckerier
Företag i Karlskrona kommun
Karlskronas historia

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
HomeArticleToo much plastic // Rampant production
Too much plastic // Rampant production~ 4 min
Although its production began before 1950, plastic only started gaining ground in industry afterwards. The material caught on so much that about 8 300 million metric tonnes (8 300 000 000 000 kg) were produced since that date up until 2015. Over the years, it has risen in importance. For instance, as a safer food packaging material and by allowing some innovations in medicine and making possible technologies such as cell phones or computers.
From a Chemistry point of view, they are a very diverse group of materials, but still share a significant set of characteristics. Explained in a very brief and simplistic manner, they are polymers. Meaning, the repetition of smaller groups of molecules. They are also quite stable. They are produced from fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas. Which one depends on the type of polymers of which they are to be made..They may have different properties, such as having greater or lesser heat resistance, flexibility, opacity etc.
By 2015, about 36% of plastics produced were meant for product packaging. The remaining were for the construction sector (16%), textiles (14%), institutional and consumer goods (10%), transport (7%), electronics/electrical products (4%), industrial machinery (less than 1%) and others (12%).
The time between production and the end of its use depends on the application for which they are intended. Most of the production is destined for short-term use. Of the 448 million metric tonnes produced in 2015, about 72% will be discarded after usage within a period of 5 years or less. Of these, about half had a use time of less than six months. These plastics are called single-use plastics.
Once its usefulness has ended, there are three destinations for these polymers: recycling, thermal destruction or disposal without valorization.
The first one does not prevent and merely delays plastics from eventually going to one of the other two destinations. For the plastics that are recyclable, this process only can occur a limited number of times, since the recycled version has less technical and economic value, due to being a blend between various types of polymers.
Thermal destruction can occur in a number of ways, but the most common is incineration. That is, its burning. This can happen with or without energy recovery. If applied, it can produce electricity and/or heat. The environmental and public health impacts of this process depend on technical factors such as emission control mechanisms and the way the operation is designed. Although its harmful effects are virtually surmountable, in practice the process releases toxic substances into the environment, such as dioxins, furans and styrene.
The other hypothesis is its disposal without valorization, either directly into the environment or into open dumps and landfills.
From 1950 to 2015, about 6 300 million metric tons of plastic waste (including recycled plastic) were produced. Of these, 12% were incinerated and only 9% were recycled, of which only 10% more than once. During the same period, approximately 4 900 million metric tons of plastic (60% of all plastic ever produced), ended up in dumps, landfills or in the environment.
The list of harmful effects caused by these polymers is well known. The release of plastics into the environment can have serious consequences for ecosystems and public health. As an example, in 2013 we shared that microplastics, which are extremely small pieces of plastic that derive from its degradation. Besides acting as a pollutant themselves, they also absorb toxic substances that come to us through the food chain. In 2015 we shared that about 8 million tons of plastic were dumped annually into the ocean. Even its processing in landfills often leads to the contamination of groundwater.
However, the pollution caused by plastics begins when they are produced. The raw materials used, ranging from fossil fuels such as ethylene, ethane and propylene, means that plastics production plays a decisive role in the contamination of water, soil and air in nearby local communities in which such industrial activity takes place.
The fact that they are made from relatively abundant raw materials, coupled with their versatility, have been two important factors for the presence of plastics in our daily lives. An unresolved problem at the global level. A known problem which does not seem to have a political solution in sight, thanks to the measuring of forces between regulators and the regulated, or their outright collaboration.
The second part of this article is available at: "Too much plastic // Corporate unaccountability".
Liked the article? Consider subscribing to our newsletter. It allows us to reach you directly and avoid social network censorship.
Follow our work on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Instagram or Telegram; or share it by using the pretty red buttons below.
Tags:Ecology, Environment, Plastic, Waste
Kurdistan // Jineoloji and the struggle of Kurdish women
Portugal // Country targeted for fracking by gas and oil corporations
Portugal // The legacy of the Contraption – Eternal austerity
Guilhotina.info
Independent media in Portuguese and English
Or follow us at
Change Agent: Gene Sharp's Neoliberal Nonviolence (Part One) | Nonsite
Change Agent: Gene Sharp's Neoliberal Nonviolence (Part Two) | Nonsite
A massive scandal: how Assange, his doctors, lawyers and visitors were all spied on for the U.S. | La Repubblica
The OPCW and Douma: Chemical Weapons Watchdog Accused of Evidence-Tampering by Its Own Inspectors | Counterpunch
The Roots of Turkish Fascism And the Threat It Poses | CrimethInc.
Basque Country // Hunger and thirst strike for the rights of prisoners
Portugal // Prison in the time of coronavirus
Strike actions on the front line of the fight against COVID19
USA // Covid-19: prison industry threatens thousands
The torture and slow death in isolation of Julian Assange
Instant wisdom
The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.
— Audre Lorde
© 2021 Guilhotina.info | WordPress Theme by Superb WordPress Themes


BRUSSELS (Sputnik) - A corruption issue is said to cost EU member states up to 900 billion euros (roughly $1 trillion) per year, the Belga news agency reported, citing data of the the European Green Party.
A study conducted by RAND Europe non-profit institute in March 2016 showed that the cost of corruption in Europe stood at up to 990 billion euros.
Meanwhile, according to the 2014 EU Anti-Corruption Report, corruption continued to be a major issue for Europe, and cost the European economy about 120 billion euros per year.
The 2014 report showed that the scope of corruption varied from one EU member state to another, citing Romania, Portugal and Greece among the countries where corruption remains a significant problem.


February 27, 2018 (Ottawa) – The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada (CHF Canada) welcomes the spending commitments outlined by the federal government in today's budget which will help many more Canadians, including Indigenous Canadians, find a safe, secure, and affordable place to call home.
Communities across Canada are experiencing a lack of affordable housing and co-ops are ready to provide affordable, community-oriented housing. The government's expansion of the Rental Construction Financing Initiative from $2.5 billion to $3.75 billion in loans over the next three years has the potential to play a substantial role in alleviating the affordable housing deficit. CHF Canada is optimistic that community-oriented housing providers like co-ops will be prioritized in the roll-out of the program and that we will see increased construction of co-op units over the next three years as a result of this program. Additionally, CHF Canada is looking forward to the roll-out of the measures announced in the National Housing Strategy over the next decade.
Women are disproportionately affected by a lack of affordable, stable, safe, and secure housing. In fact, 45% of female-led lone-parent families are in core housing need. CHF Canada supports the measures Budget 2018 and the National Housing Strategy take to address the inequalities faced by women in Canada, particularly in finding a place to live. Housing co-ops have led the way in addressing these inequalities with women making up 58% of the population living in housing co-ops in Canada and with 90% of lone-parent co-op households being female-led.
CHF Canada also applauds the government's announcement of distinction-based housing strategies for Inuit, Métis, and First Nations peoples which recognize the individual challenges each face with regards to housing as actionable steps towards reconciliation. The government's announcement of $1.5 billion over five years to fund these strategies demonstrates a financial commitment towards that end.
The National Housing Strategy, launched last November, addressed CHF Canada's primary advocacy priority – the protection of 20,000 low-income co-op households – with a 10-year solution for low-income co-op households, most of whom are seniors, single-parent families, new and Indigenous Canadians, and those living with disabilities.
CHF Canada is calling on provincial and territorial governments to sign on to cost-matching programs outlined in National Housing Strategy. Tackling Canada's housing deficits will require a co-ordinated effort between all orders of government, working in partnership with the community housing sector.


I have a handful of friends who are strictly vegan, and I talked with each of them before about their views. At least 3 of them have said to me that under no circumstance would they eat an animal or use an animal product (say, for clothing). This is nonsensical, right? There are no real justifications for this, as I understand it. Let's start from the beginning.
In its most general and purest sense, it is the rejection of using any animal products for any purpose. Typically, you hear about it most in terms of diets (dietary vegans), i.e., what people choose to eat, although strictly speaking vegans should not wear fur or leather or really partake in any activity which involves the use of animals.
Why do people hold such a position?
It seems to me that veganism in its absolute form is an irrational position.
While theoretically you could have an adverse reaction to a component found in some meats, it's virtually unheard of to be unable to eat any kind of meat whatsoever. This, then, is not a real reason to be a vegan by itself; there must be some other reason why a person is vegan beyond this unless a person is literally unable to consume all meat.
Humans have been eating meat far longer than the species we now call Homo sapiens even existed. Our bodies have evolved specifically to be able to digest a wide range of foods, meat among them. It has yet to be shown that a purely plant-based diet is healthier than a mixed diet; in fact, in many reports have suggested that purely vegan diets can be very low in iron, vitamin B12, and other crucial nutrients.
Some people are vegans because they are concerns about the welfare of animals. Animals which are raised in hellish conditions, with little room to move, subject to cruel containment practices (debeaking, electric prodding, etc), and slaughtered in an inhumane way. All of the above is absolutely true; animals are treated terribly, they lead short, painful lives, and a ruthlessly slaughtered day in and day out. It's not a great existence. However, people who are vegan for reasons of animal welfare should not participate or condone any activity which at some point along a chain of events has made the life of an animal suffer. Taken even one step back, this is impossible. What if someone's wheat and barely is sowed by an ox? It seems to me that a an ethical vegan should not eat that wheat, because an animal was forced into labor to harvest it.
Environmental vegans reject the use of animal products on the premise that the industrial practice is environmentally damaging and unsustainable. Specifically, meat-based diets consume more resources and causes more environmental damage. This is not actually true (1)(2), but let's just say it is anyways for the sake of argument (it's irrelevant to my position).
Even if this is true, people who are vegans for either of the above ethical reasons should not do anything that involves the use of an animal. The iphone in their hand was made by a factory worker who probably had lamb chops or chicken noodle soup one of these nights. By purchasing the iphone, the vegan is contributing to that workers pay and therefore condoning his treatment of animals (i.e. his eating habits). It would be no different than directly paying the factory-farms which slaughter animals, in principle. My point here is that there seems to be an infinite web of interconnectedness among things involving the use of animals, and it is virtually impossible to do anything which wasn't in some way affected by animals. As an ethical practice, veganism seems to be impossible to follow.
Am I missing some reasoning here, or is absolute ethical veganism—as my 3 friends claimed above—an irrational position?
I think that one can find a rational justification for the position, if one is willing to accept certain basic principles.
Let us start from the standpoint of Kant's second formulation of the Categorical Imperative (from the Groundwork of a Metaphysics of Morals) which reads: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
Let us then take the position that all sentient beings, by virtue of being capable of suffering are entitled to the same moral protections as humans (but not necessarily the same moral obligations).
From the combination of these two positions, it follows that to eat an animal (or use an animal product in any direct form) consists of treating said animal as a means to an end, and not as an end in itself.
Now, obviously, both of the premises of the above syllogism are open to debate, and I'm not particularly motivated to try to defend either of these premises from the variety of criticism they may be open to; but I don't think there is anything about these positions that puts them beyond the pale of reason.
Disclaimer: Some (many?) of the things I wrote below may not reflect my personal views on the matter. However, I wrote all this thinking like the best vegan I could be.
under no circumstance would they eat an animal or use an animal product (say, for clothing). This is nonsensical, right?
There are no real justifications for this, as I understand it.
Barring extreme scenarios and unintentional ingestion of invisibly small animals, I think it's a perfectly achievable goal, for all the scenarios you mentioned. However, it would require people to educate themselves about everything they use. For example sugar and beer are not always vegan.
I don't know what "absolute" veganism means. I cannot address that, so I'll address your arguments.
Allergies to meat, eggs, and milk are uncommon, but quite well-known to the field of medicine.
Our bodies have evolved specifically to be able to digest a wide range of foods, meat among them.
This does not imply that we must continue to eat all kinds of foods.
I think it has been shown already, several times over. Dr. Gregor gave a whirlwind tour of the benefits of a plant-based diet, but for citations, you'll have to look at his shorter videos and articles that deal with just one aspect at a time.
in many reports have suggested that purely vegan diets can be very low in iron, vitamin B12, and other crucial nutrients.
Iron? Awfully unlikely, although meat has the largest amount of bio-available iron, iron deficiency is rare among vegans. B12 deficiency is a real phenomenon among many people, including meat-eaters. However, animal products seem to do more harm than good, and so, the best source seems to be B12 supplements. For health, animal-based food is the irrational choice. Also see Skeptics.SE: Is a vegetarian (vegan) diet more healthy?
For another broad overview with plenty of citations, see Nutritional Update for Physicians: Plant-Based Diets.
Now, ethics is usually a muddy and subjective topic, and that's why it's in my "ignored tags" list. However, I'll try to address what you wrote.
It seems to me that a an ethical vegan should not eat that wheat, because an animal was forced into labor to harvest it.
Such vegans may, indeed, refuse to eat such food. However, in most developed countries, animals have been completely replaced with machinery.
What about animals who are treated nicely?
Eating an animal that died of natural causes does not seem so bad... to the animal. How about what it does to the psyche of the eater? For example, would you eat a pet, or another human being, or a family member who happened to have died of a natural cause? Health risks from eating humans can usually be mitigated by cooking well. Empathy (human or animal) seems to have some kind of a neurological basis. I know people who raise a few farm animals at home. These people eat meat, but they can't bring themselves to slaughter or eat the animals they raised themselves, and so, prefer to give the animals away to others when the animals "come of age". There are all kinds of people, on one end of the spectrum, there are some who can eat other human beings. On the other end of the spectrum, there are people who can't eat animals. Is any person acting irrationally simply because they happen to be at one part of the spectrum, rather than at another?
Specifically, meat-based diets consume more resources and causes more environmental damage.
It is actually true. Methane from rice vs cattle is one of a huge list of factors. Refer to the UN report called Livestock's Long Shadow. For the environmental welfare, animal-based food is the irrational choice. Also see Skeptics.SE: Is being a vegan more environmentally friendly than otherwise?
Many people in PETA, for example, have taken a stance that I think could fairly express as "I'm not going to directly use animal products, and I'm going to do all I can to dissuade you from doing so as well." You could be dead-set against wife-beating [or, insert your favourite no-no], but how do you know the man who assembled your iPhone was not a wife-beater? By purchasing your iPhone without first ensuring that such people were not involved in its manufacture, aren't you being a hypocrite?
1) As a practicing lacto vegetarian for 35 years (no animal flesh or eggs but dairy OK) I believe there is no way one can be totally "pure", if that is the end in mind. One can look at the Jain sect in India; they sweep the sidewalk in front of them before walking and strain their water before drinking lest the injure even the tiniest life.
I find these kinds of quests impractical. I don't believe human life is meant to be lived walking on egg shells for fear of taking life. For the poster above who talked about man being thought of as a special animal, I think that is an avenue to be explored. We WANT to do things for moral reasons; that in and of itself makes us pretty special, although not unique. Witness the YouTube videos of a animals acting in totally altruistic ways. We are not TOTALLY UNIQUE in that regard.
I think each person should act with AWARENESS of the consequences of their actions, such as their food source. It is often a living thing, something that has the same desire to experience aliveness as you and I. You should make your choice based on how you feel about taking a life just for the taste. I am not here to condemn anyone, I think it is a personal decision...but decisions require pondering the alternatives too.
Just to end, the single best way I think I can answer explain the morality of eating animals is the same one that works for green or enviro causes.
If you are going to have an animal killed so that you can live, you damn well better make sure YOUR life is providing the world more value than that of the animal who died. If you're a slug with no purpose, no pride, no commitment to help others, you have acted immorally in preserving your life of low value by killing. Just like with a beautiful tree: If you have that tree cut down and make a musical instrument from it, take years to perfect your playing and bring joy to others with your music, the tree "died" to a higher purpose. If you use it to make throw-away chop sticks, you are morally wrong to have ended that great life.
So it's not so much in the killing as in the outcome of the action. Is you life worth killing an animal for? It may be and if so, I have no argument with you. If you're just shoveling burgers down your throat and diving back into gamer oblivion with no greater value to your world, you have committed an immoral act, IMHO.
Almost every choice you make could have some "irrational" part to it since not all causes and effects can be understood completely.
There are arguments today for rejecting any animal food source that are rational for the pressure they put on producers.
Your position could be motivated by pure empathy, physical or mental experience or even offensive denial.
All of these we should consider rational.
The goal is to do the least amount of harm possible. The notion that if you cannot save everyone, you should save no one is ridiculous. The mere fact of you existing will cause someone else to suffer somehow, but intentionally causing suffering is completely different. Yes, a rabbit may have been killed by mistake in harvesting the crops to feed a vegan, but that is along way away from a person choosing to make a pig suffer by ordering extra bacon. If you think those two examples are the same, then you are just trying to convince yourself that it is okay for you not to do the right thing. Cause as little harm as possible. Eating the egg of a chicken that you treat well, and has a great "chicken" life, causes no harm to the chicken, and as a vegan I would eat it. Eating the egg of a chicken that was cramed into a battery cage and tortured to produce that egg, no. I may lose the label of "vgean" but I am not concerned with labels and still believe that the action of eating the egg from the happy chicken is true to the core value of veganism. IMHO, if all chicken and cows were treated well and lived happy, full lives, vgeans would eta eggs and milk and turn into vegetarians. That is at least what 99% of my vegan friends agree with.
The irrationality stems from the fact that veganism both claims that all sentient animals should be accorded the same respect, yet it wishes to deny that man has just as much a right to eat meat than any other omnivore or carnivore does. Or in other words, they both claim that all animals are created equal, and that man is a "special" kind of animal that should be treated different.
No, It is not irrational for someone to push to TRY and be pure vegan.
Lets take it from this situation. What is there end game?
Are they trying to make a political statement?
If that is the case in the eyes of the world watching. If a famous musician misses a note, no one notices, except other musicians (which is negligible). The only ones that would know the person in question wasn't pure is other vegans.
In this regard the person would make her statement quite strongly.
It would also go for this question: Is the person trying to change peoples or a persons view(s)?
Is this person TRYING to be pure vegan?
This would be rational also. As they are just trying to be as close as they can possibly be. Knowing that it cannot be 100% is all the person needs to know. If they call themselves pure they are lying. If they are not lying then they are in the next question. Denial. No more explanation needed.
Is this person going to be pure vegan and is in denial of being 100%?
This is when it would be irrational. Being irrational usually stems from denial, I would say. So anyone calling themselves pure or in denial of it is being irrational, unless the first question applies.
In the purest sense you cannot be both a capitalist and an ethical vegan.
As stated by your "one step back" thought, eventually, and sometimes rather quickly, the money on any item can quickly make it to somewhere where cruelty to animals happens.
But then again, in an extreme sense you cannot be an fully ethical vegan and live on soil as it would contain elements of previously cruelly treated animals.
Therefore, as the sake of argument goes, rationally in a capitalistic society, as you cannot truly be a completely ethical vegan, you have to allow for give an take.
Now, based on the reasons of the vegan, their actions should fall in line with this. A rational person would have to adjust their life to meet their reasoning. For instance, if cruelty was the reason, cruelty-free animals would be fair game, and so-on.
However, as history has shown us from civil rights to freedom, extremism in one area can change the majority to a more central position. Johnny Depp said it best in an interview on a talk show about Pirates of the Caribbean, that he showed up with at least twice as much stuff on for the first day of filming, and that allowed him to "negotiate" away about 1/2 of what he had. Thus, he was left with the decoration that he actually wanted.
So, taking the long look at things, using a position of ethical veganism in a capitalistic society as a means to change an industry cannot result in removal from that society, but rather existence within it as a vocal minority dedicated to bringing the issue into the light.
Regarding the ethical reasons stated, you need to take a step back and look at the underlying assumption, namely, that there is such a thing as good and evil, or right and wrong. The "welfare of animals" has no meaning unless you are working in a framework of "right and wrong" or "justice and injustice". There can be no concern for welfare without the possibility of mistreatment. There can be no such thing as mistreatment without some concept of "treating something or someone badly". There can be no concept of "bad" without some conception of "good".
Taking a step back from that, the conception of "good vs. bad" or "justice vs. injustice" in this particular matter seems to only be relevant if there is a God. If there is no God, then it seems like the only logical order in nature is Darwinian. That being the case, eating animals is probably considered "good" or "the natural course of life preservation and continuation and evolution..." If you believe in God, then the question is settled if your God has anything to say about eating animals. If you believe in God but do not know which God is true, then He should be able to let you know directly what is true in this regard simply by the definition of what it means to be a God.


text:
Monday, December 30th, 1957 – Saturday, December 24th, 2022
To share your memory on the wall of Robert Woods, sign in using one of the following options:
Provide comfort for the family by sending flowers or planting a tree in memory of Robert Woods.
Robert's Tribute Fund's Tribute Fund
Provide comfort for the family of Robert Woods with a meaningful gesture of sympathy.
Obituary for Robert Patrick Woods
Please share your favorite memory of Robert to be included in a special keepsake book for the family.
Robert P Woods, also known by many as Woody. Age 64, birth date December 30th, 1957, passed away on Dec 24th, 2022 from health issues. He was from the south side of Pittsburgh but had lived in McKees Rocks wher... Read More
Robert P Woods, also known by many as Woody. Age 64, birth date December 30th, 1957, passed away on Dec 24th, 2022 from health issues. He was from the south side of Pittsburgh but had lived in McKees Rocks where he called home for years. Bob's significant other, Geraldine Guttilla passed away 5 years ago, and it was a huge loss for him as they were together for over 30 years. They shared a daughter together and Bob helped raise her 3 other children. Bob was raised by his mother Olga and father Raymond. Survived by his daughter Shannon, brother Rick, his late brother and sister Ray and Renee, nieces Amy, Lisa and Bridget, nephew Rick and step children Frank, Sherry, and Matt as well as several grandchildren. Bob was always full of life, and made his way into the hearts of many.
He found many ways to make people laugh throughout his lifetime.
We will always cherish the days we had with you Bob/Dad/Woody. May you rest in peace!
Family and friends are welcome on Tuesday January 3, 2023 from 2-4 and 6-8pm
at the Szal Funeral Home 238 Helen Street McKees Rocks where
Services will be held on Wednesday, January 4th, 2023, at 9:00 am
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2023 | 2:00pm - 4:00pm
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2023
Second Visitation
Blessing Service
Wednesday, January 4th, 2023 | 9:00am
Wednesday, January 4th, 2023
Fr. Regis Ryan
Wednesday, January 4th, 2023 | 10:00am
St. Mark's R.C. Cemetery
Warbler Drive
Kennedy Twp., Pennsylvania 15136
Location of St. Mark's R.C. Cemetery
Warbler Drive Kennedy Twp., Pennsylvania
We encourage you to share any memorable photos or stories about Robert. All tributes placed on and purchased through this memorial website will remain on in perpetuity for generations.
Provide comfort for the family of Robert Patrick Woods by sending flowers.
Sharon Bowler
You were a good friend and I will miss you your friend Sharon Bowler
Comment | Share Posted Dec 29, 2022 at 07:52pm via Condolence
A Memorial Tree was planted for Robert Woods
Comment | Share Posted Dec 28, 2022 at 12:57pm via Memorial Tree


Destiny and Destiny 2 will both be offline this afternoon for scheduled maintenance. The downtime will be begin at 3pm BST, and will be completed at 7pm BST today. After the maintenance, Update v1.0.1.3 will be available for download, although no details on the content of the patch have been released.


Ride your Bike in style! Sport this classy motorcycle necklaces anywhere to make your style statement! It comes in high polish stainless steel.
This is a great necklace for making a simple and bold statement that you ride a motorcycle, which opens up easy possibilities to enjoy conversations with women. I wear it with tasteful, well-fit clothing rather than with stereotypical biker clothing. This allows it to provide a strong contrast with an outfit and prevents overwhelming a woman with the "I'm a biker!" message. And what better review can you have for any product than that it gains a woman's attention? Trust me--I have field-tested this necklace, and it works.