text:
Satire: The Return of the Hand Dryer: Boys' Bathroom Receives Welcome Surprise
October 9, 2012
Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.
Email This Story
BREAKING NEWS 10/8/12: The right hand dryer in the Boys' D-Wing restroom has miraculously sparked to life for the first time since its installation in 1967, when Vietnam veterans returning to high school complained that Menlo-Atherton's bathrooms simply did not compare to what they had seen overseas.
To celebrate the miracle, Menlo-Atherton announced a rally to cheer on the hand dryer as it continued its working streak. The rally featured performances from the school cheer and dance teams, which observed and complied with dress code. Amongst the crowds, we found a lively Matthew Zito, Menlo-Atherton's principal, sharing the students' enthusiasm.
"We've always enjoyed the polished staff restrooms, but I'd be lying if I said the students were anything but remarkable for dealing with the facilities we offer them. You'll notice the door says 'Boys,' but nothing about a restroom, a title we have been forced to remove for legal reasons. If I were to say those student restrooms were anything near satisfactory, I'd probably lose my job. I have no doubts that this hand dryer miracle is the pinnacle of my tenure as a school administrator."
American Dryer Inc., which manufactured the models in all but the newest of M-A's restrooms, was bewildered. A spokesperson claimed, "We have no memory of ever producing such a model. More importantly, we've never heard of a hand dryer sparking to life after decades of inactivity. In fact, we're a little skeptical; it sounds like a lot of hot air to us."
When news reached the Alumni Association, a 45th anniversary picnic was created to celebrate the return of the hand dryer, 45 years after it went offline. The event, this Saturday, October 13th, will draw hordes of M-A alums jumping at the chance to use the very hand dryer that eluded them during their time as students.
The Boys' D-Wing restroom was filled with enthusiasm among other things Monday morning with students who were passing through astonished at the hand dryer's recovery. In high spirits, a number of students took to turning the lights on and off repeatedly, much to the amusement of their peers. As we arrived on the scene, a passing female student commented that it was time for the maintenance staff to throw the Girls' restrooms a bone.
Jim Thomas, an M-A maintenance team member, expressed his concerns about the potential consequences of allowing students to use the second dryer. "I just worry sometimes," said Thomas, "what if all that air goes to the kids' heads? Next thing you know they'll want us to fix the sink and put partitions between the urinals. I'm just worried that the dryer will make them unreasonable."
Aside from the worry of psychological changes, infrastructure was on Thomas' mind as well. "You've got a 60 year old school here. In 1952, electricians still thought electricity was magic. I'm not convinced that they were wrong. Regardless, I have no idea about what might happen with this new hand dryer coming online all of a sudden; I'm just not sure whether the school wiring can handle it or not."
No word yet on the rightmost sink in the Boys' D-Wing bathroom, which succumbed to plumbing problems at the end of the 2011-2012 school year. Perhaps another 45 years will pass before a principal with priorities in order like Zito will take the time to fix it.


text:
With huge victories for pro-life candidates in state legislatures all over the country, more pro-life laws are being passed in various states. These laws regulate the abortion mills more stringently, cut off money from the abortion industry, ban some late-term abortions, and bring more information to women who think they need abortions. The pro-abortion side is being more careful regarding which of these laws they challenge, fearing they may lose if a challenge reaches the Supreme Court. One of the things pro-abortion forces are attacking is the work of the pregnancy centers, claiming that they lie about the effects of abortion. This is a key time to support these centers and to inform ourselves and others about the medical studies that show the harm of abortion. Find out more at priestsforlife.org.
Month: June 2011
There is No Greater Love
The letter to the Hebrews tells us that Jesus Christ made the sacrifice of Himself upon the Cross "through the eternal spirit." This makes sense, because the Holy Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son, a love that is then poured out on us. It is in the Holy Spirit that we, too, have the power to love, which consists in giving ourselves away for the good of the other. "There is no greater love than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." Such is to be our response to the unborn. We sacrifice our time, efforts, possessions, positions, and reputations, in order to save their lives. By filling us with this love, the Holy Spirit unites the human family, whereas abortion divides it.
The Holy Spirit Enlightens Us
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. His gifts enable us to understand created realities, their value, and their relationship to the Creator and to our happiness. We should ask the Holy Spirit to give us an understanding of the value of the human person. The Spirit enables us to cry out, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit Himself gives witness with our spirit that we are children of God. Abortion, on the other hand, sees the human person as a disposable object. The Spirit of Truth likewise shows us the truth about our sins. In Him we come to understand the difference between good and evil. This works directly against the dynamics of the abortion movement, which identifies a moral evil as a "right." "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil."
The Spirit Breaks through the Darkness
The creation account in Genesis 1 tells us that "a mighty wind," the "breath" or "spirit" of God hovered over the waters and brought life and light out of chaos and darkness. The Holy Spirit is proclaimed in the Creed to be "the Lord and Giver of Life," and this is true both on a natural and supernatural level. On the first Easter night, Jesus breathes His Spirit upon the Apostles, that they too might bring new life out of the chaos and darkness of sin. A second Creation account is taking place here. God indeed "has sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins." To worship the Holy Spirit, then, demands that we stand against all that destroys life, and that we bring repentance to those who have done so.
The wound comes from well-meaning people. "Well, it wasn't that far along." "You can always have another child." "Lots of people go through this."
Miscarriage is a tragedy that so many people misunderstand. They are not quite sure how to console a friend or relative who has suffered this loss.
While there are no magic formulas, there is one fundamental truth that needs to stay front and center: a miscarriage is the loss of a child who is just as real and has just as much value as any other child of any age. A woman who has a miscarriage is a parent who has lost a child, as is the father of the child as well.
In a society which continues to have a legal and cultural blind spot for the unborn, many suffer from the illusion that miscarriage doesn't grieve a parent as much as the loss of, well, a "real child," and that is precisely what hurts so much. We can never console someone in grief if we imply, even remotely, that the person they lost wasn't real.
Dr. Byron Calhoun, President of the American Association of Pro-life Ob-Gyns, has observed that prior to 1970, the loss of a child before or during birth was often treated in medical literature as a "non-event," but that now there is a growing awareness of the grief associated with such loss. In fact, Dr. Calhoun has developed a hospice program for unborn children.
As the medical community advances in sensitivity and understanding of these points, so must we all. Our love, our compassion, our sharing in the grief of such losses, can bring healing to the parents who have suffered miscarriage. The naming of these children who have died is one significant way of acknowledging their reality. The counting of these children matters too, so that if a parent is asked how many children he/she has, the child who died before birth is counted as one of them.
I recall the first pro-life billboard that we set up in 1990 here in our community of Staten Island, New York. It depicted a developing unborn child. One of the first phone calls I received about it was from a woman who had lost a child by miscarriage. "I can't tell you how consoling your billboard is to me. Thank you." That was all she said.
Perhaps the reason it was consoling was that someone was saying publicly what she knew privately: that was a real child. The life of that child matters, no matter how short it was. The death of that child matters, no matter how many may not cry. And the love I have for that child matters, even if nobody else knows.
Lord, comfort all parents who grieve the loss of their children of any age. Take them into Your loving arms, and give us strength until the day You give them back to us in heaven. Amen.
The Spirit of Life
The Holy Spirit is God, and all He does and speaks to us is consistent with what God the Father and God the Son have done and spoken. In the sixteenth chapter of John's Gospel we read these words of Jesus, "He will not speak on His own, but will speak only what He hears…because He will have received from me what He will announce to you." And in John 14 we read, "The Holy Spirit…will…remind you of all that I told you." Everything the Holy Spirit will ever say to us, individually or as a Church, will always reinforce the Gospel of Life. No disciple can claim the "freedom of the Spirit" to contradict the commandments, including that which forbids the killing of the innocent, whether born or unborn.
Healing is the First Priority
Hundreds of people in our nation have worked in the abortion industry, whether in Planned Parenthood or in any of the many independent killing centers, and have stopped doing so because of a moral conversion. We at Priests for Life minister to many of them. And what is the first thing that they need? They need healing. The guided effort to face what they have done and to find spiritual and psychological wholeness must be their first activity and responsibility. Only after this crucial process and careful discernment with the help of the pro-life community should those who so desire begin to share their story on the speaking circuit. Let's pray for all those who have performed abortion, and for their healing and peace. Find out more at priestsforlife.org.
Fr. Pavone on Kevorkian: "We must bear one another's burdens"
Father Pavone issued the following statement today about the death of Dr. Jack Kevorkian:
"All of us at Priests for Life pray for the soul of Jack Kevorkian, as we do for all who have died, and we renew our commitment to proclaim that life is better than death. Every life has burdens. When we respond to the call to bear one another's burdens, then we close the door to despair. Those who promote the so-called 'right to die' are heralds of despair. We, on the other hand, are heralds of hope.
"And as for the 'right to die,' I say, Don't worry – you won't miss out on it."
Priests for Life is the nation's largest Catholic pro-life organization dedicated to ending abortion and euthanasia. For more information, visit www.priestsforlife.org.
Happy Feast of the Ascension!
Forty days after His Resurrection, the Lord Jesus ascended into heaven. What was different on that day than when He was in heaven before coming to earth? The difference was that now He was in heaven in a human body and soul – the same human nature that you and I share. Jesus took our humanity to the heights of heaven, making it possible for us to go there, too. The Ascension teaches the world the meaning and destiny of human life: we are called to be in the heights of heaven.
That is why we can never permit human life to be thrown in the garbage by abortion and other atrocities. Jesus has taken human nature to the heights of heaven, the same human nature shared by every unborn child.
Join Us in Saying a Pentecost Novena for Life
Tomorrow pro-life people around the world are invited to begin a special Novena to the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of Life. At priestsforlife.org you will be able to sign up for this novena and download the prayer.
The period of time between the Ascension and Pentecost was the original novena, when the disciples prayed at Jesus' instruction that they would be clothed with power from on high.
That Holy Spirit, the Advocate, made them bold advocates for the Gospel. The same boldness is needed by us as we announce the sanctity of life and denounce the many attacks on life, beginning with abortion and euthanasia.
Let us pray in this novena that He will make us bold advocates for the unborn and all the vulnerable.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Something Old, Something New
Welcome back to another month of me blabbing about absolutely nothing of consequence! As I write this, Im staring out the window, laughing, because the radio stations keep saying we have a chance of snow, of all things, so Im rather amused. That has nothing to do with the rant this month.
So, what is the rant this month? Why, New X-Men, of course! Its only one issue in, but I feel like talking about it. Alternately, Im lost on anything else worthwhile to discuss. Well, I do, but I need to spread stuff out.
Lets get right into it. New X-Men 114. Written by Grant Morrison, and with art by Frank Quitely. This is being heralded as the start of a brand new era of X-Men. Innovation! Good stories! Good art! Social relevance! How does it do? Not bad. Not bad at all. In fact, this is one of the best X-Books in a long time.
Most of the ideas here are nothing new. Mutants in danger, Sentinels, a Trask, a megalomaniac bent on destroying lotsa folks, Xavier being a bit of a bastard, etc. The difference is the presentation. All of these things are presented in clear ways, so everyone can understand it, and nothing like, "This is exactly like something that happened way back when, remember that, Cyclops? (Buy these issues theyre talking about! Dont be confused! Spend!)" We are given all we need to know about the Sentinels in a clear way, and in a very natural method of speaking. You can actually picture a person giving most of these lines. There are a few clunkers, but not many.
My favourite scene must be when Xaviers mind is invaded by an unknown force, and he pulls a gun on himself. This is something Xavier would do, but you would never see him do in recent years, since he has been castrated and made a proper father figure to the mutant family.
In fact, that is one minor quibble I have, and that is the ignoring of past characterization. Its every writers right to use characters the way they see fit, but usually we get at least some transition, as the writer would take what is already there, and build on it, making the character their own. Here, we get Wolverine reverted back to his wild devil-may-care attitude, and no trace of the honorable character weve had for something like 15 years or so.
Now, for the art. Mostly, I like it. Im not a huge Frank Quitely fan, but he has a very distinct look, and most of the time does some absolutely gorgeous art. But he has this tendency for eerily lumpy heads, that make everyone look damn ugly. After seeing a picture of Frank, I understand where his inspiration for heads comes from. Jean used to be a model. She should not look like someone smacked her around with the ugly stick. Franks sense of proportion, design, layout, and panel flow, almost makes me look past all that though, since this book, aside from the strange heads, is gorgeous.
Now, some quick comments by me about some of the other complaints surrounding the issue.
The new look of the Beast
I love it. Its a fun design, definitely makes him unique, and so long as an explanation is forthcoming, which from what Ive read there is one, then Im willing to let this go and see what happens. I sometimes wish I could have seen how the Beasts original change would have played out over the internet. "Whats this crap with him turning grey and furry? This is dumb! Hes looked human all this time! And that stupid haircut!!" Sound familiar, complainers?
The new uniforms
Again, I like them. Ive always felt that a team should have some kind of unifying team look, which the X- Men originally had, but strayed away from. The Legion of Superheroes is some of the best examples of a team look, but each character having its own originality. Now, the X-Men just need that originality back in the designs.
All in all, a fun book, a good book, and a book that leaves me wanting more.
I have high hopes for the future of the X-Men.
When was the last time an X-Book made me say that?
Jason M Bourgeois
[more X-pectations]
[Back to Collector Times]
[Return to Comics]
Copyright © 2001 Jason M. Bourgeois
About the Author


text:
April is National Volunteer Month, and numerous hotels are encouraging travelers to volunteer during their stay.
The New Orleans Marriott offers its Spirit to Serve New Orleans package, with rates starting at $199 on select dates. That includes a room for two, volunteering at Habitat for Humanity to help rebuild homes damaged by Hurricane Katrina, boxed lunch for two and transportation to and from the volunteer site. For more information, visit spirittoserveneworleans.com or call 1-888-236-2427. Booking code V5S.
Have you taken a trip for "volun-tourism" lately, perhaps to the Caribbean or Central America with a non-profit group to help with building or upgrading schools, recreation centers or orphanages?
Let us know about your experiences and what you think about volun-tourism.


text:
An all too common tale of 100% pure unadulterated red, white and blue crony capitalism involving our Vice-President's brother, James Biden, is described in this excellent article by Fox's Charlie Gasparino. This story really sums up all that is wrong with America today. Not only does it involve insider contracts due to political connections, but it involves building homes in Iraq! So forget construction in the United States, these cronies would rather go bomb another country into the stone age and then reward political hacks with billion dollar contracts to rebuild the mess they created. Remarkable.
From Fox:
How was it that HillStone, a newcomer in the business of home building, landed a massive and potentially lucrative contract to build 100,000 homes in war-torn Iraq?
Richter didn't mince words. It really helps, he said, to have "the brother of the vice president as a partner," according to a person who was present.
The "brother" Richter was referring to during the meeting is James Biden, the younger brother of Vice President Joe Biden.
James Biden, for his part, declined repeated attempts by FOX Business to comment on Iraq and his larger role at Hill, which now includes selling affordable housing developments, particularly in third-world countries.
Having an older brother who's the vice president certainly has its benefits. Analysts point to some lucrative deals directed to Hill from the federal government, including a $22 million contract awarded to Hill International earlier this month to manage the construction of offices for the State Department.
Biden joined the company just as HillStone was starting its negotiations to win the Iraq deal. Justice believed he had a groundbreaking technology that would be perfect for a war-ravaged country in need of affordable housing: Spraying concrete on wire and steel shells to produce housing that could be shipped quickly and cheaply.
Read the entire article here.
In Liberty,


text:
Your Government
Thanks in part to many individuals and groups in the neighborhood, a previous city right-of-way which ends at Hospital Creek is now a pocket park with a scenic vista for the Nelmar Terrace Neighborhood.
The park was a vision of the Nelmar Terrace Neighborhood Association in 2007 when the association applied for and received a neighborhood grant in the amount of $2,000 from the City of St. Augustine.
The park is located at the east end of Nelmar Avenue in North City and oversees Hospital Creek. The project manager for the association was Tom Tibbitts who held a number of offices in the the neighborhood association.
Commenting about the park, Tibbitts said "Its natural setting is complemented by attractive landscaping with a winding pathway leading to the scenic intracoastal."
Along with the the Nelmar Terrace Neighborhood Association, the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind (FSDB), specifically the young men from the Deaf Department honor dormitory program and the FSDB Dragon Flower Garden Club headed by Brett Sendler, the North East Florida Educational Consortium's Learn and Serve Grant program and the Johnson Scholarship Foundation also assisted with additional funding for the project and its completion.
Besides the neighborhood grant, the city worked with Tibbitts and assisted in realignment of water and sewer lines and built a new sidewalk and curbing which was necessary for the new public space. According to Tibbitts, it now resembles its scenic public space designed in the 1913 Nelmar Terrace plat.
"Our goal was to restore the creek side park, presenting an open vista to blend a view of the marsh from the canopied Nelmar Avenue. Many tasks were required. Asphalt and concrete were removed. The new site was graded and a sidewalk connected the adjoining sidewalks. Curbed edges improved the drainage. New
landscaping maintained and complemented the view while enhancing the privacy of the residents and the security of the students. Xeriscaped plantings created a wonderful natural area and community plantings brought together residents and members of FSDB," explained Tibbitts.
Tibbitts said that the "Optional irrigation supported seasonal conditions allowing neighborhood residents, students and faculty to meet together for community gardening. This spring's further landscaping put the finishing touches on the excellent pocket park for our city's current residents while restoring one small piece of our city's identity."
The pocket park is an excellent example of how city, state and individuals can come together to make a difference in our community. Congratulations to all those who contributed their time, talent and money to complete the Nelmar Terrace Park project.


text:
I grew up on Candid Camera. Allen Funt, the host of the show, was my hero. I watched the show every Sunday as a child and assume it's the reason I became a prankster.
I have always enjoyed the art of a good prank and have spent my fair share of time pulling them on people, mostly restaurateurs, throughout my prankster career.
When in Minnesota I would regularly prank Michael Morse during the days of Café un duex trois. Morse, a gruffly stylish New Yorker was an easy mark. The best prank on Morse were the letters from the eight national food critics, faxed from a local hotel, to Michael just before his morning staff meeting. The letters explained the exceptional meal Andrew Zimmern had prepared for each at the restaurant the night before. Perfection in "ambiance, service, and flavor" were the highlighting comments putting the restaurateur over the top. When Morse read the faxed copies, written on duplicated publication stationary, Morse assumed they were legit. Reading each one aloud, boastfully claiming "this is why I am such a Bastard when it comes to this place" he thought he had entered Restaurant Review Mecca. He came down a few days later when each pseudo critic faxed another letter claiming illness from the meal. I confessed.
When I moved to Carmel, Ca. Joe Rombi of La Mia Cucina was the brunt of many a good call. A reservation for eight the night of the 2005 AT&T from Myron Schmekelman made Rombi a little more aggravated than usual, but he eventually accommodated the caller. Even though Schmekelman would call back and cancel moments later claiming a "better table across the street" Rombi maintained his cordiality. Yes, Rombi is still on my radar.
Then there was Bradley Jones. An entire hour on the phone, discussing appetizers for a "Party in Pebble" proved unbook able when the caller, J. Plummer Mundt realized it was not "The Bradley", as in Ogden.
"Who the hell is Bradley Jones," was Mundt's response when the on-the-phone-Bradley claimed Jones as a last name rather than Ogden. Moments later, when sitting across the bar from Jones – his restaurant was around the corner from mine – I claimed to have just booked a catering event for a guy in Pebble Beach for $23,000.00. The look on Jones' face went blank when I mentioned the client's strange name.
However, my latest prank was pulled on a new manager in a favorite restaurant.
When I learned Sam Morphy, owner of The Red Grape in Sonoma, had taken a few desserts off the menu, manager Nick Mendelson became the target. During a company lunch, I decided I would be Hilda Johnson and prank the new manager. From a table across the dining room from the bar, I made a call.
"Hello, Red Grape, This is Nick, how can I help you?
"Yes, Hello sonny. This is Hilda Johnson and I have a reservation for nine people tomorrow night."
Checking, Mendelson claimed to not see the reservation.
"Sonny, don't tell me that. It's a birthday party and we have reservations, I made it a week ago.
"No problem. I can get that down for you."
"No problem. There better not be a problem. Do you know who I am? I'm local. I also want to confirm my order for 9 pieces of Carrot Cake."
"Oh, we don't have that on the menu."
"Listen, sonny, it was on the menu two days ago. Do not tell me it is not on the menu. When I made the reservation they promised you would have it."
"Well, we took it off last night and it probably will not be back."
This is where Hilda gets a little belligerent.
"Sonny, I don't care if you have to cook that cake yourself, I ordered it and I want it."
The new manager didn't miss a step.
Cordial, respectful and even a little apologetic, He explained that carrot cake was no longer on the menu.
When I insisted he go out, buy carrots, grate them and make the cake, he kept his cool, respectful, cordial demeanor. I know for sure I would have told that arrogant lady on the phone to take her carrot cake and …
But Mendelson handled it like a true professional. I can't get over how terrific he was on the phone. If you want to know how good your manager is under pressure, call me, I'll prank him.
Pranking makes perfect
I grew up on Candid Camera. Allen Funt, the host of the show, was my hero. I watched the show every Sunday as a child and assume it's the reason I became a prankster.


text:
The Ten Commandments
A book by Joseph Lewis
The Ninth Commandment
The Ninth Commandment
"Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor."
The Tribal Significance of "Neighbor"
If the previous eight Commandments were gems of a moral genius and precepts for the highest ethical conduct -- which of course they are not -- this Commandment alone would invalidate the Decalogue as a divine revelation. This Commandment definitely shows these precepts to be rules of conduct, based on superstitious taboos, for the small tribe of Hebrews who formulated them, and is in the same category as other provincial regulations of tribal ethics. If there were a God of the universe, and if he had given all the peoples of the earth a precept to follow, this God would not have restricted giving false witness only against one's "neighbor." Bearing false witness would have been condemned as inherently wrong regardless of whom the testimony might affect.
False testimony is unethical no matter against whom it is given, and if it is considered to be ethically right at certain times and under certain circumstances, the whole fabric and structure of our moral ideal collapses. For "truth is truth to the end of reckoning." Not for the benefit of one's "neighbor" or to the detriment of one's enemy, but truth for truth's sake is the highest ethical concept and the very quintessence of justice. The honorable man will speak truthfully even though it prove to his own detriment. It is essential to the principle of equality before the law that justice be applied equally to my enemy and to me. If we permit an exception for the sake of expediency or for some prejudicial reason, we may some day suffer because of that exception.
Universal justice will never be achieved until all the peoples of the earth are governed by the same laws end enjoy the same privileges. It will not matter then under what flag a man lives, so long as he enjoys liberty, and justice is administered impartially to all.
This Commandment does not say, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." If that were all it said, then it would possess some virtue. But the makers of this Commandment were not concerned with a general application of telling the truth under all circumstances. The three additional words of this Commandment were added for a very definite reason. For the age and for the purpose for which they were intended, the Commandment would be incomplete without them. Therefore, in keeping with the primitive moral standard of tribal culture, this Commandment very properly reads: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." These three words, "against thy neighbor," completely change its meaning and preclude its application as an ethical precept for modern society. Without them this Commandment could very easily have universal application, but with them it falls back into the narrow provincial category of the early Israelitish tribal code.
At the time this Commandment was written, anyone who was not a "neighbor" was an enemy. This was the law of tribal life. The boundaries and property of clans had to be vigilantly watched and jealously guarded. It was essential to the solidarity of the tribe that all band together for the common good.
According to Talmudic law, only a brother Hebrew is a neighbor. In another interpretation of this very Commandment, brother and neighbor are synonymous terms which do not apply to anyone outside the clan. [*1]
The word "neighbor," as used in this Commandment, unmistakably meant a fellow tribesman, a compatriot, and did not, nor was it ever intended to describe a fellow human being in a universal sense. This is verified not only by leading Biblical authorities, such as the Rev. Henry Sloane Coffin, who says that "the Israelites did not apply this Commandment to their dealings with other people," but by the Bible itself.
When properly understood in the light of primitive culture, this Commandment is in perfect harmony as to its origin and meaning with the other portions of the Decalogue. The authors of the Decalogue could not have formulated it differently; they were mentally incapable of embodying a Commandment with the broader principle of universal application. All the Commandments belong in the same category and were promulgated for one purpose -- to prevent injury to the clan and to promote tribal solidarity for the sake of their Deity's approval.
If this Commandment consisted of the simple statement, "Thou shalt not lie," it would be free from its clannish implication. And if, in addition to this unequivocal declaration that an untruth should not be uttered, the penalty provided for speaking falsely were that the tongue should become palsied, then indeed might such a Commandment act as a sentinel in order that "truth might bear away the victory."
There is no monitor guarding the mind from believing that which is untrue, or restraining the tongue from speaking that which is false.
Professor James H. Breasted, the noted Egyptologist, makes a significant observation in his book, The Dawn of Conscience. After an exhaustive study of the evolution of ethics, he confesses:
"Like most lads among my boyhood associates, I learned the Ten Commandments. I was taught to reverence them because I was assured that they came down from the skies into the hands of Moses, and that obedience to them was therefore sacredly incumbent upon me. I remember that whenever I fibbed I found consolation in the fact that there was no commandment 'Thou shalt not lie,' and that the Decalogue forbade lying only as a 'false witness' giving testimony before the courts where it might damage one's neighbor. In later years when I was much older, I began to be troubled by the fact that a code of morals which did not forbid lying seemed imperfect; but it was a long time before I raised the interesting question: How has my own realization of this imperfection arisen? Where did I myself get the moral yardstick by which I discovered this shortcoming in the Decalogue?"
Professor Breasted's answer to his question is predicated on inevitable conclusions, drawn from his researches, that ethics develop in an evolutionary process and that "the moral ideas of early man were the product of their own social experience." A careful examination of the early religious systems and the moral codes of contemporary times forced him to state that "it is important to bear in mind the now commonly accepted fact that in its primitive stages religion had nothing to do with morals as understood by us today." [*2] Professor Breasted is too considerate when he speaks of only primitive religion and morals as being two entirely separate and distinct departments of human thought. They are just as much separate and distinct today as they were ten thousand years ago. Religion and morals have not only no connection with each other, but are often antagonistic both in principle and practice, as has been factually substantiated in the analysis of the previous Commandments. He also discovered that "man arose to high moral vision two thousand years before the Hebrew nation was born." [*3]
This Commandment survives today, not because of any ethical value that it might possess, for it has none, but because it is associated with a religious taboo. It is but another striking example of the utter lack of moral value when conduct is predicated upon racial and religious edicts.
Biblical Evidence of Hebrew Tribal Solidarity
Just as the Bible is replete with instances to support the contention that the previous Commandments were applicable solely to the early Hebrews, so we find innumerable instances recorded in it about their dealings with outside tribes which show that this Commandment was exclusively a tribal precept, and that the word "neighbor" as used in this Commandment had reference only to a fellow Hebrew. The code of conduct which made its adherents honest and trustworthy among themselves, but deceitful and unscrupulous toward strangers, seems to have been prevalent in many similar primitive social groups. This Commandment is as definite a reflection of that cultural level as if it were stamped with the year and age in which it was formulated.
An example of this tribal code is recorded in Deuteronomy, Chapter 14, verse 21:
21. Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God....
You and your neighbor may not eat meat from an animal that "dieth of itself," but it is permissible to give it to the stranger, or sell it to an alien. This one illustration alone should be sufficient to convince anyone of the meaning and intent of the word "neighbor" as used in this Commandment, because it is a far greater offense to sell diseased meat to a stranger than to bear false witness against a neighbor. The contempt with which the stranger was held in primitive society only emphasizes the strong tribal ties which this Commandment was intended to preserve.
Another Biblical passage revealing the clannish principle of tribal solidarity is in Deuteronomy, Chapter 15, verses 1 to 3:
1. At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.
2. And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth aught unto his neighbor shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbor, or of his brother; because it is called the Lord's release.
3. Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release.
Not only are the words "neighbor" and "brother" used synonymously in the above instance, but the additional fact that a fellow Hebrew should cancel his neighbor's debt after seven years, but "of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again," is a clannish ethical concept that leaves not the slightest doubt of the meaning of "neighbor" as used in Hebrew nomenclature, and particularly in this Commandment. [*4]
Could there possibly be a stronger illustration than the following to indicate the meaning of the word "neighbor" used in the Biblical sense as part of this Commandment?
19. Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
20. Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. [**5]
The same tribal code accounts for the rule which prevailed among the Hebrews that if an article which had been lost by one member was found by another, it was incumbent upon the latter to see that it was restored to his "brother," but that if the property belonged to a stranger, no attempt need be made to return it. [*6]
Equally pertinent to this tribal concept is the following from Leviticus, Chapter 19, verses 16 to 18:
16. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the Lord.
17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
18. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.
As is well known, the Bible not only sanctions slavery, but, in its clannish application, no Hebrew shall be enslaved by a brother Hebrew. As quoted in Leviticus, Chapter 25, verses 44 to 46:
44. Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
The bondmen and bondmaids "shall be of the heathen that are round about you," "but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule..." This only re-emphasizes the clannish application of the word "neighbor" in its relation to this Commandment.
The conclusion is inevitable that "brother" and "neighbor" as used in these Biblical quotations are identical in purpose with the word "neighbor" as used in this Commandment, and meant a fellow Hebrew only.
The significance of these quotations in relation to this Commandment may be summarized by placing them in the following order:
"Thou must not eat of anything that dieth of itself, but thou mayest give it unto the stranger, or sell it to an alien...."
"After every seven years thou shalt make a release of thy neighbour's debt, but of the foreigner thou mayest exact it again...."
"Thou shalt not lend money upon usury unto thy brother, but unto a stranger thou mayest lend it upon usury...."
"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart...."
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour...."
Not only must you refrain from giving false witness against your neighbor, your fellow tribesman, your compatriot, but, as in the previous instances, it was incumbent to bear false witness, if necessary, against the stranger when the interest of a neighbor was involved. While the injunction "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" is negative in defense of tribal solidarity, it is positive in its application to tribal enemies. Among primitive tribes, such as were the Children of Israel, a "stranger" did not merit the same rights and consideration as a "neighbor" and was looked upon as an enemy of the tribe, as revealed in verse 16, quoted above -- "neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour...."
The Clannishness of Tribal Law
In the lower stages of social life, the interests of the "foreigner" or "stranger" were not regarded at all. In primitive society, the clan or community was considered as a part of one's own body. An injury to an individual member affected the whole community. It therefore became the bounden duty of each member of the clan to protect the community under all circumstances, even with his life, if need be. Although there might be individual differences within the clan, all become as one when dealing with a common foe. The clannish thought underlying this Commandment -- and the very basis of Hebrew ethics -- is the survival of this primitive family group. It is characteristic of certain individual family attitudes even today. Just as the primitive clan, motivated by the interest of tribal solidarity, justified lying and cheating for the benefit of their individual members, so there are today certain family groups that feel justified in lying, indeed believe it their duty to lie, for the benefit of one of their members.
The late Judge Joseph E. Corrigan of New York, who was noted for the number of witnesses he held for perjury, said: "It is considered the proper thing for a blood relative to lie to save his kin, and it is only one degree more noble for a friend to come forward and make the generous gesture." [*7]
This same clannish spirit is manifested more prominently in different communities, and still more intensified in different nations. That is why there is suspicion of members of different races and believers in different creeds. Do not the orthodox Jew, the fundamentalist Protestant and the pious Catholic still have a different attitude toward members of different faiths than their attitude toward those of their own religious affiliations? The white man feels superior to the black and yellow man. Oriental peoples have a certain natural aversion for each other; the Turk does not readily tolerate the Arab, or the Persian, and these feel similarly toward the Turk. The Syrian considers the Egyptian inhuman, and the Egyptian thinks the Syrian is simple-minded. The Spaniard and the Mexican also are antagonistic. So there is distrust and hatred and suspicion among all peoples that have not been able to overcome their primitive inhibitions. [*8] Westermarck significantly states that "throughout the Middle Ages all Europe seems to have tacitly agreed that foreigners were created for the purpose of being robbed." [*9]
Even as late as the beginnings of Roman society, there existed two divisions of the law, classified as the civil law and the law of nations. The civil law was composed of rules and regulations which governed the Romans exclusively, defining their rights and privileges; the law of nations, known as jus gentium, determined the rights and privileges of foreigners. The latter precluded the foreigner or alien from having any share in purely Roman institutions. Controversies involving the interests of aliens could not be decided under the civil law, while under the law of nations they enjoyed privileges until their interests conflicted with those of the native Romans. [*10]
Indeed, it was not until recent times that foreigners were placed on the same footing with citizens regarding inheritance. It was not until 1790 that the French National Assembly abolished the right of aubaine as being contrary to the principle of human brotherhood. It was not until 1870 that foreigners were authorized to inherit and bequeath like British subjects. [*11] And even today, in the State of California, Orientals are not permitted to own property.
People like that to which they are accustomed or which is their own; they dislike the strange and unfamiliar. The sight of a differently colored skin or strange wearing apparel, the sound of a foreigner's language, arouse antipathies and have greatly influenced the moral valuation of conduct toward foreigners. At the same time, they have strengthened the feeling of mutual interests between tribesmen and compatriots. This enmity between different communities tends to intensify each group's devotion to a common goal and the friendly feelings between members of the tribe. [*12] To do good to a friend and to do harm to an enemy was a maxim of the ancient Scandinavians. [*13]
Innumerable examples could be cited to show that it is a natural tendency to regard compatriots and coreligionists from a different moral standpoint than persons who are not connected by such ties. The latter are considered to have a lower standard of morality and an inferior sense of right and wrong.
Although Americans permitted the enslavement of the black man, it was considered a grievous sin to enslave a white man. During our slavery era, no one except the Abolitionists believed that the black man possessed the same emotions as his white master. He could be lashed, his family relationships disrupted, and human feelings outraged with impunity.
This narrow provincialism persists to this day. A man's name was stricken from the list of prospective jurors because he said, when examined by the judge, that he would not believe "the word of a Negro in any circumstance against that of a white man." The judge very properly replied: "The jury panel is no place for you. A juror should always be fair and impartial." [*14]
An ancient provincial law of Sweden permitted a slave to be insulted without redress. In addition, the slave was considered of such an inferior caste that he was not allowed even to invoke the law. [*15] The slave in the United States before the Civil War was no better off. Any dishonest or deceitful method might be used to deprive the slave of anything he possessed; indeed, it was considered foolhardy not to resort to such devious devices. Christianity taught that the black man was "created" to be a slave. How can anyone having such a point of view understand, much less practice, the American principle that guarantees justice and equality to all regardless of race, color or creed?
With reference to this system of ethics prevailing in nearly all primitive societies, E. P. Evans says: "This is the kind of ethics which finds expression in the legislation of all barbaric and semi-civilized races, from the Eskimos to the Hottentots. The Balantis of Africa punish with death a theft committed to the detriment of a tribesman, but encourage and reward thievery from other tribes. According to Caesar's statement, [*16] the Germans did not deem it infamous to steal outside of the precincts of their own village, but rather advocated it as a means of keeping the young men of the community in training and rendering them vigilant and adroit." [*17]
Many primitive tribes have been characterized as bands of thieves because of their raids on other tribes, but among themselves they are just as honest and as truthful as people in more civilized communities. In order to understand fully their behavior, one must know the motives prompting their acts. In early ethics, revenge is enjoined as a duty, and forgiveness of enemies is despised. [*18]
It is said of the Bedouin of the Arabian desert that he "will be forgiven if he should kill a stranger on the road, but eternal disgrace would be attached to his name if it were known that he had robbed his companion or his protected guest even of a handkerchief." [*19]
The natives of the interior of Sumatra do not deem it a moral defect to deal dishonestly with strangers. The Masai hold any kind of deceit to be allowable in their relations with persons of another race. The Hovas of Madagascar will punish a member of their own tribe who does not speak falsely to foreigners. No stigma was attached to lying and deceit; they were considered proofs of superior cunning, particularly in matters of dispute. A common Moslem doctrine is that a lie is permissible when told to obtain any advantage in a war with enemies of the faith. [*20]
We have parallel instances even today. It is a settled principle of morality (if it can be called such) that nations at war practice the most cunning forms of deception on the enemy. The more trickery employed in deceiving the enemy, the more laudable the act. The question of ethics or morality does not enter into the use of the most reprehensible means to destroy the enemy. This primitive concept of morality governs the conduct of the Japanese today. A well-known authority states that the Japanese are a scrupulously honest people in dealing with each other; that the doors of their houses are never locked, and that thefts are rare among them. Despite this, they would treacherously violate a solemn treaty with another nation if it should ultimately advance their own interests. [*21] What more pertinent illustration of the survival of the tribal code than the dastardly attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, which President Roosevelt said "would live in infamy." While their envoys pretended to talk peace terms, they were plotting to destroy our defenses and confiscate our property. This reprehensible conduct provoked Secretary of State Cordell Hull to say: [*22] "It is now apparent to the whole world that Japan in its recent professions of a desire for peace has been infamously false and fraudulent.... In all my fifty years of public service, I have never seen a document that was more crowded with infamous falsehoods and distortions -- infamous falsehoods and distortions on a scale so huge that I never imagined until today that any government on this planet was capable of uttering them." The New York Times reported the deception of the Japanese troops in flying a flag of truce only as a means of perpetrating a treacherous assault on our unsuspecting soldiers. [*23] The acts of Hitler's Germany are equally reprehensible.
Of the Sudra inhabitants of Central India, it is said that in their intercourse with each other they are distinguished for their adherence to the truth, while in their relations with strangers they are generally false and deceptive. While they would never utter a lie or be dishonest in their dealings to one of their own clan, they would not hesitate to lie to or steal from a stranger.
The Indian Islanders are accused by strangers of being faithless and perfidious. Yet, in their domestic intercourse, they display more integrity than one would generally believe they possessed. It is in their dealings with strangers and enemies that their treachery is displayed. The Greenlanders, who understate rather than overstate the value of an article in trading among themselves, lied outrageously in their transactions with the Danish traders. The Touaregs, while scrupulously faithful to a promise given to one of their own people, do not regard as binding a promise given to a Christian. Among the Bushmen, no one is permitted to give information to a stranger, and among the Beni Amer, a stranger can never trust the word of a native because "of their contempt of everything foreign." When the Kafirs are involved in a lawsuit, witnesses are allowed to tell as many lies as they like in order to make the best of their case. [*24]
Throughout India, Sir W. H. Sleeman found that "the question whether truth or falsehood is to be spoken depends on the relationship between the speaker and the party addressed," for "if a man had told a lie to cheat his neighbor, he would become an object of hatred and contempt -- if he had told a lie to save his neighbor's fields from an increase of rent or tax, he would have become an object of esteem and respect." [*25] Sir John Malcolm found that the natives of the Sudra of Central India often tell positive falsehoods to strangers, whereas they are distinguished by their adherence to truth in their relations among themselves. [*26]
In the Western Islands of the Torres Straits, it was regarded as meritorious to kill foreigners either in fair fight or by treachery, and honor and glory were bestowed on those bringing home the skulls of natives of other islands slain in battle. [*27]
The Arab who meets an unknown wanderer in the desert acts in accordance with the saying "The stranger is for the wolf." He is looked upon as an enemy.
The Indian Islanders have been accused by strangers of perfidy and faithlessness; yet, says an authority, these acts must be understood in the proper light. In their domestic and social intercourse, they are far from being a deceitful people. It is only in their intercourse with strangers that the treachery of their character is displayed. [*28]
The Orang-Ot of Borneo, when they meet strangers, turn their backs on them and squat on the ground, hiding their faces; they explain their behavior by saying that the mere sight of a stranger upsets them. [*29] The Tupi of Brazil call all men not of their race or language "strangers" or "enemies."
Among the Kafirs of the Kindu-Kush, killing a stranger might not be a crime, but killing a fellow tribesman is held in an altogether different light. The Koriaks consider murder a great crime only when committed within the tribe. The early Aleuts considered the killing of a companion a crime worthy of death, "but to kill an enemy was quite another thing." Humboldt found that the natives of Guiana "detest all who are not of their family, or their tribe, and hunt Indians of a neighboring tribe who live at war with their own." The Gallos consider it honorable to kill an alien, though criminal to kill a countryman. To the Fuegians, a stranger and an enemy are synonymous terms. In Melanesia, also, a stranger as such was generally, throughout the islands, an enemy to be killed. Among the Chukchi, it is held criminal to thieve or murder in the family or race to which a person belongs; but these crimes committed elsewhere are not only permitted, but held honorable and glorious.
Nearly all tribes of the primitive culture of the ancient Hebrews regarded the "stranger within thy gates" as an enemy, and, as has been noted in discussing the Eighth Commandment, the thief is considered an offender only when he steals from a fellow tribesman; stealing from a stranger is praiseworthy. [*30] Among the Hindus, truthtelling depends on the motive. If false evidence is given for a pious reason, such evidence is called "the speech of the gods." [*31]
The code of these primitive peoples is undoubtedly the same as that which prevailed in the Hebrew tribe. Well might such clannish, tribal conduct be expressed in the words of this Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The pursuit of truth above racial partisanship, however, is the highest development in evolutionary ethics, and who is right is far more important than the racial or religious relationship of the disputants.
The Stranger Tabooed in Tribal Society
There was another very significant reason why the stranger was not accorded the same consideration as a neighbor in primitive societies: he was a believer and worshiper of strange and enemy gods. This is revealed in the narrative where the Hebrew is prohibited from eating "anything that dieth of itself ... for thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God," and in the narrative prohibiting the lending "upon usury to thy brother ... that the Lord may bless thee in all that thou setteth thine hand to do in the land whither thou goest to possess it."
To accord the stranger the same consideration as members of one's own tribe would be inviting the wrath and anger of the tribal god whose jealousy we have already discussed. Tribal solidarity depended on not arousing the jealousy of the tribe's deity. Telling the truth to the detriment of a neighbor and for the benefit of a stranger was a flagrant offense in tribal culture.
While the passages to be quoted below deal with the Hebrew and the stranger in a strictly ritual sense, they are nevertheless additional evidence of the meaning of the word "neighbor" as used in this Commandment. No stranger could partake of those things holy to the Hebrews. The Passover was prohibited by Biblical edict to the stranger. I quote Exodus, Chapter 12, verse 43:
43. And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof.
In conformity with the above prohibition, it is understandable now why a "stranger" could not observe the Sabbath, because "the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel alone." [*32] Nor could the stranger touch things holy to the Hebrew, or offer sacrifices to the Hebrew God, as stated in Leviticus, Chapter 22, verse 25:
25. Neither from a stranger's hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these; because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them: they shall not be accepted for you.
The belief in the corrupting and desecrating influence of the stranger could not be more forcibly expressed than in the above quotations. These Biblical prohibitions make clear why a stranger could not be taught the Torah. [*33] The same prohibition is repeated in Exodus, Chapter 29, verse 33:
33. And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy.
Certainly, if a stranger cannot eat "those things wherewith the atonement was made," what chance had he to be put on the same level as a brother Hebrew in the matter of testimony, where the interests of the tribe and the protection of its solidarity were considered the most sacred obligation?
Nor could a stranger offer incense to the Hebrew Deity. I quote Numbers, Chapter 16, verse 40:
40. To be a memorial unto the children of Israel, that no stranger, which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the Lord; that he be not as Korah, and as his company: as the Lord said to him by the hand of Moses.
More significantly even than the previous quotations, the Biblical testimony to follow clearly and unequivocally puts this Commandment in its proper category of Hebrew provincialism, and is additional indisputable proof of its tribal genesis. Not only was the stranger prohibited from touching things holy to the Hebrew or offering the bread as a sacrifice to the Lord, but there was a further restriction placed upon him. He could not even "eat of the holy thing" sacred to the Hebrew. I quote Leviticus, Chapter 22, verses 10 to 13:
10. There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
11. But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.
12. But if the priest's daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things.
13. But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.
Nor is that all. The mere fact that the priest's daughter had been "married unto a stranger" -- one not a neighbor -- was such a profanation of the sacred, clannish tribal code that she herself "may not eat of an offering of the holy things." If, however, she avoided the further impiety of having children by the stranger, she may then "eat of her father's meat" -- which had previously been ritually prepared, but her non-Hebrew husband was forbidden -- "there shall no stranger eat thereof."
If equal rights in so intimate an association as marriage are denied the husband in a minor ritual matter because he is a "stranger," is it not unthinkable that a wholly detached stranger would be entitled to equality in a far more restricted field affecting the entire Hebrew national interest?
The stranger could not even approach the holy tabernacle. I quote Numbers, Chapter 1, verse 51:
51. And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down; and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.
Not only was the stranger prohibited from taking part in the religious ceremonies of the Biblical Hebrew or receiving any of the blessings, and prohibited from touching the bread of sacrifice or from eating "those things wherewith the atonement was made," or from offering "incense before the Lord," but, to cap the climax, he "that cometh nigh [unto the tabernacle] shall be put to death."
Do not some religious people even today resent the presence of those of a different faith while performing their religious ceremonies? I remember once, at the request of a friend, accompanying him while he attended his religious services. While there, no one could have acted more courteously than I. Yet, many in the congregation not only showed their uneasiness, but on leaving the church were quite vehement in denouncing my presence in their church, and berated the priest for tolerating me there.
Can we boast of any advance over the Choctaw Indians who think it highly irreligious to bury one of their kinsmen among strangers? Do we not even today practice this clannish tribal custom? Do we not have different cemeteries, not only for different races, but even for those of different religious faiths? Orthodox believers are horrified at the thought of being buried in a cemetery other than where "their people" are interred. They are certain they would "turn in their graves" if such a "catastrophe" happened to them.
In primitive society, special sacrifices are made to counteract the evil influences of association with the stranger. In Loas, before a stranger can be accorded hospitality, the master of the house must offer a sacrifice to the ancestral spirit or it would be offended and send disease to the inmates. [*34] Among the Battes of Sumatra, a buffalo is usually killed and the liver offered to the stranger. This is supposed to propitiate the evil spirits.
In the Mentawei Islands, children particularly are supposed to be affected by the appearance of strangers. When one enters the house where there are children, the father takes something the children are wearing and gives it to the stranger. This is to protect the children from the evil effect the stranger might have on them. When a Dutch steamship was approaching their villages, the people of Biak, an island off the north coast of New Guinea, shook and knocked their idols about in order to ward off ill luck. North American Indians believe that strangers, particularly white strangers, are ofttimes accompanied by evil spirits.
The people of Nias carefully scrub and scour the weapons and clothes which they buy in order to efface all connection between the things and the persons from whom they bought them. There is a survival of this stranger taboo even today, particularly among women. After a visit to a person of a different race or religion, some women will shake off the "contaminating" effects of the contact. This is done even after casual meetings because of the archaic belief that contact with the person has been contaminating in some way or other.
In Australia, when a stranger tribe has been invited into a district, the strangers carry lighted bark or burning sticks in their hands as they approach the encampment of the tribe which owns the land to clear and purify the air.
When the Toradjas of Central Celebes are on a head-hunting expedition and have entered the enemy's country, they may not eat any fruits that the foe has planted, nor any animal that he has reared, until they have first committed an act of hostility, such as burning a house or killing a man. They think that if they break this taboo, something of the soul or spiritual essence of the enemy will enter into them and destroy the mystic virtue of their talisman. [*35]
The Bechuanas cleanse or purify themselves after journeys by shaving their heads lest they should have contracted some evil by witchcraft or sorcery from strangers. In some parts of western Africa, when a man returns home after a long absence, he must wash his person with a particular fluid before he is allowed to visit his wife, in order to counteract the evil influence that a strange woman may have cast on him during his absence.
In some primitive communities, when a stranger has entered a hut or dwelling, it is immediately abandoned as having been desecrated. [*36] How far removed is the orthodox Hebrew of today who will break the dish out of which a non-Jew has eaten, or the bigoted Christian who does not even tolerate a Jew to enter his home -- while at the same time worshiping a Jew as the Son of God!
Such was the moral code of the Children of Israel in differentiating their conduct between "neighbors" and "strangers"; it was also their religion. That is why, like other primitive and uncultured peoples, they practiced the utmost fidelity in their intratribal relationships, while any consideration of honesty or equality to those outside the clan was condemned as an affront and an offense to their Deity. They practiced with fanatical jealousy these primitive, clannish tribal codes of conduct, and observed these taboos with fanatical zeal to show their devotion to the Biblical Deity for having made them his "Chosen People." There was not the slightest question of either morals or ethics involved in the observance of this Commandment. It was accepted by the Children of Israel solely as a religious taboo to be blindly followed as an edict of their God -- for the solidarity of the tribe.
... chapter continued on next file ...
The e-text conversion and critical editing of this book is copyright ©1998 by Cliff Walker. The text is watermarked. If you intend to commercialize on this book in any way, please do your own e-text conversion work. This is a labor of love, honoring the role that the works of Joseph Lewis have played in my life and in the hope that the unique presentation of Joseph Lewis's works, available only on Positive Atheism, will bring the dignity to the Positive Atheism project that only this unique presentation of the writings of Joseph Lewis can bring. We hope that our readers, supporters, friends, and others can understand and appreciate the role that this -- privilege -- of being able to present the Joseph Lewis material brings to the people who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much to make Positive Atheism's online presentation possible.


text:
Click here
for full forums index
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
What is the worse romance you ever read?
Goto page
AAR Forum Index
Romance Potpourri Forum
View previous topic
View next topic
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 15
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:27 am
Post subject: Re: Worst Romances
An Independent Wife
by Linda Howard. It was the first Linda Howard I read, and I chose it in part because the title led me to believe it would be about an independent wife (duh). However, the heroine was a spineless doormat and the so-called hero a controlling jerk. Luckily when I posted on AAR and asked if this were a typical LH book, people steered me to
Son of the Morning
, still one of my favorite books ever. Hard to believe the same person wrote both.
Thank you so much for mentioning this one. I read it when I was a big fan of Linda Howard's but this book, followed by Sarah's Child and Almost Forever made me swear off Linda Howard forever. The Independent Wife especially, I told my sister, was not worth the paper it was printed on.
Back to top
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2733
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:31 am
Post subject:
to xtacy20:
I know Howard's "Sarah's Child" is disliked by many readers, but, in my thinking, Howard did a fine job with a difficult idea, so I always want to ask those who dislike it why they do dislike it.
Back to top
Maggie AAR
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 2709
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:27 pm
Post subject:
"Bittersweet" by LaVryle Spencer. I can't even begin to describe how awful this was -- the career woman who took care of herself and sinfully liked big cities was so abused by the end of the novel I couldn't even take it. The heroine, an adulterating selfish little weasel, was sanctified by the fact she loved small towns and baked! AARRRRGGHHHH!
maggie b.
Back to top
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 16
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:52 pm
Post subject:
SO So many
I have to agree on the Susan Wiggs Texas Wildfire and anything by Diana
And there is one that I also can not remember the name to. Early 90s release. The setting was during the viking Invasions of England and the hero was awful. Probably historically accurate but horrible never the less. After he kidnapped the heroine he had her on his boat and he had his foot on her neck the entire way back to teach her that she is even lower than a dog to him. I never got past that scene so I do not know how they ended up in love but...
visit Lorraineslibrary.blogspot.com
Back to top
Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 404
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:34 pm
Post subject:
Stephanie Laurens
Taste of Innocence
I absolutely
this book and was surprised I finished it (but I have to finish them). Its marriage of conveinence, which I love but it was so bad. She wanted them to 'get to know' one another before hand and spent like two weeks making out and thensome without ever having a conversation. Then, in order to avoid falling in love with her, after they marry, he doesnt speak to her during the day.
OMG, I hated this book. The funny thing is, it was my first SL book and now I refuse to read anything else by her. I'm sure she has better books out there, but I just cant get over this one.
Back to top
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 722
Location: under a cockatiel
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:24 pm
Post subject:
No, the worst fantasy ever is The Eye of Argon. But the question was about romance, and most romance fans I see tell me that the Black Jewels books are romances.
Oddly enough, I like Sara's Child and the more I've re-read them, the more I like Shades of Twilight and Loving Evangeline.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
My blog:
Back to top
Joined: 02 Jan 2008
Posts: 1557
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:36 pm
Post subject:
Hmmm. Three books I just love are on Kass' list, which makes me wonder if I should seek out the others.
Let me add
Forbidden Love
by Karen Robards, which I thought was horribly written in addition to being offensive on about 14 different levels. And
Loving Julia
by same was disgusting.
"'Happily ever after, or even just together ever after, is not cheesy,' Wren said. 'It's the noblest, like, the most courageous thing two people can shoot for.'" -- Fangirl by Rainbow Rowell
Back to top
Lynda X
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 1625
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:04 pm
Post subject:
You know, reading about all of these truly awful, disgusting books, it's remarkable that romances continued in popularity. Oh, by the way, pinkbubble, I DO remember your awful Viking book, and if I remember correctly, it was written by a major author of the '80s who had a series of Viking books.
Seeing that so many of our most popular past writers (Rosemary Rogers and Diana Palmer) and books ("Whitney, My Love" and those by Linda Howard) are now seen as truly awful (and I believe the reassessment is right, by the way), why do you think they were so popular then? I don't think it was so much that women loved the rapists and the TSTL heroines (I know I generally didn't) then as much as there were no other kind of romances being written. Abusive, raping heroines and teenage heroines were about it, probably because the first two or three really big romances (by Woodiwiss and Rogers) set the standard. That's my theory, anyway. What's yours? How COULD such books be so popular, when clearly they were so truly awful with awful characters and values? (Please, please don't talk about how one woman's gem is another's trash. I know that.)
Back to top
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1728
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:52 pm
Post subject: Worst Romances
Kass wrote:
Just about everything by Judith Ivory, but especially Black Silk and Beast. Unromantic, stupid books.
It's funny because I loved this author in both her Cuevas and Ivory incarnations, but the two books of hers that were DNF for me are the two you mention.
The Black Jewels trilogy by Bishop for dwelling on disgusting incest and abuse, cutesy renamings of Christian theological figures, and characters with all the depth of tissue paper.
I definitely don't think of these as romances but as very dark, violent SF/F. They are not perfect books but I found them compelling and her world fascinating. The bad guys do very bad things and, in the end, are punished, unlike in the Real World where bad guys do very bad things but all too often get away with it. In that sense I found the books quite satisfying and have sought out her other stories set in the same universe. Sorry they didn't work for you.
Back to top
Kelly B
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 136
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:26 pm
Post subject:
How COULD such books be so popular, when clearly they were so truly awful with awful characters and values?
I wasn't really around when these books were introduced (or at least I wasn't reading since I was born in the late 70s), so I can only offer theories.
One, I imagine they were different than anything else really out there. You had your dramatic, campy novels like Valley of the Dolls or Peyton Place that were sweeping soaps, not not necessarily with a happy ending (such as it is in some of these early romances) or with the relationship as the primary focus. Previous books that were romances/for women seemed to be much more contained--Heyer's Regency, the polite world of Mary Stewart, doctor/nurse romances--not the big, sweeping adventures (again, such as they were).
I also wonder if they were informed by a response to the women's movement, even if just subconsciously. Many of these books came out not too long after Roe, and in the height of the debate over the ERA. Traditional mores and roles for women were being challenged in an almost-unprecedented way. Enter books that show epic scopes and end the claustrophobia of, say, the doctor/nurse genre, but still ultimately reaffirmed traditional gender roles. An alpha male dominating a woman physically, emotionally and sexually, all put in a more attractive package--it's ROMANCE, not subjugation. These "feisty" women or girls are molded by the male protagonist and ultimately end up fulfilled as dutiful wives and mothers whose primary concern is her husband and their domestic life, not burning her bra or trying to break through the glass ceiling or trying to earn more than $.59 to the dollar. Plus, they were racier, so the books took advantage of some of the elements of the sexual revolution--a hint of modern daring--while still holding the line on traditional social structures. Titillation+comfort of tradition=sales.
I'd be really interested to see the demographics of the early sales figures.
Like I said, though, just a theory since I missed the early days of the romance in its "modern" form.
Back to top
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 107
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Worst Romances
Kass wrote:
Just about everything by Judith Ivory, but especially Black Silk and Beast. Unromantic, stupid books.
Hmmm, I am curious of the reasons you would call Black Silk "stupid." I could see that some might see the book unromantic, or an unfit book in the romance genre, but personally I view the book with a certain philosophical depth, especially regarding the character of Graham Natham, following the manner of French Realist literature, maybe a touch of Flaubert.
Back to top
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 503
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:25 am
Post subject:
dick wrote:
to xtacy20:
I know Howard's "Sarah's Child" is disliked by many readers, but, in my thinking, Howard did a fine job with a difficult idea, so I always want to ask those who dislike it why they do dislike it.
Oh.. I remember Sarah's Child and how I really really disliked the hero and the heroine. Here's why (
The hero:
I could sympathize with his deep grief when he lost his wife and kids. Mentally, he's in no condition to remarry again, yet he makes an extremely one-sided and unfair proposition to the heroine to use her to forget his pain, without offering anything back to her (other than sex). He makes it clear that he doesn't want to have another child, but leaves it to the heroine to handle birth control issue. Talk about cave man attitude! Then when she accidentally gets pregnant, he has the nerve to act like it's all her fault and doesn't want to have anything to do with her pregnancy and the baby. He's so wrapped up in his own little world that he never stops to think about anything or anyone else (namely his wife). Not exactly hero material if you ask me.
The heroine:
more than anything, I really wanted to club her in the head for allowing her husband to treat her badly. I guess I'll never understand Linda Howard's kind of love that would make a woman willingly enters a marriage to a man incapable of being a full partner outside of the bedroom.
In the end, I understand what Linda Howard was trying to put across in this book: that there's no time limit for grief, and only unselfish love can pull you out of your deepest pain. But that doesn't mean I have to like the book.
Last edited by graceC on Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:27 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 341
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:26 am
Post subject:
I just had to add my personal worsts:
Against the Rules by Linda Howard - I picked this up for 25 cents at the library because I'd loved Open Season. Domineering hero who had sex with heroine when she was 16 and now controls the ranch she owns. Stupid heroine who puts up with everything from the hero, not showing an ounce of independence beyond stupid temper tantrums. BLECH. I threw it out because I didn't want anyone else to read it.
Winter's Edge by Anne Stuart - early early contemporary Harlequin with an amnesiac heroine who apparently has been married for almost a year but hasn't slept with her husband yet, but went around PRETENDING to be the town slut because she was angry at how her husband treated her (or something, I didn't pay much attention). Really she was a virgin, and a stupid one at that - she trusted her murderous aunt/uncle who were poisoning her up until the very end when they're revealed and didn't trust her husband. Plus, in this novel apparently no one has jobs, they just drive around, hang out and gossip about each other.
I'm sure there are lots of bad old Harlequins like this, but I remember this because it's Anne Stuart.
Favourite Authors:
Marian Devon Joan Smith
Loretta Chase Jo Beverley
Back to top
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1513
Location: America
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:34 pm
Post subject:
Oh wait...my most hated books are
The Whip
by Catherine Cookson and
A Falcon for a Queen
by Catherine Gaskin. In my early days of reading romance, I got suckered into reading "clogs and shawls" because the covers looked like the ones on romance novels, but boy oh boy, did I have a reading experience. Gaskin and Cookson have one or two novels apiece that I enjoy (because they aren't sadistic and actually have pretty happy endings), but the ones I named?
The Cookson kind of reminds me of The Thornbirds, in that a vicar is drawn to a young girl when she moves into the village, but from there, it is HORRIBLE. She grows up and the vicar refuses to admit his love for her, so she ends up marrying this idiot farmer whose brother whips her nearly to death with her own whip! And then she just goes through more and more trauma and the vicar doesn't even own up to his love until the end! After she's worn out and abused and he stood by and watched!
In the first Gaskin, it starts off innocent enough: an orphan taken in by a wealthy industrialist. She's fat and in love with her "brother" and when she becomes a nurse in WWI, she loses all her weight and her "brother" falls in love with her and they marry. Her husband's sister, who was raised as her "sister" is reckless and wild and ends up killing her brother in a car accident, leaving the heroine widowed. Then, the heroine's son dies when out in the ocean with her "sister's" son--who gets saved. It was just horrible.
The second Gaskin the heroine inherits this whiskey distillery and she falls for this brooding Scottish guy who's having an affair with a married woman and he ignores the heroine and is horrid to her. Then he and his mistress die and she finds out he's her
. :puke:
I remember these novels to this day I was so angry and traumatized while reading them.
Back to top
Elizabeth Rolls
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1117
Location: Australia
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:17 pm
Post subject:
He makes it clear that he doesn't want to have another child, but leaves it to the heroine to handle birth control issue. Talk about cave man attitude! Then when she accidentally gets pregnant, he has the nerve to act like it's all her fault and doesn't want to have anything to do with her pregnancy and the baby.
This is not entirely accurate. He doesn't leave contraception to her. He offers to have a vasectomy because he is worried about her going on the pill for any length of time. Sarah refuses because she thinks that one day even if he doesn't want a child with her, he may want one with someone else. Yes, he does blame her at first, but then when he remembers about her dose of flu he realises that it's just as much his fault and apologises to her for his initial reaction. Blaming her is pretty short lived. He apologises within the scene. Not wanting to have anything to do with the pregnancy and baby - yes. But we constantly see that he isn't entirely comfortable with himself over this.
Edited to alter "inaccurate" to "accurate".
Back to top
Display posts from previous:
All Posts
1 Day
7 Days
2 Weeks
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
1 Year
Oldest First
Newest First
AAR Forum Index
Romance Potpourri Forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page
Jump to:
Select a forum
Announcements Forum
Let's Talk Romance Novels
Let's Talk Romance Novels Forum
Romance Potpourri
Romance Potpourri Forum
Writer's News
Writer's News Forum
General Chat
General Chat Forum
Wild Wild West
The Wild Wild West Forum
post new topics in this forum
reply to topics in this forum
edit your posts in this forum
delete your posts in this forum
vote in polls in this forum
Powered by
© 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


text:
CMS Research :: Coastal Ocean Research & Monitoring
UNCW's Coastal Ocean Research and Monitoring Program (CORMP) is a member of the congressionally mandated Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) . CORMP, primarily funded by NOAA, was established in 2000 as a research and monitoring program to address the IOOS goals in the southeastern North Carolina coastal ocean.
Program contact
Dr. Lynn Leonard
Program Director and Professor of Geography and Geology
lynnl AT uncw DOT edu


text:
'The Hunger Games:' What you need to know
Published On: Mar 20 2012 09:38:12 AM CDT Updated On: Nov 22 2013 09:01:29 AM CSTSorry, Flash is not supported.
The views expressed are not those of this site, this station or its affiliated companies. By posting your comments you agree to accept our terms of use, which are located at the bottom of this page.


text:
Emergency Management
Environmental Protection
Game Commission
Labor & Industry
Human Services
more agencies...
COMPASS: Access to Health & Human Services
Driver & Vehicle Services
Find a Job
Fishing Licenses
Homeland Security Tip Submission
Hunting Licenses
Personal Income Taxes
Turnpike E-ZPass
Unemployment Compensation
more services...
L&I Home
Laws and Regulations
Certified Interpreters Law
Interpreter's Law Guide
Log In
Laws and Regulations
Bureau of Workers' Compensation
Workers' Compensation hearings
Held pursuant to the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 1
et seq.
, and regulations found in Title 34 of the
Pennsylvania Code
, Chapters 121 (relating to general provisions), 123 (relating to general provisions part II) and 127 (relating to workers' compensation medical cost containment).
Conducted under the Special Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure Before Workers' Compensation Judges, 34 Pa. Code Ch. 131.
Location determined by the injured worker's county of residence; field offices and satellite hearing locations exist throughout the state in each county.
Procedure varies by judge; serial hearings or one-day trial format used, at which testimony and evidence may be presented. Briefing schedule follows.
Appeals from decisions may be taken to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board.
Appeal hearings
Held pursuant to the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 1
et seq.
, and regulations found in Title 34 of the
Pennsylvania Code
, Chapters 125 (relating to workers' compensation self-insurance), 127 (relating to workers' compensation medical cost containment) and 129 (relating to workers' compensation health and safety).
Conducted under the General Rules of Appellate Practice and Procedure, 1 Pa. Code Part II.
Location typically determined based upon nature of hearing and/or hearing officer assigned. Fee review hearings held at Bureau headquarters in Harrisburg; other appeal hearings may be held in field offices throughout the state.
Typically one-day trial format used, at which testimony and evidence may be presented. Briefing schedule follows.
Appeals from decisions may be taken to Commonwealth Court.
Average weekly wage (AWW).
The number used to determine what loss of earnings benefits a worker who is injured on the job will receive under the Workers Compensation Act. There are various methods used to determine the average weekly wage, and the calculation process is complex.
Change of status petition (Petition To:).
Multi-purpose checklist form that is used to change a workers compensation claimant's status or to review compensation documents and liability. The form can be used to file various petitions, including Petition to Terminate Compensation Benefits, Petition to Modify Compensation Benefits, and Petition to Suspend Compensation Benefits.
The person who makes a claim or asserts a right; the injured worker who files a claim petition or otherwise receives workers compensation benefits.
Claim petition.
When a worker is injured on the job, he or she files this type of petition to seek initial compensation after receiving a Notice of Workers Compensation Denial.
Benefits received by injured employees for purposes of workers' compensation, which include loss of earnings benefits for total disability or partial disability, specific loss benefits, death benefits and medical benefits.
Compensation rate.
The amount of money an injured worker is entitled to receive per week for loss of earnings benefits.
Compromise and release (C&R).
An agreement whereby a lump sum payment of money is paid by the insurance carrier to an injured worker to resolve the case. This lump sum is in lieu of the weekly compensation benefits the injured worker is receiving and may or may not include future medical benefits.
Contingent fee agreement.
An agreement between an attorney and his or her client whereby the attorney agrees to represent the client for a percentage of the amount recovered.
In a workers compensation case, the defendant is the employer, the insurance carrier, and, in certain cases, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
For workers compensation purposes, it refers to the degree that a work-related injury affects an injured worker's earning power/wages.
A technical term in workers compensation cases for a serious and permanent scar to the head, neck, or face.
Final receipt.
In a workers compensation case, it's the form presented by the insurance carrier for the injured employee's signature so that benefits will stop upon return to work.
Independent Medical Examination (IME).
Medical examination performed on an injured worker by a company doctor usually for the purpose of showing that a work-related injury no longer exists or that it has decreased in severity.
Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).
Acceptance of liability for a work-related injury filed by the employer or the employer's insurance carrier. Once a notice of compensation payable is filed, benefits would begin to be paid, and must begin to be paid, not later than 21 days after the employer receives notice of an employee's injury.
Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable (NTCP or TNCP).
Temporary acceptance of liability for work-related injury filed by the employer or the employer's insurance carrier.
Notice of Workers Compensation Denial (NCD).
Notice of denial of a work-related injury filed by the employer or the employer's insurance company. After a notice of workers compensation denial is filed, an injured employee has three years from the date of injury to file a claim petition.
Occupational disease (OD).
A disease resulting from on-the-job exposure to conditions or substances detrimental to heath.
Partial disability.
Any disability that is less than a total disability. Partial disability benefits are measured by comparing an injured worker's earnings before a work-related injury occurred with post-injury earnings.
Increase or reduction in the amount of workers compensation benefits payable because a disability either increases from partial to total or decreases from total to partial.
Suspension of the claimant's receipt of workers compensation benefits because there is no longer any disability or because of the claimant's failure to comply with certain requirements of the Workers Compensation Act.
Cessation of the claimant's entitlement to workers' compensation benefits, typically based upon the claimant's full recovery from the work injury.
Resumption of payment of workers compensation benefits after suspension or termination of benefits due to a recurrence of the disability which results in a loss of earning power.
Specific loss.
The loss (amputation) or permanent loss of use of members of the body, the complete loss of hearing in one or both ears, and the loss of vision in one or both eyes.
State Workers' Insurance Fund (SWIF).
An issuer of workers' compensation insurance created by the Workers' Compensation Act; part of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry.
The temporary staying or stopping of an obligation, in workers' compensation matters this typically is relates to the insurer's obligation to continue pay benefits to the claimant during litigation.
Supplemental agreement.
An agreement between an injured worker and the employer or insurer entered into after a notice of compensation payable is issued or after an agreement for compensation has been signed which modifies, suspends, reinstates, or terminates the benefits then being received under the notice of compensation payable or under the original agreement between the parties.
Total disability.
The total loss of earning power/wages as a result of the work injury.
Utilization Review Organization (URO).
An organization authorized for the purpose of determining the reasonableness or necessity of medical treatment administered to workers with work-related injuries.
Workers Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB).
An administrative board that exercises is powers and duties as an appeal board which reviews the legal decisions of workers compensation judges.
Workers compensation judge (WCJ).
The hearing officer appointed to conduct hearings in an administrative proceeding for workers compensation cases.
Return to Index
Contact Us
Commonwealth Portal
Contact the Web Team
Privacy Policy
Copyright ©
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
DATE/TIME:Jun 26, 2016 2:39:41 AM


text:
Over 130 Programs Available
Begin a career in the psychology industry! Whether you are looking to start an exciting new career in psychology or to jump start your current career, an online psychology degree, certificate, or diploma is the perfect solution.
A fully accredited online psychology degree program allows you the ability to choose from different concentrations to suit your own personal career desires. Concentrations of online undergraduate and graduate psychology degree programs include clinical psychology, counseling psychology, educational psychology, industrial psychology, and sport psychology.
When you earn a psychology degree online, you earn the chance to further your career in one of the various fields of psychology! eCollegeFinder.org features the top online colleges and universities.
View any of the degree programs below or find an accredited school that best meets your needs through our easy 4-step search process located on the left.
Online Associate Degree in Psychology
Online Bachelor Degree in Psychology
Online Graduate Certificate in Psychology
Online Masters Degree in Psychology
Online Psychology PhD Programs
Online Clinical Psychology Degree
Online Counseling Psychology Degree
Online Educational Psychology Degree
Online Forensic Psychology Degree
Online General Psychology Degree
Online Health Psychology Degree
Online Organizational Psychology Degree
Online Sports Psychology Degree
Copyright 2003-• All rights reserved. • Privacy Policy • Contact • Site map