text:
Same-sex marriage and religious liberty, continued
Michael Peppard March 16, 2014 - 4:16pm
Since the controversy about (and subsequent veto of) Arizona's SB 1062, a pointed debate in newspapers and blogs has ensued about civil rights vs. religious liberty. Ross Douthat's New York Times column expressed frustration that religious dissenters are not being permitted to "negotiate terms of surrender" in a culture "war."
What makes this response particularly instructive is that such bills have been seen, in the past, as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender — to accept same-sex marriage's inevitability while carving out protections for dissent. But now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don't get to negotiate anymore.
But is this best construed as a war, or does a less threatening metaphor suffice? Perhaps we're not fighting an apocalyptic war of religion vs. secularism, but instead tinkering with our delicate balance of Constitutional rights.
In a follow-up post, Douthat implores certain advocates for gay rights who also strongly support religious liberty, such as Andrew Sullivan, to speak more loudly in defense of religious conscience protections.
Meanwhile, Sullivan and Rod Dreher got into an uncharacteristically testy exchange about whether the new status of Christian orthodoxy entails minority status, with dissent that gets "demonized."
What is certain is that public opinion on gay marriage has changed faster than on any other moral issue in the history of public opinion polling. It is no surprise that laws have been hastily proposed and tempers have flared. Things really are changing faster on this issue than even the most ardent supporters (e.g., Sullivan) had envisioned. For this reason, after the Arizona law was vetoed, he wrote:
If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance. As a gay Christian, I'm particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort. ... We're living in a time of drastic change with respect to homosexuality. It is perfectly understandable that many traditional-minded people, especially in the older age brackets, are disconcerted, upset and confused. So give them some space; instead of suing them, talk to them. Try seeing things from their point of view. Appeal to their better nature as Christians.
I've followed these conversations with great interest, and I'm convinced they need not deteriorate into a culture "war" with winners and losers, as Douthat's and Dreher's writings suggest. Is it possible to find a middle ground of accommodation?
In today's Washington Post, I have an op-ed that explores just that question. Thus far in the debates, both the civil rights side and the religious liberty side have joined together different kinds of wedding vendors (cake bakers, florists, photographers) into one group. But perhaps finer distinctions among different kinds or degrees of engagement with an event are necessary in this new moment for American pluralism. Some of these vendors don't attend the event, some do; some don't help plan it, some do; some of the events are enacted under civil law only, some are richly religious ceremonies.
As I say in the article, "We may need more reflection on what the law could force a citizen to do at a wedding or other religious ritual." In a country of almost unfathomable diversity -- one with strong anti-discrimination and religious liberty traditions -- the fine-tuning process is worth the effort.
Drawing distinctions to maintain a precise balance of religious conscience protections and publicly accommodated civil rights is neither a sign of fastidious hairsplitting nor a distraction from prophetically proclaimed truths on either side. Rather, it is necessary to preserve and perfect our experiment in diversity.
The editors gave the print edition the snappy title, "Many layers in the gay-wedding cake." But if you don't have access to the newsprint, a digital version (under a different title) is here.
Commenting Guidelines
Sorry - miss what you, Dothaut and Dreher (not that I pay much attention to Dreher) mean by *drawing distinctions*. From my review, it appears that the AZ law specifically would have changed the current US legal standard that doing business for the public entails a responsibility to offer your services to the public (not to groups that you may or may not agree with). In fact, on this legal base, the arguments about religious freedom go away - why? they went away when you, as business owner, received the permission (from the public) to do business (yep, businesses are regulated, defined, and monitored for the common good in all its diversity - sexual, ethnic, racial, religious, etc.).
Dreher, etc. need to restudy the history of civil rights and racism. Some of us lived through a period of time when we had white only restraurants, store counters, restrooms and business owners fought for the right to serve white only (yep, it almost came across as a religious freedom right and was articulated this way by some southern denominations/churches. BTW, there also were may attempts at that time to *draw distinctions*).
Sorry, IMO, the same thing holds true with this poorly written and legislativelly passed bill. It would have granted certain folks an exception from serving the common good based upon a very narrow reading of their permssion to do business in the first place - permission granted by the public.
Okay, in your op-ed piece you cite a number of legal cases that *drew distinctions*.
Wonder, tho, if the example you use are not fundamentally different from both the AZ law and the distinction you are trying to make.
For example, peyote.....as one who works for the oil and gas industry especially in the Farmington, NM region and has large numbers of native american indians that use peyote, can tell you that this legal decision in no way changes how these large corporations implement their safety programs or their substance abuse policies......the common good (public safety, employee safety, etc.) define how far a specific employee can use that legal standard (thus, if you are found positive at work, your Peyote Defense doesn't stand a chance)
Foundry worker - this seems to be very different from the type of broad religious freedom exception that any type of *same sex* exception would have?
Hyde Amendment - well, this was about federal funding rather than about restricting or refusing abortion. It also skips over the complications with federal vs. individual state laws on abortion. And it would seem to lead to what we are seeing now - state by state, we see more and more limits, restrictions, etc. put upon the federal law allowing abortion and many of these state laws appear to be driven by very narrow minorities and unnuanced (e.g. limit abortion while eliminating lots of very helpful public medical resources supporting good reproductive health - not exactly the public or common good stance.
What is missing from the New Mexico photographers case is why the same sex couple hired this couple given their obvious stance.....something is missing in this narrative. If I was the couple getting married and approached someone to be the photographer and it was obvious they did not feel comfortable with my marriage, choice of partner, ceremony, etc.; why would I hire them? Something is missing in this court decision and case. It comes across as too black and white - too many nuances are missing.
I read Dreher and Douthat quite regularly, and Sullivan, too. Dreher and Sullivan are both (in my opinion) best understood as taking advantage of a low-cost vanity press to carry on about their favorite topics. Their current squabble is unseemly.
The issue Douthat raised (and Dreher carries much further) is entirley analogus to aguments I heard regularly across the Deep South in th late1960s: the new Power Eites did not appreciate the culture of the South and were trying to impose their alien political views by way of exinguishing an ancient and honorable society. I grew up in south Georgia an worked offshore LA for a period, with a crew from LA,MS and AL. You can read this agument to this day in the Neo-Confederacy sites (or in a portion of the comments to Dreher).
It is all about power and how we adjust to changes that take power away from us. The rest is rhetoric: see Dreher and his discussions of the "Benedict Option" [he does NOT mean XVI] and the return of the Dark Ages.
"I'm particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort."
I wonder if he would have used the same argument when it came to overturning laws that outlawed marriage between different races? What about public accommodation of races they looked down upon? How about prohibiting Mormons from practicing polygamy (that certainly violated THEIR consciences!) Ditto for Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists who want to withhold medical treatment from their minor children?
Sense of self? Comfort? Really!! How absolutely touchy-feely of Andrew.
"I'm particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort."
He says that becaue he's a libertarian.
The law constantly asks people to do things that violate their "consicences, sense of self, or comfort" for the common good. The thing is, they aren't actually being "forced" to violate their consciences ... they can follow their consciences, break the law, and pay the penalty, if they have the courage of their convictions.
Michael Peppard: I read your op-ed. The photographer is a "supplementary liturgist"? A priest would laugh you out of his church for that stretch.
Since I haven't been involved in planning a wedding for 42 years (my own), I don't know how modern pastors feel about photography during weddings. But when cameras were bulkier and more intrusive, it was the rule that photos could not be taken during the nuptial Mass any more than they could be taken during other Masses.
Back then, if couples wanted photos of themselves at the altar, they had to re-create the photos after the ceremony. After the Mass, the wedding party would process out of the church, then go right back inside to pose for pictures. The photographer a supplementary liturgist? He was more like the director of a play.
I have always believed that this "religious liberties" argument is a canard for clinging to a particular group's prejudices and biogtries. Remember, the "states rights" arguments of racists against the abolition of slavery, and then later in history for the civil rights for people of color?
Douhat and others scream about their 1st Amendment liberties to the exclusion of the rest of the other constitutional protections of individual liberties. Rather, Douhat et al. have difficulties with the 14th Amendment that requires the "equal protection of the law" applies to all citizens, even women, gays and lesbians.
I'm sure that this all makes Douhat sad, but that is the choice that America has made: public accommodations must be available to everyone, not just the folks that we are comfortable with in our lives.
Face it, the religious liberty crowd just believes that some of us [namely, social conservatives] are more equal than the rest of us. In their world, women, gays and lesbians are a lot less than the angels as compared to themselves.
The religious liberty crowd are all pining for the days when their imagined superiority was confirmed by both law and religion. Sadly for them, the world has moved on - just ask my children who see this whole discussion as farce.
BTW, has anyone ever met a man who was a wedding planner who is not gay? Doesn't that tell you something about the economic tensions floating around the wedding industry?
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock has prompted much speculation about First Amendment rights without a close reading of the opinion. New Mexico's law against discrimination depends upon the choice made by Elane Photography, a business corporation. The law applies to corporations and as such imposes an obligation to photograph same-sex ceremonies or marriages only if the company chooses to photograph ceremonies or marriages between heterosexual couples. The New Mexico Supreme Court did not decide any issue of corporate religious rights.
On this issue, like so many others, "hairsplitting" is not merely important it is critical. The effort and actions required to support religious "conscience" seems justifiable. Without a "conscience" a religion is hardly possible much less useful. Religious "liberty" seems another matter entirely. Fact is, I have no idea how to define such a thing nor do I believe anyone else does. Our "free will" was given to us as a part of our imperfection. The two are inseperable. We are at liberty to make mistakes, to ignore our responsiblities, or not. I am suggesting every options we face is decided soley by our choices. On the issue of religion, however, unless choice is indeed an option there is no sense at all in debating the topic.
I don't see where the issue of "rights" is involved. Those so adamently clammering for "religious liberties" would do better to live their "religious responsiblities". That would likely give them little time or need to lament so little opportunity to "live their faith". I cannot image the likes of Mother Teresa suggesting she found too little opportunity to live her failth. On the contrary, what she lacked was sufficient time and energy.
As for Andrew Sullivan being a libertarian. I don't believe that's true. His ability to rationalize hypocrisy seems entirely too limited.
Oops! "I am not suggesting...." rather than "I am suggesting ....." Sorry.
Further to what Harold Hartinger said:
"Religion" can muck up people's thinking between public and private. If, as a business, you are set up, establishing a judicial person or partnership or sole proprietorship, and rely on the secular state's power, such as the enforcing of contracts, financial agreements, collection of debts, police power, etc. there should be very little question as to where your private views stop and compliance with law begins. If one is to use the law to buttress one's ability to do business, one cannot pick and choose which laws to obey or disregard.
At Truthdig, Kathleen Franke, director of Columbia University's Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, points out that the "religious freedom" crowd want to use religion as a "trump card — you throw it down, it's a conversation stopper, and we don't know how to get out of this impasse."
She notes that this is precisely the tactic that many Southerners used to resist integration, maintaining that God had separated the races and it violated their religious freedom to ask them to integrate--an argument that, as Franke observes, the Supreme Court rejected when Bob Jones University tried it:
Really since the late 19th century, when opponents of expanding notions of equality have lost in the public arena, their plan B has been to seek refuge in religion. We first saw it in racial equality cases, and more recently in the areas of reproductive rights and gay rights. When Congress or a state legislature or a federal court mandates the integration of public schools or upholds sex equality in the workplace or allows same-sex couples to marry, opponents of those efforts fall back on religion to say, "You can have those laws, they just don't apply to me." (http://www.drslewis.org/camille/2013/03/15/is-segregation-scriptural-by-bob-jones-sr-1960/)
Michael - bravo. Your point about making distinctions is important.
Mark L - I was a young child in the 1960s and didn't live in the South, so that chapter of the civil rights movement was one I didn't personally experience. But in important ways, the analogy seems pretty superficial. Granted, I am speaking from the point of view of a Chicagoan, which has a large gay community that has worked hard for many years to assert basic human rights (such as the rights to employment, housing and being able to walk down the street without being attacked). I don't doubt that a gay couple in Chicago still suffers a thousand subtle and not-so-subtle taunts and cuts every week. Can we make a distinction between that sort of cultural prejudice, and genuine religious liberty?
You say, "It is all about power and how we adjust to changes that take power away from us". I believe that statement makes sense in reference to the Jim Crow South of the 1950s. I don't see that it applies at all to the situation of gay persons in a place like Chicago in the 2010s. Whereas the gay rights movement has substantial power - Illinois recently legalized same sex marriage - wedding photographers have no power, at all, except the power to decline to personally participate in a ceremony that offends their freedom of conscience. Wedding photographers are not even organized. A self-employed wedding photographer is the archetype of the little guy, with no clout or influence whatsoever. The photographers I happen to know are somewhat free spirits - they do what they do because they like photography, they like working for themselves and being able to arrange their work around their lives and vice-versa. It seems to me that all these little guys want to do is have the freedom to do what they want. In a place like Chicago, if a wedding photographer turns down a same-sex wedding ceremony, there will be 100 other photographers waiting in line for the job. Jonah Goldberg recently suggested that, should one of these self-employed wedding service providers turn down a same-sex wedding ceremony, ""the sane response would be, "You don't want my business because I'm gay? Go to hell," followed by a vicious review on Yelp." Why shouldn't that suffice?
Really since the late 19th century, when opponents of expanding notions of equality have lost in the public arena, their plan B has been to seek refuge in religion.
And again, I would say that this claim is irrelevant for a self-employed wedding service provider. In the cases I've read about, there was no resorting to a "plan B". Nor was there a Plan A. There was no plan at all. There was a simple assertion of freedom of conscience.
Frankly, I'm pretty surprised that liberals, if the comments here are indicative, have no respect for conscience claims. Those who refuse to serve in wars for religious reasons, those who went to jail for protesting at the School of the Americas, are exercising their freedom of conscience. Has Jean Gump been forgotten already? What she did is far more radical than anything that a wedding cake baker does in declining her services for a same sex wedding.
Further to the topic from Richard Kim in The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/article/178820/bigots-lament
"Jonah Goldberg recently suggested that, should one of these self-employed wedding service providers turn down a same-sex wedding ceremony, ""the sane response would be, "You don't want my business because I'm gay? Go to hell," followed by a vicious review on Yelp." Why shouldn't that suffice?"
Substitute for same-sex: Jewish, Black, Mixed Race, Catholic, Mormon, Atheist.
Will that suffice?
Jim P: where does "freedom of conscience" enter into it in those states that have virtually outlawed a woman's right to have an abortion?
Where did freedom of conscience enter into it for Mormons or others who want(ed) polygamous marriages? For Jehovah's Witness and Christian Scientists who want to withhold medical treatments for their non-adult children in conformance with tenets of their religions?
"Freedom of conscience" is abrogated quite often when the majority decides that they disagree with the conscience claims of the minority (see above). It is also abrogated when the courts decide that such conscience claims violate constitutional protections of equal opportunity for minorities as in withholding the right of mixed race couples to marry.
It seems to me that the old public/private distinction is crucial in thinking about this issue. The first successful civil rights laws involved public accomodations, not private matters like inter-
Arriage. One simple reason for that, no doubt, wasthat it is easier to identify what are clearly public latters -- like eating at a lunch counter of a business offering services to the public. But even some public offers are dicey -- a lawyer advertizes his services to the public, but he does not thereby offer to represent every client who can pay his or her fees. Even his personal inclinations to represent or not are left to him.
It seems to me that the photographer and baker issues are issues.
be ause they have been asked to participate in a •private• ceremony-- a ceremony they want no part of, or even see as a matter of conscience
Yes, consciences are themselces private entities, but they bear on both public and private matters. The question is: when does a person have a right not to participate in public or private actions? I say it all depends, and depends on many other fa tors, including whether tge action is necessary to preserve the common good (e.g. a person can be drafted into the army or must pay taxes), or on whether the action is normally necessary for each individals' well-being(e.g, being served food in a restaurant) or whether the person is being asked to serve in a private event or process (e.g., a wedding or a divorce case).,
Jimmy Mac - I asked first :-). If you want me to answer yours, you'll need to answer mine first. And I have standards for answers - answering with more questions doesn't count.
Jim P: The "power" I had in mind is the implicit power of being part of a group that defines the norms of society. It is part of the unquestioned background that makes the workld "'sensible" for all those who belong to that power group. It is the back-up for what they belive to be "common sense," and if it should b withdrawn, they (a) don't know how to stand on the deck any longer and (b) desperately want that stability back.
We went off the tracks in ever allowing a Christian sacrament to have the authority of the State. We get on quite well leaving baptism to the traditions of our various churches (if any), and services for the dead, also.
Mark L.
If they believe that no one should be required to provide services to people they object to, let them make the case that we should eliminate all anti-discrimination laws rather than just the subset. Let the "No Gays" sign be joined with the "Whites Only", "No Catholics", "No Jews", and "No Irish" signs. There is no reason that we should defer to one form of potentially religiously based discrimination while prohibiting others.
While these writers write pages about the damage done to people who are forced to offer their services to all members of the public, they give no thought to the effect of widespread discrimination on the minority populations who must work much harder just to get the things that others can take for granted or the mental burdern of repeated rejection. Should planning a wedding in a rural area require a modern version of The Negro Traveler's Green Book in order to be able to find all of the necessary elements?
I leave these matters to better legal and constitutional minds than mine. But here's a completely hypothetical case, having nothing to do with sex, marriage, or anything of the sort. Suppose I run a brokerage, and advertise myself as a broker for socially conscious investors. No gambling or firearms, tobacco, liquor, military-industrial complex stocks, and so on. Suppose one of my customers asks me to buy a lot of General Dynamics, Boeing, Philip Morris, etc. etc. for his account with me, and I say no. But, I add, there's a broker just a block away who will be happy to help. Is that OK?
Do I confuse the issue if I advertise myself as a socially conscious religious brokerage? or a specifically Christian brokerage? Or Buddhist, Jewish, etc. brokerage? Maybe my objections are not religious, but philisophical (I can't reconcile General Dynamics with my Platonism, Kantianism, Hegelianism (!) or whatever else beliefs. Does that make any difference?
Nicholas, your hypothetical business practice is "customer neutral" and service specific. Let's say I run a catering business that is vegan only -- I am discriminating in the service I am providing not who I am providing it to.
This is not a perfect distinction, but is probably acceptable in most instances, if you are open about it and don't inconvenience people unduly.
Let the "No Gays" sign be joined with the "Whites Only", "No Catholics", "No Jews", and "No Irish" signs.
Except that nobody has posted a "No Gays" sign, nor is that what any of the disputes are about. Do you truly not see this?
Jim P: The "power" I had in mind is the implicit power of being part of a group that defines the norms of society. It is part of the unquestioned background that makes the workld "'sensible" for all those who belong to that power group. It is the back-up for what they belive to be "common sense," and if it should b withdrawn, they (a) don't know how to stand on the deck any longer and (b) desperately want that stability back.
Mark - I think at least part of what is at issue here is whether the norms of society actually have changed. In a fair and just society, we expect our laws to be aligned to our cultural and social norms. In some jurisdictions, laws respecting same sex marriage have changed. Whether the social norms have changed along with them is very much open to question. It is particularly open to question in jurisdisctions in which existing laws have been invalidated unilaterally by judicial fiat.
Every time a state permits gay marriage, we are shown images of ecstatic same-sex couples, waiting in line to finally, finally be able to marry. I am sure they are hoping, maybe even assuming, that the new laws mean that at last they are on the same footing as other couples. Legally, that is the case, but culturally and socially, it may not be a good assumption. I am sorry if that is a hurtful thing to note.
I believe the conservative Christian perception is that activists have rammed through changes in the law, either legislatively or judicially, but the underlying social and cultural norms haven't caught up. And now, those same activists are using the new laws as a cudgel to beat into submission those who don't share their social and cultural assumptions (e.g. that same sex marriage is valid and socially acceptable). The common term for this process is "legislating morality". It has often been noted that it doesn't work. We may be seeing this at play in these instances.
Americans tend to be broadly tolerant. Certainly, Americans as a whole have grown more tolerant of same sex couples over the last generation. These small businesses who have been sued, claim to have a conscientious objection to same sex marriage. Their motives may be benign, or odd, or hateful - each proprietor may have a different point of view. Why not just tolerate their quirks? Remember: this is not Jim Crow. This is not a case in which virtually every wedding photographer in town refuses to do a same sex wedding. There are millions of photographers out there. Finding a good one who will do our wedding shouldn't be difficult.
What if you live in a hick town with only one or two wedding photographers? And why this fascination with using the language of violence to describe those who have been the ones hitorically to be truly :cudgeled?" And why should victims have to be responsible for the bruised sensibilities of their oppressors? Why use a cute term like "quirks" to describe discriminatory practices?
I mean, you frighten me, Jim Pauwel. Not because of the way you coddle homophobes, but because I believe that one day in the near future you will read over what you've written above, and then be so ashamed that you will throw yourself whole-heartedly into designing a time machine that will enable you to visit your former self and set hm straight. I am afraid of what your time machine will do to the fabric of the universe, Jim Pauwel. Everybody wishes he or she could redo a past bit of foolishness, JIm, but it will be very selfish of you to actually do it with your time machine. Remember that.
I will say this: I have more sympathy for the photographers than I do for the bakers and florists and tailors, for whom I have none. Photographers are more likely to be active participants in weddings (in fact, in my more recent experience, overactive participants). So they are "personally" involved in ways the others are not, and their creativity, etc. is being called on. If you are freelance writer, I am pretty sure you cannot be forced to write an article in support of a position you really don't agree with just because someone likes your writing style.
So I would not say that there is "no issue" at all in these disputes. What I would say, however, that as between the writer and the photographer, the photographer is clearly representing other people in their finished product, and their wedding pictures do not reflect anything other than their skill as photographers, certainly not their point of view about the morality or suitability of the marriage participants.
I would not want a photographer at my wedding if I knew he had a big problem with me (of any kind), but their claim for protection of conscience is a weak one.
Abe, it's easy: get editing privileges at dotC, then erase one's prior comments, or, better, edit and improve them! I'm afraid that tha's why we lost our short-lived editing privileges. dotC is against time machines.
Jim P - you say: ".... was a young child in the 1960s and didn't live in the South, so that chapter of the civil rights movement was one I didn't personally experience. But in important ways, the analogy seems pretty superficial."
Sad that you don't know or understand both the history nor the current realities in Chicago in terms of the church and racism. From a couple of historical resources:
"Chicago and its churches developed through the twentieth century following strict ideas of ethnic boundaries. Chicago neighborhoods resembled tribes, as immigrants tended to settle in similar areas and to create institutions reminiscent of their homelands, especially their parishes. Historian John T. McGreevy writes in Parish Boundaries, "Fifty-five percent of Catholics in Chicago worshiped at national parishes in 1936 … over 80 percent of the clergy received assignments in parishes matching their own national background."2 Tribalism of neighborhoods and parishes made the experience of African Americans in Chicago over the twentieth century strained and violent."
Chicago became the most segregated city of its size in the late 1950s. Government action escalated separation through urban renewal projects in the 1950s and 1960s that were in many ways designed to retake black neighborhoods by exploiting general public distaste for public housing.
The Catholic Church mirrored the typical city responses to black migration: flight or fight. McGreevy comments that as blacks moved in, "their encounters with the 'white' world were filtered through a distinctly Catholic focus on parish and place." As neighborhoods changed over, creating black ghettos and isolated spaces, parishes went from all white and full to all black and dwindling in size.
Whites, unwilling to move, reacted violently to African-American newcomers. IAF organizer Edward Chambers recalls that as blacks began to purchase better homes in the southwest community, white Christians, Catholic and Protestant, hatched terror plots to bomb porches of newly purchased black homes. The lay Christians "were in cahoots with the police and the fire dept, they knew what they were doing."74 After setting a fire, intimidators would "Call the fire department to report the fires … [Firefighters] would go in and chop up the house looking for a fire, but of course there was no fire."75 Whites bombed black homes in hopes of chasing people away. Chambers adds, "It was a total embarrassment to the Christians. [The southwest side] was a very Christian, Irish Catholic neighborhood."76
Stritch's method was to continue to use *national parishes* and thus allocated certain parishes for african-americans without doing anything to address white flight, racism in the schools, etc.
Meyers followed Stritch and, to his credit, was not a proponent of national parishes, ethnic neighborhoods, etc. and he squashed all segregation in catholic schools effective in 1960.
When I left Texas and went north for college/grad school (Chicago), it was my first time to interact with kids my age from Chicago, NY City, Boston, etc. Was always amused about how they proclaimed the *south* as segregated while completely ignoring or rejecting the facts that pleces such as Chicago and Boston were some of the most segregated cities in the US as late as 1965 and especially the reaction to integration by some catholic parishes. Always easier to point fingers than to accept reality.
Bill - Chicago has changed since the days of Cardinal Stritch. I actually am aware of that racial history in Chicago. Whether I lived in the Deep South or in Chicago in the 1960s (in fact, I lived in neither place at the time), I was too young to observe or experience that chapter of the civil rights movement. At any rate, the topic here is not racism but tolerance of objections to same sex marriage.
Barbara - you're drawing some of the distinctions that Michael Peppard seems to be calling for. I'm not sure whether these are distinctions that make a difference.
Abe - can you imagine that anyone could object to doing something that enables a same sex marriage, and that the objection is not rooted in homophobia? I don't find it difficult to imagine that. People object to being required to do things for all sorts of reasons that aren't rooted in character flaws. One common one is that some people bristle at being told what to do, period, particularly by the government. Another is that their religion teaches them that the union of two persons of the same sex is unholy, and so they don't want to be involved in something unholy. Racism is unholy, too. So is homophobia. I don't want to do anything that enables either one. That's why I'm attempting to make a distinction between homophobia on the one hand, and objections to participating in a same sex marriage on the other hand. Sometimes you're willing to converse. I hope this is one of them.
I wonder if an Orthodox Jewish photographer or a Muslim photographer has a religious liberty right to refuse to work at a pig roast. That is assuming he is not required to participate in the feasting, but only to photograph other people doing what he considers to be unholy.
If a same-sex couple assures a photographer (or baker or florist) that they are going ahead with the ceremony whether or not the requested service is provided by anyone, is there still a question of cooperating with evil, or would refusing to work the event then be just a matter of personal distaste unprotected by the First Amendment?
Jim, I can imagine people refusing to work in cooperation with a same sex marriage for reasons apart from homophobia; all of those reasons are stupid. And it blows my mind that you think somebody who thinks "the union of two persons of the same sex is unholy, and so they don't want to be involved in something unholy" is anything other than a textbook-worthy example of a homophobe.
Also, Jim, I don't need your paternalistic admonishments to engage in conversation.
Jim Pauwels,
I consider being denied service a greater than evil than forcing public accomodations to serve the entire public. The social norm of serving all who come plus legal prohibitions against common types of arbitrary discrimination is a good thing. It protects minorities from being cut off from large parts of society and protects business owners who wish to serve all from being pressured to exclude certain customers or employees.
Jim Pauwels, the bakers and photographers in question are in states that have included "sexual orientation" in their law defining the classes protected from discrimination by "places of public accommodation"
Without those state laws, the bakers and photographers could refuse to work for anyone they disliked.
You might feel that that those states made a mistake in including "sexual orientation" as a protected class, A voter in those states who felt that way could try to get the legislature to change the law. I don't think that would be likely to get enough votes to pass, but I think it's important to realize that that the people of the state decided at some time in the past that discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation wasn't acceptable. It's not some new privilege that same-sex couples are claiming.
Inspired by just reading in an alumni magazine of the recent, post-Pro 8 marriage of an old friend to his*long*-time companion, I wonder:
Suppose I am a Christian. I receive a wedding invitation from my old friend. I understood in school that he was homosexual, also that he was and remains a committed Christian. He is a famously generous man, a wonderful musician, and a disinguished lawyer. The wedding is to be in San Francisco, an hour and a half's drive, on a Saturday.
On what basis would I be justified in refusing to accept his invitation to participate in his wedding? I assume we all agree that I may not lie, claiming a prior commitment or something.
Seriously, what could possibly justify the hurt to a friend? And if not to a friend, then to anyone? Either we are committed to love our neighbors, or we are not.
There is a constitutional argument that might apply to the photographer, if not to the baker - that the photographer's product is "speech" and that compelling someone to utter speech he/she does not support violates the first amendment.
The New Mexico Supreme Court rejected that argument. The US Supreme Court has now been asked to hear the argument. It's its choice whether it wants to become involved.
Here's one argument for the photographer:
Come on, guys. Leviticus says homosexual relations are an abomination, and if someone believes that the Bible has to be interpreted literally and that its laws are all ever-lasting, then if someone believes that about the Bible, then he/she is not neccessarily a homophobe -- he/she just is a bad interpreter of Scripture. And if you go around calling them gay-haters, and they know that they aren't, then you aren't helping the cause of gay people. You're just making those voters mad.
Yes, it's analogous to slavery,I think. In the Bible slavery is permitted, so why wouldn't someone who has been brought up in a slave-holding society not think it was permissible for him/her? I knew lots of old folks who didn't hate black people who just thought that segregation was the way it should be. Yes, most of them changed a lot in later years, but they weren't anti-black people to begin with.
And my experience with segregation in the South and segregation in the Northwas the same as Bill deHaas'. Talk about planks in one's own eye.
And, Abe, since when don't people have a right to be dumb (I mean truly dumb)? And what do you propose doing with all those people less smart than you? Denying them their civil liberties just because they're stupid?
Your customer neutral v. service specific distinction is a good one, I think. It certainly reflects the way the lawyers operate, if only by reputation if not advertisement: some lawyers are corporate lawyers, some criminal lawyers, some personal injury lawyers, some civil rights lawyers, etc. (Would a black lawyer have a right to refuse to represent David Duke? Why or why not?)
Ann Oliver,
First, people are responsible for their interpretation. People who are willing to consider the broader themes over specific texts with respect to something like slavery but are not willing to do so with respect to homosexuality are making choices. Maybe they can argue that they are interpreting it the correct way, but they can't pretend that there is only one choice and they are simply following the Bible.
Second, there are a lot of steps between "God says homosexuality is bad" and "We should ban gay marriage." People are responsible for the logic that connects the two rather than calling it simply following the Bible.
Third, people who follow leaders are responsible for their actions. The difference between doing hurtful things because a leader instructs one to and doing them on one's own initiative is of little significance.
Finally, indifference is a kind of hate. People who approach these issues with no consideration for how their actions and beliefs impact the lives of gay and lesbian people is treating them as beings of zero worth.
Ann, I don't even.
Jim, I can imagine people refusing to work in cooperation with a same sex marriage for reasons apart from homophobia.
Ok - you can imagine it.
And it blows my mind that you think somebody who thinks "the union of two persons of the same sex is unholy, and so they don't want to be involved in something unholy" is anything other than a textbook-worthy example of a homophobe.
I guess we both stand corrected: you can't imagine it.
Ann asked the key question before I had a chance. Awaiting your answer. And I'll cut out the paternalistic correctives if you'll cut out the trollish smartassery. Deal?
There is a constitutional argument that might apply to the photographer, if not to the baker - that the photographer's product is "speech" and that compelling someone to utter speech he/she does not support violates the first amendment.
I doubt that a wedding cake baker, or a designer of wedding attire, would concede that the products of their crafts are less artistic, or less "speech", than a photographer's. How a court would wade through those claims, I have no idea.
Jim Pauwels, the bakers and photographers in question are in states that have included "sexual orientation" in their law defining the classes protected from discrimination by "places of public accommodation". Without those state laws, the bakers and photographers could refuse to work for anyone they disliked.
Right. I've read that one of the pertinent facts about the proposed/now-vetoed Arizona legislation is that Arizona is one of the many states in which sexual orientation actually lacks such protected-class status (although certain Arizona municipalities do accord it such protection); thus, Arizona bakers and photographers outside of those municipalities already possess the right to say, "No, I won't do your wedding" for religious reasons or, presumably, any reasons whatever.
You might feel that that those states made a mistake in including "sexual orientation" as a protected class, A voter in those states who felt that way could try to get the legislature to change the law. I don't think that would be likely to get enough votes to pass, but I think it's important to realize that that the people of the state decided at some time in the past that discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation wasn't acceptable. It's not some new privilege that same-sex couples are claiming.
I do think that sexual orientation should be a protected class, for reasons beyond the very narrow considerations we're discussing here. If I were an Arizona resident, I would support legislation to make sexual orientation a protected class. Perhaps the bishops would, too. But I would also wish to carve out a religious exception for the specific instance we're discussing here: being forced to take part in same sex weddings.
I do not not how to argue with somebody who thinks a person can call gays an abomination and not be thought of as hating gays. I do not know how to argue with somebody who thinks a person can endorse the segregation of people of African descent from white society and not be thought of as hating those they wish to segregate.
I do not know how to do it, and I do not fetishize "conversation" to the extent that I even want to know how.
I mean, what the hell? What are the other situations where somebody can say, "I think you are an abomination, but, hey, I mean that in a religious way, not a hateful way. Some of my best friends are abominations."
Jim Pauwels,
I don't see any reason why same sex marriage should be singled out as the only exception. People might have religious objections to other events related to race, sex, or religion.
Also, the bishops wouldn't support anything that might help gay and lesbian people. I have never seen a bishop find a form of anti-gay discrimination that they consider unjust.
I don't see any reason why same sex marriage should be singled out as the only exception. People might have religious objections to other events related to race, sex, or religion.
Hi, Ryan - maybe there are other legitimate objections, too, and maybe there is some underlying principle that helps us as a society to distinguish for which objections an exception should be made. I admit I don't know what that underlying principle is. My intuition, which admittedly is as faulty as the next guy's, is that it is wrong to deny an African American a seat at a lunch counter by reason of her being black, but it may not be wrong to decline to provide a service to a same sex marriage by reason that same sex marriage is morally wrong.
The difference, it seems to me, is that an African American is a person, but a same sex marriage isn't a person - it's a thing.
To make that distinction clear: in my view, the baker of wedding cakes shouldn't refuse to sell a gay person a cookie if he walks up to the bakery counter and requests one. The photographer shouldn't decline the request of a gay customer to do his Christmas card pictures. If the baker or the photographer says, "I'm not serving gays, period. Stay out of my shop!" then I'm right with you, Abe, Mark L and presumably everyone else around here. I wouldn't make a religious exception for that.
Also, the bishops wouldn't support anything that might help gay and lesbian people. I have never seen a bishop find a form of anti-gay discrimination that they consider unjust.
I don't know. Catholic teaching says they should support things that help. I'd like to give them a chance to prove it. I do think their attitudes have been evolving recently, at least some of them.
I do think that many Catholic clergy - I'm talking about priests and deacons - would support actions in pursuit of justice for LGBTs in their communities. (As things stand now, though, with same sex marriage, I don't know how welcome a Catholic cleric would be at a rally or meeting.)
The difference, it seems to me, is that an African American is a person, but a same sex marriage isn't a person - it's a thing.
I do understand what you're saying here, but while same sex marriage is not a person, neither is eating at a lunch counter a person. African Americans and gays are people.
Ryan and Abe - this article by William Saletan at Slate does a deeper dive on the distinction I made in my previous comment to Ryan.
I have never seen a bishop find a form of anti-gay discrimination that they consider unjust.
According to Wikipedia, "Uganda's Catholic Archbishop of Kampala Cyprian Lwanga stated in December 2009 that the ["Kills the gays"] bill was unnecessary and "at odds with the core values" of Christianity, expressing particular concerns at the death penalty provisions. Lwanga argued that instead homosexuals should be encouraged to seek rehabilitation."
So, there you go: there is at least one form of anti-gay discrimination, namely, killing them, that a bishop considers unjust.
The difference, it seems to me, is that an African American is a person, but a same sex marriage isn't a person - it's a thing.
First, I don't think you can so easily separate a person from their marriage. Someone has to refuse to service to a person, and a person is the one who has to search for another provider.
Second, this would imply that refusing to serve an interacial couple would be okay because one is discriminating against their marriage rather than the persons. Would you agree with this?
this article by William Saletan at Slate does a deeper dive on the distinction I made in my previous comment to Ryan.
He focuses mainly on suggesting that Vanessa Willock's refusal to serve a gay couple wasn't based in hatred for the couple. Ultimately, I don't care whether she is motivated by hate or not. The discrimination is wrong regardless of the motivation.
Minor point about what is art: Many museums have collections of photographs because they are appreciated as artworks. Some even have collections of costumes. But I've never heard of a museum's collecting wedding cakes. The cakes are sometimes said to be "works ofart", but the value of such artworks are not the sort that society as a whole consiers valuable enough to preserve.
Which raises the question: for a photographer to be protected by the free speech clause must his work have social value? But let's save that for another thread -- one on aesthetics. (Aesthetics? Comonweal doesn't seem interested in the subject.)
About the Author
Michael Peppard is assistant professor of theology at Fordham University, author of The Son of God in the Roman World, and on Twitter @MichaelPeppard.


text:
CONCORD, N.C. – While the WKA Mazda / Bridgestone Manufacturers Cup Series is in the midst of a two-month break between rounds three and four, a return to action is nearing with the MKP Nationals July 6-8 at Michiana Raceway Park near South Bend, Indiana.
Pre-registration for the MKP Nationals is open for only one more week. Competitors need to get completed MKP Nationals pre-entry forms to WKA by next Wednesday, June 20.
Click here to view and print the MKP Nationals entry form.
On the heels of the South Bend show is the August 3-5 KartLift Nationals at Concept Haulers Motor Speedway near Norway, Illinois. While the Norway event is still about two months away, the "early-bird" pre-registration price ends this Sunday, June 18.
In order to secure the best entry fee prices, competitors need to get completed KartLift Nationals entry forms to WKA before the end of this weekend.
Click here to view and print the KartLift Nationals entry form.
Questions can be answered by calling the WKA office at 704-455-1606.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
In future planned film 300: Rise of an Empire, are the Spartans also playing a part in the movie or are they focusing only on Xerxes and another arc of the story like a parallel story. I didn't find anything on Google to clarify it.
We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.
closed as too localized by DForck42 Apr 25 '13 at 19:36
This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Due to the details of this movie being scarce (or basically non-existant) I can only give you speculation based upon the greek battles they were based off of.
The first one, Battle of Artemisium, takes place concurrently with the Battle of Thermopylae, what the first 300 is based off of (obviously with a lot of creative twists) and involved a bunch of Greek cities fighting off a Persian invasion from the sea. These cities including, Athens, Corinth, and Sparta.
Because this will be based off of the historical event, I can only assume The Spartans will have no place in this battle whatsoever due to them not even sending troops to the 300. (Works with the continuity of the first movie). The end result of this battle are the city-states withdrawing to the second battle.
The second battle the movie will take from is the Battle of Salamis. If the remaining Spartan Army will be in this movie, this is where they would be (movie continuity wise) as this is where the remaining troops that were retreated from in the previous battle are finally defeated, forcing Xerxes' to retreat.
In an interview the actor who plays Xerxes, Rodrigo Santoro, stated that this movie will also deal with the back story of Xerxes and how he became a 'God-King'.
He also confirms that it is indeed a Spin-Off:


text:
WordPress Themes, Amazing Support!
Hi everyone, my name is João and I live in Porto, Portugal. I specialize in Web Design and Wordpress development.
I provide general theme support for free and I go through all the new comments and emails twice a day from Monday to Friday.
If for some reason I haven't answered your question, please don't post again as it may be a more complex issue or bug that takes more time and I will reply in a maximum 24 hour period.
Hope you enjoy my themes as much as I enjoyed making them and I love to hear feedback from you. Also don't forget to rate the theme
Check out my latest Wordpress ThemeVanguard: Business & Portfolio WordPress Theme
Check out some of my Best Seller Wordpress ThemeBreeze – Professional Corporate and Portfolio WP
Mural: Business & Portfolio WordPress Theme
Need support? Thanks for purchasing one of my files. Support is given through the ThemeForest item comment system or my own custom support forums. Grab your Item Purchase Code and register an account, I'll do my best to answer your questions.
Support Forums | Register an account | Get access to private theme forums


text:
"Somewhere along the way I lost a step," says Vin Diesel, aka that gravelly voiced, visually impaired, planet-hopping outlaw and badass they call Riddick. "I went and got sloppy."
2 1/2 (out of five stars)
Director: David Twohy
Cast: Vin Diesel, Karl Urban, Katee Sackhoff, Jordi Molla, Matt Nable
Rated: R for strong violence, language and some sexual content/nudity
Running time: 1 hour, 59 minutes
He's talking about how he ended up on a desolate planet facing murderous canine creatures and giant deadly serpents. But he could just as easily be talking about the lethally inadequate screenplay he's up against. "Sloppy" is a kind word, actually, for the ridiculously clumsy dialogue in "Riddick," the third and latest installment of the sci-fi saga.
Of course, none of this will likely matter to the hard-core fans who've been waiting for this movie since the 2004 "Chronicles of Riddick," a successor to the 2000 "Pitch Black." Even though that megabudget film tanked at the box office, it fed the franchise's avid cult following, as have a pair of video games.
And fans will no doubt be especially happy that in "Riddick" — its title now streamlined, along with its budget — no compromises have been made for a wimpy PG-13 rating. No, it's an R this time, which allows for a few characters to meet a particularly gory end (don't run out for popcorn during the second half!), not to mention free-wheeling profanity and one gratuitous nude scene.
Not all is bleak. The bald and beefy Diesel, whose sturdy commercial appeal is proven again and again with the huge success of the "Fast & Furious" franchise, is always fun to watch. But his presence alone, comfortably durable as it is, can't make up for the total lack of other interesting characters in the screenplay by David Twohy, who also directs. Alas, that includes Katee Sackhoff as the lone female, a feisty bounty hunter named Dahl. The name sounds exactly like Doll, which is basically her role; she's pretty but has no interesting backstory or dialogue, save one profane comeback sure to draw hearty cheers.
If you didn't see "The Chronicles of Riddick" — or if you saw it and didn't quite follow the overwrought plot — you'll be OK here, because only brief references are made to Riddick's checkered past. A quick flashback reminds us that when we last saw him, he'd been crowned the Lord Marshal of those dark Necromongers. But hey, the grass is always greener in outer space, and what Riddick really wants is to return to his home world, Furya.
So he makes a deal with his enemy, Vaako (Karl Urban, appearing here for a few seconds). But that's where he's gotten sloppy. He's duped — dropped onto a desolate, dangerous place called, well, Not Furya. He's badly wounded, too. And then there are those vicious dogs, and those scary serpent creatures.
But this is Riddick, and somehow, he makes his way to an abandoned mercenary post and sends out an emergency signal. His plan is to escape on the ship of the bounty hunters sure to arrive any minute.
And arrive they do — two competing bands of them. One is led by the almost comically inept Santana (Jordi Molla), who's intent on beheading Riddick, and has brought a box along for that purpose. The bounty, you see, is doubled if Riddick is brought back dead.
But Boss Johns (a square-jawed Matt Nable) has other ideas. He's the head of the other band, and he has some important questions for Riddick — preferably to be answered while that shiny bald head remains in place.
Will Riddick, as always a one-man army, somehow survive? "I don't know how many times I've been crossed off the list and left for dead," he says at one point. "This ain't nothing new." Like the character, this franchise may yet rise again, but let's hope that next time, the filmmakers do bring something new.
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.
We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click the X that appears in the upper right corner when you hover over a comment. This will send the comment to Facebook for review. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.


text:
The Tsarnaev brothers, whom law enforcement officials identify as suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing, have brought shame upon their family and the entire Chechen ethnicity, their uncle said April 19.
"I respect this country, I love this country," an emotionally distraught Ruslan Tsarni told reporters outside the home in Montgomery Village where he lives, and he urged his nephew, Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, to turn himself in and ask for forgiveness. Just three days later, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found hiding in the hull of a boat parked in the driveway of a home in Watertown, Mass.
On April 15, a bomb near the finish line of the Boston Marathon killed three people and injured more than 170. In the morning of April 19, police announced that one suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, had been killed in a gunfight with police. The suburb of Watertown, Mass., as well as Boston itself, was locked down as a manhunt for the second suspect, Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, continued.
Tsarni spoke to reporters after the police, who had been in the home at 5 Mastenbrook Court for a few hours, left. "We are assisting the FBI in their investigation," said Rebecca Innocenti, a spokeswoman for the Montgomery County Police Department. She said details of why the police were at Tsarni's house could not be released.
Tsarni made it clear his sympathies lay with the victims of the bombing and not his nephews. He said the point of speaking out was to "deliver our condolences and share our grief with the real victims here. Those who were murdered, who were injured."
During his press conference, Tsarni said he was alerted to his nephews' involvement a little after 7 a.m., April 19 when a reporter called him and asked him to identify them from the grainy pictures circulating on the Internet. "I could not believe children of my brother could be associated with that," Tsarni told reporters. Tsarni said he has not seen his nephews since December of 2005 and said his family "had nothing to do with that family."
He rejected the idea that the attacks were part of a larger political view, calling his nephews "losers" who couldn't adjust to America and "hating everyone who did."
Tsarni identified himself as a Muslim and ethnic Chechen and called any attempt by his nephews to claim violence on either Islam or Chechnya's behalf "a fraud" and "a fake." Neither of his two nephews were born in Chechnya, Tsarni said — the eldest was born in Kyrgyzstan, a former state in the Soviet Union, and the youngest in Dagestan, a region of Russia. Both have majority Muslim populations.
Tsarni's entire Montgomery Village neighborhood was blocked off by police, who only allowed in local residents and the press. Dozens of reporters, photographers and videographers gathered at the edge of Mastenbrook Court, a cul-de-sac, and waited behind yellow police tape while a helicopter hovered over head.
"They are the nicest people I ever met. We know the whole family, " said Debra Weston, who lives down the block, and whose 9-year-old daughter is best friends with Tsarni's daughter. "I'm having a hard time with it."
"The most important thing that we can do at this time is to keep those killed, injured and their families, the police officials putting their lives on the line to protect the community, in our thoughts and prayers," said Bob Hydorn, president of Montgomery Village Foundation, "as well the family of the suspects, who are as shocked at the happenings as we all are."
On April 19, Dr. Anwar Masood, president of the Montgomery County Muslim Council released this statement:
"Montgomery County Muslim Council (MCMC) condemns the tragic incident in Boston on Monday April 15, 2013 with the strongest possible terms. This inhumane act of killing and injuring innocent people is unacceptable. As people of conscience, we stand with the city of Boston in this great time of need. We also stand shoulder to shoulder and support Law Enforcement's effort in apprehending all responsible parties.
"For more than a decade, MCMC has worked to engage resident Muslim Community in Montgomery County to participate in all civic activities for the betterment of the larger community. We've come to love and raise our children in this peaceful environment and will continue our work."


text:
Arizona Cardinals
NFL.com writer: Cardinals will make playoffs in 2013
Hooray optimism!
According to NFL.com writer Adam Schein, the Arizona Cardinals will make the playoffs in 2013.
Glad that's all settled.
Schein writes that he was tasked with coming up with a team that missed the playoffs in 2012 that will make it in 2013, and when he looked at everything, Arizona was the choice.
This is not a piece for shock value. I honestly, truly, deeply believe the Cardinals are going to be the surprise team of the year with the right tweaks along the way. Sit back. I'm about to sell you.
They have the right people running the show.
They now employ the 2012 NFL Coach of the Year.
And yes, they have a great defense.
Schein believes that Bruce Arians, who the Cardinals hired to replace Ken Whisenhunt, was the best coach available in the offseason. Writing the team "won the coaching carousel", Schein says he believes Arians and assistant coach Tom Moore will be able to maximize the offensive talent on the roster, and specifically Kevin Kolb's.
Look, there's work to do on Kolb's mentality and play, but Arians and Moore will do it. And there is a building point here. Before Kolb got hurt in Week 6 last year, the Cardinals were 4-1. He rocked steady against the Philadelphia Eagles in a win. He was clutch against the Miami Dolphins. Kevin Kolb beat the New England Patriots.
True that.
Of course, Schein notes the Cardinals will likely add another quarterback, but looks at Arizona as a squad with a good defense that just added the right coach at the right time.
And, he says, they should have better injury luck this next season.
Every team has injuries, but Arizona had 17 offensive players combine to miss a whopping 103 games, with nine guys hitting injured reserve. Levi Brown didn't play a game. Home run threat Ryan Williams missed 11. Beanie Wells was out for seven. And Kolb, of course, missed 10, forcing John Skelton and Ryan Lindley into way too much action.
Anything that could've gone wrong went wrong for Ken Whisenhunt's team last year. That won't happen again in 2013.
But whatever happens, Schein believes the Cardinals will be better simply because they have better coaches in place.
As one playoff executive said to me, "For an offense that was inept last year, they actually aren't far away. Moore and Arians will help the QB (Kolb). They need to add a running back and solidify the line. Steve knows what he has to do there. The only piece to add on defense maybe is an edge rusher. The defense is loaded. Russ Grimm held that team back. He was a poor offensive line coach. The kids (on the offensive line) who struggled gained experience and the new staff will help."
Perhaps Schein is correct and the Cardinals will be back in the postseason in Arians' first year at the helm. It will not be easy, as the team does have issues to correct, but maybe the new coaching staff will be the catalyst for the improvements.
Then again, the Cardinals are in the same division as Super Bowl runner-up San Francisco and playoff team Seattle, so the road won't exactly be easy.
Apparently none of that matters to the writer. That's cool.
Most Popular
Cardinals Audio
- Jen Welter, Cardinals assistant coach - Tuesday July 28Welter talks about the historical significance of her hire, and how she'll approach the job
- Bickley Blast - Tuesday July 28The Cardinals made a ground breaking coaching hire
- Former Arizona Cardinals Pro Bowler Bertrand Berry - Tuesday July 28Bertrand Berry talks about the Cardinals hiring Jen Welter as the first woman coach in NFL history.
- Glenn Parker, Pac-12 and Cardinals analyst - Tuesday July 28Glenn Parker discusses new Cardinals coach Jen Welter and the strength of the Pac-12 South.
- Hardware - Monday July 27The Sign of Our Times award, the 2nd Place Isn't So Bad award and more


text:
Veneda Beatrice Latham was born November 6, 1923 in Bokchito to Jesse James and Jewel (Hamlin) McCarty. She passed from this life August 30, 2011 in Antlers at the age of 87. Veneda had been a member of Darwin Baptist Church for many years. She married William David Latham in 1955. Veneda enjoyed caring for her family & cooking, especially for large holiday gatherings. She loved to sew and made most of her own clothes and several items for her friends. In her younger years, she enjoyed taking a drive and doing some local traveling with her family. Most of all, she loved spending time with her family & friends. Veneda was preceded in death by her parents: Jesse & Jewel McCarty; husband: William David Latham; son: Rod Palmer; and a grandson: Brian Palmer. She is survived by her sons: Billy Latham & wife Phyllis of Antlers, and Larry Palmer & wife Joyce of Blanchard; her great aunts: Thelma McMahan & Juanita Bates; numerous grandchildren, great-grandchildren, & great great-grandchildren; as well as many other relatives and friends. Funeral services will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 1, 2011 at the Mills & Coffey Chapel with Brent Franks officiating. Musical selections will include: "The Lighthouse," "Amazing Grace" and "The Old Rugged Cross." Pallbearers are Mark McMahan, Glen McMahan, Wes Haddox, Dennis Bates, Brian Bates and Dewey Hatcher. Interment will follow at the Antlers City Cemetery in Antlers. Family and friends may send online condolences at www.millscoffey.com [1].
Funeral services conducted by Mills & Coffey Funeral Home in Antlers.
[1] http://www.millscoffey.com


text:
Casual style is the hallmark of the Charleston collection with its simple clean lines and smart tailoring. Details include welt tailoring, two over two design, scatterback pillows, tailored skirt, welt details and rolled arms.
The Klaussner Living Room Charleston Sofa is available from Klaussner Home Furnishings.
Prices subject to home office audit & correction.
Dealer Login >>
Development: MicroD Inc.
Website Powered by ePiphany


text:
Health Professions Advising Office
The Health Professions Advising Office at Haverford College provides advising and support to students and alumni who are interested in exploring careers in the health professions including medicine, dentistry, public health, veterinary medicine and other related fields.
Haverford College is an exciting place in which to lay the foundation for a career in the health professions because of our academic excellence, rich opportunities for research and service, and humanistic Quaker values. In fact we have a new Health Studies minor that is designed to provide students with context to study and explore the issues facing health professionals in today's society.
In addition, our students take full advantage of rich opportunities to volunteer and work in medical settings and research laboratories due to our convenient location outside of the city of Philadelphia and our close relationship with our distinguished alumni who have distinguished themselves as leaders in the field.
Health Studies
Haverford now offers a multidisciplinary health studies minor. It's a complement to a more traditional science major, especially for students planning to go into medicine, nursing, psychotherapy or other clinical fields.Learn More
* 2013 applicants via the Pre-Health Committee
74% *
average rate of acceptance to medical, dental, or veterinary school
average MCAT score of accepted applicants
average GPA of admitted students
approximate # of Fords admitted to medical and dental school in the past 7 years
Pre-Health Society
This student organization which reaches out to Haverford students interested in pursuing careers in the health field. They inform students of resources available, plan community service activities, provide network opportunities, and much more.Profile
No events found.


text:
Diversity StudiesThe minor in diversity studies complements major fields of study. Its focus is on the impact of not only race, social class, culture, gender and ethnicity, but also of age, ableism, disability, sexual orientation and religious affiliation. The governing paradigm for the minor is threefold: awareness, knowledge and application. The primary goals are as follows:
- to enable students to achieve awareness of multiple perspectives, diverse populations, and the theoretical foundations and language of diversity studies,
- to enable students to acquire knowledge about the several aspects of diversity,
- to help students apply that knowledge in their lives, whether in the workplace, their personal lives, or their roles as citizens.
The minor consists of 24 semester hours, including DIVS:100 Introduction to Diversity Studies (four hours); the capstone course, DIVS:400 Diversity Encounters for a Changing World: Models of Impact (two hours), and 18 semester hours selected from courses in the women's studies and Jewish studies programs, plus other courses approved by the coordinator of diversity studies.


text:
As Major League Baseball season approaches its halfway mark, McFarlane Toys is releasing one of its most exciting baseball lineups yet. MLB Series 18 shows a healthy respect for the game's young guns and includes a pair of unique sequel figures for two of the game's best players.
Congratulations to Brandi Westcott of Imperial, MO.
Brandi wins the series of MLB Series 18 figures, which includes Brandon Webb, David Ortiz, David Wright, Justin Verlander, Mariano Rivera and Ryan Howard! All of the figures will be signed by Todd McFarlane!
Thank you to everyone who entered.


text:
Updated Jan 3, 2013 - 5:17 pm
Deaf Phoenix woman reported missing is found
BUCKEYE, Ariz. -- A Phoenix woman who's deaf, mute and on medication has been found after being reported missing by her family in Buckeye.
Buckeye police say 44-year-old Norma Vega-Casillas was found Thursday afternoon in Phoenix. They say she's in good health and there are no signs of foul play.
She was staying with family in Buckeye on Monday and was to return home Tuesday.
But police say Vega-Casillas left the residence sometime during the night.
They say it's still unclear why she left or where she was going. Details on where Vega-Casillas was found weren't immediately available Thursday.


text:
Our Pound & Roll Bench is perfect for young boys and girls who like to be as active as possible. Once kids get the hang of how to use the included mallet, they'll love hitting the balls and watching them pop out over and over again.
- Fun, vivid colors
- Bench with three holes in the top
- Three balls
- Mallet
- No assembly required
Age Range: 1+


text:
To help your organisation stay out in front. Our latest case studies and views ready to exploreStart right now
Bringing ICT and citizens together. Everything you need to know about O2 in the Public SectorFind out more
Putting technology at the heart of your organisation. Discover just what O2 can do for youFind out how


text:
October 2014
Sign In to access this Webcast
This monthly webcast provides the latest insights from TCB's Economics Team for the U.S. economy, including the short –term growth forecasts for consumption, investment, labor markets and the aggregate GDP growth.
As a special topic we will discuss business realities of China's imminent slowdown and structural transition.
Bart van Ark, Ph.D.
Bart van Ark is executive vice president, chief economist & chief strategy officer of The Conference Board. He leads a team of almost two dozen economists in New York, Brussels and Beijing who produce a range of widely watched economic indicat... Full Bio
Gad Levanon, Ph.D.
Gad Levanon is Managing Director, Economic Outlook & Labor Markets at The Conference Board, where he also leads the labor markets program. He also serves on The Demand Institute™ leadership team.
Levanon... Full Bio
Ethan Cramer-Flood
Ethan Cramer-Flood is the China Program Specialist based in The Conference Board's New York City headquarters. He liaises with the Beijing-based China Center for Economics and Business and coordinates the two Conference Board China Councils in the... Full Bio


text:
Change currency:
Other country sites
Your Recent Searches
Your cart is empty
Free Shipping Worldwide*
Make your peepers pop with our collection of eye liners, eye shadows and mascaras from your favorite beauty labels including Bourjois and Eyeko. Go bold with jewel coloured eye shadows by Pop and NARS, or for a classic smoky eyes, retro girls look to Benefit's brow shaping kits and false lashes.
Refine By
Price Range
The celebrities named or featured on asos.com have not endorsed recommended or approved the items offered on site
©2015 asos.com Ltd
All rights reserved
Cookie Use
ASOS uses cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue we assume that you consent to receive all cookies on all ASOS websites.


text:
This rolling whiteboard easel shows a sign of frustration!
But you can still get some help.
Ask A Librarian can help you: just call, text, chat, email, or show up at the library, in person.
Hundreds of Research Guides are available to lead you to an answer.
And One Search, at http://library.ucf.edu/ can lead you to thousands of full text articles and even some eBooks.
Keep calm and keep studying, Knights.


text: Showstopper is a cool-toned, dark brown with a matte finish. It has a matte shade, and this is a shade that has come out many, many times pre-made palettes/quads. It has a firm, stiff texture that doesn't yield great pigmentation and doesn't blend out as easily as a really great matte would. theBalm Matt Ramirez has stronger red undertones. MAC Diamond Dove is similar. Tarina Tarantino Wonderful #5 is warmer.


text:
Dongguan Wanda International Cinema & IMAX3F, Sector D, Wandao Road, New South China Mall, Wanjiang District Dongguan +86 769 2243 0206
The Monk Comes Down the Mountain: An IMAX 3D Experience
The Monk Comes Down the Mountain: An IMAX 3D Experience will be released in select IMAX theatres in China only. Famine and hardship force a young monk to leave his Taoist temple in the mountains, plunging him into an unknown outside world. Treating everything in good faith, he ultimately is betrayed, though he finds strength in the teachings of... Lesen Sie mehrTICKETS KAUFEN FÜR 29.07.2015


text:
|La Crescenta, CA
|High School:
|Crescenta Valley
Peek was one of two Matadors to play in and start all 47 games for Northridge in her junior season ... hit .415 with a .553 on-base and .699 slugging percentage ... OBP finished ninth in Division I ... batting average was sixth-best figure in school history for a single season ... led Matadors for third-straight year in hits (51), runs (29), home runs (8), RBIs (28), total bases (86) ... also drew 37 walks, setting a school record, drawing 0.8 walks per game, the ninth-best figure in Division I ... named to All-Big West Second Team after hitting .320 in BWC games with five home runs, 16 hits, 15 runs, nine RBIs and 23 walks ... earned Big West Co-Player of the Week honors after hitting 1.000 with four runs, two hits, two RBIs, one double and home run and nine walks in series against Cal Poly on Apr. 5-6 ... scored a career-high three runs in comeback win over Centenary on Feb. 23 ... matched feat with three runs against UC Davis on May 10 ... drove in season-high three runs against North Dakota on Mar. 7 ... led team with two triples, picking up the hits against Mississippi St. (Feb. 9) and Seton Hall (Feb. 16) ... put together a 12 and nine-game hitting streak during the season ... hit .667 in season-ending series against UC Davis with five runs, two home runs and three RBIs ... finished season with three stolen bases.
Named to All-Big West First Team for second-straight year ... Named Big West Player of the Week on March 19 after helping Matadors defeat then-No. 24 Florida State and then-No. 7 Washington ... primarily played catcher during sophomore season, starting all 47 games ... led team in runs (32), hits (43), home runs (13), RBIs (29), total bases (88), on-base percentage (.442) and slugging percentage (.688) ... finished second on the team with a .336 batting average ... registered a .970 fielding percentage and committed only four errors ... finished season with nine multi-RBI games, 12 multi-hit games and scored multiple runs seven different times ... recorded at least one hit in 28 of 47 games ... belted a pair of solo home runs against UC Davis on May 11 ... drove in seven RBIs on six hits in doubleheader against Siena on Feb. 27 ... recorded new career highs in hits (4) and RBIs (4) in game one against Saints and followed it up with two more hits and three more RBIs in game two ... recorded two hits, including a home run, and two RBIs in victory over Washington on Mar. 16 ... recorded season-high nine put-outs against BYU on Feb. 16 ... walked three times on three different occasions during Big West Conference play.
Peek earned Big West Freshman of the Year, All-Big West first-team and All-West Region second-team honors after leading the Matadors in batting (.408), runs scored (34), hits (53), doubles (14), home runs (13), runs batted in (27), total bases (108), slugging percentage (.831) and on base percentage (.470) ... made the Northridge single-season charts in three categories, tying for third in home runs, tying for fifth in doubles and tying for seventh in batting average ... started all 42 games ... had 13 multiple-hit games and six multiple-RBI contests ... never had her average dip below .361 and failed to register a hit just five times ... hit .436 during Big West play with eight homers and 15 RBI ... held a 19-game hitting streak from Apr. 2 to May 12 in which she went 26-for-57 (.456) with nine home runs and 17 runs batted in ... also had a 10-game hitting streak to start the season (15-for-32, .469) ... hit homers in four straight games from Apr. 12 to 15 ... was named Big West Player of the Week on May 1 after going 6-for-10 (.600) with six runs scored, four runs batted in, three doubles and a home run in a three-game sweep of UC Riverside (Apr. 29-30) ... posted three-hit contests against New Mexico (Feb. 10), Southern Utah (Feb. 23) and Utah (Mar. 18) ... drove in three runs on two occasions, against Cal Poly (Apr. 14) and UC Riverside (Apr. 29) ... scored twice in nine different games ... hit a walk-off home run in a 3-2 victory over UC Davis on May 12 ... also stole six bases, including a pair against UNLV on Mar. 16.
CRESCENTA VALLEY High School
Peek played two years of baseball and two years of softball at Crescenta Valley High School in La Crescenta, Calif. ... was a two-time Los Angeles Daily News first-team honoree ... named Pacific League Most Valuable Player as a senior ... also earned All-Area honors twice and All-State accolades as a senior ... graduated in 2004 with a 3.0 grade point average.
Born on October 3, 1986 in Hollywood, Calif. ... mother is Wilda Kier and father is Edward Peek ... has three brothers, Mark, Edward and Jason ... also recruited by Long Beach State, Alabama and Tennessee ... favorites include Mexican food and singer Kenny Chesney ... lists the best thing about being an athlete is competing and the toughest thing is keeping up with school while playing ... states that she can't imagine going a week without listening to music ... majoring in recreation and tourism management.


text:
Blogging gets children in poverty sponsored.
Here's da proof that blogging works.
- Be Thou My Vision
- flowerdust.net
- 429 children sponsored as a result of the Uganda blog trip.
And here's da rebuttal.
The Search Kindly "Money Thermometer" shows that only $203 has been raised for Compassion this month.
Using highly complex advanced math skills that bend the imagination as well as extraordinarily precise scientific pattern analysis that can't help but impress, and with one-third of precincts reporting, CNN (Compassion Network News) predicts that Search Kindly will donate slightly more than $600 to Compassion at the end of the month.
No goals will be met, and no observable impact for your efforts, particularly the friends below, will be seen.
- Compassion at the Orchard
- Jonathan's Journey
- Innovating Tomorrow
- Just Another Day in Paradise
- A New Kind of Minister
- musings of a foreign heart
- (Don't miss the wonder.)
It seems our call to action was too weak. Any ideas for a compelling way to influence da thermometer?


text:
Artist Collection: (165 of 170)< Previous | Next >
- + MOUSE OVER image to zoom in
- + CLICK to enlarge
winterby bill cannon
- Medium
- Photography
- Artist Notes
- Sure is cold!!
- Contact Artist Send Artist an Email
More about bill cannon
- Location
- pa., usa
- Artist Biography
- Bill Cannon is a Fine Arts Photographer from Philadelphia. Bill is a self taught artist and loves both taking great photos and the process of digital editing. Bill has many Fine Art prints so please take some time to look through his lovely art work.


text:
UEFA want to put 'racism spotters' in grounds to identify abusive fans.
Manuel Pellegrini has told Jose Mourinho: 'You won't get to me.'
David Moyes has hammered rumours of a rift with Robin van Persie.
Arsene Wenger is not convinced he has seen the last of Alex Ferguson.
Sepp Blatter wants to reduce England's chances of future World Cup glory.
Jose Mourinho has been branded a hypocrite by furious Cardiff chief Malky Mackay.
Real Madrid boss Carlo Ancelotti says he sold Mesut Ozil to Arsenal because Angel Di Maria has more character.
Patrice Evra fears football will never win the war on racism.
Struggling Sunderland have recruited the Pope in a desperate bid to escape relegation.
Real Madrid boss Carlo Ancelotti says the world is about to see the best of Gareth Bale.
Jose Mourinho says Manchester City should face the same "bought the title" jibes he suffered in his first spell at Chelsea.
Mark Hughes reckons Manchester United's dodgy home form has nothing to do with Sir Alex Ferguson's retirement.
Barcelona are trying to hammer out a new deal for wonderkid Antonio Sanabria to stop him joining Arsenal.
Yaya Toure last night hit back at accusations he 'dreamt' the racist abuse he suffered in Moscow.
The police horse that took a punch to the face will return to action at the Wear-Tyne derby.
Arsene Wenger admits Arsenal are still trying to remedy Jack Wilshere's long-running ankle problem.
Cesc Fabregas insists he never had any plans to leave Barcelona in the summer.
Mark Hughes believes Manchester United have lost their aura.
Arsene Wenger believes Sir Alex Ferguson may yet return to football at the end of the season.
Manuel Pellegrini could not disguise his distaste for Jose Mourinho as they prepared for their first Premier League head-to-head.
David Moyes has denied any rift with Robin van Persie.
Juventus have been told to forget about signing Fulham's Pajtim Kasami for now.
Luis Suarez believes his partnership with Daniel Sturridge can blossom into the most effective of his career.
Jose Mourinho has cranked up the pressure on Manuel Pellegrini by insisting Manchester City's spending spree means they should win the title.
Manuel Pellegrini has told Jose Mourinho his mind games won't work on him.


text:
Division of Federal Employees' Compensation (DFEC)
About DFEC
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act provides workers' compensation coverage to three million federal and postal workers around the world for employment-related injuries and occupational diseases. The Division of Federal Employees' Compensation (DFEC) has responsibility for administering the Act through its twelve district offices and national office.
The resources below pertain only to federal employees and agencies. Workers injured while employed by private companies or by state and local government agencies should contact their state workers' compensation board.
Latest News
Stakeholder Web Portals
Stakeholder-targeted resources and information:
Printable forms used for filing and managing FECA claims.
Contact Us
Laws & Related Materials
Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), associated federal regulations, DFEC procedure manual and related reference materials.
Employees' Compensation Operations & Management Portal (ECOMP)
ECOMP is a free, web-based portal for the electronic filing of key FECA claim forms.
POWER Initiative


text:
Continuing Ed
This course is the study of the knowledge and skills required to effectively market a hand crafts enterprise. The design of logos, brochures, websites and related promotional materials will be covered. Additionally the identification of marketable prototypes and the research involved in marketing specific pieces intended to support your overall practice will be explored. The goal of this class is to have a type or line of work and a marketing plan to start selling it to begin your journey to self support.


text:
Over the years I've had hundreds of discussions with entrepreneurs about raising money. It's a conversation I still have a few times a week with founders everywhere. As the press continues to report daily about company X getting funded to the tune of millions, my conversations about the same have gotten even more frequent. I'm writing this post so that I can refer most of the entrepreneurs I talk with to a place where my thoughts reside on raising money for their business. Maybe the title gave this away already, but if you received a link to this post from me, it means I don't think you should raise money for your business. Perhaps some others will agree with me and point you here as well. Either way, here are the reasons why, in no particular order, you shouldn't try to raise money.
- Because you cannot generate enough sales. Generally speaking, investor money isn't meant to pay your salary, or others, if you haven't figured out yet how to get customers to pay you. Please note I said cannot, not will not. Companies like Twitter certainly can generate money from customers thru ads and other means, but for years they chose not to as they figured it out. They raised money (and still might again) to make it thru this gap. Also, they had customers all around the world. Their customer growth curve is the chart of every entrepreneurs dreams. So if you are adding customers so fast you can't see straight, and you have a lot of ideas around how to monetize them, then you can potentially disregard this. Otherwise, well … you know.
- Using the same Twitter example, the founding team had a strong previous track record of success. The founders raised money before and sold their companies, thus creating an ROI for their investors. That single thing increased their chance of raising money again maybe 10,000x. But what about first timers? Someone could invest in you for your first time as well. However, it is hugely important to note that when raising money ahead of revenue and/or a product with customers, you either need to have a team of super talented stars that shine under the light, or, like in the case of Twitter, are a proven commodity that has previous performance to point towards.
- You don't have a talented team that is working on this full time. Raising money isn't meant to allow you or your partners to quit your jobs. That's supposed to have already happened. Why? Because you are willing to take that risk ahead of funding (well ahead, not just a month or two), or because the business growth demanded it. Raising money to make key hires is certainly a legitimate use of funds. You and your co-founders are not key hires though. I do think you should consider timing it well — no need to just off and quit your job based on pure excitement. Have a plan, or better yet, a product/service and some customers.
- The business you are already building has a very legitimate chance to be extremely large. There are two important pieces to this consideration. First, notice I said "already building". For 99% of the entrepreneurs that raise money, they are doing so based on something more advanced than an idea. Ideas don't get funded (see #2 above for exceptions). Second, you have to be brutally honest with yourself about the potential size of your business. If you are doing the "…we only need 1% of a $10B market and…" kind of stuff, then you are already in trouble. Perhaps the more important question to ask yourself isn't whether or not your business can be very large, but rather, do you and your team have an idea of how to do it? If I can cure cancer, there is no doubt I'll have a very large business. However, it is very clear to me that I have no idea how to do it. I wish it were this obvious, but most of the time it isn't. Chances are you are working on a good business, with solid potential and a legitimate chance to make it. This doesn't equate to a business that should raise money.
- Because you can. That's right, some people can successfully raise money, especially in a hot market (like now) but that doesn't mean they should. I've watched some talented entrepreneurs bring on investors when I don't think they should have. Then why did they? It can appear easier to build a business with money in the bank. I've done it both ways. I can tell you that both come with challenges for sure. However, every business I've started without investor money has HAD to succeed because of customer demand and acceptable margins. Investor money can create a false sense of reality in the marketplace. There is something to be said for building a business on customer money versus investor money. However, there is an interesting option that comes out of businesses funded by customer revenue — investors love them! If you want to raise money down the road, having a business that is already succeeding is the best way I've ever seen to do so.
- To some, this may seem like the thing you are supposed to do. You read about it everywhere, you see every successful company doing it. So if you want to succeed, that is what you need to do, right? Wrong. Some statistics I've read have the number of companies that successfully raise money at about 0.2% — that is two tenths of one percent. So what about the other 99.8% of the companies out there that succeed without investor capital? Yeah, that's most likely you. Embrace that!
I realize there are exceptions to every rule. I'm quite sure I didn't get this totally correct. Some of you out there have had experiences otherwise. Do you agree or disagree with my assertions? I'd love to hear from you in the comments. You can also find me on Twitter here. In the meantime, if you are reading this, then you are likely part of the 99% that will not raise money for their business. So spend your time and talents on figuring out who your customer is and what they want. That will pay off more than an investment will any day.


text:
Mary Ethel Winters Weatherman, 99, passed away Friday, January 4, 2012 at Yadkin Nursing Care Center.
She was born October 27, 1913 in Yadkin County to the late Franklin Martin Winters and Laura Swaim Winters. She was the oldest member at Center United Methodist Church. Ethel also attend Boonville High School, where she was a member of the girls basketball team from 1928-1930. She retired from Duplan.
In addition to her parents, she was preceded in death by her husband, Cam Dawson Weatherman; sisters, Gaynell, Hattie, and Pearl; brothers, Arthur, Odell, Cletus, John, and Thad; daughter-in-law, Margaret Weatherman; son-in-law, Norman Mathis.
Surviving are her children, Patty Mathis, Thad Weatherman, Peggy (David) Huffman; grandchildren, Cathy Recchio, Teresa (Mike) Mathis, Chris (Barbara) Mathis, Clark Mathis, Kent Mathis, Julia (Tim) Baity, Jennifer (Jimmy) Shoaf, Kyle Huffman; great grandchildren, India Collins, Shane Collins, Angela (Jamie) Mathis, Adam (Erica) Mathis, Hannah (Cody) Keaton, Caleb Baity, Kaitlyn Shoaf, McKenzie Shoaf, Chase Shoaf.
Her funeral service will be held at 2:00 p.m. Sunday, January 6, 2012 at Center United Methodist Church by the Rev. Dr. Bonnie P. Harris, Steve Wagoner, and Cathy Recchio. Burial will follow at the church cemetery. She will lie in-state 30 minutes prior to the service. The family will receive friends after the service in the fellowship hall of the church.
The family would like to thank Yadkin Nursing Care Center for all the love and care shown to Ethel. Memorials can be made to Center United Methodist Church General Fund, 1400 Center Road, Yadkinville, NC 27055.
Gentry Family Funeral Service in Yadkinville is serving the Weatherman family. Online condolences can be made at www.gentryfuneralservice.com.


text:
Department of Nursing
West Chester University
222 Sturzebecker Health Sciences Center
West Chester, PA 19383
Dr. Chris Thomas is an Associate Professor in the Nursing department. She joined the Department of Nursing in August 1998 after teaching at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and Westmoreland Area Community College. She teaches junior level students. Her subject areas include adult health, geriatric assessment, prevention, care and management of cardiac and pulmonary problems, client education, pain management, and the use of high fidelity simulation in nursing education. Dr. Thomas is a member of the American Nurses Association, Pennsylvania Nurses Association, the Sigma Theta Tau, the International Nursing Honor Society. Her current research interests include high fidelity methods to increase student confidence, skills, and decision making.
WCU Weather Info.
Right-to-Know Policy


text:
The 3.3 million acre Rogue River Basin in Southwest Oregon is globally recognized for its high biodiversity, complex geology and dramatic topography. Population increases and their resulting environmental impacts have changed the face of several Rogue Basin systems within the past fifty years. Changes in fire frequency, the severity of peak and low stream flows, waste inputs, flood plain encroachment, degraded riparian areas, and airborne pollutants are all consequences of human population expansion into aquatic and terrestrial habitat. In order to adequately address the ecological impacts brought about by social and economic changes in the Rogue Basin, there is a need for regional collaborative landscape-scale restoration planning and implementation.
Since 1999, the Rogue Basin Coordinating Council (RBCC) has served as a valuable clearinghouse for information exchange and activity coordination among its member watershed councils. RBCC's mission has been to enhance the success of the nine watershed councils in the Rogue Basin, while coordinating projects and activities that transcend individual watershed boundaries. Recently, by virtue of an ongoing restoration planning process facilitated by the Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF), a consensus has formed among participating natural resource and conservation oriented groups that the Rogue Basin as a whole would benefit from the presence of a backbone organization to unite us in our restoration efforts and allow us all to tap into greater capacity and resources. In response to this need, RBCC has been reorganizing itself over the past year to serve as a broad based inclusive organization that assists and serves partners in meeting our shared restoration goals. As of June 2014, RBCC has made major changes to its bylaws, formally approved a new mission and vision statement and adopted a new name, the Rogue Basin Partnership (RBP). The purpose of this change is to expand the original RBCC membership base beyond watershed councils in order to work more closely and effectively with a more diverse range of restoration organizations that are working in the Rogue Basin. Historically, the focus of watershed council restoration efforts has been on the stream corridor. Through this reorganization, RBP will be poised to expand its restoration efforts from aquatic and riparian work into the forests, chaparral, grasslands and urban landscapes of the Rogue Basin.
Rogue Basin Partnership
P.O. Box 1214
Medford, OR 97501
Phone: (541) 414-9064
Coordinator: Sam Whitridge
Efficiency & Collaboration
The RBP and its partners are working to bring greater efficiencies to natural resource management in the Rogue Basin. Please keep stay tuned to our development: