text:
Human Dignity in a Global World
Document Actions
Mar 2, 2011
Rev. Dr. Emmanuel Clapsis
In late modernity we have become increasingly aware of the intrinsic ambivalence that shapes personal and communal identities. The binary distinctions that enabled us to structure and shape personal and communal identities by establishing ideological, religious, ethnic and communal boundaries cannot be sustained any longer in the compressed space of the global world. Ambivalence defies structures and boundaries that nurture familiarity. Globalization as an ambivalent notion is many things at once; it does not subscribe to binary distinctions of either/or, benign/malignant. Globalization along with its cultural, economic and social advances generates new forms of oppression, suffering and waste of human lives. It causes fear and insecurity and in some instances leads its victims, especially those who feel that it endangers their life patterns and deprives them the necessary resources and power to live relatively well, to acts of violence.[1]
The horrors of violence and the cries of its victims have led to the recognition that while violence is an extremely polyvalent and complex phenomenon involving matters of morality, ideology and culture, it is preventable by addressing its root causes and by devising structures, agencies and skills that cultivate a culture of peace. We are presently searching for rules, procedures and institutions designed both to deter the vices and to facilitate the virtues of the global world. Such an enterprise requires that we shift our emphasis on our cultural, religious and ethno-racial communal symbols and systems of beliefs from those elements that accentuate difference and lead to exclusion to those that recognize the dignity and the common humanity of all people in their irreducible differences.[2] It is in this context that the notion of human dignity has captured the imagination and the hopes of all oppressed and persecuted people as a normative principle and the much desired basis for life in the modern world.
The Christian churches in their ecumenical fellowship and in their desire to manifest their unity in Christ have recognized that their faithfulness to the Gospel demands their active participation and contribution in collaborative efforts towards the building of a culture of peace. The awareness that religious beliefs and practices in some instances can be interpreted and used to accentuate differences and generate violence has led them to search for ways to remain faithful to their particularities and at the same time to embrace others - at least in the public realm of life - with a sense of justice and recognition of their difference. The churches in an improvised culture that tends to view human life as a dispensable commodity and which resolves its conflicts through the politics of domination, fear and terror, are challenged to bring forth those insights of the Christian tradition that advance human solidarity, justice and peace. Their contributions to the ongoing dialogue for a broader conception of human dignity, connected with people's narratives of life, are indispensable elements that contribute to the realization of this goal.
The proliferation of international and national declarations about human dignity and rights, issued after1945, is a reaction to the atrocities and the suffering of the Second World War.[3] It is necessary to develop safeguards to protect people from arbitrary communal or state domination, especially now in the modern world with all its advances in the technology of domination.[4] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 opened its preamble with what would become classic words: "Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world." [5] Governments were exhorted to create conditions conducive to the realization and protection of these inviolate rights and to root out discrimination, whether social or cultural, or whether based on sex, race, color, social distinction, language or religion.[6] Many democratic nations have included the notion of human dignity in their constitution and their constitutional law. What is characteristic of these declarations is the location of the value of human beings in a "substantial self" as an aspect of his or hers subjectivity, irrespective of the contexts and the relations that define the identity of each human being.
Christian churches and ecumenical organizations have participated in the developing tradition of human rights and have produced significant declarations on human rights with a varying emphasis on human dignity. The Roman Catholic Church in several documents produced during and after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), but especially in Dignitatis Humanae, endorsed the notion of human rights. It affirmed that every person is created by God with "dignity, intelligence and free will… and has rights flowing directly and simultaneously from his very nature."[7]
The notion of human dignity is foundational in the imagination of many desperate people and peoples around the world that dream of greater justice and freedom in their personal and communal space. It shapes a range of contemporary debates on issues from war and poverty to abortion, human cloning and euthanasia. Yet, the pervasiveness of the discourse on dignity masks the extent to which the meaning and substance of the term has become vague and contested. Nowadays we speak about the dignity of luxury, pleasure and leisure; the dignity of poverty, pain and imprisonment; the dignity of identity, belonging and difference; the dignity of ethnic, cultural and linguistic purity, the dignity of sex, gender and sexual preference and the dignity of aging, dying and death. An undisciplined use of the notion of dignity endangers its value. [8]
The global endorsement and significance of the notion of human dignity has evoked reflection on its importance beyond the boundaries of the Judeo-Christian world and of western secular thought. New voices –especially those from Africa, Asia and Latin America, and from various Buddhist, Confucian, Hindu, Islamic, and Traditional communities – with their unique insights, values and interpretation- demand to be heard and contribute to a global enhancement of the notion of human dignity and rights. The task of defining the appropriate ambition of human dignity and human rights today must be a multidisciplinary, multireligious and multicultural exercise. Many disciplines, religions and cultures around the globe have unique sources and resources and texts and traditions which speak to human dignity and human rights. It is essential that each community be allowed to speak with its own unique accent and to work, with its own distinct methods, on human dignity and human rights, in an exercise that is multi- rather than interdisciplinary, interreligious, and intercultural in character. Each of these disciplines, religions and cultures as participants in a global discussion and appreciation of human dignity and rights must develop a capacity for bilingualism – an ability to speak with insiders and outsiders alike about their unique understanding of the origin, nature and purpose of human dignity and human rights. [9] This approach of having scholars from different traditions, cultures and religions addressing issues of human dignity and rights, based on their own traditions and developed on their own terms, has already commenced.[10] The conversation itself will not advance the cause of increasing human dignity throughout the world. Respect for human dignity and recognition of human rights demands the development of a culture of peace and justice. "A form of words by itself secures nothing; words pregnant with meaning in one culture may be entirely barren in another."[11] The language of human dignity and rights do not assume any salience in societies that lack constitutional process to give them meaning and measure. They have little cogency in communities that lack the ethos and the ethic to render human rights violations as a source of shame and regret, restraint and respect, confession and responsibility, reconciliation and restitution.[12]
Human Dignity and Changing Consciousness
Reflecting on how social norms have been used and have evolved in religious and secular scientific thought, we must inevitably acknowledge that they generally reflect changes in human consciousness. Changes in human consciousness are by nature morally ambivalent. For instance changes in the use and understanding of human dignity may endanger its importance and at the same time can carry hopeful features. Every turn of collective consciousness seems to be morally ambivalent, both bringing new moral dangers and also creating new moral opportunities. Changes in moral consciousness are generally too ambivalent to be regarded as either progress or decline. We need to understand how the moral consciousness of our time both poses threats to human dignity and brings the promise of an enhancement of human dignity.
There has been a general tendency over the last few centuries for concepts to refer less exclusively to social positions and increasingly to more internal matters. The danger of this shift is the lack of concern with the external, social context of human life. But the aspiration to achieve authenticity, which is such a marked feature of contemporary consciousness, carries a welcome concern that people should have the conditions necessary for their self-fulfillment. This turn to subjectivity is also reflected in contemporary thinking about dignity. Dignity is increasingly concerned not just with the externals of social position and behavior but with social experiences and feelings. Respecting people's dignity now not only involves showing appropriate respect in social behavior, but increasingly also means ensuring that people have appropriate opportunities for self-expression. With this focus on the internal, differences between people in their thinking have become much more significant. One person may feel that their dignity has been challenged where another would not. The increasing sensitivity to possible indignities has rather mixed implications. On the one hand, such sensitizing may be desirable if it increases the respect with which people are treated. On the other hand, it may breed an excessive self-concern that sits uneasily with the Christian ideal of kenotic love.
The recognition of the moral ambivalence of the changing human consciousness does not allow the embrace of totalistic systems, either religious or secular, in our interpretation of what it is to be human. Such systems can only be sustained at the expense of the incomprehensible mystery and multidimensionality of human nature.[13] "Nothing but" reductionism is always seeking to assert a proposition about the basic nature of humanity, that we are basically just this or that (the products of our genes, of our neurons, of our primitive instincts, and so on). This, however, is a fallacious conclusion. The conclusions that can properly be drawn about human beings from such premises are qualitative ones, not absolute ones. Our genes, our neurons, our basic instincts, and so on, affect how we function qualitatively as human beings, but they do not yield absolute, ontological conclusions about what we are as human beings. It is the absolute forms of reductionism that are pernicious, incompatible with religious views, and that are to be resisted.
In the context of the ongoing dialogue of Christian churches with secular sciences and religious and cultural traditions about human dignity, it is possible to develop a much broader understanding of human dignity by integrating some of their qualitative claims about the humanum. For instance, there is a perception among religious people that Darwinism and Freudianism are secular threats against the dignity of the human person. Yet a closer examination leads to an appreciation of their insights. The Darwinian proposition that we were descended from other primates suggests that we were likely to have some things in common with the primates, which in turn implies that not all our behavior is as dignified as we might like to think. For instance, the tendency to fight under threat is something determined by genetic disposition. This point, however, was often misheard as being more absolute – an ontological statement about human dignity, that because we were descended from other animals we are just animals. Heard in that way, it is felt to be an attack on the proposition that we all have a basic dignity as members of the human race. The same is true with Freudianism. The Freudian proposition that much of our apparently higher behavior arises from an adjustment to the primitive instincts of the id suggests that our higher behaviors, on close examination, may turn out to be more morally ambivalent than we would like to think. Correctly understood, however, this does not lead to the conclusion that we are nothing but the products of our primitive instincts, or undermines the proposition that we have a basic, core dignity as human beings. A refusal to accept the exclusive claims of reductionistic theories and ideologies that claim "nothing but" facilitates the dialogue on broadening the notion of human dignity. In particular, a clearer distinction between absolute and qualitative senses of the concept of dignity would reduce the sense of alleged threat presented, for instance, by either Darwinism or Freudianism.
The repudiation of reductionistic, "nothing but" religious or secular ideologies about what it is to be human must be accompanied by a recognition that human dignity is endangered by an impoverished and distorted human imagination. As Charles Taylor has described, the concern with how we see things, and with the possibility of seeing things differently, has become a modern obsession. Though this preoccupation is very clear in modern thinking, it is not clear how it relates to what happens in practice. Our ideological obsession with the importance of seeing things straight has not obviously been accompanied by people making much headway in actually so seeing them. Indeed, the preoccupation may have arisen from a growing sense of alienation, and been some sort of attempt to repair that alienation.
The alienated experience of life seems to arise from a failure of imagination and from an impoverishment of our capacity to envisage properly the potential richness of our experience. In human relationships such a failure of imagination might be called a lack of empathy. Alongside the failure of the imagination there are also distortions or pollutions of the imagination. Failures of imagination bring a sense of disenchantment. Meaning fades, and reductionist "nothing but' ideas about human nature seem increasingly attractive. In contrast, where the imagination becomes distorted, excessive appetites arise in the form of addictions or sexual preoccupations. Particular situations, far from being meaningless, create powerful anxieties or worries.
Though failures and distortions of imagination are in some sense opposite, they can also coexist in an insidious way. Both can undermine the capacity for people to treat one another with respect. Failures of imagination can result in people being treated as mere objects, with no concern for what they might be thinking or feeling. Distortions of imagination, in contrast, can lead to people being treated as players in a perverted game. Rather than being treated with indifference, people are endowed with "projections" that result in our seeing in one another simply what we wish to see. In the former people are accorded no real identity at all; in the latter they are seen as mere extensions of our own needs and personality. In neither case is there any attention to what people actually are, or any proper respect for their distinct identity. That requires an imagination that is prepared to reach out to the other person and try to understand what it is like to be him or her. Here, the affirmation that God's Spirit is active in the entirety of God's creation and in history, could advance the recognition of God's presence in all, which is the foundation of the Christian affirmation of the dignity of all human beings. It is the Holy Spirit that makes possible the imaginative response to other people that is required if they are to be treated with proper dignity as creatures of God. Our hope that human beings will develop proper respect for one another is grounded in what God has granted to the created world through His Son and the Holy Spirit.
Human Dignity and its Decontextualization in Modern Times
The story of the emergence of a distinctively modern conception of human dignity is too complex to recount in any detail. It is a story in which Christianity plays an important role along with the classical tradition supplemented and challenged by other intellectual influences, including – after the sixteenth century – perspectives shaped by the rise of the natural and then the human and social sciences. It is commonly recognized that the story of the emergence of modern conceptions of human dignity cannot be told without reference to social, political and economic factors as well as cultural ones – including growth of property-ownership, the decline of political absolutism, the spread of democratic arrangements and the extension of franchise, de-colonization and globalization. Wars have also played an important part, with reaction against religious wars giving impetus to conceptions of universal humanity and human dignity.
The modern conception of human dignity reflects the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), especially in his virtual identification of human dignity with a single preeminent faculty: rational freedom; the elevation of human dignity to a central – indeed foundational- normative principle for ethical reflection; and last in his conceptual linkage of the concept of human dignity with corresponding and specific rights inherent in, and belonging to, every human being. He argued in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, that the dignity of the human being derives from the fact that he or she alone is "free from all laws of nature, obedient only to those laws which he himself prescribes." Thus, the capacity for autonomous rational agency is the root of human dignity. Immanuel Kant vindicates a conception of dignity that stands alone, prior to and independent of, every concept of God; this in turn requires that all persons be treated and treat themselves as ends in themselves and never merely as a means to another's ends. It leads to the moral assumption that human beings, as autonomous entities, must exercise their autonomy, as rational agents, free from any form of coercion or paternalistic interference.
Nowadays, it is recognized that intersecting cultural and social developments have stripped the notion of human dignity from its sustaining context without supplying in some instances viable alternatives. There may be good reasons why the concept of human dignity had to be cut free from its theological roots, and there are some valuable outcomes of such a decontextualization. But the price that has been paid has been the gradual weakening of the concept and a blunting of its power to diagnose and resist contemporary endangerments of the very dignity it strives to secure. It is our contention that human dignity once removed from the theological and ecclesial context proves remarkably fragile – insufficient to sustain the ethical and metaphysical weight that modern rights-talk would place upon it. Thus there is a need to recontextualize the notion of human dignity so it can serve as a meaningful point of orientation for human thought and action.[14] The need of recontextualizing the notion of human dignity is further accentuated by the fact that it has become a global norm for a culture of peace and justice. There is a need to embed the notion of human dignity in multiple sustaining contexts since its meaningfulness depends on a broader and more comprehensive cultural, conceptual and social framework.[15]
Such a process invites the Christian churches to bring back into contact with their traditions the notion of human dignity, that is, what it means to be a human being and to what degree we are responsible for the dignity, life and future of other human beings, especially of those who are persecuted, oppressed and marginalized.
Orthodox reflections on Human Dignity and Rights
Orthodox theologians have not addressed - or at least have not considered crucial to their concerns - the issue of human dignity and rights.[16] Some of them consider the notion of human dignity and rights as alien to the Spirit of Orthodoxy, a western construct shaped by the problematics of Western Christianity and the secular spirit of the enlightenment.[17] The Orthodox churches historically have been less disposed to defend human rights than the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism. This is mainly attributed to the emphasis Orthodoxy gives to a highly corporate and sacramental view of salvation that does not encourage autonomy on religious grounds. Another contributing factor is its reluctance to interact with law as well as the traditional understanding of church and state relationships. These factors have contributed to a conceptual perception that does not favor the cultivation or the advocacy of human rights. However, it is wrong to assume that the ethos of Orthodoxy does not permit the development of a sensitivity to human right and its advocacy. Quite to the contrary, the Orthodox view of human dignity supports the idea of human rights. The possibility for a greater sensitivity and advocacy of human rights issues by the Orthodox churches is highly probable since under the pressure of historic challenges people often find new meaning in traditional ideas. Thus, as Paul Valliere commenting on human rights movements in the former Soviet Union has stated: "while some of the most important ideals of Orthodoxy tend to discourage individuals from viewing themselves as right-bearers over against the community, and discourage the community from viewing itself as distinct from the state, these ideals did not prevent a lively Orthodox rights movement from developing." [18] Recently important contributions have been published defending the notion of human rights and attempting to embed them within an Orthodox understanding of being human as communion in the context of the Trinitarian faith.[19]
The need to develop an Orthodox contribution to the notion of human dignity cannot be ignored any longer since most of the Orthodox churches currently exist in states that espouse the principles and values of liberal democracy. In addition, Orthodox churches living in oppressive contexts, as persecuted and oppressed minorities, appeal to the notion of human dignity and rights for their survival and participation in the communal life with dignity and freedom. The recognition that the notion of human dignity and rights has captured the imagination of people throughout the world who desire to live free from oppressive external powers, along with the current global discussions about human dignity and rights, is an invitation for Orthodox theology to contribute in an intelligible and communicable language its spiritual resources and insights.
The Orthodox critique of the human rights tradition focuses on their reduction, especially in affluent western countries, to a basis that fortifies the self, leads to self-centeredness and legitimizes self-gratification. "In the Eastern Orthodox understanding, the contents of the existing human rights documents are just beginnings; they do nothing to safeguard the dignity of persons against domination by their egos."[20] This, in their view, contributes to social fragmentation that endangers human solidarity, love and communion - necessary elements and norms for a compassionate and just community. They consider this derangement of the human rights tradition to be a consequence of its western theological and philosophical foundations. Yet, even the most severe critics of the human rights tradition recognize its value and desire to place it in the context of a communal or ecclesial framework and ethos.[21] While the criticism of Orthodoxy against the philosophical and theological grounds of the human rights tradition may be an important remedy to its current crisis, Orthodox theologians must also be critical of oppressive communal structures of dominance that do not allow people to be different or do not recognize their differences within their communal life.[22] In other words, the turn to subjectivity as it has been developed in the West may be an important corrective to the totalistic inclinations of communal life. The Orthodox emphasis on communal life and the primacy of relations is also, respectively, an equally important corrective to western individualism and social fragmentation. The choice that we have is neither either/or, nor an issue of balance between human subjectivity and community, but of a continuous reflexive relationship of mutual fermentation and enrichment as well as of mutual correction.[23] The conversation of Orthodoxy with other Christian traditions, as well as religious and secular ideologies, on the notion of human dignity may bring a certain freshness and clarity to theological anthropology, which has not been one of the liveliest areas of theology.[24]
Human dignity in Christian thought is based on the biblical and patristic tradition that human beings are created in God's image. All human beings exist in relationship to God, to themselves and to the world, a world both of personal and social interaction and as a material cosmos. These relations are not external relations attached to an already existing substance; they are internal relations make up their human identity. Human beings are indeed set within a group of structures of relationships, which they have not constructed, but which constitute their being. This structure of relatedness confronts us with the obligation of shaping these relationships: we relate in order to relate. The crucial question is how we actively relate to the relationships that shape our identity. Do we, for instance, recognize the created sociality of all human beings or do we contradict it by constructing our subjectivity as denial of all sociality? Christian theological anthropology locates the humanum not in the relationship of humans to themselves (i.e., capacity for reflection, self-consciousness) or in the relationship to the world, but primarily in God's relationship to humans. This is the context in which the notion of human dignity must be located. Theologically, human dignity is a distinction which humans possess apart from, and independent of, any capacity they possess in their relationship to themselves or to the world. The dignity of each human being originates in God's creating, redeeming and deifying grace that enables human beings to become ecstatic, transcending their self-existence and moving towards the fullness of their humanity in life sustaining and life transforming relations. It is only in communion that human beings become truly what they are destined to be by God.
Though both theology and secular thinking have a sense of human dignity as universal, they handle this in very different ways. Human dignity in theology is primarily seen as God's unconditional gift to all people while for others it is viewed as an inherent quality of each human being as an essential self. There are, however, different ways in which something can be experienced as a gift. It is possible for people to feel demeaned or patronized by being told that something is a gift when they feel it is a basic part of their nature or constitution or is something to which they are entitled. For others, however, receiving a gift is an experience highly affirming and very much to be welcomed. Seeing dignity as a gift carries tasks and obligations appropriate to good stewardship of the gift, whereas thinking of rights carries no such obligation. When a Christian tradition speaks of something being a gift of God, though the latter is intended, sometimes, in the context of the post-Enlightenment thought, it is heard as being patronizing.
In Christian theology, everything that is appropriate for human beings are gifts of God. Thus human dignity is not self-grounded possession enjoyed apart from a relationship to the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. As Chrysostom writes memorably in a sermon on Philippians, "Humans possess dignity of rational nature, but this comes to them as a gift, not as something they have earned. Hence there is no natural preeminence amongst us, for no good thing is naturally our own"[25]. Because God confers human dignity, its measure and norm is to be discovered not in social convention but in God and in the pattern of God's action toward humankind in creation and redemption in Christ. In response to critics of Christianity who found it ridiculous that "poor, unskilled people should dispute about heavenly things," Minucius Felix (late second or early third century) replied, "let him know that all men are begotten alike, with a capacity and ability of reasoning and feeling, without preference of age, sex, or dignity.[26]"
The perception that every human being has an inherent dignity is insufficient to embrace the totality of life and theologically is seen to be a static notion. It leaves no room for eschatology, no scope for a dynamic unfolding of God's purpose in relation to human dignity. A Christian theology of dignity needs to be balanced by an eschatological approach; creation is a continuing process and consequently it is inseparable from eschatology. This requires that we distinguish different senses of dignity. In one sense we have dignity already, but in another sense we do not have dignity in all its fullness. There is both a present actuality and a future potentiality about human dignity. Both are essential to an adequate theology of dignity and holding the doctrine of creation and eschatology together shows us how the absolute or universal concept of human dignity must be kept always in relation to a relative or qualitative one.
A theology of creation gives us an absolute concept of dignity that bestows dignity on all, and there is no light or shade about it. However, this affirmation needs to be complemented by a qualitative concept of dignity that reflects the extent to which the potential that comes from being made in the image of God is or has been realized. The distinction between being made in the "image" of God and growing in his "likeness" has been used in this way. People differ in the extent to which they have realized the potential that comes from being created in the image of God. At the present time that fuller dignity to which we are all called, and for which we can hope, is more completely realized in some people than in others. All, however, are called to a fuller realization of the dignity that is part of God's purpose. People can thus live in the space created between the basic dignity that is given to them and the fuller dignity to which they are called. How this is experienced can make a crucial difference in our lives. The proper human experience of dignity depends on keeping open the axis between the dignity that we have already as gift and the fuller dignity that we are promised and toward which we are called. To see dignity solely as necessary property of human beings, as secular Enlightment thought tends to do, is to lose touch with the eschatological promise that the dignity of humanity can become more of a reality. On the other hand, if dignity is seen entirely as something that might develop more fully in the future, with no sense that it is already in some basic sense present, there would be no constrains on current indignities. If the only concept of dignity that we can affirm in the political realm of life is the universal dignity of all as an inherent quality of every human being then it might be assumed that human dignity could be neither destroyed nor improved upon. Only if there is a sense that human dignity could become more of a reality than is presently the case can people be motivated toward a betterment of human conditions. This sense of dignity as something that remains to be realized can be seen as an invitation and a promise, a possibility that is held out to people, and to which they are invited to respond.
[1] Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and Ambivalence (Ithaca, New York; Cornel University Press, 1991)
[2] For an attempt to reflect on the dialectic relationship between the "inside" and the "outside" in the life of the Orthodox Church see issue 101(2007) of the theological journal Synaxis.
[3] For the story of the emergence of modern selfhood, individualism and a concept of dignity –and the role of Christianity- see: Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self (Harvard, Mass.; Cambridge University Press, 1989) and Nicholas Abercrombie, Stephen Hill, Bryan Turner, Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism (London: Allen and Unwin, 19860.
[4] Davil Little, "Human Rights and Responsibilities in Pluralistic world," in The Orthodox Churches in a Pluralistic World, ed., Emmanuel Clapsis (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2004), p. 79.
[5] Reprinted in Ian Brownie, ed., Basic Documents on Human Rights, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 21
[6] See ibid; and Dignitatis Humanae (1965), in Documents of Vatican II, 675.
[7] Pacem in Terris (1963), par.9, reprinted in Joseph Gremillion, ed., The Gospel of Peace and Justice: Catholic Social Teaching since Pope John (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1976), p. 201, 203.
[8] John Witte, Jr., " Between Sanctity and Depravity: Human Dignity in Protestant Perspective," in Robert P. Kraynak and Glen Tinder eds., In Defense of Human Dignity: Essays for our Times (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 2003), 122.
[9] Ibid., 122.
[10] See, e.g., David Novak, Covenantal Rights (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000); Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Toward an Islamic Revolution: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1990); Wm. Theodore de Bary and Tu Weiming, eds., Confucianism and Human Rights (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998); Irene Bloom, J. Paul Martin, and Wayne L. Proudfoot, eds., Religious Diversity and Human Rights (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).
[11] John T. Noonan, Jr., "The Tensions and the Ideals," in Religious Human Rights: Legal Perspectives, vol. 2, eds. John Witte Jr. and Jonah D. van de Vyer (The Hague and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1996), p. 594
[12] Jerome J. Shestack, "Globalization of Human Rights Law," Fordham International Law Journal 21(1997), p. 558.
[13] Nikos A. Nissiotis, "Secular and Christian Images of Human Person," Θεολογία 52 (1982), p.947-989; 53(1983), p.90-122.
[14] R. Kendal Soulen and Linda Woodhead, eds., God and Human Dignity (Grand Rapids, Michigan; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), p. 1
[15] Ibid, p. 2
[16] Savvas Agouridis, Τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα στο Δυτικό Κόσμο: Ιστορική και Κοινωνική Ανασκόπηση (Athens: Filistor, 1998), p.12.
[17] Vigen Guroian, "Human Rights and Modern Western Faith: An Orthodox Christian Assessment," Journal of Religious Ethics 26 (1998) pp. 241-247.
[18] Paul Valliere, "Rusian Orthodoxy and Human Rights," in Religious Diversity and Human Rights, eds. Irene Bloom, J. Paul Martin, Wayne L. Proudfoot (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), p281.
[19] Kostas Delikonstantis, Τα Δικαιώματα του Ανθρώπου - Δυτικό Ιδεολόγημα η Οικουμενικό Ηθος; (Thessalonike: Kyriakidis, 1995); Christos Yiannaras, Η Απανθρωπία του Δικαίωματος (Athens: Domos, 1998); Paul Valliere, "Russian Orthodoxy and Human Rights," in Religious Diversity and Human Rights, eds. Irene Bloom, J. Paul Martin, Wayne L. Proudfoot (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 278-312; Stanley S. Harakas, "Human Rights: An Eastern Orthodox Perspective," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34(1982), pp. 13-24 : Anastasios Yannoulatos, "Eastern Orthodoxy and Human Rights," International Review of Missions 73(1984) pp. 456-466; Susan R. Holman, "Human Rights Language in the Cappadocians," Pro Ecclesia 9(2000), pp. 480-488.
[20] Anastasios Yannoulatos, "Eastern Orthodoxy and Human Rights," International Review of Missions 73(1984) p. 454.
[21] Christos Yannaras, Η Απανθρωπιά του Δικτυώματος (Athens: Domos, 1998), p.184-189. : "Η νομική βάση των ατομικών δικαιωμάτων μπορεί να λειτουργήσει ως «φυσικό» αφετηριακό δεδομένο για τη συγκρότηση σχέσεων κοινωνίας." p.186
[22] For an illuminating survey of human autonomy in Byzantium, the right to dissent from communal sensibilities and beliefs see: Alexander Kazhdan and Giles Constable, People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1982); Chrysa A. Maltezou edit., Οι Περιθωριακοί στο Βυζάντιο (Athens: Idryma Goulandri-Horn, 1993)
[23] Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity (Cambridge, MA: 2007).
[24] Kalistos Ware, Η Ορθόδοξη Θεολογία στον 21ο Αιώνα (Athens, 2005), p.34. Kalistos Ware exhorts Orthodox theologians to move beyond confessionalism in their anthropological reflection that must preoccupy their attention in the twenty-first century: "Ελπίζω ότι, στη διερεύνηση αυτού του ελάχιστα εξερευνημένου πεδίου της Χριστιανικής ανθρωπολογίας, εμείς οι Ορθόδοξοι δεν θα προσπαθήσουμε να εργαστούμε σε απομόνωση. Υπάρχουν πολλά που μπορούμε να μάθουμε από δυτικούς ειδικούς - φιλόσοφους, θεολόγους, κοινωνικούς επιστήμονες και ψυχόλογους - που θα εμβαθύνουν την κατανόηση της δικής μας Ορθόδοξης παράδοσης. Ας προσπαθήσουμε να επιτύχουμε μια κατανόηση του ανθρώπινου προσώπου, η οποία θα είναι γνήσια οικουμενική."
[25] Homilies on Philippians 7, NPNF, series 1, vol. 13, p. 213.
[26] ANF, vol. 4, p. 181.


text:
Browsing Wilson, Wesley W. by Title
Now showing items 1-1 of 1
Blonigen, Bruce A. (Bruce Aloysius); Tomlin, KaSaundra, 1969-; Wilson, Wesley W. (University of Oregon, Dept. of Economics, June 1, 2002)[more][less]Blonigen, Bruce A. (Bruce Aloysius) Tomlin, KaSaundra, 1969- Wilson, Wesley W. 2003-08-14T21:11:07Z 2003-08-14T21:11:07Z 2002-06-01 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/87 Studies of the welfare implications of trade policy often do not take account of the potential for tariff-jumping FDI to mitigate positive gains to domestic producers. We use event study methodology to examine the market effects for U.S. domestic firms that petitioned for antidumping (AD) relief, as well as the effect of announcements of FDI by their foreign rivals in the U.S. market on these U.S. petitioning firms. On average, affirmative U.S. AD decisions are associated with 3% abnormal gains to a petitioning firm when there is no tariff-jumping FDI, but no abnormal gains if there is tariff-jumping FDI. The evidence for this mitigating effect is strongest when announcements of the intended tariff-jumping FDI have already occurred before an AD decision takes place, which happened in fair number of cases. We also find evidence that the announcements of plant expansions (and, to some extent, new plants) have significantly larger negative effects on U.S. domestic firms' profits than other types of FDI, including acquisitions and joint ventures. 669696 bytes application/pdf en_US University of Oregon, Dept. of Economics University of Oregon Economics Department Working Papers;2002-5 Tariff-jumping FDI Antidumping policy Welfare International economics Tariff-jumping FDI and Domestic Firms' Profits Working Paper
Now showing items 1-1 of 1

subset: commoncrawl


text:
American Samplers
The earliest known American sampler was made by Loara Standish of the Plymouth Colony about 1645. By the 1700s, samplers depicting alphabets and numerals were worked by young women to learn the basic needlework skills needed to operate the family household. By the late 1700s and early 1800s, schools or academies for well-to-do young women flourished, and more elaborate pieces with decorative motifs such as verses, flowers, houses, religious, pastoral, and/or mourning scenes were being stitched. The parents of these young women proudly displayed their embroideries as showpieces of their work, talent, and status.
In recent years, samplers have become important in museum collections as representations of early American female education. Many are signed, and some are inscribed with locations and the names of teachers and schools. The emergence of large numbers of these samplers has resulted in much research in diaries, account books, letters, newspaper ads, local histories, and published commentary that is helping to illuminate the lives of women in early America.
Many early samplers do not have the letters "J" and "U" in their alphabets because they were not part of the early Latin alphabet and so the letter "I" was used for "J" and the "V" for "U." The letter "s" is often replaced with the printers "s" which looks like the modern f.
There are 137 American samplers in the Textile Collection. The first was donated in 1886, the Margaret Dinsmoor sampler. In the 1890s the Copp Collection was received and it contained two samplers—one by Esther Copp and the other by her great niece Phebe Esther Copp. (The Copp Collection is an extensive collection of 18th-and 19th- century household textiles, costume items, furniture, and other pieces belonging to the Copps, a prosperous but frugal Connecticut family.) The earliest dated sampler in the collection was made in 1735 by Lydia Dickman of Boston, Massachusetts.
"American Samplers - Introduction" showing 1 items.
Amanda F. Goodale's Sampler
- Description
- At center, an inscribed monument with stepped top surmounted by sphere. Behind monument, weeping willow tree with crooked trunk; above monument and tree are five sprays of flowers, including roses, rosebuds, tulips, carnations, and star-flowers, with leaves; two sprays are tied with blue bows. At lower corners, two weeping willow trees that, like the monument, stand on ground of French knots. Silk embroidery thread on linen ground. STITCHES: satin, straight, split, French knot, stem, cross, crosslet. THREAD COUNT: warp 28, weft 26/in.
- Inscriptions:
- "To the memory of
Guni Goodale who
was born March 9th
and departed this life
Jan 27th 1832 aged 52.
- There remaineth there-
fore a rest to the peo-
ple of God.
- Amanda F. Goodale 1832."
- Background:
- Amanda F. Goodale was born ca. 1818 to Guni (1780-1832) and Ann (1776-1864) Goodale in Glastonbury, Connecticut. On July 11, 1848, she was married to Henry Magill (1809-1892), by Rev. Charles R. Fisher. Henry was a farmer. Ann Goodale is living with Henry and Amanda in the 1850 census. Amanda died February 4, 1892 in Windsor, Connecticut.
- Her sampler was probably worked at Miss Cornwall's school in Glastonbury, Connecticut. All the motifs on her sampler can be found on other samplers worked at Miss Cornwall's school.
- Location
- Currently not on view
- Date made
- 1832
- associated dates
- 1982-12-02
- maker
- Goodale, Amanda F.
- ID Number
- 1983.0617.04
- catalog number
- 1983.0617.04
- accession number
- 1983.0617
- Data Source
- National Museum of American History, Kenneth E. Behring Center


text:
Learn about the Theater and Film Programs at UCLA. Our presentation includes information about our two departments, the application process for our graduate and undergraduate programs, the portfolio/audition/interview requirements, and other UCLA resources.
Our Info Sessions are FREE and are open to all prospective students, parents, and counselors.
DEPARTMENTS Theater Film, Television and Digital Media DEGREES OFFERED Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) Master of Fine Arts, Master of Arts, and Doctor of Philosophy THEATER AREAS Acting Design/Production Directing General Theater Studies Musical Theater Playwriting Teaching Artist Program Theater and Performance Studies FILM AREASAnimationCinema and Media StudiesCinematographyDigital MediaDocumentaryProduction/DirectingProducers ProgramScreenwriting
RSVP REQUIRED http://tftrecruitment.eventbrite.com/ For more information about our events, call (310) 206-8441 or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com. For information about our academic programs, please visit our website at www.tft.ucla.edu.
Glendale Community College
is not responsible for the content of external sites. Thank you for visiting the
Glendale Community College


text:
Skip to comments.Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question
Posted on 01/13/2006 11:53:53 AM PST by paltz
(CNSNews.com) - Having ascended to the national stage as one of the most vocal critics of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha has long downplayed the controversy and the bitterness surrounding the two Purple Hearts he was awarded for military service in Vietnam.
Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records.
A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha's former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.
"[Murtha] is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious wounds and he's using that and it's dishonest and it's wrong," Bailey told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 9. Murtha served in the Marines on active duty and in the reserves from 1952 until his retirement as a colonel in 1990. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and was a First Marine Regiment intelligence officer in 1966 and 1967.
Murtha and Bailey, once allies, were forced to run against each other in a Democratic congressional primary in 1982 following redistricting. Murtha won the election.
Murtha has, in the past, publicly dismissed any questions about whether he deserved his two Purple Hearts, noting during his 1994 congressional campaign that "I am proud of my service in Vietnam."
In his Friday, Jan. 13, response to the Cybercast News Service investigation, Murtha again defended his military record.
"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves," Murtha wrote in an email response.
"I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam. I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear," Murtha added.
However, another source, World War II Navy veteran Harry M. Fox, previously indicated that Murtha in 1968 personally asked Fox's boss, then-U.S. Rep. John Saylor (R-Pa.), for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts, but was turned down because Saylor's office determined that Murtha lacked sufficient evidence of wounds. Murtha later challenged Saylor for his House seat in 1968 and lost. Fox said he personally viewed Murtha's military records in 1968 as Saylor's aide.
When Saylor died in 1973, Fox attempted to succeed his boss in Congress, but was narrowly defeated by Murtha in a 1974 special election.
"Pretending to be a big war hero and boasting about having medals is a slap in the face to our veterans who were seriously wounded or killed in action," Fox was quoted as telling the Uniontown Herald-Standard in the newspaper's Nov. 1, 1996 edition. "He campaigned as a war hero and I've never seen any documentation that he earned any of these honors," Fox reportedly stated.
On Friday, Jan. 13, Murtha's congressional communications director provided Cybercast News Service with a copy of a letter from the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, citing Murtha's request of Sept. 26, 1967, seeking Purple Hearts. Cybercast News Service did not authenticate the letter.
"The records of this Headquarters show that you are entitled to the Purple Heart and a Gold Star in lieu of a second Purple Heart for wounds received in action against insurgent Communist Guerrilla forces on 22 March and 7 May 1967 in the Republic of Vietnam," according to the letter signed by an individual identified only as A. Gardoni. Gardoni's title is not listed on the letter.
Cybercast News Service attempted to contact Fox for this article, but learned that the health of the 81-year-old was too poor to allow him to communicate. But in a 1996 newspaper article, Fox questioned whether Murtha deserved his Purple Hearts, alleging that there was insufficient evidence of injuries and that Murtha was never confined to a hospital.
"Of course Congressman Saylor wanted to help if he could, but there was nothing in the service record to indicate the wounds were of any severity and the documents specifically indicated that next of kin was not notified in either instance," Fox told the Herald-Standard in 1996. "We were amazed that Mr. Murtha was asking for Purple Hearts for superficial lacerations," he added.
Murtha's accounts of his Vietnam War wounds may also conflict with the available U.S. Marine medical records obtained by the media.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on May 12, 2002, reported that "Marine Corps casualty records show that Murtha was injured in 'hostile' actions near Danang, Vietnam, on March 22, 1967, and May 7, 1967.
"In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second, he was lacerated above his left eye. Neither injury required evacuation," the Post-Gazette reported.
But an Oct. 26, 1994, article in the Herald-Standard quoted Murtha as describing two different injuries.
"I was wounded in the arm with shrapnel from a bullet that hit the motor mount of a helicopter. In the other, my knee was banged up and my arm was banged up when a helicopter was shot down from a very few feet," Murtha told the Herald-Standard.
A June 1, 1967 report in the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat quoted a letter that the newspaper indicated was sent by Murtha to his wife that same year. The letter apparently detailed yet another version of how Murtha qualified for one of his Purple Hearts. According to the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat, Murtha's injuries involved his being "struck in the ankle" by a "shot that ricocheted off the helicopter."
Murtha, a 16-term congressman from southwestern Pennsylvania and the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, drew national attention on Nov. 17, 2005, when he called for an immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
The Vietnam veteran even took a swipe at President Bush and Vice President Cheney, neither of whom have actual combat experience.
"I like guys who've never been there, who criticize us who've been there," Murtha said. "I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions that what may need to be done."
Murtha discussed his own combat experience as a marine intelligence officer in his 2004 autobiography, "From Vietnam to 9/11: On the Front Lines of National Security."
"I had been awake more than twenty-four hours by the time we landed. A few hours into the battle, an on-again-off-again event, I could no longer keep my eyes open. I curled up next to a bunker and fell into a deep sleep for about an hour. Even the noise of frequent gunfire didn't wake me up. (One of my fellow officers told me the next morning that when he hadn't seen me for an hour or so, he assumed I was dead,)" Murtha wrote of one of his Vietnam combat experiences on page 14 of the 2004 paperback edition of his book. Murtha's two Purple Hearts are referenced on the back of the book.
In addition to his Purple Hearts, Murtha received the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry and the Bronze Star with combat "V" for service in the 1st Marine Division in Vietnam. Murtha also served in the Marines during the Korean War but did not serve in Korea, according to his book.
'He's a phony and a liar'
Bailey said during the time Murtha was being investigated for his role in the Abscam FBI sting in 1980, Murtha made a confession on the House floor.
... you admitted, back in our corner, that you didn't earn your purple hearts (sic) (you indicated you had small scratch on your cheek that wasn't even directly related to an APC [Armored Personnel Carrier] that ran over a small antipersonnel mine that was behind you). The other purple heart [sic] you even declined to explain," wrote Bailey in an open letter dated May 5, 2002.
Bailey is also a decorated Vietnam combat veteran. He served in the U.S. Army's 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions and was awarded a Silver Star and three Bronze Stars.
"At the time (of Murtha's alleged admission), you were feeling particularly vulnerable because it wasn't too long after you had called me crying and sobbing, thanking me for 'saving your life' before the ethics committee (on Abscam-related charges). There was no doubt in my mind that you were expressing to me that you did not believe you did anything sufficient to earn the purple heart [sic] and that you didn't want to be active in my efforts to laud Vietnam veterans that served with us," Bailey wrote in his May 2002 letter.
"You may deny that all you wish -- but you and I know that that conversation took place," he added.
In the Jan. 9 interview with Cybercast News Service Bailey affirmed the contents of his 2002 letter.
"The issue here is this idea or pretense that [Murtha] knows combat and he's got two Purple Hearts. He's a phony and a liar," Bailey said.
Bailey also questioned why Murtha has thus far declined to release his full military records in order to clear up the controversy.
"The Marine Corps ought to be able to produce all the orders, the medical stuff, the citations and the orders granting [the Purple Hearts] and everything else. Where is that stuff?" he asked.
According to a May 16, 2002, edition of the Washington, Pa., Observer-Reporter, Murtha "produced military paperwork indicating he was entitled to the awards," and a Murtha spokesperson was quoted as saying that "the media for years has investigated 'and found nothing.'"
But Murtha's paperwork did nothing to sway Bailey's opinion.
"You may fool a few reporters into believing that merely because you got some perfunctory paperwork made out by a friend, that that means you earned the purple hearts [sic]. But even if you were awarded the medals later, there should be affidavits from witnesses. These things should be easy to get," Bailey wrote in his letter while demanding an apology from Murtha for questioning his credibility.
Murtha could end the controversy at any time, Bailey added, simply by calling a press conference and producing the evidence of his wounds.
"Explain where you were and what you were doing when you got the purple hearts.[sic] Explain who was with you and treated your wounds, but most important, Jack, describe your wounds or the lack thereof, as you did for me, years ago," Bailey wrote.
"Unless the Marine Corps gives out medals for unsubstantiated noncombat-related telltale scratches, procured for use in political campaign -- then show me the money, Jack," Bailey added.
Murtha: 'I'm proud of my service in Vietnam'
During the 1994 congressional campaign against GOP opponent Dr. William Choby, Murtha's two Purple Hearts became a political issue.
"Explain your Purple Hearts. He (Murtha) used them to get elected," Choby charged in 1994.
In responding to the charges, Murtha claimed that he "didn't ask for the Purple Hearts.
"I'm proud of my service in Vietnam. I don't know if he (Choby) served in the service at all. I left my family and my business to serve in Vietnam. My family made great sacrifice for me to make that service in Vietnam, so I'm very proud of that," he told the Uniontown Herald-Standard in the newspaper's Oct. 26, 1994 edition.
"I am disappointed that a guy (Choby) would say something like that when I volunteered in the reserves and I felt it was important that I go. What's the point in all this? It's irritating," Murtha added.
Choby also challenged the validity of Murtha's Bronze Star with Combat 'V' during the 1996 congressional campaign.
"I find it very curious that Combat 'V' doesn't even exist in any of the materials he had distributed," Choby was quoted as saying in the Herald-Standard of Oct. 13, 1996. "His military record improves over the years," he added.
The Murtha controversy is reminiscent of the flap surrounding the war record of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. But while critics like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked Kerry in 2004 because of his anti-war activism of the 1970s, Murtha's three chief accusers all made their allegations years and in some cases decades before Murtha emerged last November as a prominent anti-war activist.
Choby told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 5 that Murtha's entire political career is based on his war record. "Without that credibility of those combat medals, he would have never been elected to office," Choby said.
(Monisha Bansal also contributed to this article.)
Read Article About Murtha's Links to Abscam
"We can't pretend that our lost brothers are not still watching and waiting for vindication.. Waiting to have the doubt cast on their honor by that lying sonuvabitch Kerry -- removed and their honor restored without question or doubt, by even the most radical opposition to that war. And, challenging ANYONE that resorts to "Stolen Valor" to diminish the valor of those that truly earned it."
Good words, rat. May I?
We can't pretend that our lost brothers and sisters, sons and daughters are not watching and waiting. Waiting to have the doubt cast on THEIR honor and waiting to hope THEIR honor his upheld and challenging ANYONE that resorts to "Stolen Valor" to diminish the valor of those that truly earned it. That the Sons and Daughters are ALREADY responding to this FROM THE FIELD, defending this mission while engaged in defending our freedoms, is a sad commentary on this state of affairs.
I echo your sentiments! Thanks John
For the third time, see post 537, and read it this time. Either own up to it and apologize or at least stop asking me this question when I've explained it already.
By the way, if you really don't think the people who disagree on your tactics are backstabbing the troops, why don't you say so here right now? Why don't you say, "If you disagree with me on tactics, it doesn't mean you are dishonoring the troops. You are honorable and loyal Americans and I don't mean to imply otherwise." You'll still have to explain the sabotage and backstabbing referances, but it will be a start. Now answer why you choose not to answer the other posters, on this thread, who have posted replies to you.
There are posts where I asked you five or six questions and your response was a one-liner that didn't answer any of them, followed with a thousand word skyscraper full of stuff I already knew. You have no standing to treat me like I haven't answered questions. First, I'm not aware of anyone who has challenged me, other than freema, and I blasted her. Second, I think your question translates to "Why are you picking on me? Waaaa!" Suck it up.
And are you onboard on this new way to keep hanoi kerry out of office in '06 or not.
Sure, if you're doing it by sending a package to the District Attorney in Boston. It has almost no chance of going anywhere, but it has a lot more chance of success than your other plan. But you haven't been talking about getting a criminal conviction, you've been talking about shifting the axis of political action toward getting this guy out of Congress by invoking the 14th Amendment. And when people say thsat won't work or the cure would be worse than the disease, you treat them as backstabbers and saboteurs, guilty by an association that doesn't even exist.
John O'Neill made a similar vow. that didn't mean he spent every second of the last 30 years trying to get Kerry. It doesn't mean he called people backstabbers when they thought his tactics wouldn't work. He waited, and when the time was right he struck and he won.
Like O'Neill, I'm in this to win. I say you can't win with the tactics you want to use, and I get treated like Jim Wasser. Not cool.
In fact, one wonders why, if I care so little about Vietnam Vets and their honor, I opposed Jim wasser on the street and in print and got threatened on the phone in the dead of night for it, and counted it as a badge of honor.
That would be fine with me. I think you can understand where I'm coming from, though, rat. I think I understand where you're coming from, too. And in my heart, you Vietnam guys have never been dishonored, the dishonor is on those who have harmed you, and it has been my privilege to expose them where I could.
As for your dream of seeing Kerry hang...well, I believe there will be a day you will see him condemned, either here on Earth or before God's throne. And if it's the latter, he'll wish he had never been born. I don't think you'll have to wait that long, though.
The end of the article is illuminating:
Let me try that again : )
www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election-president. php?story=dispatch/2004/08/12/20040812-A4-01.html
Which article? The main one of the thread? Or was there something added that you are pinging?
See the post above yours, I fixed the link.
Try that one more time.
That link leads to:
File not found
The page youre looking for wasnt found on our server.
Well, that's weird.
You're welcome, of course. I was glad to do it.
If you want to move on and focus on what Murtha is doing today, please do so. Please ping me with an after action report.
I am sorry that I don't have the time to hun these up for you, but why don't you go read these columns I wrote in 2004 and 2005. They're posted on FR:
Wishful Thinking and Valor on the Cheap
Boats were just the beginning for Kerry
Democrats add insults to...insults
American IEDs
Arguments from the Left lack punch
Read those and then tell me if you think I'm going to give Murtha a free pass.
If you want to move on and focus on what Murtha is doing today, please do so. Please ping me with an after action report.
If you want to move on and focus on what Murtha is doing today, please do so. Please ping me with an after action report.
If you want to move on and focus on what Murtha is doing today, please do so. Please ping me with an after action report.
Oops. It's not like I'm promoting myself or my words- my computer got stuck.
For the love of God NO REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THIS! It doesn't matter if they are telling the truth. They will be slimed by the self-righteous lefties as troop bashers. Let his fellow Democrat congressman prove it and argue for it.
Fair enough. But for you to imply that Murtha will get a pass from me after my history regarding Kerry, Sheehan and their fellow travelers...like I said, read the columns and judge for yourself.
There is a new path to get hanoi kerry thrown in jail.
This would not involve a conviction from the state level but rather a federal conviction.
Credit to Calpernia for finding this.
The Swift Boat Vets have already proven, without a doubt,
that hanoi kerry lied about his 1st Purple Heart.
Anyone of a logical and sound mind can see the fraud
in his 1st Purple Heart, without any doubt.
ONCE this bill is passed in the House and Senate
(keep in mind Republicans AND Democrats are behind this bill,
and the GOP controls both)
that unless hanoi kerry admits to fraud BEFORE the bill is
signed into law by the President then hanoi kerry is guilty of fraud.
Again since this is a federal law, not a state law,
hanoi kerry can't get a DA from MA to protect him.
So is everyone in agreement that this new tactic is worth the effort of all conservatives, i.e. Republican, Indepdendent and Democrat to get this law passed and signed into law before the '06 elections?
You see hanoi kerry will not be able to run in the
US Senate again, ever.
Murtha sees the Iraq war as an impediment to his ability to take pork projects to his district. As long as a the US military is activly engaged he can't compete with BS justifications for military pork for his district.
If he was a real military "hero" he would have down played his service as "hero" grade. His leaning on his military service has Kerry-esque credibility problems.
"If you want to move on and focus on what Murtha is doing today, please do so. Please ping me with an after action report."
Count me in to preserve and protect the honor and integrity of this medal.
"Bet on it?"
No, I'm not a betting person.
It will give all of us a chance to see
which Republicans and Democrats oppose
this bill.
Then we will know who the real enemies are.
There are two questions here: what is right, versus what is politically sound.
I think it is a political mistake to attack Murtha because the MSM is so dedicated to the "Murtha the war hero" meme.
It has been Murtha's signal claim that has put him into office, and it has protected his flanks from his career-long lust for cutting and running.
Remember, he:
1. Betrayed our VN dead by cutting and running
2. Betrayed our Lebanon dead likewise
3. Betrayed our Somali dead likewise
4. Now wants to betray our GWOT dead...
That last group includes many of my friends, and none of his. He never saw a threat he wouldn't appease or submit to. The man is a moral coward.
Frankly, once I learnt Murtha was an intelligence officer I knew instinctively the purple hearts were bogus. I don't know why but MI weenies have always been disproportionately represented among those who claim false honors.
So -- while it probably is politically unproductive for us to expose this phony, for those of us who ARE combat vets it is a moral necessity, however tactically unsound it might be.
Criminal Number 18F
I don't like rum unless I'm on an island ! )
And I'm real tired of prostituting our troops.
You have a good point, however.
But for them to exempt themselves...
I'll want to see all the votes and all records of discussion prior to the vote.
Your words are like water in the desert.
Good to see you going for a reasonable secondary position here.
Wow. You must be like, 80 years old or something, because I've never met anybody as mature as you.
I am trying to be polite, I have no desire to argue with you or exchange barbs. I think it's safe to say no one does.
You made it quite clear you didn't want to focus on the topic of this thread and you're making it obvious you don't want to move on and focus on what Murtha is doing today, despite the fact that you said that's what you wanted to do. If you want to stay here to focus on insults and being hateful and rude, which is also obvious, bring it on.
However, just for the record, again, I think it's safe to say no one wants to go there. Please, move on.
Not sure what your point was posting this, as it is a pro-Kerry story (well, that would be the only kind the Columbus Dispatch would run).
Criminal Number 18F
Oh Thank You!
Thanks. It was like that when I double checked it, so I assumed that space was supposed to be there, AND my computer is being a stinker these days. I didn't try removing it, duh.
Gosh, I don't know if I can explain the point.
I thought it was worth keeping all eyes open (always) and this article referenced the DEM strategy with Kerry was to keep all eyes ON SWPVT and off his senate record. Of course, it backfired. IMHO. I'd never actually seen that in print before and thought it was worth noting.
There had been some discussion about Murtha's medal question being a trap, which implies some sort of strategy. If that strategy is to blame Republicans for questioning it, what's new? Republicans get blamed for the sun coming up. For various reasons I, personally, don't have any inclination the medals are a trap to re-start another/same argument over another set of medals.
That said, (remember I like to keep all eyes open) IF it is a trap, I would think the more likely explanation is that he's in even deeper with the ethics issues than has been reported.
Does that make sense?
Yes that's good and I don't know that I'd ever seen that either. I went on board with SVPFT right after the election. I'd come in the game late because of lurking and listening and learning there in the months leading up to the election. It was all coming so fast and it was all I could do to keep up-I was so busy reading I had no time to open my mouth. That's not necessarily a bad thing ; )
"From Ray Funderburk, MOPH
The greatest threat to the sanctity and significance of the Purple Heart comes from the medal's easy availability. Anyone can buy one at flea markets, pawnshops or on the Internet, where Web sites offer the decoration, no questions asked, for as little as $35. An accompanying certificate on onion skin parchment and personalized with your name and any rank you choose costs about $25.
Such commerce in the symbols of American courage and sacrifice would be outlawed by a measure spearheaded last July by Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo.
His "Stolen Valor Act" would make it a federal crime to falsely wear the Purple Heart and other top military decorations, or to even list them on a resume if they were not officially earned.
But the proposed bill now sits in the House Judiciary Committee, and its fate remains unclear.
"We're waiting for the committee to act," said Salazar
I just realized I don't think I understood this the first time around, nor the second.
Could I have it a third BUMP : ) LOL!
60 Representatives have co-sponsored this bill?
I feel like an utter dolt, but What does the parenthesis behind their names signify?
Dear Freerepublic,
When I heard from my friends at Code Pink what you had done, why I almost spit out my strawberry similac. This is what I am talking about about our boys um .Its just like Vietnam. We didnt have body armor there either, cause it was hot. It was so hot that..I told Bush.. President Bush that weve got to get the boys home now and let the Iraq people do what they should um Well, anyways. Ah, oh yes, Code Pink. Code Pink. Um. Well, hells bells, Ive been to Iraq. Was there for half a day, so that makes me an expert, and when you take four corners, its just like what we did in Nam, I mean Iraq. Theres no room. If theres no room then all the room is not there, its its, um, its where you took it. And. That. Is. Not. Right.
So let me just finish up here and say that there needs to be an investigation, whos behind this? When did Rove know, and when did he know it?
Thank you,
Congressperson, Jack Did you know I was in Vietnam Murtha.
222 posted on 01/20/2006 7:08:35 PM PST by Leisler ("For English, please press two.")
Absolutely yes. He's an elected representative who can dispel any doubt about his Purple Hearts by releasing his military records in their entirety.
Any doubt cast on Murtha's record emanates from his own shadow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
ch 420 is out HSDK 420
I should have seen that coming but i didn't. im ashamed of myself
Last edited by dct21; 03-07-2011 at 10:52 PM.
-.- I thought he had back-up disc's... nice twist. (I'm sure he also has a disc >.>)
This is sooo not the last copy.
Evil laugh recording was just epic! So is siegfried xD
Lol at miu throwig the shards.
^I thought so too. I guess that slightly ends my streak. But oh well, good chap. Mui throwing the shards at Nijima is very funny. If all of them were at full health, this master dude is beatable. But since Kenichi is still not a 100% they are in trouble unless Chikage goes apeshit.
sig made by me
look at this page http://www.mangareader.net/historys-...kenichi/420/14
dude looks like hes finna transform or something
^ Yeah, they would've had him assassinated just from that. Scary thought, Rimi searched Nijima's whole body and said she only found the disc. She's young enough to know a disc or a drive could easily hold files, so where was Nijima keeping that drive, in order for her not to find it? Ugh...
...nasty image.
Knew 1 of those 2 government members had to be willingly or unwillingly working with Yami, in order to have been so easily found by Yami. Didn't expect him to be a master though, figured Miu, or Kenichi would have sensed it. Preferred the weapon before it was attached to the stick. As those nasty looking dagger weapons they seemed far more flexible, and dangerous. Once again Nijima's skill at speed allowed only the drive to be eviscerated.
You heard his words, you have to trick your allies to trick your enemies. Wouldn't be surprised if after the battle, Nijima gets killed by Thor for having more copies.
Have to admit though, Kenichi was right, it's not like you guys didn't know exactly how evil alien Nijima thinks. Why such surprise?
^Less nasty but still no place I want to be around.
he kinda looks like the cookie cutter shark from one piece