text:
Announcing My February Speaking Tour!
January 27, 2011
This has been long in the works, so I'm excited to finally share the exciting news with you all: I'm going on a speaking tour of seven Midwest colleges and universities next month! At the invitation of campus staff and student groups from the following schools, I will be going from Indiana to Illinois to Iowa to speak about the importance of religious-atheist engagement, and the experiences that led me to the work I do around this issue.
Below is my itinerary — if you're in the area for any of the "open to the public" events, please come by. I'd love to see you there! (And if you're a student at one of these schools, I heard a rumor that some of your professors are offering extra credit in exchange for your attendance! Grades hitting a February slump? Come sit in the audience and pretend to listen while playing "Angry Birds.")
February 2011 Midwest Speaking Tour
(Or, "What I'm Doing Instead of Taking a Vacation!")
2/10: DePauw University | Greencastle, IN
- Meetings with the Interfaith group, LGBTQA group, and the Center for Spiritual Life
- 7:30-9:30 PM | Speech (open to the public)
2/11: Butler University / Indiana Campus Compact | Indianapolis, IN
- Meeting with the Indiana Interfaith Service Corps (AmeriCorps)
- Noon-1:30 PM | Speech / Luncheon (open to the public)
2/14: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign | Urbana-Champaign, IL
- Meetings with student groups
- Luncheon — Facilitated Conversation
- Speech (open to the public)
2/15: Northwestern University | Evanston, IL
- 7 PM | Speech (open to the public)
2/16: Elmhurst College | Elmhurst, IL
- Meetings with student groups
- 11:30 AM | Luncheon — Facilitated Conversation
- 7 PM | Speech (open to the public)
2/17: DePaul University | Chicago, IL
- 6 PM | Speech (open to the public)
2/21: Simpson College | Indianola, IA
- Luncheon — Facilitated Conversation
- 5-7 PM | Speech (open to the public)
Interested in having me come speak? Email me at nonprophetstatus [at] gmail [dot] com!
The Religious Must Stand Up for Atheists
January 26, 2011
Today's guest post is by Joshua Stanton, a man I am lucky to call both a good friend and a colleague at the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue in my work as the Managing Director of State of Formation. In this post, Josh offers a thoughtful, personal reflection on why it is essential for the interfaith movement to stand up against anti-atheist rhetoric and action in the way that it does when particular religious communities come under fire. As an atheist, I couldn't appreciate this post more. Many thanks to Josh for his important perspective, and for using his voice to advocate for people like me. Without further ado:
The interfaith movement is beginning to rack up successes. While outbursts of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (among other expressions of prejudice against religious communities) are nothing new, the growing and remarkably diverse chorus of voices trying to drown bigots out certainly is.
To take but one recent example, when the Park51 Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan was subjected to undue criticism this past summer, the groups that gathered behind closed doors to support its besmirched but beloved leaders included atheists, Jews, Christians, Muslims and more. It was heartening — as were the rallies led by Religious Freedom USA and New York Neighbors for American Values, which drew thousands to the streets to support the rights of all religious communities to assemble on private property. You could feel the interfaith movement surging forward on its remarkable course.
But I am uncertain, if not outright skeptical, that members of the interfaith movement would equally protect non-religious communities that come under similar scrutiny. To take a personal (and rather confessional) example, when a friend was excluded from an interfaith peace-building initiative because of being non-religious, people told him they were sorry. But nobody refused to continue participating in the group. It just didn't seem like a reason to protest the decision or leave the group altogether.
I am among those guilty of not speaking up — cowed by diffusion of responsibility and the glow of opportunity that the group provided. I am certain, based on the numerous stories my humanist and atheist friends have told me, that this was not an isolated occurrence, nor an unusually cowardly reaction on my part. Yet it is something for which I am still performing teshuvah — answering as a Jew and human being for wrongdoing to my friend, in this case through wrongful inaction.
Why is it that when someone criticizes or excludes atheists, it feels like the interfaith movement forgets its identity, if only for a split second? Why is it that well-meaning interfaith leaders defy their identities and fail to speak out against those who threaten or undermine the status of the non-religious? Individually, we may comfort our friends, but by and large we are not sticking our necks out, writing op-eds, holding protests and publicly condemning those who single out the non-religious.
In part, I would suggest that members of the interfaith movement have not yet developed reflexes for protecting the non-religious. There is somewhat less of a history of hatred for atheists in the West (and even less education about the hatred that has been made manifest), so it does not always register in our minds when someone speaks ill of atheists in a way that it would if someone spoke similarly about people of a particular religious group.
But guilt for the repeated historical failure of Western countries to protect religious minorities is hardly an excuse for inaction in the present to protect the non-religious. It is time that we, most especially in the interfaith movement, recognize, denounce and speak out against anti-atheist bigotry.
Admittedly, many religious individuals feel intellectually and theologically challenged by atheists. But this challenge is one we must greet and learn from, rather than respond to with aggression, passive and active alike. If God is truly powerful, non-believers can hardly break our belief, much less the Divine we believe in. If God is loving, then why should we hate — or ignore hatred directed towards others? If God is a Creator, how can we allow others to speak ill of the atheists and non-believers God gave life to? Non-belief is a reality for hundreds of millions of people around the world, and the religious can hardly condemn atheists without running into contradictions rendered by their faith.
If religious affiliation is a protected category in our laws, our minds and our actions, so too must non-affiliation and atheism. The interfaith movement must lead the way, and so too must its believing members. They — we — cannot allow this double-standard to persist.
This post originally appeared on The Huffington Post Religion.
Joshua Stanton serves as Program Director and Founding co-Editor of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue at Auburn Theological Seminary and co-Director of Religious Freedom USA, which works to ensure that freedom of religion is as protected in practice as it is in writ. He is also a Schusterman Rabbinical Fellow and Weiner Education Fellow at the Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion in New York City.
Do Only Religious People Have a 'Calling'?
January 25, 2011
Please check out my latest piece for the Huffington Post, currently featured at the top of their Religion section! Below is a selection; it can be read in full at the Huffington Post:
In a recent interview with BBC Radio 4, musician Jack White (of the White Stripes and other bands) reflected on his "calling."
"I was thinking at 14 that possibly I might have had the calling to be a priest," said White. "Blues singers sort of have the same feelings as someone who's called to be a priest might have."
That he connected his sense of a calling to a career in ministry isn't surprising. The word "calling," or "vocation," has explicitly religious roots; derived from the Latin vocare, or "to call," the terms originated in the Catholic Church as a way of referring to the inclination for a religious life as a priest, monk, or nun. During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther broadened the term beyond ministry to include work that serves others, but still couched it in a religious framework.
Today, "calling" has become common currency in the American parlance, its meaning expanded to refer to the realization of an individual's passion or drive. Though the term has long had religious associations, it is used just as often to refer to secular work as it is religious.
Still, there's something more to a calling — something almost otherworldly.
What's Your Calling?
January 21, 2011
In partnership with the PBS documentary The Calling, a campaign called What's Your Calling? was launched to explore the topic of a "calling." I was honored to be invited to do an interview with them; in our interview, they asked me to talk about my "calling," so I shared a bit of my story and discussed my hope for greater nonreligious-religious dialogue and cooperation.
Using this interview, they produced the above video (full of old, embarrassing photos, haha). Please check out their page on my video, browse their site to watch other videos, and join their important conversation.
P.S. I've written a piece on atheism and calling / vocation; it should be out relatively soon, so stay tuned!
God, We Need Atheists
January 19, 2011
Today's guest post, by my friend Frank Fredericks (Co-Founder of Religious Freedom USA and Founder of World Faith), addresses the gaping cultural divide between Christians and atheists. Like Amber Hacker's NonProphet Status guest post, "A Committed Christian's Atheist Heroes," Frank writes as a dedicated Christian interested in finding ways to work with and better understand his atheist friends and neighbors. As someone who knows Frank and respects his work, I'm delighted to share his thought-provoking reflection here. Take it away, Frank:
The discourse between evangelical Christians and atheists has been antipodal at best. Whether it is Richard Dawkins calling faith "the great cop-out," or countless professed Christians using "godless" like an offensive epithet, we've reached new lows. In fact, generally the discussion quickly descends into a volley of talking points and apologetics. I abhor those conversations with the same disdain I reserve for being stuck in the crossfire between a toe-the-line Republican and slogan-happy Democrat, rehashing last week's pundit talking points.
I believe we need to revolutionize the way we interact. As an evangelical Christian, I recognize that my community equates atheism with pedophilia, like some dark spiritual vacuum that sucks out any trace of compassion or morality. Even in interfaith circles, where peace and tolerance (and soft kittens) rule the day, the atheists are often eyed with suspicion in the corner — if they're even invited.
I thank God for atheists. During my college years at New York University, I had the superb opportunity to have powerful conversations with atheists who challenged me to have an honest conversation about faith. I appreciate and a value how atheist friends of mine encouraged inquiry. Remarkably, while this may not have been their intent, it only strengthened my faith. While I was able to begin weeding out the empty talking points from the substantive discourse, I hope they also got a glimpse of the love of Christ from an evangelical who wasn't preaching damnation or waiting to find the next available segway into a three-fold pamphlet about how they need Jesus in their life. The point is, Christians need to stop seeing their atheist neighbors, co-workers, and even family members as morally lost, eternally damned, or a possible convert.
What lies at the bottom of this is the assumption, as pushed by many Christian leaders, is that religious people have the monopoly on morality and values. That, in a sense, you can't be good without God. This is troubling on several levels. While at first glance this seems theologically sound to assume the traditional concept of salvation, most haven't grappled with the problematic idea that Hitler could be in heaven and Gandhi could be in hell. That should be troubling for us. Also, the cultural and social ramifications of this leads to an antagonizing relationship. The Bible is littered with examples of non-religious, non-Christian, or non-Jewish people who do good in the eyes of God. It shouldn't be shocking to see atheists teach their children integrity, or volunteer in a soup kitchen.
While I reserve the bulk of my frustration for those misusing my own faith, atheists aren't blameless in this tectonic paradigm. Rather than taking the inclusive road of respectful disagreement, many of the largest voices for atheism find it more enjoyable to belittle faith, mock religion, and disregard their cultural and sociological value. In fact, many consider it their duty to evangelize their beliefs with the same judgmental fervor they fled from their religious past. Knowing that many came to define themselves as atheists against rigid religious upbringing, I don't judge their disdain and frustration. However, like venom in veins, it keeps them from moving forward to having a more productive discourse. So often, when the religious and non-religious traditions grapple with the big question, like ontological definition, theorized cosmology, or the inherent nature of man, these discussion happen separately, without an engagement that is both fruitful and intriguing. I know many of those atheists have something wonderful to bring to that discussion, if they would stop throwing rocks at the window and come sit at the table.
So this is what I propose to my Christian and atheist friends: If we Christians challenge ourselves, our communities and congregations, to treat our atheist brothers and sisters as equitable members of our communities, nation, and in the pursuit of truth, will atheists recognize the value of faith to those who believe, even while they may respectfully disagree? As atheism quickly becomes the second largest philosophical tradition in America, the two communities will only have a greater need of a Memorandum of Understanding to frame how we can collectively work together to challenge the greater issues that face us, which starts by recognizing that it's not each other.
Not sure where to start? Let's feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and protect human dignity. While community service can be utterly rational, I am also pretty sure Jesus would be down for that, too.
Frank Fredericks is the founder of World Faith and Çöñár Records; in his career in music management, he has worked with such artists as Lady Gaga, Honey Larochelle, and Element57. Frank has been interviewed in New York Magazine, Tikkun and on Good Morning America, NPR, and other news outlets internationally. He also contributes to the interView series on the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue. He currently resides in Astoria, New York, leading World Faith and working as an Online Marketing Consultant.
Now is Not the Time for the Blame Game
January 17, 2011
Today's guest post is a submission from Nico Lang, a regular NPS contributor. An intern at the Interfaith Youth Core and a senior at DePaul University, Lang co-founded the Queer Intercollegiate Alliance and is head of campus outreach for the Secular Humanist Alliance of Chicago. His previous writing for NPS includes"Through Common Struggle, Hope," "Talking the 'Hereafter' With Atheists and Believer," as well as posts on his personal journey as a queer agnostic interested in interfaith work, about Park51 and the state of American dialogue and on the ramifications of "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day."
On January 8th, I found out about the shooting of Representative Giffords the same way that most millenials probably did: through a Facebook status update.
At a sharp 3:00 P.M., Cormac Molloy was "shocked that someone shot rep. giffords!"
Initially, I sat unfazed, as the constant barrage of celebrity and semi-celebrity Facebook eulogies can leave even the most dedicated techie in a stupor. I didn't know whom Giffords was, who shot her or what state she represented, and so I let the moment pass me by with a simple refresh.
However, what my mini-feed would soon explain was that on that very morning, a man by the name of Jared Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz. As a Congresswoman, Giffords was many things: the fair-skinned wife of an astronaut, a Democratic holdout in an increasingly conservative state, and, most unfortunately, the object of a deranged man's obsession.
Five were slain that day by Jared Loughner and two injured, and years from now, none of us will remember where we were when we heard the world was looking for answers. If we ask others about the events that took place that day, what will matter was how you followed the tragedy and what outlets you listened to.
Just hours later, as the world attempted to put the pieces together, we began to assign blame based on scattered details of a murderer's life, the political affiliations of those involved or a misbegotten map that placed crosshairs over her district.
For the Fox News inclined, Jared Loughner was a "radical leftist." However, the left saw him as a mobilized Tea Partier, and many of my friends labeled Giffords a victim of Sarah Palin's violent rhetoric. For them, Giffords quickly became just another casualty in an increasingly toxic American political culture.
Through times of turmoil, many people look to the Seven Stages of Grief for guidance, which can be a telling way to define our trauma. In coping with the violence that erupted in Arizona, Americans quickly moved to that third stage, a place of anger. However, if we as a people desire to move from our initial shock to that final stage of hope, we must do much more than what the next stage asks of us, which is to simply reflect.
We must fully examine the state of our national anger.
Oddly enough, this is exactly what I was doing when I found out about the Giffords attack. When the bullets struck, I was researching the birther movement, a political substratum comprised of individuals who believe that Obama was not born in America, despite evidence to the contrary. For the unfamiliar, many of these citizens likewise resolutely believe that Obama is a Socialist, Hitler, the anti-Christ or any combination of the three.
In researching the role that such opinions might play in their lives, I concluded that such mechanisms allowed birthers and their ideological cousins to deal with the trauma of the 2008 elections. I found a people not only venting on message boards, but I also saw them coping with the fear of a president and an America that no longer looked they did. Out of this chaos, they constructed meaning. They made someone responsible. They found someone to hate.
Although a recent Time article suggested that we are most likely to believe negative information about others when they are of another race or religion, the problem runs deeper than that. When I hear that an online petition is "circulating to [indict] former Alaska governor Sarah Palin for incitement to violence," I know that such mourners are seeking more than answers or resolution.
They are seeking blood.
At this time of crisis, we should ask questions about the state of America today, but making our neighbors into sworn enemies will never us help to comfort the grieving or make our nation stronger. After September 11th, the Fort Hood massacre, and the Park51 controversy, demonizing Muslims didn't make us any safer and likely alienated potential allies and radicalized potential friends. Thus, if we continue to make America into a nation divided, we will likely incite the very extremist violence many seem to believe this tragedy is a symbol of.
On his Monday broadcast, Jon Stewart instead asked Americans to use this moment as an opportunity to envision a better world, one not defined by the hatred and name-calling that defined our nation over the past week. We will never know what demons drove Jared Loughner to pull the trigger that morning, but we cannot heal by continuing to invest in our own partisan phantoms.
As a nation, we have the ability to tear down the divides that ail us, and at a time when ideologies drive us apart, we must remember to live the example of Dorothy Day, the immortal founder of the Catholic Worker. On the subject of political divides, the once Communist Day famously remarked that she gave up the revolution because it kept her from loving her neighbor. According to her, the more meaningful challenge was instead how to bring out a revolution of the heart.
Recently, reports indicate that Gabrielle Gifford finally opened her eyes. Let us hope that our grief-blinded country can soon do the same.
Nico Lang is the Communications Intern for Interfaith Youth Core and a Senior in International Studies at DePaul University. Nico just started up DePaul's first film club, the DePaul A.V. Club, and represents the lone agnostic among 2010-2011′s Vincent and Louise House residents, who represent DePaul's Catholic intentional living and social justice community. He is also the co-founder of the Queer Intercollegiate Alliance, an initiative between Chicago's LGBT campus groups; a writer for the DePaulia newspaper; and head of Campus Outreach for the Secular Humanist Alliance of Chicago. Occassionally, Nico sleeps.
A Humanist Resolution to Overcome the Faith Gap
January 14, 2011
Please check out my latest blog for the Huffington Post! Below is a selection; it can be read in full at the Huffington Post:
It may be mid-January, but I'm still thinking of Christmas.
The week between Christmas and New Year's Eve just might be my favorite of the year. It is the one time that my entire family gets together. We spend several days eating our favorite foods, catching up and playing board games.
I'm the only member of my family who doesn't live in Minnesota — I moved away several years ago — so that week is particularly special for me. While the snow piled up outside, I stole my 7-month-old nephew from his doting grandmother and smooshed his face into mine, worked on an unsolvable puzzle with my siblings and ate way too many cookies.
As I was getting ready to leave for the airport, my dad's girlfriend stopped me at the door. "I've been wanting to ask you something," she said, leaning in. "I know you're an atheist, but is it OK for me to say 'Merry Christmas' to you?"
Time to Stop Rewarding the Dehumanizing Rhetoric
January 13, 2011
Recently, I was honored to receive an invitation to join the esteemed panel of the Washington Post's On Faith. Please read and share my first piece — below is the beginning, and it can be read in full at On Faith:
In the wake of this national tragedy, many have speculated about whether violent rhetoric and imagery used by Sarah Palin and others directly influenced Saturday's devastating events. We may never know if there was a direct link between Palin's words and the tragedy in Arizona, but as Stephen Prothero eloquently argued this week, we shouldn't hesitate to reflect on the impact of the rhetoric used by those with political influence.
As the news broke on Saturday morning, I was in the middle of writing about something Palin had written in her most recent book, America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag – specifically, her claim that "morality itself cannot be sustained without the support of religious beliefs." Unlike the moral outcry inspired by her demands that "peaceful Muslims" "refudiate" the "Ground Zero Mosque," her comments about the nonreligious were met with silence.
Sure enough, some on the political right are using this same logic to explain the actions of the alleged gunman, Jared Loughner. Said one right-wing pundit: "When God is not in your life, evil will seek to fill the void."
A Newer Atheism: The Case for Affirmation and Accommodation
January 6, 2011
NonProphet Status' first guest post of 2011 is by Andrew Lovley, founder and former chair of the Southern Maine Association of Secular Humanists (SMASH). Below, Lovley, who previously defended the invocation he performed at the inauguration ceremony for new city officials in South Portland, Maine, weighs in on the "accomodation vs. confrontation" debate and offers a thorough and impassioned case for positive and engaged atheism and humanism. This is among the best explications I've read on this topic and, though it is lengthy, it is well worth your time and I encourage all of you to read it in its entirety. Many thanks to Andrew for composing this, and for inspiring me (and, I'm sure, many others) with your words.
Atheist activism is at a crossroads. Atheism has arguably gained more attention in recent years than ever before, thanks to a concerted campaign by secular individuals and organizations to raise awareness as well as their frequent contribution of ideas and perspectives to the national discourse.
Yet as secular individuals, we must ask ourselves: How has this attention served us thus far? How could this attention be best utilized? The answers to these questions and an honest appraisal of our efforts rely on a consensus of what our goals are as a movement. Our increased salience in society affords us an unprecedented opportunity to realize our public activist goals, if we can manage to agree on what those goals are.
Virtually all atheist activists agree that we should promote science and critical thinking, encourage society to be more accepting of atheists, and try to provide support for atheists who have already elected to step out and brave the torrent of social stigma and castigation. Where a consensus manages to evade us however is in regards to our relationship with the religious communities by which we find ourselves surrounded.
Some suggest that we should focus our efforts toward making society less religious by actively trying to persuade people away from religion, while others believe we should work toward toleration and coexistence with our religious neighbors. Until atheist activists achieve some sort of consensus on this issue, we will continue to contradict each other in words and in actions and threaten our relevance as a movement.
It is time we make a prudent choice about how we should relate to religion and its adherents. Our movement's vitality, and our success at achieving our goals, is being undermined by our too-often acerbic and pretentious attitudes. It is time we recognize that the secular movement and its members are best served by acting on an agenda that balances affirmation of our identity and values with conciliation toward the religious.
Generally speaking, the attitudes that shape the interactions between atheists and theists are characterized by mistrust, mockery, and vilification. Yet these attitudes do nothing to further our cause and become obstructions in themselves. Even if/when theists direct these attitudes toward us, we are better off not reflecting them. Let us lead by example by acting on humanist principles, and give those who deride our motives and actions no factual grounds upon which to base their biting criticisms. Angry and bitter atheist activists serve only to enflame the negative stereotypes we are plagued by. Atheist activists, who rhetorically exacerbate our differences and vilify theists in general, only encourage those theists to do the same and ultimately foster greater alienation of atheists. We are sometimes accused of intellectual hubris, and other times accused of possessing a sense of moral righteousness. These are not appealing qualities, and if we want more respect in the societies we find ourselves in we should abstain from having such attitudes.
Let us gain respect by respecting. Let us be tolerated by being tolerant. The Humanist Manifesto offers a great piece of democratic wisdom when it suggests that we should tolerate different but humane views. Too many atheist activists assert that giving any positive recognition to religion somehow makes one less of an atheist, or an accommodationist – a charge that only has respect in divisive and antagonistic circles. It may be accommodationist to acknowledge praiseworthy actions and services carried about by people inspired by their religion, but it is certainly no less atheist to do so, it is honest. The accommodation of different yet peaceful life-stances is a justified practice; in fact it is the glue and grease that is necessary for a civilized democratic society to be sustained. It is not a disparaging term, but rather a civic compliment.
Perhaps the most pervasive and frustrating mistake many atheist activists make is presenting an overly reductionist conception of religion in their critiques. What religion is reduced to is not always the same, but more often than not religion is spoke of as if it is merely a collection of falsehoods about the world, a reverence for mythical figures, and/or an act of willful ignorance called faith. Yet any real exposure to religion and religious people should lead one to recognize that religion means a whole lot more to people than the simple belief in the theology; in fact the theology may not even be the most important aspect of the religious experience. It may be convenient to level charges against religion by reducing it to theology, because it is most vulnerable to scientific and philosophical advances. Other important aspects of religion, however — such as the community it creates, the social work it encourages and fosters, the spirituality it engenders through collective singing and shared worship, the psychological preparedness and remedies for common struggles — aren't the least bit disagreeable and that is probably why they are conveniently ignored in strident atheist criticisms.
Not only is religion in general a victim of straw-man arguments, but so is the diversity of religions and religious people. We must not make the naïve assumption that all religions are the same. Defining religion has been a difficult, if not impossible task for generations, precisely because of the diversity of structures, beliefs, and practices of the world's religions. Atheist activists often speak of religious people as if they are all dogmatic, anti-science, anti-reason, evangelical social conservatives, an overgeneralization that is wont to needlessly offend the multitudes of moderate, liberal, and / or modern religious peoples out there. We must refrain from engaging in extreme moralization whereby all religious people and their behavior is considered disingenuous at best and repugnant at worst, and believing that atheism is the only justified and morally superior lifestyle.
Historically, the atheist agenda has primarily served to question the established orthodoxies of the time and to promote critical and scientific thought. Presently, however, many are going a step further to try and 'deconvert' religious people, a venture that is not only unnecessary but routinely counterproductive. Activist atheist attitudes that are especially condescending have the effect of nullifying the persuasiveness of their claims, regardless of the facts upon which they are based. Confrontational atheists are virtually ineffective at persuading theists that they are wrong, and the atheist's efforts seem to further entrench theists in their beliefs and attitudes – not to mention increasing their distrust and/or contempt for atheists.
However if atheist activists insist on the critical urgency to draw theists away from their religious beliefs and practices, they would prove far more successful were they to revise their tactics. Theists with strong convictions are for all intents and purposes immune to rational criticism. Wavering theists, on the other hand, perhaps already burdened with doubts regarding the veracity of religious teachings, may be more responsive to atheist critiques if those critiques were supplemented with alternative (i.e. naturalistic) ways of addressing life's existential and ethical questions. If we are preoccupied with ridiculing religion and its adherents, we are missing genuine opportunities to demonstrate the strength and comprehensiveness of secular humanism. On a similar note, wavering theists will be far more likely to join our ranks if they sense they can be associated with a positive and constructive crowd, not having to choose between the camaraderie of religion and the tenuous animosity of atheism.
A question atheist activists must address is: Would the world necessarily be a better place if all people were atheists? Atheist activists will sometimes espouse the idea that a merciless pursuit of objective knowledge and an abandonment of all unfounded truth assumptions will necessarily lead to a better society. This notion itself is quintessential modernist dogma and ignores the practical experience of belief. The personal benefits of belief come not from the beliefs being based in objective truth per se, but instead from the perception that those beliefs are based in truth – they come from certainty not objective veracity. An honest reflection upon this question of an atheistic society should conclude that no, it would not necessarily be a better one to live in. Atheism by itself does not produce the sustenance that a healthy society thrives on. Democracy, compassion, justice, and progress are not derivatives of atheism. As atheist activists we should recognize that these are in fact humanistic values.
If atheist activists care about progress and the betterment of the human condition, perhaps the 'deconversion' of theists should not be prioritized, but instead the promotion of humanistic values. Our socio-political agenda should not include or be premised on the universalization of our atheistic world-view. If the movement is more than apologetics and includes prejudice and proselytization, it is more destructive than worthwhile. Theists can be and often are humanists too, and society is better off for it. Atheist (or secular) humanists and theist humanists each find extremist ideology repulsive and dangerous, and should be willing to work together in stifling its spread.
Contrary to what many believe, atheists and theists alike, a civil and progressive society is possible where atheists and theists live together harmoniously. When atheists and theists get to know each other better, unencumbered by and disabused of stereotypical notions of each other, they often discover that they share many important values. Atheists should be willing to recognize this, and encourage alliances with theists on socio-political issues where they share similar sentiments and goals, including but not limited to the separation of church and state, stewardship of our planet, civil liberties, social services, and curbing extremism. Atheist activists need not be hyperbolic when discussing the fate of science and rationality either, because honest observers will notice that many worthwhile scientific and philosophical contributions have been made by theists or deists. We need not pretend as if we are bound up in some Manicheistic battle between good and evil, a battle between the non-religious and the religious, and adopt the false dichotomies that are typically conjured up in theology. We can live and prosper with those who do or do not believe in god; more importantly, we cannot afford to ignore those who have no respect for human dignity.
Atheist activists should reconsider their priorities and reevaluate their efforts. A sign of maturity for any group is a focus on what they are for rather than what they are not. It often seems as though atheist activists direct more of their attention to religious people rather than to fellow atheists. We are doing ourselves a disservice when we are preoccupied with critiquing religion instead of engaging in dialogue about how atheists can lead positive, fulfilling lives and contribute to a better world.
Let us direct more of our efforts toward helping secular people address the concerns of being secular and human such as death, anxiety, purpose, hope, relationships, parenting, etc. Let us devote more energy toward building up our own monuments rather than tearing down others. Let us affirm our identities and our values in an honest, yet tactful manner. If we want atheists to enjoy a better place in society and to have access to the resources they need to have fruitful lives, then we need to think carefully about our agenda and how we conduct ourselves as public activists.
Andrew Lovley is the founder and former Chair of the Southern Maine Association of Secular Humanists, a student organization at the University of Southern Maine. He holds a B.A. in Psychology, and is currently acting on his humanist values by serving in AmeriCorps as a tutor and mentor in Spokane, Washington.
Redefining America's Religious Tradition
December 13, 2010
Today's guest blog, the latest in our ongoing series of guest contributors, comes from Stephen Goeman and Bruce Wang, members of Tufts Freethought Society. It is a reflection on pluralism and its ramifications for several contemporary social issues, written from the perspective of two up-and-coming nonreligious student leaders. Initially produced for the Tufts Roundtable, it is a thorough and compelling call for pluralism — please check it out:
A fundamental challenge is confronting America's modern religiosity: a nation once considered primarily Christian, or at least Judeo-Christian, is getting a taste of secular values. The National Day of Prayer, first started in 1952, has been challenged by a federal judge, LGBT teen suicides have many reconsidering their stance on homosexuality, and Muslims are fighting to build Islamic centers wherever they please—regardless of their proximity to Ground Zero. These examples characterize a push against the fundamentalist stances of religious America—the push of pluralism—or the idea that peace in a modern society depends on allowing all lifestances to thrive. While fundamentalism threatens to divide members of various communities, enforcers of pluralism seek to unite these beliefs in order to maintain the progression of civilized debate and inclusive cooperation.
Traditionally, there are few limitations on what or who is considered American: all individuals, regardless of their point of origin, creed, or identity have an equal position as American citizens. This is a tradition worth preserving. However, this basic right is under fire on America's religious spectrum by exclusivists, who counter America's growing religious diversity by denying outsiders the right to participate in America's religious culture. This view has a consecrated history in everyday language through the exclusivist phrase "Christian nation." Exclusivism creates a unity at the expense of America's minority opinions—opinions that need protecting.
The progressive preservation of equality comes from pluralism. Eboo Patel, President and Founder of the Interfaith Youth Core and member of President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, explains that "pluralism is neither mere coexistence nor forced consensus… Instead, religious pluralism is 'energetic engagement' that affirms the unique identity of each particular religious tradition and community, while recognizing that the well-being of each depends on the health of the whole."
Pluralism is advanced through interfaith cooperation, the goal of which is to make knowledge of individual beliefs readily accessible through positive and productive interaction. Interestingly, nonbelievers are taking a leading role in this movement. Chris Stedman, Managing Director of State of Formation at the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, claims that "it is precisely because I am an atheist, and not in spite of it, that I am motivated to do interfaith work." It is clear that the stereotype of atheists as desirous of conflict with religion is monstrously untrue (even the aggressive Christopher Hitchens is on record as saying that, given the chance, he would not end international religious belief).
As Greg Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain for Harvard University, notes, "Would some atheists reject the concept of pluralism? Of course. But plenty of Christians reject it as well, and you'd hardly think of holding an interfaith meeting without Christians because of it." Epstein believes that interfaith events which exclude the nonreligious are arbitrarily divisive and not truly pluralistic. Stedman agrees, and further argues that the religious should be willing to come to the defense of nonbelievers when individuals belittle nonreligious values. Progress is already being made in these areas; the Universal Society of Hinduism publicly defended atheists from Pope Benedict XVI's comparison of atheists and Nazis, and even the conservative pundit Bill O'Reilly has recently admitted that atheists are not immoral. If we desire the end of prejudice in America, pluralism must be advocated.
Recent legislation has called exclusivist values into question. For almost 60 years, Americans have gathered once a year to celebrate faith through the medium of unified prayer with government sponsorship. However, the legality of this event has been questioned by federal judge Barbara Crabb. Does this event actually encourage equal participation between all Americans, or does it lend itself to an unconstitutional favor of religion? Crabb asserts that the event characterizes the latter, stating that, "In this instance, the government has taken sides on an issue that must be left to individual conscience." It is also clear that the event is not a celebration of all American religions, but instead caters exclusively to Christians. An Indiana celebration in 2003 split into two disjointed events: one for conservative Christians, and one for everyone else. In 2005, invitations to participate in the Day of Prayer in Plano, Texas were restricted to Christians. That same year, the National Day of Prayer Task Force objected to an American Hindu woman leading a prayer.
This string of events characterizes the clash of exclusivism and pluralism; Americans who seek equal representation for all citizens, regardless of their religious stance, have to contend with an exclusivist tradition. Crabb is right to contest the National Day of Prayer's government sponsorship. America is characterized by a distinct cohesiveness which unifies greatly varying beliefs, and this is absolutely something to celebrate. However, the National Day of Prayer does not foster these pluralistic values. Our nation can do better.
The conflict between Christianity and homosexuality could also desperately use an injection of pluralist values. The issues of gay marriage and LGBT teen suicides in the last few years have been a painfully divisive wedge between fundamentalist Christian values and those advocating for progressive equality. At every gay rights rally, there are those who vehemently oppose legal equality for all LGBT-identified people on religious or moral grounds, and there are the Christian progressives reminding us that everyone falls under God's love. If the focus is adjusted to today's main-stream Evangelicals, the new progressives are those who fully accept homosexuality and the fundamentalists that now advocate a stance similar to the "love the sinner, not the sin" approach. While secular culture overwhelmingly continues to favor gay rights, outspoken fundamentalists have ramped up their rhetoric in order to balance against what they perceive to be antagonism towards their religious values, resulting in their radicalization.
Consider the recent controversy over censorship of high school senior Sean Simonson's article asking students to reach out in support of LGBT youth. Administrators of Benilde- St. Margaret's School banned the publication of Simonson's article, offering this explanation; "this particular discussion is not appropriate because the level of intensity has created an unsafe environment for students." While the general response to LGBT youth suicide by the majority of Christians is that of compassion, this is merely one example of many of the widening gap of opinion on the issue of homosexuality. Both sides want to prevent mistreatment and suicides of LGBT youth, yet one accepts their identity as morally valid while the other continues to condemn their nature as intrinsically immoral.
The questions Christians must ask themselves, regarding this issue, are: do we really want to help stop teen suicide, and does this condemnation of homosexuality further that commitment? To answer these questions definitively is vital to the reconciliation between traditional fundamentalists and a growing liberal movement, but first a plurality of opinions and stances must be accepted in order to foster civilized debate between the traditionalist and progressive communities. If the issue of homosexuality is to cease existing as a wedge, they must abandon their combative and hostile attitude regarding fundamentalist tradition and embrace a movement to bridge their differences.
Islamphobia is another form of exclusivity which has gained widespread media attention through controversy stirred by the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque". Ironically, when news of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York (actual name) was first publicized, few took notice, much less opposed the project. When Daisy Khan, wife of Feisal Abdul Rauf, project leader of the Islamic Cultural Center, was interviewed by Laura Ingraham on The O'Reily Factor, no indication of controversy was found. Ingraham, who has spoken out against radicalized Islam frequently on her radio show said, "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it" and "I like what you're trying to do".
However, when anti-Muslim blogger and Executive Director of Stop Islamization of America Pamela Geller framed the issue as an offense to the victims of 9/11 and a ploy to spread extremism in America, exclusivists began to take notice. She pushed her position to the mainstream media through the New York Post almost half a year later, drawing the fear and prejudice of an impassioned constituent. By later distorting Feisal Abdul Rauf's intentions, Geller was able to promulgate this needlessly divisive issue in order to advance the self-explanatory goals of Stop Islamization of America.
The damage of religious exclusivity and marginalization has been dealt: hostility, insensitivity, and mischaracterization of the Muslim minority in America has only fed the flames of extremism abroad. Feisal Abdul Rauf began the Islamic Cultural Center as an effort to promote moderate Islam and to combat violent extremism from creeping into American society, but the effort by mostly right-wing Evangelicals to suppress a religious minority in order to preserve and extol one's own religious identity over another has undermined a genuine effort towards advancing international peace. It is an affront to our principles of equality when Muslims so willingly meet America halfway, only to be cut off by exclusivist thinking.
As religion grows in America, exclusivist doctrine must be repudiated in favor of impartial pluralism. Members of all faiths—and no faith—should work together through the interfaith movement on an equal playing field, and we should not be surprised that nonbelievers are being included.
Americans should rush to fight prejudice, even when they are not members of the group being marginalized. Through pluralism we can defend universal equality which is simply not attainable through exclusivism. The pluralist movement, secular in principle, should be encouraged to continue as the catalyst of individual and communal growth in America. By these means, we can live up to our most progressive motto, E Pluribus Unum (from many, one), and leave the exclusionist motto, One Nation Under God, behind.
Bruce Wang is a sophomore majoring in International Relations with a minor in Film Studies. Currently he is also the Public Relations Chair of the Tufts Freethought Society. Stephen Goeman is a sophomore majoring in cognitive and brain science and philosophy. He is the community outreach representative of the Tufts Freethought Society.


text:
Whether you're a dedicated triathlete or an occasional sports enthusiast, each time you exercise you increase the nutritional needs of your body, the harder you train the higher the demands!
Herbalife's energy, fitness and sport nutrition products help boost your nutrient intake for peak physical performance at any level of activity and support recovery.
Herbalife Sponsored Athletes & Teams - Click Here
Herbalife Anti-Doping Credentials - Click Here
Our world-class products are already making
a difference to world-class sports
professionals - now it's your turn:
My wife Tina who successfully lost 35lbs in weight and had a fantastic health result introduced me to Herbalife. I have now been using the sports nutrition programme of Formula 1 and Protein Powder to fuel and refuel my body and Formula 2, Cell Activator and Schizandra to help my body deal with the stress of exercise and aid recovery.
Nutrition is especially vital on race day as each race or segment of racing is like a workout and as I would need to be out on the track several times during the day, refuelling and recovery are major aspects of this sport.
Since 2002 I have had the energy and stamina to compete in the British Endurance Championship riding a 600cc bike for the Kawasaki Team as well as racing a Yamaha R1 in the Nationwide Powerbike Championships.
I have had many wins and am one of the front-runners in both championships.
Herbalife has tuned my body for success and it has had a direct influence on my winning results improving my stamina, concentration and recovery." - Jermy Hill
Herbalife Sponsored Athletes
Energy & Fitness
Energy Drinks
Protein Shakes
Protein Snacks
Sport Supplements
*All weight loss claims refer to the Herbalife Weight Management Programme which includes, amongst other things, a balanced diet, regular exercise, an adequate daily fluid intake and appropriate rest. The Herbalife products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
These materials were prepared by and are the responsibility of independent Herbalife distributors:
Buy Herbalife Online: Buy Herbalife Online - Weight Loss
Independent Herbalife Distributor: Customer Services, , , , , firstname.lastname@example.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The once-popular Cafe Calato Italian restaurant in Rancho Cucamonga evidently has closed for good, at least for now. In a business park on Center Street just above Fourth Street, a stone's throw from Ontario, and just down the street from our newsroom, Cafe Calato served inexpensive pastas and pizzas.
There was no note on the door Saturday and no activity. Based on Yelp comments, the restaurant closed around the beginning of June.
I don't know much about Cafe Calato's history, but it was in business in 1997 when I started at the Bulletin. A friend tells me the restaurant changed hands about three years ago and that the owner is having health problems. He offered his staff the chance to stay employed by running the place themselves, as long as they kept the place up to his standards. He visited a few days later, found the place a mess and, since that reflected on him, fired everyone and shut the doors instead.
Some people say what they mean and mean what they say, it seems.
* Meanwhile, I've also been told the new owner ran the place into the ground and cut a lot of corners, resulting in the C grade mentioned in the comments and a loss of business.
** Cafe Calato reopened under a new owner/chef in October.


text:
Can one paper really deliver superb prints from both digital and optical printers? Just ask your customers. When they see prints that combine bright, vibrant colors with flattering skin tones, they'll know your lab is the place for their business.
A distinctive silver-halide color negative paper, EDGE Paper also offers exceptional dynamic range and detail. The eye-catching gray backprint identifies EKTACOLOR EDGE Paper as a Kodak branded world-class consumer product. And Kodak's latest, leading-edge paper emulsion technology enables long-lasting prints and enlargements.
EKTACOLOR EDGE Paper streamlines your lab operations by making ordering and inventory simpler—just one paper for both digital and optical printing systems. It performs superbly under varying exposure and processing conditions, and provides great results with digital files as well as with Kodak's and other manufacturers' films—either optically or from scanned files. So, your lab has less remakes/waste and greater print consistency.
*Under typical home display and storage conditions.
MFG Part number: 3934213


text:
RENTON, WASH. – Seattle Sounders FC has announced the 2012 Team Award recipients. Osvaldo Alonso was named the team's Most Valuable Player and Jeff Parke was honored as Defender of the Year, both by a vote of their teammates. Eddie Johnson received the Golden Boot by virtue of leading Seattle in scoring and David Estrada was awarded the Humanitarian of the Year.
Most Valuable Player – Midfielder Osvaldo Alonso: Voted MVP by his teammates for the third consecutive season, Alonso has developed into the league's premier holding midfielder. He was honored with his first MLS Best XI selection and was also named a MLS All-Star for the second-straight season. The league's most tenacious ballwinner logged 2,688 minutes in the regular season, the second most in club history behind his 2011 total. He added one goal and two assists in league play, and took the third-most shots on Sounders FC. Alonso added four goals and two assists in the U.S. Open Cup to earn Player of the Tournament honors.
Defender of the Year – Defender Jeff Parke: Seattle's stalwart on the backline, Parke earned Defender of the Year honors for the second consecutive season. He finished second on the team with 29 reular-season starts and logged 2,568 minutes in 30 matches, the most of any Sounders FC defender. Parke helped anchor the league's second-best defense, finishing the season as one of two teams to allow less than one goal per match. Overall, Parke appeared in 39 of 48 matches across all competitions in 2012, and was named to the MLS Team of the Week for Week 30.
Budweiser Golden Boot – Forward Eddie Johnson: Johnson returned to Major League Soccer in 2012 to lead Sounders FC in scoring, setting the club record with 14 goals in regular-season play, ranking sixth in MLS. Johnson broke the record of three-time Golden Boot winner Fredy Montero. The athletic goal scorer set the league record for most header goals in a single season (nine), and he added three more goals in outside competitions, including the opening goal in leg two of the Western Conference Championship. Johnson earned his third MLS All-Star selection and second MLS Comeback Player of the Year award.
Humanitarian of the Year – Midfielder David Estrada: Estrada was selected as the 2012 Sounders FC Humanitarian of the Year in recognition of his commitment to community service, making more than 30 appearances in the community and playing an integral role in one-on-one outreach to the Hispanic community. Estrada also represented the team at three of four "United We Serve" events. In partnership with Seattle Bank, United We Serve is a side-by-side player and fan volunteer program dedicated to grassroots community service projects. Estrada also participated in a visit to Merrill Gardens Retirement Community, preparing food boxes at the Hopelink Food Bank and a helping on the Greenbridge community clean-up project.


text:
0.5 stars (out of four)
A comedy that provokes only sadness, "The Big Wedding" features several stars that a casting agent would hire if trying to exact revenge on me personally. So no, I didn't go into "The Big Wedding" expecting much. Any critic who claims pure objectivity for a wedding-related romp co-starring Katherine Heigl, Robin Williams and Diane Keaton and written/directed by the writer of "The Bucket List," should not be trusted with words, sharp objects or heavy machinery.
Like Adam Sandler's hideous "Just Go With It," "The Big Wedding" Americanizes a French story with the grace of a croque-monsieur that involves spraying Cheez Whiz on a Slim Jim. It's also quite racist, beginning with the backstory of Don (Robert De Niro) and Ellie (Keaton) adopting a Colombian boy (Ben Barnes, who is British) named Alejandro mostly so Don can eventually say "Mi casa es whatever" while barely trying to communicate to Alejandro's Spanish-speaking biological mother Madonna (Patricia Rae). Note: Some people in the theater laughed when Don mentioned he and his (now ex-) wife adopted Alejandro. It's horrifying that anyone considered that a joke.
Madonna comes to the states because Alejandro is marrying Missy (Amanda Seyfried). However, writer-director Justin Zackham seems intent on writing a wedding comedy that includes no one thinking about or stressing over the actual details of the wedding. (Other than Alejandro having to fake it with the also-racist priest, played by Williams in a rehash of the abysmal "License to Wed.") Instead, Lyla (Heigl) mocks Missy's parents' racism but then declares, "Who do you have to lynch for a Cosmo around here?" without any trace of irony.
Having waited until 29 to lose his virginity, Lyla's brother Jared (Topher Grace) lucks out when Alejandro's gorgeous, 20-year-old sister Nuria (Ana Ayora) comes to town and within minutes dives butt-naked into the lake and proposes sex. Despite her later revoking this offer, the character exists only as a one-dimensional fantasy who either will or won't give it up.
Elsewhere, Don blurts out the c-word yet refers to sex as "make whoopsie." He--spoiler alert, if you really care--cheats on his girlfriend (Susan Sarandon) with his ex-wife, a la "It's Complicated." De Niro's grumpy shtick earns a few laughs, but mostly "The Big Wedding," which is destined to be foolishly ordered by lonely hotel guests, just embarrasses everyone involved. The film ultimately shrugs off several of its main conflicts and treats sex like a gigging class of 11-year-olds would. Scenes are constantly rushed, as if the folks onscreen can't wait to leave.
The film was delayed from the fall, presumably so if the Mayan apocalypse really hit, the cast could have a silver lining.
Watch Matt on "You & Me This Morning," Friday at 6:55 a.m. on WCIU, the U
Want more? Discuss this article and others on RedEye's Facebook page.


text:
Ever needed a way to schedule projects/tasks/meetings/rooms/staff? Check out this new component, the Ext Scheduler .
Live Examples: http://bryntum.com/examples.html
Current status:
- Homepage: http://www.bryntum.com
- Live Examples
- Requirements : Ext JS 4 or Ext JS3 (could be adapted to 2.x without some features)
- Feedback/bugs forum
- Documentation
- GWT Ext (GXT) component: Forum thread here, release March 2010
- IE6 Support: Hrmmm
To receive information and updates, either
- Send me an email at [email protected].
- Join the Facebook page
- Follow me on twitter
Time for coffee, enjoy!


text:
A presentation focusing on rural Kentucky will be held at Union College, marking the first of many events this month associated with the upcoming inauguration of Union's 19th president, Marcia Hawkins, Ph.D.
The event will be held Thursday, April 4, at 7:00 p.m. in the Patridge Student Center, Conference Rooms A, B and C. The speaker is Kenneth Tunnell, Ph.D., a professor of Criminal Justice and Police Studies at Easter Kentucky University. It is free and open to the public.
The presentation is titled "Once Upon a Place: The Fading of Community in Rural Kentucky," and is based on Tunnell's book of the same name. According to Linda Silber, Ph.D., Union professor who has organized the lecture, the information presented should be of interest to general audiences. She added that anyone who attends should expect Tunnell to present images of rural Kentucky as part of the presentation.
"Kenneth Tunnell was born and raised in rural east Tennessee and currently makes his home in rural central Kentucky," said Silber in an e-mail promoting the presentation. She added that for more than two decades, Tunnell has been writing and publishing books within the discipline of sociology.
The event is sponsored by the Union College Faculty Research and Lecture Committee in conjunction with English Communications, Educational Studies Unit, Criminal Justice and Sociology.
Other inauguration events can be found online at www.unionky.edu/calendar. For more information concerning Tunnell's presentation, please contact Silber at '; // --> .


text:
tapestry, hand-woven fabric of plain weave made without shuttle or drawboy, the design of weft threads being threaded into the warp with fingers or a bobbin. The name has been extended to cover a variety of heavy materials, such as imitation tapestries woven on Jacquard looms, tapestry carpets, and upholstery and drapery stuffs. True tapestries include various primitive textiles woven on the rudest of early looms, as well as the famous pictorial hangings of the Middle Ages.
Sections in this article:
- Introduction
- Techniques
- History
- Bibliography
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
See more Encyclopedia articles on: Arts and Crafts


text:
Get Your Anabolic Cycle Here
Select your goal below for customized cycle and stack recommendations.
Given their strict drug policies, buying Anavar from Germany is risky business.
Although you'll definitely be able to find plenty of suppliers selling for reasonable prices, getting caught can land you in a lot of trouble.
And that's not all:
The variation in the quality of online steroids means that consuming them comes with health risks as well.
While we suggest investing in legal alternatives, we're going to go over Germany's steroid laws below to help you get a better picture of their drug market. Buy Anvarol online here.
Lean Muscle
Fat Loss
Power Lifting
Table of Contents
Many of the brands of Anavar from Germany will look familiar if you've purchasing anabolics before, as they dominate multiple areas of the steroid market.
These brands include:
Generic forms are sold under its chemical name—Oxandrolone.
Since it is well-tolerated among both men and women, Anavar has become one of the most popular oral anabolics ever.
Of course, the black market for steroids is anything but predictable, so prices can vary.
Pharmaceutical grade products run from $.50 to $1 per tab, while underground forms are just $.40 to .$70 per tab. Street prices will run you $1 per tab and up.
But here's the thing:
Even when you purchase pharmaceutical grade product online, there's a high chance that it will be counterfeit. And although black market steroids are not counterfeited as often, even the real deal could be underdosed.
This means you're risking the health of your body on top of the legal risks that come with ordering illegal drugs online.
Is it worth it?
Take a look at Germany's steroid laws below and decide for yourself.
Right before the end of the 1960s, narcotic drug abuse was on the rise in Germany. In order to combat this problem, the country's officials began to take a harder stance on drugs. Their policies today reflect this evolution.
Much like the United States, their drug policies stem from a schedule list that distinguishes between various chemicals.
For example, schedule I drugs are those that have no research backing their medicinal benefit (ecstasy, cocaine, etc.).
Schedule II contains narcotics that aren't available for prescription but are used to manufacture commercial products (THC).
Finally, schedule III covers narcotics that are marketable and can be obtained through a prescription. This includes anabolic steroids with medicinal value, including Anavar.
And that's not all:
Before 2007, only selling and distributing steroids was illegal. However, following this year, possessing steroids in excess of a certain amount is punishable by the law.
Here are some examples:
Possessing more than 150 mg of Dianabol or more than 632 milligrams of testosterone can lead to prosecution.
And as of February 2013, any German athlete caught using steroids can land in prison.
Even though purchasing Anavar for sale from Germany is a risk, many people are willing to take it.
Because it's much cheaper than any other route. But cheaper isn't always better, and this is especially true in the world of bodybuilding.
If you are going to take the risk no matter what, at least consider these tips:
By following these quality control procedures, you can minimize the chances of taking fake or underdosed product.
But here's an even better option:
Purchase natural steroid alternatives that come with quality and results guarantees.
Let's look at the most popular alternative to Anavar:
CrazyBulk's Anvarol.
Designed for cutting, strength, and energy, this product can help you get the results that you want in the gym without the adverse effects and shady suppliers.
Look at what it's made of:
So how do these ingredients translate into gains? By increasing your phosphocreatine levels.
Here's the thing:
Phosphocreatine is necessary if you want to regenerate ATP, which is your body's primary energy source. With more of this compound available, your body can generate more bursts of energy, allowing you to workout for longer and harder.
Not only that, but you'll be able to shred fat without any bloating or water retention. It's an ideal supplement for those that want a healthy means of boosting power and energy in the gym.
Just look at what customers are saying about it:
"Stronger, leaner and fat reduction."
"Reduction in body fat and extra strength lifting weights."
"Reduced body fat from 21% to 15% in 3 weeks, less fatigue between reps."
To give you some extra incentive, Anvarol comes with guarantees of no side effects and results within 30 days. Try finding these commitments from anabolic suppliers—it's impossible.
Before you make any rash decisions and purchase Anavar from Germany you should strongly consider Anvarol.
Even though the word "natural" might be off-putting, when you consider the guarantees that CrazyBulk provides, it's clear that this is an effective product that they're willing to stand behind.
We get it:
Anabolic steroids are tempting for their extremely fast results, but faster isn't always better.
The gains that you get from natural products might be slower, but they will be longer-lasting and much easier on your body.
After all, without a healthy body, you can never reach your full potential.Anavar AustraliaAnavar CanadaAnavar FranceAnavar GermanyAnavar IndiaAnavar in ItalyAnavar in MexicoAnavar New ZealandAnavar UKAnavar USABuy Anavar OnlineBuy Oxandrolone


text: HomeNo Deposit Casino BonusTropicana Gold Casino $215 No deposit bonus. August 14, 2014Tropicana Gold Casino $215 No deposit bonus. August 14, 2014Amount of the Bonus $215 Free ChipRedeem Coupon TGCAU14D4Bonus Link: Tropicana Gold Casino Download Casino* FOR NEW PLAYERS. Adam Eve Casino €50 No deposit bonus. August 14, 2014 Silver Oak Casino $160 No deposit bonus. August 14, 2014 Tags:$101 to $500, Tropicana Gold CasinoNew Players No Deposit Bonus and Free Withdraw Mastercard250% Free Moneyruby slots no deposit bonus codes 2018More: Reedem code RUBYSLOTS50 for a $50 Free Chip. Free Chip comes with a 30X Playthrough on Slots & Keno "33"RUBY250Valid until January 29, 2021Go to the Bonus$50 Free Bonuswild vegas no deposit bonus 2018Join in VEGAS EXPERIENCE and Receive free chips, free spin and cash bonus "33"WILDVEGASGo to the Bonus50 Free Spinscasino grand bay no deposit bonusReceive 50 free spins at grand bay casino with no deposit money required "33"TUFFLEValid until February 14, 2025Go to the Bonus


text:
- About
- Properties
- Arlington International
- Calder Casino
- Churchill Downs Racetrack
- Derby City Gaming
- Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots
- Harlow's Casino Resort and Spa
- Miami Valley Gaming
- Lady Luck Casino Nemacolin
- Oxford Casino Hotel
- Ocean Downs
- Riverwalk Casino Hotel
- Presque Isle Downs & Casino
- Twinspires.com
- United Tote
- BetAmerica
- Leadership
- News
- Investors
- Careers
- Foundation
- Magazine
CDI's Mudd, Anderson to participate in 15th Annual ICR XChange Conference
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Churchill Downs Incorporated (CDI) (NASDAQ: CHDN) announced Monday, Jan. 14, 2013, that Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, William E. Mudd along with Vice President of Finance and Treasurer, Mike Anderson, will participate in 15th Annual ICR XChange Conference on Thursday, Jan. 17, 2013.
The conference runs from Tuesday, Jan. 15 through Thursday, Jan. 17, 2013. A copy of Mudd and Anderson's presentation notes will be available on Thursday, Jan. 17, 2013 beginning at 8 a.m. EST at http://ir.churchilldownsincorporated.com/events.cfm.
About Churchill Downs Incorporated
Churchill Downs Incorporated (CDI) (NASDAQ: CHDN), headquartered in Louisville, Ky., owns and operates the world-renowned Churchill Downs Racetrack, home of the Kentucky Derby and Kentucky Oaks, as well as racetrack and casino operations and a poker room in Miami Gardens, Fla.; racetrack, casino and video poker operations in New Orleans, La.; racetrack operations in Arlington Heights, Ill.; a casino resort in Greenville, Miss.; as well as a casino hotel in Vicksburg, Miss.; CDI also owns the country's premier online wagering company, TwinSpires.com; the totalisator company, United Tote; Luckity.com, offering fun games online for a chance to win cash prizes; Bluff Media, an Atlanta-based multimedia poker company; and a collection of racing-related telecommunications and data companies. Information about CDI can be found online at www.churchilldownsincorporated.com.
Information set forth in this news release contains various "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "Act") provides certain "safe harbor" provisions for forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements made in this release are made pursuant to the Act.
The reader is cautioned that such forward-looking statements are based on information available at the time and/or management's good faith belief with respect to future events, and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual performance or results to differ materially from those expressed in the statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date the statement was made. We assume no obligation to update forward-looking information to reflect actual results, changes in assumptions or changes in other factors affecting forward-looking information. Forward-looking statements are typically identified by the use of terms such as "anticipate," "believe," "could," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "may," "might," "plan," "predict," "project," "hope," "should," "will," and similar words, although some forward-looking statements are expressed differently. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, we can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations include: the effect of global economic conditions, including any disruptions in the credit markets; a decrease in consumers' discretionary income; the effect (including possible increases in the cost of doing business) resulting from future war and terrorist activities or political uncertainties; the overall economic environment; the impact of increasing insurance costs; the impact of interest rate fluctuations; the effect of any change in our accounting policies or practices; the financial performance of our racing operations; the impact of gaming competition (including lotteries, online gaming and riverboat, cruise ship and land-based casinos) and other sports and entertainment options in the markets in which we operate; our ability to maintain racing and gaming licenses to conduct our businesses; the impact of live racing day competition with other Florida, Illinois and Louisiana racetracks within those respective markets; the impact of higher purses and other incentives in states that compete with our racetracks; costs associated with our efforts in support of alternative gaming initiatives; costs associated with customer relationship management initiatives; a substantial change in law or regulations affecting pari-mutuel and gaming activities; a substantial change in allocation of live racing days; changes in Kentucky, Florida, Illinois or Louisiana law or regulations that impact revenues or costs of racing operations in those states; the presence of wagering and gaming operations at other states' racetracks and casinos near our operations; our continued ability to effectively compete for the country's horses and trainers necessary to achieve full field horse races; our continued ability to grow our share of the interstate simulcast market and obtain the consents of horsemen's groups to interstate simulcasting; our ability to enter into agreements with other industry constituents for the purchase and sale of racing content for wagering purposes; our ability to execute our acquisition strategy and to complete or successfully operate planned expansion projects; our ability to successfully complete any divestiture transaction; market reaction to our expansion projects; the inability of our totalisator company, United Tote, to maintain its processes accurately or keep its technology current; our accountability for environmental contamination; the ability of our online business to prevent security breaches within its online technologies; the loss of key personnel; the impact of natural and other disasters on our operations and our ability to obtain insurance recoveries in respect of such losses (including losses related to business interruption); our ability to integrate any businesses we acquire into our existing operations, including our ability to maintain revenues at historic levels and achieve anticipated cost savings; the impact of wagering laws, including changes in laws or enforcement of those laws by regulatory agencies; the outcome of pending or threatened litigation; changes in our relationships with horsemen's groups and their memberships; our ability to reach agreement with horsemen's groups on future purse and other agreements (including, without limiting, agreements on sharing of revenues from gaming and advance deposit wagering); the effect of claims of third parties to intellectual property rights; and the volatility of our stock price.


text:
Watch Ben Affleck and Matt Damon Make Fun of Each Other for Charity
If you've ever fantasized of thruppling it up with Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, now's your chance make dreams a reality. All you have to do is make a $10 donation, and you'll be entered to win a double date with two of Boston's finest exports.
Partnering with Omaze, a charity fundraising site, Affleck and Damon are offering a night out in Hollywood for the lucky winner:
You and your best friend will be flown to Los Angeles to go out with Ben and Matt to a super secret, super cool, Hollywood event. You'll be rubbing elbows with other fancy celebs and athletes as Ben and Matt's VIP guests, and so much more. It'll basically be the most legendary best friend double date in history.
"So much more," huh? We'll see about that. The proceeds from each entry will be split between Affleck's Eastern Congo Initiative and Damon's Water.org.
What will a date with Affleck and Damon be like?
Affleck: "It will be like a best friend double date."
Damon: "Like us hanging out taking selfies, talking about how the Sox are going to do."
Affleck: "Or if you have more sophisticated interests we can talk about 19th century literature or politics in the Middle East ... or we could talk about the movie 'Argo,' which won Best Picture."
Damon: "Or we could talk about 'Good Will Hunting' and who did the bulk of the writing."
Affleck: "Or you could learn about things that are actually true, like how incredibly short Matt Damon is."
Damon: "Or the fact that Ben Affleck's left eye twitches every time you say the word Gigli."
Both men always seems like such good sports, so if you're into paying money to go out with two married dudes who will spend the night teasing each other—not judging—it's probably worth a shot.


text:
2223 West 12th Street
Sioux Falls , South Dakota 57104
2018 Subaru Legacy Premium $15,800
Fully detailed, Fresh oil change, 3rd party inspected!, Bluetooth, 4-Wheel Disc Brakes, 6 Speakers, ABS brakes, Adaptive Cruise Control, Aha, Air Conditioning, AM/FM radio: SiriusXM, Anti-whiplash front head restraints, Automatic temperature control, Blind Spot Detection (BSD), Brake assist, Bumpers: body-color, CD player, Cloth Upholstery, Driver door bin, Driver vanity mirror, Dual front impact airbags, Dual front side impact airbags, Electronic Stability Control, Emergency communication system: STARLINK, Exterior Parking Camera Rear, EyeSight & BSD & RCTA & HBA, Four wheel independent suspension, Front anti-roll bar, Front Bucket Seats, Front Center Armrest w/Storage, Front dual zone A/C, Front reading lights, Fully automatic headlights, Heated door mirrors, Heated front seats, Heated Reclining Front Bucket Seats, High Beam Assist, Illuminated entry, Leather Shift Knob, Low tire pressure warning, Occupant sensing airbag, Outside temperature display, Overhead airbag, Overhead console, Panic alarm, Passenger door bin, Passenger vanity mirror, Power door mirrors, Power driver seat, Power steering, Power windows, Pre-Collision System, Radio: Subaru STARLINK 8.0`` Multimedia Plus System, Rear anti-roll bar, Rear Cross Traffic Alert (RCTA), Rear seat center armrest, Rear window defroster, Remote keyless entry, Security system, Smartphone Integration, Speed control, Speed-sensing steering, Split folding rear seat, Steering wheel mounted audio controls, Steering-Wheel Paddle-Shift Control Switches, Tachometer, Telescoping steering wheel, Tilt steering wheel, Traction control, Trip computer, Variably intermittent wipers, Vehicle Information Display, Wheels: 17`` x 7.5`` J Aluminum Alloy Dark Gray. CARFAX One-Owner. 2018 Subaru Legacy 2.5i Premium AWD CVT Lineartronic 2.5L 4-Cylinder DOHC 16V
25/34 City/Highway MPG
* 2018 KBB.com 10 Best All-Wheel-Drive Vehicles Under $25,000 * 2018 KBB.com 10 Best Sedans Under $25,000 * 2018 KBB.com 10 Most Awarded Brands * 2018 KBB.com Brand Image Awards


text:
Here's the description from author Marie Lu's website:
What was once the western United States is now home to the Republic, a nation perpetually at war with its neighbors. Born into an elite family in one of the Republic's wealthiest districts, fifteen-year-old June is a prodigy being groomed for success in the Republic's highest military circles. Born into the slums, fifteen-year-old Day is the country's most wanted criminal. But his motives may not be as malicious as they seem.
From very different worlds, June and Day have no reason to cross paths - until the day June's brother, Metias, is murdered and Day becomes the prime suspect. Caught in the ultimate game of cat and mouse, Day is in a race for his family's survival, while June seeks to avenge Metias's death. But in a shocking turn of events, the two uncover the truth of what has really brought them together, and the sinister lengths their country will go to keep its secrets.
And the book trailer:
This is the first book in a series, but the ending is still satisfying, no obnoxious cliffhanger here. I was impressed with the taut prose, the well developed characters and the heart-pounding action. It's no wonder this book has already been optioned for a movie!
The novel doesn't come out until November, but you can win my advance copy just by leaving a comment. Followers get an extra entry. Get your comments in by midnight on Tuesday, September 13. One lucky winner will be announced next Wednesday.


text:
By Mohammad Reza Yazdanpanah of Rooz
The interview began with Faezeh's laughter, and ended that way too. But in between I could see sadness in her face. I spoke with her about the Green Movement, the future Majlis elections, the controversial elections of 2009, and other issues. Her views confirm that Faezeh has clearly established herself as a leading personality independent of her father, Hashemi Rafsanjani, the current head of Iran's State Expediency Council and a former two-time president and Majlis speaker. Read on for the details.
Rooz: How are you? Are you happy?
Faezeh Hashemi (FH): Very (laughter with sarcasm)! Not just me, so is the whole Iranian nation. Everything is just wonderful!
Rooz: What do you mean "everything is wonderful?"
FH: I say this sarcastically. In reality, political conditions in Iran, freedom and human rights are all very terrible. On the economic scene, the new subsidy plan is not being implemented according to the law but instead on personal whims with complete disregard to what the specialists in the field have said. Till now, the results have been bad. The plan is a good one and so it is a shame that it is being destroyed this way. On the foreign policy front, conditions are getting worse by the day. Differences with neighboring countries and with most of the world have unfortunately created a bad situation for our country and for Iranians. I see nothing positive to mention here.
Rooz: How about yourself? Mr. Hashemi's family? Your father, mother, brothers and sister? How do they pass their time these days?
FH: We are like all other Iranians. My family's conditions are like those of others. Unfortunately we live in the conditions of a police- and security- state. The pressures that exist on the whole nation exist for us as well. What you read about in the media about our family is true.
Rooz: People condemn what happened to you in Shah Abdolazim mausoleum and say those actions were done by rogue individuals. Do you think they were rogues or they were they organized by specific political circles?
FH: It is clear that they are not rogues. Such acts are fully planned not just for us but for everything and everybody, and they pursue this view that you either stay with them or stay silent. This is how they are treating all their opponents, without any discrimination.
Rooz: Who is doing this planning?
FH: The very same people who are issuing orders to violently suppress people. Circles inside the regime.
Rooz: The incident that took place in Shah Abdolazim mausoleum for you in the presence of your brother and some other relatives brought forth a lot of reactions and condemnation even by the highest government authorities, which are parts of the regime. Have you witnessed any signs of punishment of those who perpetrated engaged in that hooliganism?
FH: No. Did they punish those who perpetrated the Kahrizak atrocities, despite the massive propaganda? Did they identify and punish those responsible for the violence committed at Tehran University's dormitory? The attacks on us are similar to those. Despite the condemnation of these acts by the highest authority in the country and others, we still see Saeed Majid (the person who verbally assaulted Faezeh and her family entourage in Shah Abdolazim memorial near Tehran) speaks very comfortably about what he did and repeats the same mentality. He has admitted that he is not in prison. It is not clear what the real story her is (laughter).
Rooz: What news do you have of Mr. Tajik?
FH: Fortunately none.
Rooz: I am sure you are aware that the attorney general, Mr. Mohseni Ejei has said that Mr. Tajik had been arrested but just two days later RoozOnline published an interview with him that showed him to be a free man and in which he repeated his foul language against you and your family. He even threatened that if they were confronted, Hezbollahi kids would not sit idle.
FH: During the Shah's time, Shaboon Bimokh engaged in similar vulgar language and violent acts against their opponents. Today, unfortunately the same language is being used under the name of Islam, the revolution etc. The country is now run by these individuals. What can one say about this and what can one expect? The difference between then and now is that Shaboon Bimokh was just one person or a gang at the most, while these people are a network and act violently across all cities. As I said earlier, these are not rogue elements but are deliberately organized individuals. And these events are not exclusive to me. In recent years, many people have been attacked and treated similarly. This is a movement coming from the ruling circles which I believe has planned it, and so the condemnations are just a show.
Rooz: But the condemnations of these attacks were extensive. Your father yesterday spoke of a letter that had been written by the leader of the Islamic republic to the head of the judiciary demanding the prosecution of those who had perpetrated this. How real are these?
FH: I think the video showing the insults of Saeed Tajik were so repulsive that those gentlemen realized they had to at the least present a facetious opposition to or condemnation of it. Even the publication of the video clip was questionable. I am not sure whether they erred in that regard or that some infiltrators exposed them. They, however, viewed the whole episode as an accomplishment! So I do not know. But the video clip was so shameful that they had to respond to public opinion's condemnations. But I do not see the denouncements as real and honest. Worse than the attacks on me are the situations in Kahrizak, which was condemned by the authorities, but what happened next? Where are the punishments? Where are the culprits?
After the condemnations, they still praised Tajik as an honest, pure and dedicated young man. These are the contradictions that make their condemnations insincere.
Rooz: Tell us a little about that incident. What were you doing in Shah Abdolazim?
FH: On that day we had gone for the burial ceremony of our relative who was being buried at the Shah Abdolazim cemetery. We were a large crowd and so these people noticed us and they realized that the ceremony was for a Hashemi relative.
Rooz: So they did not initially know that you were going to go to Shah Abdolazim?
FH: I do not know, but there were no signs that they knew in advance. In any case, we noticed that these plain-clothes agents began to talk about us.
Rooz: What happened next?
FH: After the burial ceremony, I left the place and that man followed me. The first part of the film relates to the insults against Mohsen.
Rooz: How long did the whole incident take?
FH: About 20 minutes. They followed us until the parking and said all those things that you see on the video clip. Then they returned to the site and insulted the family of the deceased and beat them up. Two days later when my uncle's relatives returned to the site, they were again verbally assaulted and beaten up badly, which newspapers reported on.
Rooz: When you were being assaulted, were there no police or other government authorities around?
FH: When we were there, intelligence agents and the police were there and around us, who are always there for the protection of the cemetery and the site. The first incident took place inside the mausoleum of Shah Abdolazim and there were plenty of police and other law enforcement agents there who did nothing. When the verbal assaults intensified I felt so disgusted that I do not remember who was around us. But they (the police) are not allowed or do not have the courage to say something to these thugs. The police cannot perform its own duties in this regard.
Rooz: Mr. Tajik told Nooshabeh Amiri in her interview that the foul language that you hear in the video clip was not made by him. Do you remember who said those words?
FH: No, I did not. But I do not think it makes a difference because before the movie clip similar and even worse words were said by him against us.
Rooz: How did you feel at that time as they were cursing and insulting?
FH: (pause) I do not know. One only feels disappointment and sadness for the Islamic republic which portrays itself to defend Islam, the revolution, etc. At that time I just thought that these people are not Muslims because a Muslim would not do something like this.
Rooz: How do you feel now that you remember those 20 minutes?
FH: The only thing that comes to my mind is that these people have come to their dead end and are so under pubic pressure that they engage in such acts.
Rooz: What would you say if you saw Saeed Tajik?
FH: Nothing. I think these people have been given too much recognition and attention. Even under normal conditions I have nothing to say to these people.
Rooz: But these people, Saeed Tajik etc, proclaim to be believers in the Islamic republic, the velayat fagih (the supreme religious leader), etc?
FH: It is possible that a small percent of these people do these things out of conviction. But they too must reconsider their views. What kind of belief is this that allows a person to do precisely what the belief says they should not do? The end does not justify the means. I cannot do something un-Islamic to come to Islam. There is nothing in our religion that sanctions this. This is precisely the criticism that was leveled against the Mojahedin Khalq group. But aside this small group that has these beliefs because they are brainwashed, the larger part of this group do these things because of their interests.
Rooz: How do they brainwash them?
FH: The Revolutionary Guards, for example, has a class they call, 'Identifying the enemy." Guard members are obliged to attend it otherwise they will not move on. Who do you think is presented as the enemy in this class? Mr. Hashemi and his family. They organize meetings in government agencies and educational institutions and repeat the lies that the Guards continuously preach. The last time I was arrested they roamed me in the streets for hours and unfortunately those young people who drove me around repeated the same garbage. It is clear that they have filled their minds with these lies. They relate and retell these lies with such intensity, anger, and hatred that was shocking to me. Most of these are simply to maintain their interests.
Rooz: What interests?
FH: It is now a few years that people like these are bought with money, posts or titles in business companies. They know that if people win, they will lose these positions that have been given to them. So they protect their positions through these methods. If you look around you will notice that all administrative posts are held by these people. The same is true in the sphere of economics. All big corporations were handed over to these same people through article 44 (provisions of the constitution) rather than to the private sector. Look at the money they are spending to bring people into the streets to attack people. Then there are other privileges that are doled out, such as admissions to universities, and the provision of basic needs, all of which are given to the same people. If people win their struggle, then all of these privileges and positions will end. If they really follow the leader and believe in him, then why did this person, for example, repeat the very same nonsense after the leader condemned his actions? This shows that these are games and lies that they play with people's beliefs.
Rooz: In addition to your father, are there other people who have years of friendship with your father and are in power now, engaged in efforts to end this state of affairs?
FH: I think so. Since the last presidential election a lot of efforts were undertaken by many people, but no results have ensued. Today, the issue is money, power, wealth, etc, otherwise you cannot have a person who believes in Islam, the Quran and the Islamic republic come forward and do these things such as insult people in public, engage in destructive actions, beat up people, kill people as a way to protect Islam. They themselves have destroyed Islam.
Rooz: You have been a supporter of the protest movement against the 2009 presidential election results and were even arrested a number of times for this (and of course released immediately) and have been assaulted. But have these events dissuaded you from supporting the Green Movement or do you regret your support?
FH: As I said earlier the rule these people are following is that you are either with them or stay silent or cease to exist altogether. Because the Green Movement, I and others are not with these people, but rather, we are critical of them and the current conditions, they exert pressure on us. The conditions in the country are those of a police state in every sphere of life. This is true in universities, offices, the media, etc.
Rooz: What about yourself?
FH: Not only does what they are doing weaken a person's beliefs but on the contrary, it only strengthens their conviction in their path. Islam, civil society, human rights, and even Iran are all under threat today and everybody must act to save the country.
Rooz: What must happen for you to regret the path you have chosen?
FH: Regret or retreat?
Rooz: Both.
FH: I will not be regretful. But to compromise and retreat, public opinion must be convinced that they will be compensated for the damage that has been caused during the last two years, the conflict over the elections of 2009 must be resolved, people who have inflicted harm to others must be punished, and everything else that will create the sense that the Islamic republic has returned to the right path.
Rooz: Have your doubts about the 2009 presidential election been resolved after these two years?
FH: Of course not.
Rooz: The majority of people still seem to doubt the announced results and believe that the elections were rigged. Since we have new parliamentary elections coming up in the next winter, what do you think should be the position of the Green Movement and the reformists regarding it. Mr. Khatami has announced certain conditions. Do you think that it is right to even talk about the next elections when the last one has not been settled?
FH: Under the current conditions I think one cannot even talk of the next elections. People have not been convinced over the last election and so the same issue will remain in the next one. Until the issues surrounding the 2009 presidential elections are not convincingly resolved, the conditions are not right for thinking about the next elections. The conditions that Mr. Khatami has set are good, but public opinion views about the last election should be added to them. I do not think the right conditions exist for protestors of the last election to think about the next election. Should they do that (and participate) then that would negate all the protests and sacrifices that were made during these 2 years protesting those elections and the conditions in the country.
Rooz: Do you believe that the current administration and the Guardians Council can hold honest elections?
FH: In view of what has happened in the past one cannot believe in this.
Rooz: The Green Movement will soon celebrate the start of its third year and some people want to celebrate the event. The arrests of Messrs Mousavi and Kahroubi have added a new dimension to this. How do you view the future of the movement?
FH: I am very optimistic. I believe the Green Movement is alive and active and is going forward. It changes its tactics and strategy as it goes along based on existing conditions, which is what should take place. Evil cannot last. It may continue for a while, but eventually will have to end. I only hope people will attain their goals with the least amount of harm and costs.
Rooz: Mr. Rafsanjani recently departed from the chairmanship of the Assembly of Experts on Leadership, or was removed. And now there is rumor of his removal from the State Expediency Council. Do you think this will take place?
FH: What Mr. Rafsanjani did regarding the Assembly of Experts should serve as a lesson for many. Regarding the State Expediency Council, I again mention the view that these people have. They will apply that rule for everyone, and it does not matter whether the person has a history of service or not. The policy of these men is the elimination of everybody.
Rooz: What course of action do you think Mr. Rafsanjani will choose?
FH: I do not know; let's wait till that moment (laughter).
Filed under: faezeh hashemi, iran, iran election, Iran News, Iranian protests, Rafsanjani, ایران, Rafsanjani