text:
I realize modifying the core files is frowned against but I strongly believe that the WP core SHOULD NOT rely on external links. In my situation, I'm behind the Great Chinese Firewall, the gravatar sites are blocked. This causes a lag in my page load times. I have a patch in place but I'd like to remove it from my install altogether.
I still think Rarst's answer is better and that there is no need to remove Gravatar links in the core WordPress files, but ...
The files you are looking for are:
Since you may need to do this every time WordPress updates, you could search the WordPress files for the word 'gravatar'. Most good text editors make it possible to search across all files in a directory and its sub directories. You only need to search in PHP and JavaScript files.
Here is the results I get:
I searched on the trunk version of WordPress. You would need to search on a local copy of the WordPress files on your web server.
This search indicates that only the
To urls that are local:
You can simply disable gravatars in
On technical side avatar links are produced by
Also note that whole function itself is pluggable, meaning it can be completely overridden by being redeclared in a plugin or theme:
By placing this function declaration in a plugin, the core
I can understand that you don't want to remove support for avatars entirely. In this case, I'd recommend using a plugin such as WP User Avatar or Simple Local Avatars. Those will allow your users to upload their own avatars to your WordPress site instead of using Gravatar.
The filter to disable the call to Gravatar.com completely is:


text:
The Key Supreme Court Case for the Mandate: 'U.S. v. Lee'
In a couple of recent posts (here and here), I tried to explicate the basic framework for looking at the bishops' religious freedom claims: United States v. Smith is the leading apposite Supreme Court case interpreting the Constitution, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the apposite federal law imposing additional restrictions on federal regulations in order to protect religious freedom. Lower courts and state courts may attempt to interpret and qualify those authoritative texts. But those interpretations and qualifications are not binding on the Supreme Court. So is there a Supreme Court opinion that is more directly on point--or as directly as can be, given no two situations are the same? I think there is: United States v. Lee.
Here's the summary:
Employer, a member of the Old Order Amish who employed several other Amish to work on his farm and in his carpentry shop, sued for refund of taxes, claiming that imposition of social security taxes violated his First Amendment free exercise rights and those of his Amish employees. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that statutes requiring employer to pay social security and unemployment insurance taxes were unconstitutional as applied, and direct appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Burger, held that: (1) exemption provided by statute for self-employed members of religious groups who oppose social security taxes is available only to self-employed individuals and does not apply to employers or employees, and thus Amish employer and his employees were not within exemption statute; (2) because payment of taxes or receipt of benefits violated Amish religious beliefs, compulsory participation in social security system interfered with their free exercise rights; but (3) religious belief in conflict with payment of taxes affords no basis for resisting tax imposed on employers to support social security system, which must be applied uniformly to all except as Congress provides explicitly otherwise.
So the key question about the mandate seems to me to be this: We know it is constitutionally permissible to make the Amish pay social security taxes for their employees, despite their belief that it is immoral to do so. Since this is the case, why is it constitutionally impermissible (OR impermissible under RFRA) to make Catholic organization pay for basic services that include contraception. (NB: I think that the promise of revised rules will make the connection of Catholic organizations to contraception far less direct than the contribution of the Amish to social security.)
But the broader question is this: Taking into account Lee, does Congress have a compelling interest in defining a basic benefit package that is available to all persons, irrespective of their religious belief, and that cannot be shot down--one benefit at a time--by employers on the basis of their religious objections? It's not just about contraception!
A couple of points: 1. United States v. Lee was decided under the old "compelling interest" test of Sherbert v. Verner. So its rule holds up under RFRA, not merely Smith. There have been some trial balloons floated to suggest that Smith plus its exceptions constitutes a more more stringent test than Sherbert or RFRA. I don't buy it--and I can't see the courts buying it, particularly in the case of big funding cases. 2. Money is money. And chaos is chaos. And chaos about money. . . well, that's not going to happen.
Here is the summary of the holding. Ask yourselves why the Court's reasons don't equally apply to the health care situation.
While there is a conflict between the Amish faith and the obligations imposed by the social security system, not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest. P. 1055.Widespread individual voluntary coverage under social security would undermine the soundness of the social security system, and would make such system almost a contradiction in terms and difficult, if not impossible, to administer. Pp. 1055-1056.
It would be difficult to accommodate the social security system with myriad exceptions flowing from a wide variety of religious beliefs such as the Amish. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15, distinguished. There is no principled way for purposes of this case to distinguish between general taxes and those imposed under the Social Security Act. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge it because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief. Because the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such a high order, religious belief in conflict with the payment of taxes affords no basis for resisting the tax. P. 1056.
Congress has accommodated, to the extent compatible with a comprehensive national program, the practices of those who believe it a violation of their faith to participate in the social security system. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees. The tax imposed on employers to support the social security system must be uniformly applicable to all, except as Congress explicitly provides otherwise. Pp. 1056-1057.
Casuists to your posts!
About the Author
Cathleen Kaveny is the Darald and Juliet Libby Professor in the Theology Department and Law School at Boston College.
58 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Thank you for this post. Although I am not a lawyer and have not researched these cases, it seems to be as good an apposite as exists. I'm sure some will argue that social security laws are of a different species than those regarding morality of contraception, but I still think your argument would prevail since , in my mind, they both are presented as moral arguments that touch on the core of a faith traditon and/or religious belief. (That leaves aside the dissent about HV's conclusions.) I am curious about how this was received in the Amish world and what their practices have been since then and how any of their authoritiy figures have dealt with this.This "fortnight" may bring these kinds of unintended consequences as scholars and so many of us others start to re-examine the issues and very likely are not in total accord with the bishops' panic. I am hopeful that that someone will write about the "selective conscientious objection" which was supported by the bishops documents, but as far as I know, has not ever been recognized by the state. I wonder if the bishops ae still willing to defend that religious liberty for military who joined freely, but find themselves in what they'd consider an unjust war though they are not pacifists.
Widespread individual voluntary coverage under social security would undermine the soundness of the social security system, and would make such system almost a contradiction in terms and difficult, if not impossible, to administer. This is an obvious distinction from the issue of contraceptive coverage -- it simply isn't true that leaving people to buy their own contraception (just as they buy their own food or housing, both of which are much more expensive) would undermine the soundness or administrability of anything whatsoever.
Cathy, Thanks for all of the very helpful posts on this. It seems to me that the the fact that the employees of many of the Catholic institutions in question may be non-adherents makes the Bishops case even worse than the Amish you describe here. Is this part of the judicial calculus, or is the court only considering the potential threat to the religious identity of the employer?
Stuart, I don't think it can be framed as just about contraception. The Church-of Zero-Population growth may want not to cover pregnancy! Eric, I think you are exactly right. The interests of the employees are very important to the Court. And the idea that you can just work somewhere else doesn't fly.
First of all, who cares? Why does it hurt me or anyone else if some people don't want pregnancy coverage?Second of all, maybe the issue goes even further, and some employers won't want to pay for even hugely important life-saving services. Well, then, perhaps judges, with all of their legal training and ingenuity, could figure out some sort of line-drawing exercise by which they could tell the difference between relatively cheap and insignificant services vs. expensive and life-saving services. Just for the sake of argument, let's call it a "balancing test." These are not unknown in the law, eh?
@Studebaker (4/17, 10:07 & 10:22 am) It may or may not hurt you if someone's insurance plan doesn't cover pregnancy because their employer claims a moral/religious objection because the employer is a faithful adherent of the Church-of-Zero-Population-Growth. But I think you'd agree that it *would* hurt an employee whose wife had a difficult pregnancy that required multiple hospitalizations, months of bed rest with home health care, and then a long, difficult and complicated delivery---all resulting in tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional medical bills to pay. Yes?
Well, Luke, that's why I would support the idea (floated by John Kerry, if I recall) to have the government pick up or heavily subsidize medical bills above a certain threshold. Why bring employers into it? But if employers are (because of ideological and political inertia) necessarily part of the "insurance" system, why be so rigid as Cathy suggests? I.e., she seems to think there should be no freedom whatsoever to opt out of even the most conscience-violating coverage, because otherwise-intelligent judges are completely incapacitated from making the sorts of distinctions that they make in every other area of the law (e.g., between drastic emergencies like you mention vs. trivial and routine expenses).
Well, Luke, thats why I would support the idea (floated by John Kerry, if I recall) to have the government pick up or heavily subsidize medical bills above a certain threshold. Why bring employers into it?Stuart,I don't understand how your support of government subsidizing medical bills above a certain threshold has any bearing on Luke Hill's point. I have heard some people claim that churches, charities, and the local community should take care of all people in need. It is a lovely idea, but it is only an idea, as is the idea of the government subsidizing medical bills above a certain threshold. I don't see what part alternative schemes that haven't a prayer of being enacted play in the debate over how healthcare should be delivered.
@Studebaker (4/17, 10:35 am) Thanks for the reply. It seems to me that Prof. Kaveny is merely looking at established constitutional law and the precedence laid out by previous Supreme Court decisions. If that seems "rigid", then it may say less about her and more about the current state of constitutional law.The larger point I'd make about the "religious/moral conviction" argument (aka, the "Taco Bell" exemption), is that it seems to be not only a slippery slope but a steep one as well.What's to stop an employer who has moral qualms about the use of alcohol from obtaining an exemption from alcohol-related medical expenses for her employees?Or an employer who has moral/religious objections to the consumption of meat from obtaining an exemption from covering treatment of diseases definitively linked to eating meat?Or treatment of lung cancer for smokers by an employer who object to smoking?Now, if those treatments get shunted onto the federal government somehow, those employers now have lower labor costs than their competitors, and thus a cost/price advantage in the marketplace. Wouldn't this likely lead to a situation in which large numbers, if not the vast majority, of employers quickly discover and articulate their "moral objections" to all sorts of behaviors that result in higher medical expenses?
"Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employers religious faith on the employees." It seems to me that a consistent undercurrent in all our threads on this topic area a question of moral imagination w.r.t. religious liberty. When you read the mandate, do you imagine yourself as employer or employee? The court, at least here, imagined itself in the shoes of the employee. Most anti-mandate folks (e.g. Studebaker's posts here and elsewhere,) assume the imaginary role of the employer, while pro-mandate folks tend to assume the imaginary role of employee. Another term for this is "solidarity." Or as the old union song went, "Which side are you on?"Love the posts on legal precedent. They're very helpful, and a great window into how members of the court may (one hopes!) be guided. Keep 'em coming, please!Oh, as to "Why bring employers into it?" I mourned the fall of the public option, but so went the congress. Obama held on to it as long as he could. Maybe the bishops, instead of railing about "religious liberty" in the very flawed way they have been, might instead become champions of the public option? Or do they only attack, never build up?
Professor Kaveny: I am not a lawyer by training. However, over my adult lifetime, I devoted a good deal of time and effort to teaching students how to write argumentative essays. With this background in argumentation, I will try my hand in developing a line of argumentation that might serve the present purposes of the Catholic bishops in the USCCB. I hope that my effort here is not too far afield from the work of casuists that you invited to join the exchange that you have initiated here.In a case known as Citizens United, the Supreme Court recently affirmed that as legal persons (a legal fiction, as it were) corporations have free-speech rights that should allow them to make certain kinds of political contributions.But not only Catholic dioceses but also most Catholic hospitals in the U.S. and most Catholic colleges and universities in the U.S. are legal corporations. As legal corporations, they are also legal persons (in the legal fiction about legal persons).In effect, each of these legal persons is individually a Catholic legal person. In a dotCOMMONWEAL thread started earlier by Grant Gallicho, I referred to these Catholic institutions as super-persons and said that the Catholic bishops would prefer to have these Catholic super-persons as super-supporters of official church teaching against artificial contraception. So in the present dotCOMMONWEAL thread I am now changing my terminology, so that instead of referring once again to these Catholic institutions as super-persons, I am now referring to them as legal persons, as I did in my response to Jack Barry in another thread on dotCOMMONWEAL that Professor Kaveny started earlier.Shouldn't each individual Catholic legal person have the rights of freedom of religion that are granted to each individual American citizen?If not, why not?Let me re-state this line of argument. If corporations as individual legal persons have free-speech rights in connection with political contributions, shouldn't individual Catholic legal persons as corporations have freedom-of-religion rights in connection with health insurance offered through the Catholic institutions?If not, why not?I hasten to explain that I do not necessarily agree with this line of argument.I have constructed this line of argument in the spirit of playing the Devil's Advocate, advocating in support of the Catholic bishops in the USCCB and their campaign regarding freedom of religion in connection with the Obama administration's contraceptive-coverage mandate.I have devoted a good deal of time and effort to teaching argumentation as pro-and-con debate, and I have worked out in my own mind how I might argue against the line of argument that I have set forth here, based on argumentation that I have read elsewhere regarding the contraception-coverage mandate.However, for the time being, I prefer to set forth only this line of argument in the hope that Professor Kaveny and others interested in the Catholic bishops' campaign regarding freedom of religion in connection with the Obama administration's contraception-coverage mandate might respond to it as they see fit to do so, if they see fit to do so. But perhaps this line of argument that I have set forth here is not even fit for a response.As I've suggested before, I think that Professor Kaveny should gather her observations and reflections together in a full-fledged essay to be published in COMMONWEAL, preferably more than a few weeks before July 4, 2012.
Lisa -- I imagine myself (and it takes little imagination, as it is reality) as an employee too. Why should I be forced to spend any part of my wages on an insurance package covering an absurd variety of items and services that I will never need, that make no sense as part of "insurance" in the first place, and that are covered only because of the simple-minded people in the world who think that anything labeled "healthcare" has some magical quality such that it has to be "covered by insurance" rather than paid for directly like everything else in life?
The Chicago Tribune ran a story this morning (George tries to clarify bishops' opposition to health care rule) quoting Cardinal George. "The issue is more than religious freedom, George said. It's 'theft of identity,' he said. But most importantly, the cardinal said, the legislation highlights a growing cultural conundrum. 'What is the place of church in society that is secularizing itself very, very rapidly?' he said. 'if the use of religious pluralism is to remove all religious institutions from public life, it's going to be a very different society than what we have now.'"Theft of identity? A society that is rapidly secularizing itself? The use of religious pluralism to remove all religious institutions from public life? Really??? This is the war theyre fighting and it has very little to do with the issue thats actually out there in reality-- the one about whether the state can say that certain rights of employees trump other rights of employers. I dont think the bishops have any desire engage this fairly specific and complex balancing act. If they did, one or two of them might actually be engaging in debate on the points Prof. Kaveny and others have raised. But they dont. They just want to ramble on. They get to stand up for something, it gets them press that isnt about sexual abuse, and they get to think theyre being prophetic.
Put another way, you're imagining yourself as the employee who wants to get free stuff (even if it's cheap to begin with). Fine, but there are other employees that you're most certainly not sympathizing with: those who don't want the "free" stuff as part of their wages.
Agree, Jeanne.It might be a good time for bishops of other denominations to speak up and demand religious liberty. E.g., the Mormons have been prevented by law for over a century from practicing polygamy. Why? It's waaay past time to end that idiotic and unjust discrimination and let them enjoy on earth what they will enjoy in heaven.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/politics&id=8590227The Bishop of Raleigh criticizes the President of the United States for opposing an amendment to the state's constitution meant to enshrine discrimination against one group of taxpayers. (Gays.)
Lisa Fullman,In Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 603-05 (1983), the Courts decision reflects a distinction between an individuals religious beliefs those of an an employer (generally the individual gets the better deal). However, in Bob Jones the Court ruled that racial discrimination by colleges and universities based on religious beliefs allowed the government to deny federal tax benefits even though "Denial of tax benefits will inevitably have a substantial impact on the operation of private religious schools, but will not prevent those schools from observing their religious tenets.
The IRS site has a form http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdf that allows members of religious groups conscientiously opposed to insurance to request exemption from Social Security and Medicare taxes. If both employee and employer have obtained an exemption no Social Security or Medicare taxes are due.For the Amish, as I understand it, the issue was that Social Security payments were kept separate and intended to support "Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance", and for a number of reasons the Amish and some other Anabaptist groups find the concept of buying insurance morally objectionable. Other taxes they pay.
Ann Y, that is a good point. Congress CAN do this, but it doesn't HAVE to do it as a matter of a FIRST AMENDMENT obligation as understood by the Court.And of course, not all employees of Catholic institutions are Catholic.
I want to thank Cathy for her excellent work in helping us understand the legal issues in play here (as well as others who've talked about related legal findings.)I think the issues of religius liberty and contraception before the law are thorny.What happens legally wil be said to be justice.As I've read this and the related threads here, I though tabout the excellent NYT magazine piece i read about Robert caro Sunday and how struggles like this and the other major issues of the day are really about power and its use.And I think that's the case here: no matter what legally happrns, I continue to think the leadership of the uS Church's approach is about power. The Cardinal George statement just cited reinforced that with me.Unfortunately, when I look at the doings in Philly evealed or the silencing of priests in ireland, I am convinced that power is a major factor motivatiung our church's leaders. I thought also about the Pauline Palm Sunday reading that we have the mind in us of Jesus who was not about power .I'm convinced that whether USCCB wins or loses this battle -and that is what they have made it - there is a deep wound at hthe heart of my Church bleeding from the need to assert one's self.I find their gospel message to be "it's all about us" and I think that very sad.
By blaming the secularization of the country on the U. S. government, Cdl. George gets the RCC hierarchy off the hook for its role in the shrinking of the Catholic Church. It's not the politicians' secularizing the country that is a simple cause of the losses, it's in large measure the Church's inadequate leadership of the Church that's doing it. Consider, for instance: it was Cdl. George himself who as late as 2006 moved that known pervert priest around, not Barack Obama.
Put another way, youre imagining yourself as the employee who wants to get free stuff (even if its cheap to begin with). Studebaker,Just a reminder that when employer-provided insurance pays for something, even if no co-pay is required, it is not "free." Things you work for are not free. Salaries are not free money, and benefits are not free, either. Also, most workers pay part of the cost of their insurance coverage. In 2011, the average monthly worker contributions were $77 for single coverage and $344 for family coverage.
Cathleen, Is it not a key difference that in this case we are talking about an actual tax, whereby the Government, in turn, provides a service (Social Security.) In the Mandate, there is no 'tax,' but rather an organization with standing to claim a conscientious objection it being required to buy from another private entity a service (contraceptive insurance) that it finds objectionable?
Cathy,I'm not a lawyer. That said, I'm not sure this is an apposite case because it involves the collection of taxes. Taxes are the lifeblood of the government; no government can exist without the authority to collect taxes. How those taxes are spent can never be a direct religious issue for any number of reasons, but primarily because once it enters the governments hands it is out of the taxpayers direct control and hence responsibility.The HHS mandate however does not involve the collection of taxes but rather the forced provision of particular service. That means, the religious institution is being coerced to act in direct contravention to its conscience. In my judgment, that is a much different situation for both the government and the citizen involved than the payment of taxes.Two other points: First, even the case you cite shows the difference between taxes and this situation since the Amish had to first pay the tax and then sue for a refund while many suits are progressing against the ACA. And second, almost every article I've read suggests that the provision of contraceptive services directly by the government and funded through taxes would present no first amendment issues.
Most anti-mandate folks (e.g. Studebakers posts here and elsewhere,) assume the imaginary role of the employer, while pro-mandate folks tend to assume the imaginary role of employeeLisa,I disagree with this proposition. There is only one role being coerced in the HHS mandate, the employer: he must provide something. Even if the mandate is imposed, the employee can readily procure the contraceptive services away from the insurance policy. This remains true whether I view myself as the employer or employee.That said, some posters have expressed the erroneous logic that an employer who does not provide contraceptive services is somehow infringing on them. As long as contraceptive services are freely available in the marketplace, which they now are, that is patently false. The only fact is that the price is different for the employee, not a 'rights' issue.
Gerelyn @ 1201 pm: I made a similar argument in a recent issue of the house organ of the Diocese of Oakland, CA (http://www.catholicvoiceoakland.org/2012/03-26/forumlet.htm) and here is the house response to that:Editor's note: "The right to freedom of conscience and, in a special way, to religious freedom taught in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae of the Second Vatican Council is based on the dignity of the human person and not on a non-existent equality among religions or cultural systems of human creation. Paul VI taught that 'in no way does the Council base this right to religious freedom on the fact that all religions and all teachings, including those that are erroneous, would have more or less equal value; it is based rather on the dignity of the human person, which demands that he not be subjected to external limitations which tend to constrain the conscience in its search for the true religion or in adhering to it.'" Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life," CDF (Doctrine of the Faith), 2002: No. 8.]
jbruns and Bruce,Although the details of the mandate haven't been written yet, you both inaccurately (in my opinion) describe religious organizations being forced to provide something. But they are not. If they provide third-party insurance, the insurance company may offer to provide contraceptive coverage to individual employees who may choose to accept it or not. It is assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the employer will pay nothing extra whether or not its employees opt for contraceptive coverage. For the self-insured, there are a number of proposed ways for finding funds to pay for the coverage so that the self-insured organization will not have to bear any of the costs. People may believe that the "accommodation" does not put enough distance between the religious employer and the ability of the employee to get contraceptive coverage, but I don't see that the religious employer is being forced to do provide anything.
Yes, David, you're not disagreeing with me: as I said, pro-mandate people are naive enough to think that anything insurance covers is "free."
David, I'm failing to see the distinction. The employer, granted, does have a choice: either offer a health insurance package that includes free contraceptive coverage to those individuals who wish to use those services, or to pay a fine and offer no health insurance benefit. My earlier statement assumed an understanding of that technicality, or are you saying that this statement also is not correct? BTW, I have no problem with the mandate per se.
Jimmy, your letter was great. (I was hoping someone here would bring up the matter of female genital mutilation in the Religious Freedom and Muslims thread, but no one did that I'm aware of.)The editor's answer expresses the bishops' position perfectly, imho. ------------I wonder if Catholic bishops approve of Amish bishops who permit "dentists" to pull all the teeth out of the mouths of girls and women who fail to observe various rules. http://www.amishabuse.com/DanPadden.htm
David,I think you are inaccurately describing the mandate. Without the policy, there is no 'offer' of contraceptive service, ergo the employer is providing it. And there is no 'may'; it 'must' be offered. Thats the issue. The cost is an irrelevant distraction: the bishops complaint of religious freedom would be valid even if providing the service reduced the cost of the entire policy by half, or any other amount. Money does not equal morality.
Gerelyn, Shall we say the Church's position on Religious Freedom is evolving?"Pope Pius IX made the point in no uncertain terms in 1846 in his encyclical Quanta cura and the accompanying Syllabus of Errors: "The state must recognize [the Catholic Church] as supreme and submit to its influence. . . . The power of the state must be at its disposal and all who do not conform to its requirements must be compelled or punished. . . . Freedom of conscience and cult is madness." (R. J. McClory)In other words, the State must support freedom to practice religion...as long as it is the Catholic religion.
Bruce,Suppose an alternative plan is offered. Say, the government will provide contraceptive coverage to anyone who has insurance. Or, say, the government will provide contraceptive coverage to anyone who has a job. Would you then argue that religious organizations were "forced" to provide contraceptive coverage, because if they provided insurance, their insured employees could then get contraceptive insurance from the government? Or would you say if government-provided contraceptive insurance were provided to everyone who has a job, religious organizations would be forced to say they could no longer hire people, because by doing so they would be enabling them to get contraceptive insurance?
Ask yourselves why the Courts reasons dont equally apply to the health care situation.Simple: "The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest."Identify the overriding governmental interest. I guarantee in advance that the overriding governmental interest driving the larger healthcare reforms is going to be too broad to allow one to say with a straight face that requiring contraceptive coverage, sans religious exemptions, is "essential" to accomplishing that interest.Someone above also pointed out that administrability won't be a concern here, like it very much would be under exemptions to paying into Social Security. Now, if the government set up single-payer and provided contraceptive coverage, and the bishops complained then that they were being forced to pay for something they regard as immoral, they would lose for the reasons cited in Lee. But that's not what the government has done. And yes, it very much matters how the government tries to do things, so arguments akin to, "What, they could do it themselves, but they can't mandate that it be done?" fail. Finally, people are ignoring the incredibly narrow definition of religious employers in the mandate. That's what the bishops are addressing when they talk about an attack on "identity."
Further to what DN says above. Say that religious institutions are exempted from providing or making available any kind of contraceptive coverage. How will they prevent the salaries/wages that they pay to their employees from being spent on contraceptives? Whether they provide it/make it available via a benefits program or direct pay, "their" money will go for contraceptives.
David Nickol and Jimmy Mac:Part of the problem is that's not what's happening here. Those would be different situations calling for a different response. The facts, it turns out, matter. There's not a single principle you can apply and get obvious results for every situation. Each one differs. Not because the teaching about contraception changes, but because the moral calculus is sensitive to context. By paying taxes, you fund the government. By funding the government, you indirectly fund the health insurance plans that government provides as part of its benefit packages for federal employees. Some of those health insurance plans surely include contraceptive coverage. No one is trying to change that, as far as I can tell, and no one is complaining that their tax dollars are funding contraceptive coverage for people. Hypocrisy! No, the circumstances changed in enough morally relevant ways to make the outcome of our evaluation change.
Here's the form oyu have to fill out to be exempt from paying Social Security and Medicare taxes because of our religios beliefs: Several things are worth noting from the fom:1. Simple religious objection will not get you an exemption. Your must belong to a:"religious group ...recognized as being in existence continuously since December 31, 1950, as providing a reasonable level of living for its dependent members, and as being conscientiously opposed to public or private insurance."A representative of he religious group must sign the form and a representative of Social Security must confirm that the group does actually provide medical care and elder care for its members. The form requires you to give up all right to receive those from the government. 2. The exemption only covers situations where both the employer and he employee are exempt. If an exempt Amish employer hires an English (non-Amish) employee, the employer must pay both the employer's and employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes to the IRS. 3. Similarly for an Amish employee of an English or non-exempt Amish employer. The employer must deduct the employee's share of taxes and pay them to the IRS. The core of this special exemption for Old Order Amish and some other groups is that they really do have thir own private system of providing adequate health and old age assistance to thir members. At the time of Lee, the only exemption was for self-employed workers and Lee was guilty of not witholding from his employees and paying over the taxes to the IRS.
Whether they provide it/make it available via a benefits program or direct pay, their money will go for contraceptives.The involvement of the employer matters, doesn't it Jimmy? Imagine two situations: 1. An employee is paid with money, and out of his free will, choose to buy a gun. Is the employer responsible for the gun? 2. An employee is paid partly with money, and partly with a yearly voucher good for one "free" gun. If the employee does, in fact, use the free gun voucher to get a gun, is the employer perhaps a wee bit more involved than in the first scenario? (Note: it doesn't matter whether the gun cost the employer anything or whether the gun really was somehow "free" to the employer -- the voucher is still something that the employee got access to only through the employment arrangement.)
The beginning should have read:Heres the form you have to fill out to be exempt from paying Social Security and Medicare taxes because of your religious beliefs:http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdfSeveral things are worth noting from the form:
Part of the problem is thats not whats happening here.Anonsters,The question is . . . Exactly what is happening here? Part of the problem for those objecting to the contraceptive mandate is that it can't be said exactly what is happening, because the new rule has yet to be written. So I would ask you and Bruce to explain exactly what you object to. It is not, it seems to me, that religious organizations are being "forced" to do anything. Perhaps we can say that they are being put in a situation where, if they do something they want to do (provide employees with insurance coverage), something they object to will happen (some employees will get coverage of contraception). For some people, the difference between being forced to do something, on the one hand, and having the undesired thing happen as a consequence of what is done voluntarily, on the other, is not enough of a difference to matter. But there is a difference. I don't think one needs to apologize for using analogies to get at how the two things are different. No analogy is perfect, but my analogies are trying to get at the distinction between being forced to do something, and being in a position where if you do one thing, another thing will follow.
Imagine another situation: One in which actual Catholic moral theology was used by bishops, or their defenders, to explain how it is that the proposed accommodation violates Catholic moral principles.
To add to Professor Kaveny's quotes from Lee:"To maintain an organized society that guarantees religious freedom to a great variety of faiths requires that some religious practices yield to the common good. Religious beliefs can be accommodated, see, e.g., Thomas, supra; Sherbert, supra, but there is a point at which accommodation would "radically restrict the operating latitude of the legislature." Braunfeld, supra, at 366 U. S. 606. [Footnote 10]"FROM JUSTICE STEVENS CONCURRING OPINION"The clash between appellee's religious obligation and his civic obligation is irreconcilable. He must violate either an Amish belief or a federal statute. According to the Court, the religious duty must prevail unless the Government shows that enforcement of the civic duty "is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest." Ante at 455 U. S. 257-258. That formulation of the constitutional standard suggests that the Government always bears a heavy burden of justifying the application of neutral general laws to individual conscientious objectors. In my opinion, it is the objector who must shoulder the burden of demonstrating that there is a unique reason for allowing him a special exemption from a valid law of general applicability.""The Court's analysis supports a holding that there is virtually no room for a "constitutionally required exemption" on religious grounds from a valid tax law that is entirely neutral in its general application. [Footnote 2/3] Because I agree with that holding, I concur in the judgment."
David,Your analogies all fail. They fail for the simple reason that the government is not the actor here; if it were it would be a different story. Your analogies basically assume a government program with certain criteria to qualify. That is not what is happening here; there is no government program, there is a government requirement. Programs and requirements are different. You are partly correct that the employers are not forced to offer insurance. However, the economic coercion is quite substantial. Its a $2000 penalty for every employee if no insurance is offered PLUS the employees income tax due on the money that would be used for insurance. In other words, if we assume that labor prices are roughly fair across employers before the mandate, then an employer who refuses to be co-opted by the government requirement must provide its employees the same dollar value of the medical benefits but with after-tax dollars making it (1/(1-tr) higher cost plus the 2000 penalty. Practically, many of these employers are likely faced with providing a medical policy which will have contraception attached or going out-of-business.And while you and Grant seem to continue to disagree, if there is no employer policy, then the employer is not involved in providing contraceptive services. If there is an employer policy, then the services are available. That makes it very obvious to me that the employer is involved regardless of the HHS subterfuges. The official church position is that contraception, sterilization and abortifacients are immoral. And the bishops believe the cooperation is material enough for culpability to attach.We can analogize and imagine all we want, but facts are stubborn.
Grant -- even you seemed to think, at least for a while, that the original rule was an infringement on religious liberty. The "accommodation" is not economically or morally different from the original rule. Perhaps, then, you could revisit whatever reasoning convinced you in the first place.
David Nickol:You come very close, in my opinion, to nailing it when you say: Perhaps we can say that they are being put in a situation where, if they do something they want to do (provide employees with insurance coverage), something they object to will happen (some employees will get coverage of contraception).Except that in my view it's not the case that providing employees with insurance coverage (that doesn't contain coverage for things the Church considers to be morally wrong) is "something they want to do." Rather, it's something their religion commands them to do. Providing employees with insurance is a part of treating your employee with the dignity they possess as a human being and is a part of running a morally responsible business.But even if it weren't, the mandate also penalizes with fines employers who do not provide health insurance to their employees.
But even if it werent, the mandate also penalizes with fines employers who do not provide health insurance to their employees.Anonsters,The "penalty" for not providing employees with insurance is far less than the cost of providing insurance. One of the criticisms of "ObamaCare" is that it will result in employers ceasing to provide health insurance to their employees because it will be to their advantage to do so.
The official church position is that contraception, sterilization and abortifacients are immoral. And the bishops believe the cooperation is material enough for culpability to attach.Bruce,I have not read such an argument by the bishops, could you please tell me where I can find it? One of the problems with that argument is that many Catholic organizations (and at least one entire diocese) have already complied with state requirements. Are the bishops arguing those who comply with a state or federal mandate are doing evil?
Hi, Cathy. Thanks for the post. I thought to add one possible distinction with Lee. In Lee, the Court actually found that the required payment of SS benefits was a substantial burden on the Amish. It simply found that the state could nevertheless satisfy strict scrutiny, because of the "comprehensive national program" (in your quote above) represented by social security and the collapse of the system should exemptions begin to be granted to it. But a possible difference between social security and the health care reform law is that the latter does not create such a comprehensive program (we don't have a socialized or universal system) -- there are many ways to purchase insurance, some private, some by alternative methods which have been -- or could be -- created by legislative or administrative action, and in other ways. So an important difference from Lee is that granting an exemption to the HHS regulation here would not result in the sort of systemic collapse that would have (in the Court's view) resulted in Lee, such that the system "could not function" if exemptions were granted. By extension, I also think that the last part of the strict scrutiny test -- whether there are less restrictive means for the government to achieve its interest in ensuring that all employees have access to contraception -- will be difficult for the government to satisfy.Marc
Identify the overriding governmental interest. Setting a minimum standard for health insurance that applies across the board and that any health insurance consumer can thus be assured of getting. Government sets minimum standards for products all the time.
Studebaker: "2. An employee is paid partly with money, and partly with a yearly voucher good for one free gun. If the employee does, in fact, use the free gun voucher to get a gun, is the employer perhaps a wee bit more involved than in the first scenario? "Except in this case, it's a bit more like the yearly voucher is good for one free product from Wal-Mart, and the employee chooses to buy a gun with it. I wouldn't consider the employer involved in that decision at all.
Studebaker: you, then, are quibbling over means, not the end. Sort of smacks of Pilate washing his hands.Is it not the end that this church finds so very heinous?
Jen Roth:The government could easily require insurance providers to provide a minimum baseline of coverage, without requiring anyone to purchase such minimum coverage.
David,Here is an article with which discuss the cooperation and points to a number of different views.http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4817There are numerous state requirements and multiple effected entities. I'm certainly not in a position to judge them. That said, it is possible that some of them made the incorrect choice. My question to you is: once made, does the church get a chance to change to a better choice?
Anonster: Without requiring people to buy insurance, other important aspects of the ACA, such as the requirement for insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions, would be unworkable.
Jen:Mr. Farr, the lawyer appointed by the Supreme Court to defend the court below's holding on severability, made a pretty powerful argument that that's false.
If there's a way to retain the pro-consumer reforms in the ACA and solve the free-rider problem without the individual mandate, I'm fine with that. I have no ideological commitment to it at all. However, supposing that's true and the individual mandate is not necessary, that still does not resolve the question of whether it is proper for the government to set a minimum standard for insurance and what to do when employers wish to provide insurance for their employees that does not meet that standard.
I think the solution is rather simple: if the government wants to ensure minimum standards that have to be met for provision of insurance, they should set up single-payer and run the program themselves. The system of employer-provided health insurance is about as insane as it gets. Why on earth should something as important as healthcare have any connection at all to your employer?
Cathy: Further to Marc's comment above (and as I noted in an earlier comment to one of your posts on Smith), I should think that the creation of a range of exceptions *already* in the ACA, including coverage for preventative services, puts the HHS mandate in a much worse position on the narrow tailoring prong of strict scrutiny (to which the HHS mandate will be subject under RFRA). If the collection of Social Security taxes were subject to a set of exceptions (which the Court in Lee went to great lengths to note is not the case), then Lee would be a powerful case for the government. But the ACA has already been subject to a broad set of waivers from HHS for such things as mini-med plans, and even the preventative services mandate includes a religious exemption, albeit a narrow one. And once the government starts granting some exemptions but denying others (depending, of course, on the grounds for the exemptions), it becomes extraordinarily difficult to satisfy narrow tailoring (see the Washington pharmacist case for just one recent example). So when you ask "[t]aking into account Lee, does Congress have a compelling interest in defining a basic benefit package that is available to all persons, irrespective of their religious belief, and that cannot be shot downone benefit at a timeby employers on the basis of their religious objections?," that only addresses one prong (compelling interest) of strict scutiny and neglects to give due place to the problems for narrow tailoring of the statutory and administrative exemptions already in the ACA. Mike

subset: commoncrawl


text:
FOLLANSBEE - A Follansbee native will appear on tonight's episode of "Blue Bloods," the latest of her many appearances on television and on stage.
The show, which will air at 10 p.m. on KDKA-TV and WTRF-TV, involves an Irish-American family all involved in law enforcement.
It's shot in New York City, where Dana Cuomo, daughter of Frank and Sharon Cuomo of Follansbee, lives and works as an actress.
Article Photos
The 1992 Brooke High School graduate also has appeared in "Desparate Housewives," "CSI: New York," "CSI: Miami," "Gossip Girl" and "My Name is Earl," among many other series.
For the episode of "Blue Bloods," she plays a woman who seeks the help of Donnie Wahlberg's police detective character after her husband is arrested. She said working with Wahlberg was fun because as a teen she was a big fan of New Kids on the Block, the singing group of which Wahlberg was a member in the late 1980s and early '90s.
Cuomo said actors in one-hour television shows put in many hours a day while shooting but Wahlberg was energetic throughout the filming.
She added, "He could not have been nicer. He's just really professional."
Asked if she worked with or met Tom Selleck, who plays the family's patriarch, she said, "Everyone has asked me that, but no, unfortunately."
Cuomo also had a small role on "Days of Our Lives," which she said, "was like a dream come true because I grew up watching it."
She said the work of soap opera actors is challenging because they tape many episodes in a day and have many lines to learn.
But that's not a major problem for Cuomo, who appeared in "Bad Dates," a 95-minute one-woman play that ran for five weeks at the Good Theater in Portland, Maine, in 2011.
"I love theater because it involves so much and it's live. It keeps you on your toes," Cuomo said.
Cuomo said like many starting actresses she's paying her dues by appearing in a number of commercials. Viewers may have seen her in a Net10 Wireless commercial in which she and another actor play the parents of a young girl pressuring them to switch wireless plans.
Internet surfers also can find Cuomo and a friend in "Wake Up, It's Tuesday," an online series that parodies live morning talk shows in the vein of "Live with Regis and Kelly." The series, which features characters created by Cuomo and Adam Kulbersh and James Van Der Beek and Matthew Lillard and others as real-life guests, can be found at www.wakeupitstuesday.com.
When not acting, Cuomo works as a private acting coach for teens.
"I love teaching," said Cuomo, whose mother is a retired Brooke County schools English teacher.
She began teaching acting to teens at a school in Los Angeles while living and acting there.
"I moved to the East Coast so I could be closer to my family," she said.
Cuomo's father and brother, Frank and Jason, are local attorneys, and she earned a law degree at West Virginia University after studying broadcasting at Westminster College in New Wilmington, Pa.
But acting has always been her dream, said Cuomo, who recalled writing skits for her and her friends to perform as a child.
"It was always something I wanted to do," she said.
Cuomo said her family always has supported her and wants to know whenever she is appearing on television, in films or in a play.
Asked about future goals, she said starring in a television series offers some security, and it would be fun to appear in a dramedy, a genre that mixes drama and comedy and has become popular through such shows as "30 Rock" and "Modern Family."
Her interest in both drama and comedy is revealed through her list of favorite actors, including Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Carol Burnett, Lucille Ball and Tom Hanks.
(Scott can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com)


text:
Castleton Wingtip
Item #
Special Offer:
Select Size
Select Width
Loading Recommendations
Jump To:
The Castleton Wingtip is a stylish dress casual shoe that is perfect for casual Fridays at the office or a night out with the guys. This men's wingtip shoe utilizes full grain leathers that provide a unique and stylish look. In addition, the combination of an EVA footbed and ADIPRENE® by adidas sport technology yield a supremely comfortable casual dress shoe. A detailed leather sole helps provide a design that is sophisticated and easy to dress up or dress down. Style made comfortable from day to night.
- ADIPRENE® by adidas sport technology for all day comfort with shock absorption in the heel.
- EVA footbed is lightweight and cushions to help conform to the foot for a personalized fit
- A leather sole with a rubber walking surface helps provide sophisticated styling, as well as shock absorption, durability, and flexibility
- Full grain leather is easy to clean and maintain to extend product life
Highly shock-absorbent cushioning protects the heel at impact
Castleton Wingtip is rated out of 5 by 10.
Rated 3 out of 5 by d6737 from new is not better I have worn out three pair of the old design wingtips Dressports and this one seemed to be the same; however, the rubber sole is not quite half the thickness of the others I bought. In fairness, I have only been able to wear them around the house for a few days but I can already tell they are not as comfortable as the other, no longer available, style shoe in which I could walk all day.. Too bad, as I said, new is not always better. And, the tongue on the right shoe digs into the top of my foot -- maybe just needs b breaking in. Maybe time will tell but I will not take them on a trip where I plan to walk a lot. Will take my last, almost worn out Dressport and hope it continues to last
Date published: 2013-12-24
Rated 4 out of 5 by RSC1 from Great look and feel Very comfortable walking shoe. Just got back from a "walking vacation" in a couple of big cities. Walked 6 to 8 miles per day in these shoes after only owning them a few weeks. Virtually no break in time. They are delivering the usual great Rockport service. They do tend to run a bit wide which can be an issue if you have narrow feet. They look great with jeans and khakis.
Date published: 2013-11-10
Rated 5 out of 5 by mentula from Sharp! I purchased these right before Christmas. They look sharp (I bought the blue) and are really comfortable. These are only my second pair of Rockports (the first was a pair of awesome boots), and I continue to be very pleased with the comfort and quality.
Date published: 2014-01-08
Rated 5 out of 5 by biggregg53 from Confortable fit I've bought several pairs of Rock-port shoes in the past and I found them to good fit for my feet and long lasting instead of buying several shoes last they look good nice arch wears well on my feet if I could every pair I buy would be "ROCKPORTS"
Date published: 2014-01-04
Rated 5 out of 5 by ESB1 from The Perfect Shoe I bought these shoes in brown and liked them so much, I went back and bought black as well. I had a stroke a few years ago so my feet give me lots of pain; these are the perfect most comfortable shoe I have found...thank you Rockport!!
Date published: 2014-01-03
Rated 5 out of 5 by RobatComcast from Comfort Was worried about buying on line since w wear orthotics in my shoes. However the fit was perfect and they're the most comfortable shoes I now own. I've received many compliments on the style.
Date published: 2014-01-03
Rated 5 out of 5 by kms1 from These are my favorite shoes for now. I was looking for something of classic, but not too classic, very good quality and not over priced. I got exactly what I wanted with this pair. It's my 6th pair with Rockport.
Date published: 2013-12-20
Rated 3 out of 5 by zoomie76 from Could be more stylish This shoe is very comfortable and upportive for a long day of wearing. A bit disappointed that it doesnt look as good and stylish as in photos
Date published: 2014-01-04


text:
Strictly For Kids Deluxe Explorer 10 Preschool Loft, 94''h, 52''h deck (School Age shown, Loft only, furniture not included)
Product Description
Strictly For Kids Deluxe Explorer 10 Preschool Loft. This super deluxe loft is the perfect solution to add a lot of space to your environment without undergoing a construction project. Includes 2-book display panels, 1-mirror, 2-bubble panels, steps with handrail and fully carpeted (not shown). Designed to fit into a corner, with unbreakable Lexan windows throughout for visibility. Contact us for free customization. 157''w x 147''d x 94''h, 52''h deck, 49''h head clearance. Easily assembles in 2 to 2-1/2 hours. Lifetime warranty.
Made Of / Made In
Mainstream Quality features mainly Baltic Birch plywood. Solid maple on the legs of many products such as tables and lofts are used. There are no pressboard, fiberboard, pegboard, corrugated plastic, masonite or inferior, low grade materials. Joints are attached using dado, glue and clamps to ensure wood bonding, joint stability and durability. Furniture brads, screws, bolts and/or dowels are used to ensure safety and durability. All corners are masterfully sanded and rounded. At least 3 coats of Ultra Gloss finish is used - hand sanded between coats. This results in thick, luxurious, extremely tough and scratch resistant surface. The Mainstream is backed by the best-in-the-business Out of the Box Lifetime Guarantee.
Deluxe Quality is a stronger, more elegant version of its Mainstream counterpart. The Deluxe features mostly harder woods like maple - showcasing the natural and timeless beauty of wood grain. Along with the same exceptional manufacturing care as the Mainstream products, the Deluxe features higher-end materials like bolts and higher end surface tops. There are at least five coats of high-gloss finish to ensure looking new for decades.
In addition, the Deluxe has numerous aesthetic and quality enhancements such as specialty hardware (pulls and knobs) and rounded maple trims (Mainstream has rounded plywood trims). In sum, the Deluxe Quality represents the highest level of safety, strength, durability, and beauty in the classroom furniture and playground equipment industry. No other line of childrens furniture comes even close. The Deluxe is backed by the best-in-the-business Out of the Box Lifetime Guarantee. Buy it once, but it for a lifetime.
Made with pride in the USA.
Strictly For Kids is a premier manufacturer of high-quality classroom furniture and playground equipment built to last for decades. At the core of its business model is the creation of products that are unrivaled in their safety, durability, and beauty. This ensures a long-term relationship with its clients based on trust and an understanding of the school's greater programmatic goals - to advance children educationally in a world-class setting. That is, a school's investment in quality, timeless products allows programs to focus on curriculum and professional development rather than in the replacement of furniture and equipment every four or five years. Buy it once, buy it for a lifetime.
Strictly For Kids is located in Tacoma, WA. It employs a cadre of master woodworkers who consult with teachers and other child specialists in designing child-centric, developmentally-appropriate, and exceptionally-safe classroom furniture and playground equipment.


text:
Anarchafeminist Hackerhive
From Noisebridge
(Difference between revisions)
(→External links and resources)
(→External links and resources)
|Line 25:
|Line 25:
=== External links and resources ===
=== External links and resources ===
* [FERT F.E.R.T.] Feminist Emergency Response Team.
* [FERTF.E.R.T.] Feminist Emergency Response Team.
* [http://ragdublin.blogspot.com Revolutionary Anarchafeminist Group], Dublin
* [http://ragdublin.blogspot.com Revolutionary Anarchafeminist Group], Dublin
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism Anarcha-feminism] - wikipedia entry
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism Anarcha-feminism] - wikipedia entry
Revision as of 12:03, 13 March 2013
A meeting for women and non-male people to talk with each other about computer stuff.
At Noisebridge, we've been meeting in the library on Wednesdays from 6pm till whenever (usually at least 8 or 9). If you're in another city and want to be on the mailing list, you are welcome too!
Mailing list: http://lists.feministhackers.org/listinfo.cgi/hive-feministhackers.org
- Hacking * Making * Lulz * Antiracism * Feminisms * Womanisms * Empowerment * Action * Mischief * Activism * Coding * Decolonization * Survival * Trolling * Solidarity * Cake * Meetups * Fun * And More!
- For women and people who identify or have identified significantly as non-male.
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.com
Hive stuff
- Hive Moots - Meetups. What we've talked about and what we're doing
- Hackerhive Points of Unity - in progress
- What do you mean by Feminist Hacker or hacker feminist?
- What about the anarchafeminist part of this?
- (Short answer, many of us so far aren't too strongly "anarchists" but appear to enjoy non-hierarchical nature of Noisebridge and the group)
- [Feminist hackers github] - a group for projects
- [hive bitbucket] - we have just moved to bitbucket! ask on irc or the list to be added
- Feminist hacker images - artwork, logos, and so on.
External links and resources
- [FERT|F.E.R.T.] Feminist Emergency Response Team.
- Revolutionary Anarchafeminist Group, Dublin
- Anarcha-feminism - wikipedia entry
- Hacker ethic - food for thought
- Women Who Code - SF women's meetups
- #geekfeminism IRC channel on freenode


text:
Directions to Hotel Green Forum-BucharestAddress: Str. Pictor Barbu Iscovescu 19, Sector 1, Str. Pictor Barbu Iscovescu 19, Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania
Average rating: 0%
Rooms from: US$ 101.29
Directions to Hotel Green Forum-Bucharest
The Green Forum is conveniently located in the up-market part of Bucharest, also referred to as the Primaverii Quarter, very close to the Herastrau Park and the business and financial district. It is serviced by a local underground station (Aviatorilor) with buses running only a few minutes walk from the hotel. Transports by Bus line are: 783, 131, 282, 301, 331, 335 Subway: Aviatorilor


text:
What does the rule that "Scripture interprets Scripture" mean and where does it fit into a larger picture of the field of hermeneutics? What hermeneutical approaches use this as a guiding principle?
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
It simply means that the scriptures must harmonize. The orthodox Christian view of the Bible is that it is not in error and does not contradict itself. Therefore when trying to examine one passage we must approach it with an eye to what the whole Bible says about that topic. For example, let's take divorce.
Jesus said,
While this is certainly clear from a plain reading, this is a controversial topic. You wouldn't see that from here, would you? When we look at what the Bible says about divorce in other places you can see why there is a dispute within the church on the topic.
This example is good because we can see a place where Jesus actually gives commentary and builds upon the OT. The key to this idea of "scripture interpreting scripture" is that you cannot look at one passage or verse in a vacuum. To earnestly understand what the Bible (and therefore God) says on a subject we must look at the whole of the book.
In short:
Sola Scriptura/Regula Fidei
The idea behind Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is complete and sufficient for all knowledge of salvation and holiness. From this doctrine, the Bible should be used for judging faith and soundness of doctrine and practices; it is, therefore, the "Rule of Faith", or measure by which we judge something.
Scripture interprets Scripture
From this idea that scripture alone was sufficient came the idea that we should interpret scripture using other scripture. Since the Bible alone was the sole measure for judging faith and practice, it should be used as a measure to understand other parts of scripture.
As a Hermeneutic Approach
As a hermeneutic approach, "Scripture interprets Scripture" is the idea that we should read a passage in the light of the entire Bible. It also states that we should interpret confusing passages based on clear passages.
"Scripture interprets Scripture" is, in itself, a hermeneutic approach. However, it's also a mind-set used by other hermeneutic approaches.
Other Hermeneutic Approaches
This idea that scripture can be used to gain insight into other passages in the Bible is found through many hermeneutic approaches.
Sensus Plenior is one example that uses "Scripture interprets Scripture" as a general guiding rule. Theological Analysis is a technique that shows that theology must harmonize throughout all the scriptures (so that one small passage doesn't create doctrine).
The idea that we can use scripture to interpret other scripture is a common theme throughout Hermeneutics. From the perspective of Sola Scriptura, it is, by itself, a hermeneutic principle.
Ultimately, it is simply the idea that we can use scripture to shed light on other passages within the Bible.
In sensus plenior it means that all the answers to the riddles are found within scripture.
Jesus says we should let our light shine before men, yet we should not let our left hand know what our right hand is doing. There are at least twelve different interpretations of this "apparent contradiction" by people using the literal-historic methods.
Jesus says Goats are on the left and sheep are on the right. So we should do the works of God for which we were created, but we should not let our 'goat nature', the flesh, interfere with the spiritual works we do. We should not be claiming credit for God's work as Nebuchadnezzar did.
So the Ninevites who did not know the left from the right, did not know the flesh from the spirit.
The sword-word (in Eglun and Ehud) was pulled from the right (spiritual) thigh-will with the left-flesh hand-works. God's spiritual will was accomplished by men working in the flesh.
protected by Dan♦ Dec 29 '14 at 2:05
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
BAHAMAS, CUBA (CNN) -- Experts are already calling Sandy an historic "super storm."
And given their geography and path of the storm, Bahamians know a thing or two about hurricanes. As Hurricane Sandy began to blow through the Bahamas after pummeling eastern Cuba, Nassau resident Stephan Rolle wasn't overly worried.
It is a "small storm" with "mediocre wind," he said of the Category 2 hurricane with winds of 105 mph. But as the center of the storm churned 125 miles east-southeast of Nassau on Thursday, Rolle and others also knew they had to prepare.
Rolle, 29, waited for 40 minutes in line at a grocery store to purchase nonperishable goods and bread. He moved the potted plants and emptied part of his family's pool to make room for the rainwater.
Sandy may not be a Category 5 monster, but "we take it seriously, and we just want to make sure we are comfortable," he said. It's not a bad frame of mind to have, given the amount of damage Sandy did in Cuba.
More than 3,000 buildings were damaged in eastern Cuba, state television reported.
"I lost an upstairs room and part of my roof. There are trees down all over the place. Everyone is in shock. We have never had a storm hit like this," said a woman named Dulce, a doctor in the city of Santiago de Cuba.
As the sun rose Thursday, residents in Santiago began to assess the extent of the damage, which was not known. There was no electricity, and very few people had working phones, Dulce said.
Tourists in Santiago rode out the storm in hotels, state media reported.
Heavy rain in Cuba brings with it potential health risks. Flooding over the summer in Granma province contaminated wells, leading to a cholera outbreak, the first Cuba had experienced in a century. The same province was once against hit hard by Sandy, which claimed a pair of lives before reaching Cuba.
A woman in western Haiti's Camp-Perrin died Wednesday when she tried to cross a flooding river in the Ravine du Sud, according to Haitian news agency AHP. WTVJ in Miami reported a man in Jamaica was killed when he was hit by a boulder sent tumbling downhill by the storm's rain.
In the Dominican Republic, Misael Rincon, a CNN iReporter, couldn't sleep as Sandy's rain beat down on Santo Domingo because he knew his neighborhood is prone to flooding.
He drove to work on Thursday but had to change his route several times as he encountered roads with water levels too high. Even though he drives an SUV, a blue Ford Explorer, he was not high enough off the ground to avoid having water seep into his vehicle.
"I'd say 70% of the streets in Santo Domingo are flooded," he said.
Some cars were submerged, and people with trucks were charging motorists $5 to pull their vehicles to higher ground, he said. There were some good Samaritans, too.
The government ordered evacuations of high-risk zones and canceled schools. Along the U.S. East Coast, residents were told to be wary headed into the weekend.
Sandy is proving to be a windfall for surfers familiar with tamer tides. Even hundreds of miles away, the storm is kicking up a powerful surf off Fort Lauderdale Beach, Florida.
Jason Russo, a visitor from Connecticut, couldn't resist jumping in.
"I went in the water, I did about three somersaults, strong rip current," he told CNN affiliate WSVN. Fort Lauderdale's Ocean Rescue advised beachgoers to stay out of the ocean but acknowledged not everyone would heed the warning.
"The expert surfers will be out there, so we just tell them to be careful, and we're there if they need our help," Chief Breck Ballou said. "We're there to go out and get them."
On Friday, more high waves and rip currents are likely along the coastal beaches of Florida's east coast and into southern Georgia as well as tropical storm force wind gusts as high as 50 mph.
Saturday, tropical storm force wind gusts to 50 mph might be felt as far north as the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Rip currents and high waves will also be an issue along coastal Georgia and the Carolinas, with significant coastal flooding possible, especially during high tides.
The five-day forecast from the National Hurricane Center predicts the center of the storm will shadow the East Coast in the coming days with Sandy potentially making landfall as a tropical storm in New Jersey the day before Halloween.
Back in the Bahamas, Stephen Aranha reflected on the preparations for Sandy. Bahamians view hurricanes differently than Americans, he said.
"We know that there is nowhere to go, we can't evacuate," said Aranha, an assistant professor and chairman of the School of Social Sciences at the College of the Bahamas. As a result, building codes are very strict and storm damage is often less than what is seen elsewhere.
He also witnessed the crowds at stores before the storm.
"Lines were long, but the atmosphere was relaxed and friendly, and people were cracking jokes," he said.
Lines were also long at liquor stores, as hurricane parties are quite common. Aranha bought himself a few bottles of wine, and friends told him that beer, rum and gin were running low in stores.
(CNN's Patrick Oppmann and Ed Payne and journalist Diulka Perez contributed to this report.)


text:
5 Old Wives' Tales About Health (Confirmed by Science)
#2. The Crust Is the Most Nutritious Part of the Bread
Kids seem to have a natural aversion to that gross brown part on the outside of bread, while moms have a natural aversion to the pain in the ass of having to trim sandwiches every day. So generations of mothers have told their children that the crust is the most nutritious part of the bread. It gets moms out of a pointless task and simultaneously teaches kids that little white lies are an effective means of getting out of unnecessary work.
"I'm ... uhhh ... on my period. Yeah. Totally perioding it up, sorry."
But Science Says ...
A group of German researchers led by Dr. Thomas Hofmann decided to get to the bottom of this by studying the chemical makeup of bread crust versus the rest of the loaf. And their research only proved that their mommies were right all along.
How is this possible, considering that both parts of the bread are made from the exact same stuff? It's because when it's baked, bread undergoes a process called the Maillard reaction, which is what gives it a crust (it's the same thing that gives meat and even beer that distinctive brown color). Besides giving the bread much of its flavor, studies have shown that this reaction produces antioxidant compounds that act as Batman to your body's Gotham City, stalking and then beating its degenerate citizens (cancer cells) into an acquiescent pulp.
Or a posse of vigilantes unleashed upon the horse-thieving cancers of your body.
When Hofmann and company scienced their bag lunches, they discovered that the bread contained a specific antioxidant called pronyl-lysine -- a compound that further study showed was the most important component in bread for leveling up your body's cancer prevention points (CPP). And here's the kicker: This compound was eight times more abundant in the crust than in the rest of the bread. And stuffing is even better, since it involves breaking the bread into smaller pieces, giving it more surface area to brown.
So consider this an official endorsement from Cracked to take a double serving of crusty bread and turkey stuffing next Thanksgiving. Or, at the very least, to cherish your kids' faces when they find nothing but bread crust in their sandwich box.
"So, legally, what can they actually do to us if we ... 'retaliate'?"
#1. Cold Weather Will Make You Catch a Cold
Despite the fact that we named it the common cold, we've known for a very long time that this illness is in fact caused by viruses and has precisely jack to do with the weather. But that hasn't stopped generations of mothers from telling their children that going out in the cold without bundling up is a surefire way to get sick, which is why they wind up forced to cosplay as the Michelin Man come December.
"No, you don't need your sled -- we're just going out to check the mail."
But Science Says ...
The role of weather in the spread of the common cold has been the subject of much debate in the scientific community. If there were nothing to the cold weather theory, then why would there be a "cold and flu season" that falls right smack dab in the middle of winter? You could say that it's just because winter forces people indoors, where proximity to other sick people spreads disease faster. But doesn't it affect people who live alone, too? That's what researchers at Cardiff University's Common Cold Center in Wales thought, and they set out to find out once and for all.
So they rounded up 20 people and blasted the fuck out of them with high-powered snow cannons.
They gathered up 180 volunteers in the midst of common cold season and somehow convinced half of them to sit with their feet immersed in ice water for 20 minutes. What they found was that over the next week, nearly a third of the frozen victims -- er, volunteers -- developed cold symptoms, versus only 9 percent of the unfrozen ones. Chalk up another point for motherly advice!
Professor Ron Eccles explained that, "If they become chilled this causes a pronounced constriction of the blood vessels in the nose and shuts off the warm blood that supplies the white cells that fight infection." So while a warm body might have been exposed to the virus yet show no symptoms, chilling that same body like a nice white wine sets up a perfect environment for the virus to take hold, and in turns allows cold symptoms to develop.
"I am so sorry, I had no idea I'd locked you outside for two days."
So take the reduced humidity of the cold winter months (which allows viruses to travel more easily), the reduced defenses of a cold body, and the human tendency to go inside and warm up that cold body in an enclosed space surrounded by a bunch of snot-noses, and it all adds up to a virus kegger in your nose. And if there's one lesson we truly took to heart as kids, it's that you should always listen to your mother when it comes to advice about what not to put in your nose.
Jason is a freelance editor for this fine website, Cracked.com. Your mom said you should like him on Facebook.
And for the complete opposite, check out Your Mom Lied: 5 Common Body Myths Debunked. Or learn about 8 Health Foods That Are Bad For Your Health.


text:
Kentucky officials are honoring some coal companies for efforts to restore the land on former surface mine sites.
The state's Department of Natural Resources is awarding a 2012 Commissioner's Award of Excellence in Reclamation to Hopkins County Coal on Jan. 17 in Madisonville.
Other companies receiving the award this month were Xinergy Corp., for reclamation at a 273-acre site in Bell County; Laurel Mountain Resources for a 257-acre site in Martin County; and Deane Mining for a 127-acre site in Letcher County. The state says the Xinergy site was chosen as part of Kentucky's reintroduction of elk to the region.
Reclamation work at former surface mine sites is mandated by the federal Surface Mining and Reclamation Control Act of 1977.


text:
&!%@# to Friendly - 09-16-2012, 09:53 PM
If you were to meet me in person, your first impression would not be kind. I'm often seen as witchy and stern, and not mistakenly so. I'm high strung and demand perfection (a result of my childhood), and it's incredibly irritating when I interact with people who don't meet my very high standards.
I'm in the wrong, not the world, I know that, but no matter what, without fail, I always end up being a complete witch.
Part of my problem is a very high insecurity. I know there's other things that probably cause me to act that way, but that's the main culprit I'm sure.
Problem is, I see this, I recognize it, but I don't know how to change. Can therapists help with that? Are there programs that teach you how to make friends and interact with people? Do any of ya'll have advice?
I don't want to be like this, and even though I don't intend to snap at people and nag and the like, those things happen in split seconds before I can stop myself.
Can any of you help me? Relate?
Hoo boy can I relate! About the snapping, anyway. Unfortunately with me, it happens after I've known the person for a while and just can't handle them any more.
Lovie, there are DEFINITELY ways to get help; talking to a therapist if you can afford it is usually a very good option because it will help you PINPOINT exactly what about meeting others sets you off so you can compensate for that. There are also mood stabilizing medications you may want to ask a psychiatrist about; I've used them before and they do help me keep calm (I think they'd be good for your situation because it seems like you lose control if even slightly provoked, so the medication could prevent angry outbursts). The best thing to do would be to talk to a professional, of course. It's really good that you already recognize behavior you want to change
Indeed. A few things you said really stuck out and I will definately ask Gracie's nurse if there's anything a psychiatrist can do for me while breastfeeding and during a future pregnancy.
Besides mental help, does anyone know if there are relationship building tools available? People don't like me. I've always been okay with that as I'm reclusive, but being a stay at home mom means I have to do playdates/groups and if the moms don't like me then my daughter won't have a chance. I don't know how to make friends, or how to keep them. I'm really good with online friends and relationships, but outside the Internet I'm absolutely awkward.
I have always had trouble making and keeping freinds, I tended to always be the person that ruined any relationship, a lot of that was due to my troubled past, and just not knowing how to relate to people, being a stay at home mother doesnt help and you will need to relate to other mothers at some point, at play dates, kindergarten, kids parties & school etc, I am sure you will be fine because the only thing they ever talk about is kids, husbands, housekeeping and cooking, it does get tedious but true freindships can be formed, not for me though I was always too insecure and ended up being awkward in any situation so I learned to enjoy my own company.
Now that my kids are older and I am back in the work force I have learned to get along and be myself around others, it took a while but I found that watching how others interacted with each other was very helpful, it helps you to see what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in terms of behaviour, connversation topics, body language etc, watching people sounds really weird "observing" sounds much better, it will teach you make and maintain freindships, like you Lovie I find it easier with online freinds and when you think about it you met Amy through the doll palace and now you are life long freinds, you couldnt of been too unlikable or "witchy" as you put it, all you need to do is find people that you click with or connect with which isnt easy and that is why I have acquaintances rather then true freinds, it may be something that you will just have to accept and learn to live with...like me.
Thanks Ness! I will definately try observing other people interact, it sounds like it will help a lot in luei of my awkwardness.
Indeed. You should have seen us when we first met in person. She had her camera and apparently when that's in hand she's super quiet and determined to get good shots. Her husband Jon had to keep reassuring me that it wasn't because she didn't like me, lol.
I was okay being a loner up until just recently. Being a SAHM I'm starting to worry about Gracie not interacting with people and children her age. I was a part of online mommy groups when I first brought Gracie home but was unceremoniously kicked out because they didn't like me as a mother. It was an online community, something I'm actually comfortable in! That really put a blow to my self esteem. Not only do people not want to be friends with me, they don't like the way I mother my daughter and really don't want to be around me. That's why I'm freaking out so much. I have to learn to be around mothers in real life and I failed online! I just don't know how or if I'm going to be able to do it. And I have the added pressure of feeling like I'm failing Gracie if I don't succeed because she doesn't have anyone her age to play with.
Gracie wont suffer Lovie, You are an intelligent human being with a fantastic husband and a beautiful daughter, you will learn to get along with people, the more you worry the worse it will get, I know that it is hard not to worry (trust me I am the best worrier ever!) be yourself and if people dont like you then stuff them, your husband loves you, Amy loves you and I am sure there are others that like you too.
As far as Gracie goes she will always have friends even if you dont becme friends with the parents, I used to drop my kids off at play dates and then pick them up, not a lot of conversation took place, smile be friendly and thats all you need to do.
Lovie I can totally relate. In Jr. High is when my mental health stuff started getting worse. Depression is not fun when you are an insecure teenage girl. Luckily in High School I had a few amazing friends and that was enough. Now as an adult I find the person that I consider my closest friend is my mom.
Therapy can help. I do reccommend that you ask around about therapists, and don't think that once you have picked one you have to stay with them. Whether you just go to a therapist of an actual psychiatrist you are not obligated to continue if you don't think the fit is right. (I'm lucky cause my mom is/was a psych nurse so I have a great doctor.)
In regards to the mommy thing. Unfortunately a lot of that will have to do with holding your tongue. Depending on how old Gracie is, and where you live, you might be able to find Mommy and Me classes that are hosted at gyms, or daycares or other public places that the other moms can't control. Another thing I have noticed with some mommys is that they can be just as cliquey as tween/teen girls, so sometimes you have to hold your tongue til you can find one that is more accepting, or might be like you and doing it more for their little one than the opportunity to socialize.
MsShino Says:
Color makes me happy!
Sig & AV by Lovie
That's true. Maybe I don't have anything to worry about after all. Play dates are more about entertaining the children so hopefully I won't have to socialize with the moms too much.
And thanks for the Mommy and Me idea Shino! A place where the cliquey moms won't be able to exclude me sounds like just what I need! I will definately be looking around for some of those.
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
Hybrid Mode


text:
Does molecular vibrational transition and consequent emission of infrared radiation involve electrons changing energy level? In wikipedia, about vibronic transitions it says "Most processes leading to the absorption and emission of visible light, are due to vibronic transitions. This may be contrasted to pure electronic transitions which occur in atoms and lead to sharp monochromatic lines (e.g. in a sodium vapor lamp) or pure vibrational transitions which only absorb or emit infrared light.". Does this mean infrared radiation is emitted without electrons playing a direct part? What about changing in molecular rotational energies? Also, I understand reflection is not a radiation absorption-emission phenomena, so can you explain what actually happens to the photons? Same thing for radiation scattering.
In the case of the IR photons the system (i.e. molecule) does change it's state (by changing its vibrational or rotational mode).
You can also imagine such a thing happening in a purely atomic context. This would be a direct analogy of the Mössbauer Effect, only happening in an atomic context rather than nuclear one. By the totalitarian rule I have to imagine that it is possible, but it must be strongly suppressed.
I've never heard of a measurement making use of it in a purely atomic sense.
Regarding the general question posed in the title, yes, it is possible in general to have photon emission (or absorption) without electrons changing energy levels. For example, in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), EM radiation (photons) are absorbed and re-emitted with changes in nuclear spin state. NMR spectroscopy relies on splitting between nuclear spin states due to a large applied magnetic field. This splitting causes absorption and stimulated emission of EM radiation with energy equal to the splitting. So NMR is one example of photon emission without changes in electronic energy levels playing a direct role.
However, with regards to your specific examples, electrons are directly involved. In the vibrational modes, the resonant frequencies are determined by the stiffnesses of the molecular bonds. Those stiffnesses in turn depend on the electronic structure of the molecule. The question is, how much does the electronic energy change when the bond lengths and angles are changed by small amounts? This can be calculated using electronic structure packages like Gaussian and ABINIT. The nuclei are also involved; the masses of the nuclei also factor into the resonant frequencies. The picture is similar for (dihedral) rotation of chemical bonds.
Infrared radiation is electromagnetic radiation, a quantum photonic energy phenomenon. Photons are generated for any form of matter above absolute zero. ANY motion of ANY subatomic particle generates photons. Infrared photons are ALWAYS being generated, all around, from every object not at absolute zero. Is this not true?


text:
I have a feature class with mostly unpopulated fields (ArcMap Standard 10.1, in an SDE database, with attachments). I exported the attribute table as a .csv file so that a co-worker without access to ArcMap could do the research. He filled out the .csv file and now I need to add the data back into the feature class. I am not having any success with "Load Objects" because it just adds all of the data to the end of the attribute table instead of joining the fields. I am not having any success with "Join" because it duplicates the fields. Merge and append require the data to be of the same type (table and table or feature class and feature class). I feel like I need a "link" tool... Does anyone know how to do this? Thanks!
If you exported the oid, fid or some other unique identification field.
The csv will be on the end of the attribute table after a join. you can start editing and do a calculate.
You can do an update query in your database. Import the CSV, and update your values from the new table.


text:
General Information: (540) 689-1000
2010 Health Campus Drive, Harrisonburg, VA 22801
Quick Links
Find A Doctor
Give to Sentara RMH
Hahn Cancer Center
Heart & Vascular Center
Joint Services
Orthopedics & Sports Medicine
Wellness Center
Women's Center
Home > News
Current Articles
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Women for Generations Campaign to Support New RMH Funkhouser Women's Center Exceeds $1.75 Million Goal
By Debra Thompson @11:48 AM
Views: 5448
Contact: Debra Thompson
Director, RMH Corporate Communications
The Women for Generations capital campaign for the new RMH Funkhouser Women's Center has surpassed its $1.75 million goal, raising $1,843,724 to help fund the new facility by the campaign's end on Dec. 31, 2012.
"We are appreciative of all who have supported the Women for Generations campaign on behalf of the mothers, wives, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, granddaughters and other important women in their lives—including themselves," said Teresa Boshart Yoder, director,
RMH Women's Services
The campaign has received a total of 618 gifts, with 3 percent of total gifts accounting for 79 percent of the total raised, according to Sherrill K. Glanzer, RMH Development Officer and staff liaison for the campaign.
"This has been a very targeted fundraising campaign," she said. "Our campaign team was comprised of women who are passionate about RMH providing the best quality care possible for the women in our community. Their passion and exceptional leadership, coupled with the generosity of our community, resulted in an extremely successful campaign."
The Women for Generations Campaign team members are as follows:
Jan Funkhouser Scaglione, Honorary Co-chair
Heidi D. Rafferty, MD, Honorary Co-chair
Louise Otto Hostetter, Campaign Co-chair
Bonnie Paul, Campaign Co-chair
Teresa Brooks Anders
Marcie Harris
Kay Harrison
Ann Homan
Alice Julias
Peggy Kellers
Mary Louise Leake
Jill Versen McGlaughlin
Peggy McKearney
Carmen Strite Miller
Martha Davis Shifflett
Barbara B. Stoltzfus
Diane E. Trobaugh
Nancy Hopkins Voorhees
Campaign team co-chairs Bonnie Paul and Louise Hostetter jointly stated that "The experience was personally rewarding on many levels. We had the opportunity to work with women who accepted the challenge of investing time and energy and turning a community vision into a beautiful building offering specialized health care for women."
Paul added that the campaign was "an amazing opportunity to collaborate with other community women. Each of our team members had a personal reason for being involved and each brought a special talent."
Hostetter noted that "There was a spirit of excitement from the outset as we believed that we could achieve the goal of providing a beautiful, comfortable setting for women seeking health care. Moreover, our team has been thrilled by the generosity of our community! Our donors obviously understand the vision that RMH has for women's health."
The total cost of the new facility is $6.6 million. The center is named in honor of a $2 million gift from the Fred O. Funkhouser Charitable Foundation. The remainder of the project was funded by a capital commitment made by Sentara Healthcare as part of its merger agreement with RMH.
"I thought my parents would be proud to support this project because of the services it will provide to the many women of the Harrisonburg-Rockingham community," said Jan Funkhouser Scaglione, daughter of the late Fred and Virginia Funkhouser. "My mother, an RN, would be especially thrilled as she was a 1934 graduate of the RMH School of Nursing. I knew the community would come forward with the same generous spirit to support this well-deserved center on behalf of the generations of women who will use it."
Anyone wishing to contribute to the Women for Generations campaign may contact Sherrill Glanzer, RMH Development Officer, at 540-564-7221 or
Related Links
Sentara RMH Heart and Vascular Center Hosting Free Heart Health Seminar
RMH Foundation Advisory Board Welcomes Four New Members
Orthopedics Team Receives Sentara CEO Award
Sentara Healthcare Launches New Retail Site
Area Hospitals Announce Collective Masking Recommendation for Visitors at Healthcare Facilities as Precaution against Spread of Flu
Daryl E Kurz, MD
Nirmal Khandoobhai, MD
Rachel Stevenson, PA-C
Amanda Loucks, MD
Bryn Good, FNP-C
Pregnancy and Heartburn
Migraines and Endometriosis
Heart Disease: How Disease Management Helps
Pregnancy and Posture
Introduction to Menopause
Menstrual Cycles May Affect Women's Shopping Patterns
Hormonal Therapy: Managing Side Effects in Women
Old Makeup Can Cause Serious Eye Infections
Prevention Guidelines for Women 65+
Virtual Tour
Planning a visit to Sentara RMH? Take a tour of our campus before you come.
Talk to Us
Sentara RMH appreciates your feedback.
Sign up for updates and news from Sentara RMH!
Enter your email address below to receive health and news updates from RMHOnline.com!
Social Media
By posting on any one of these sites, you agree to the
Social Media Policy
Sentara RMH Blog
Patients & Visitors
Classes & Events
Health Library
Physicians and Staff Links


text:
Froome avoids crash to keep Tour de France lead
Not a subscriber? You can purchase a single-day subscription for only $0.75 to read this and access all of our content and our E-Edition. CLICK HERE purchase a single day subscription.
Become an electronic subscriber to the Republican-American for only $8 a month. CLICK HERE.