text:
No Man's Land?
On Easter Sunday, a headline on the New York Times's homepage read: "On Being Catholic." This was followed by a teaser: "Can reflective and honest intellectuals actually believe in the churchs teachings?" A Catholic might find the question mildly irritating, especially that incredulous "actually." But a Catholic might also find it enticing. After all, the headline itself suggests that the answer to the teaser's question will be some kind of yes.
Enticed, I clicked on the link and found a short essay by Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame (and a contributor to Commonweal). The essay is well worth reading—it is characteristically lucid and incisive—but it doesn't exactly answer the question put by the teaser.
Gutting argues persuasively that's it possible for a reflective and honest intellectual to be a certain kind of Catholic without shame or self-deception. This kind of Catholic believes some of the church's teachings but not others, and some of the ones he believes may require a bit of reinterpretation. This kind of Catholic finds his moral imagination directly captivated by the Church's "ethics of love," quite apart from the metaphysical claims that are supposed to support it. In fact, he or she may be agnostic about some or all of the Church's metaphysical claims, and may consider its historical claims, as related by Scripture, to be no more (and no less) than helpful parables reinforcing the ethics of love. According to Gutting's accommodating definition of Catholicism, one could presumably still be a Catholic while believing that the story of Christ's Resurrection is a parable. One could even remain a Catholic while claiming to be agnostic about the Trinity or, for that matter, the existence of God. (Gutting, who has thought a lot about agnosticism, would likely add that where there is certainty, no faith is required, and that where there is uncertainty, there is also a kind of agnosticism, even if it isn't always recognized as such.)
Gutting knows there are lots of people both inside and outside the Church who would say that what he is describing isn't really Catholicism. A reflective and honest intellectual outside the Church might ask Gutting, "If that's all you believe, why not just become a Unitarian and be done with it?" Gutting answers:
[T]he Catholic tradition of thought and practice is the only stance toward religion that, in William Jamess phrase, is a live option for me the only place I feel at home. Simply to renounce it would be...to lose my self-respect to deny part of my moral core.
And to the conservative Catholic who would ask Gutting the same question, he replies:
The faithful who attend Mass, receive the sacraments, send their children to Catholic schools and sometimes even teach theology include many who hold views similar to mine. Church leaders have in effect agreed that the right to follow ones conscience includes the right of dissident Catholics to remain members of the Church. They implicitly recognize the absurdity of the claim that a dissident who has been raised and educated in the Catholic Church and has maintained, with the Churchs implicit consent, a lifetime involvement in its life is not really a Catholic.
Of course, many people have left the Church precisely because they became agnostic about its metaphysical claims or could no longer read the gospel narratives the way Catholics have traditionally read them. Some of these people have backgrounds very similar to Gutting's: they were raised in Catholic families, attended Catholic schools. The Catholic faith had always been a basic part of their self-understanding, and the Catholic Church had always been their community. Did their decision to leave the Church necessarily involve a loss of self-respect? Surely such a person would say that, far from his having to accept a loss of self-respect, it was intellectual and moral self-respect that obliged him to leave the Church, to admit to himself and to others that he no longer believed what he had been taught to believe—and what others might reasonably assume he still believes if he continued to present himself as a Catholic. But maybe the likelihood of misunderstanding isn't the most important consideration here. Maybe it's more important to stand your ground, wherever it is, even if people on all sides are telling you it's no man's land.
Gutting makes it clear that he is speaking only for himself, but he also says that his essay is not "merely personal." He is trying to "to articulate a position that I expect many fellow Catholics will find congenial and that non-Catholics (even those who reject all religion) may recognize as an intellectually respectable stance." Fair enough. It's certainly true that Gutting's example is a good answer to someone like Daniel Dennett, who seems to believe that, while unbelievers like him are quite comfortable admitting doubt, those who go to church are either brittle zealots psychologically incapable of tolerating uncertainty or cryto-atheists psychologically incapable of making a clean break with such an important part of their past. Say what you will of Gutting's position, but if he isn't tolerant of uncertainty, it's hard to imagine who could be. Dennett would perhaps answer that he has no problem with Gutting's particular set of beliefs—only they aren't really religious. To which Gutting could simply reply that Dennett has no more authority to decide what counts as religion, or who as religious, than conservative Catholics have to decide who counts as "really" Catholic.
This leaves two questions. The first is the one put by the teaser I mentioned earlier: "Can reflective and honest intellectuals actually believe in the churchs teachings?" If not all of its teachings, then at least the ones that most people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, would expect every Catholic to believe—in short, the creed. Gutting argues that it's both possible and honorable for a person who doesn't believe some of these things to call himself a Catholic. The harder question for manymay be whether it's possible for an orthodox Catholic to be a reflective and honest intellectual. I have little doubt that most readers of "The Stone" (the NYT's philosophy blog, where Gutting's essay appeared) would consider a man of Gutting's beliefs to be reflective and honest, if not right. I am much less sure they would afford the same respect to, say, the Times's own Ross Douthat.
As it happens, Douthat is a convert to Catholicism, which brings me to my second question. Whatever the strength of Gutting's argument for remaining a Catholic if that's the only religious tradition one has ever known, it does not appear to furnish an excuse, much less a reason, for becoming a Catholic. Borrowing a phrase from Charles Taylor, Gutting insists on the value of preserving respect for the "sources of the self," which in his own case include the Catholic theological tradition. I wonder whether he believes that someone from outside that tradition, who owes it no gratitude or loyalty and has been taught to understand himself without it, could ever have sufficient reason to join the actually existing Catholic Church.
About the Author
Matthew Boudway is an associate editor of Commonweal.
54 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Is Gutings faith the faith the martyrs of the past and of today die for?And although we are told not to quench even the spark of faith, it is disturbing that Guting is presumably teaching his very watered down version of Catholicism as a Catholic professor at a Catholic college. How many generations can mere tribal identity sustain faith?
Mr. Podles,Gutting is a philosophy professor. His job is not to teach his faith. Or perhaps you believe that Catholic universities should hire only Catholic professors, no matter what they teach.
It seems to me that Gutting makes a clear distinction between doctrine and practice. While he does not accept all doctrine as literally true, he doesn't seem to reject all of it, though doesn't say what he retains. And he does accept the Church's fundamental practices as good, though, again, he doesn't say just what is fundamental beyond "the ethics of love".Given that the Church has changed (i.e., given up) some doctrines over time, or at least it has changed interpretations of some expressions of some doctrines, and given that it has changed some practices, it seems that Gutting's pattern of behavior is Catholic, though perhaps with less adherence to particular dogmas than most other Catholics retain. Yes, he's a Catholic, and witih a capitol "C".
Gutting seems to reduce Catholicism to Robert Indiana's most famous design, L,O,V,E in a square. It's nice. You see it everywhere. I'm not sure (to answer your question, Matthew) that I would join a church for it, though. If the Resurrection is a parable, a lot of people just spent a lot of effort over a lot of liturgy for what amounts to a nice story. I personally wouldn't sit through a 3-hour service to hear a parable a second time.But who does Gutting say Jesus is?.
Matthew,I had read the Gutting piece and (perhaps no surprise) was less taken with it than you seem to be. It brought to mind a provocative line in the current issue of "Commonweal:""Despite my affection for liberal Catholics, I agree with Weigels judgment that they dont have the juice to pass on the faith to future generations." (William Portier's review of Weigel's "Evangelical Catholicism" -- the review is by no means all approbation of the book.)But you may be nodding in that direction by musing: "Whatever the strength of Guttings argument for remaining a Catholic if thats the only religious tradition one has ever known, it does not appear to furnish an excuse, much less a reason, for becoming a Catholic."
I read the Gutting piece with interest and sympathy. The question it left me with is: Given what he says, do we then pray? If so, how? That is, do we wholeheartedly join in the liturgy, particularly the Eucharistic liturgy?I do not mean to say that what Gutting says about being Catholic is antithetical to praying in and with the Church. He just didn't say anything about it in this piece. For my part, praying in and with the Church is essential.
Hello All,I read Professor Gutting's NYT article the other day with admittedly personal interest, since I also teach philosophy at a (secular) university. (So thanks for this post Matthew.)There are already two lines of though working in this thread. I'll address one first. While I have not had the pleasure of meeting Professor Gutting in person or studying his work in depth, I must second Matthew's view that it is not Gutting's job to teach his faith to his students. I think it's easy for those outside the discipline of philosophy to think that professional philosophers evangelize their students into adopting some "philosophy of life", and that Roman Catholic philosophers in particular are in the business of evangelizing their students into adopting Roman Catholicism. (I suspect there are many similar misconceptions regarding other academic disciplines.) Philosophers are in the business of exploring the foundations of many different areas of inquiry and institutions. It is true that much philosophy explores questions germane to the Roman Catholic faith, but I think the larger part of philosophy does not touch upon Christianity or other religions at all. Using myself as an example, my research focuses on the interconnections between decision and game theory and the origins of social institutions and the natural moral law, the latter being an approach to analyzing natural law morality quite different from the outstanding work in the Catholic natural law tradition being done at Notre Dame and Georgetown. I do happen to teach elements of Aquinas natural law in some of the courses I lead (along with parts of the ethics of Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Mill and Sidgwick) but I have yet to have a student raise a concern that I am trying to win converts to Roman Catholicism.This recurring question of "how Catholic" the faculty at a Roman Catholic university should be is a sensitive and interesting one, and one in which I admittedly have a vested interest. It so happens that in the recent past I was a finalist candidate for a position at a leading Catholic university twice, and both times failed to get the position (which I badly desired), both times to candidates who are not Roman Catholic. Some people I know think I should have been upset by this, on the grounds that hiring Roman Catholic faculty better serves the mission of the university. In fact, I respect the department's decisions since the faculty chose primarily on the basis of quality of research and teaching, not on the basis of religious commitment. I think the most important part of the mission of any university, Catholic or otherwise, is the service it delivers to its students and the larger community, and I think that does not necessarily go hand in hand with being Roman Catholic.
One has to wonder whether some of the commentators here actually read the Gutting article.Gutting gives ample reason for remaining a Catholic and one of them is not because he was born a Catholic. He joins the enlightenment with the faith which does not mean that he, as well as we, buys the totally secular nature of the Enlightenment. While he acknowledges the importance of reason he emphasizes the ethics of love of that Jesus preached. Do we not also? I fail to see where he truncates the faith. Though it is not required of a philosophy professor, where does Gutting fail to be an example of the faith? Unless one equates Rome with Jesus. Peter denied Jesus three times. Yet Jesus found a way to work with him and let him lead the flock without Peter idolization. Refreshing to see a Catholic philosophyprofessor acknowledge Hans Kung who is one of the greatest theologians of our era. Very few followed their consciences the way Kung did against a restorationist hierarchy. Perhaps no one of his peers showed as much faith and courage save for Bernard Haring. The hierarchy has tried its best to destroy the memory of these great Catholic theologians. History will show that they will re-emerge and pass the test of time. All those theologians and philosophers who caved in might learn from Gutting.
I don't have much sympathy with Gutting's conclusions but I admire him for trying to justify even watered-down Catholicism to its "cultured despisers" in the academy, a near impossible task. It's probably easier to gain a favorable hearing for Gilgamesh and Sumerian religion than for orthodox Catholicism.Robert Bellah: "The academic world is one of the few places where prejudice is supposed to be totally banned, and were politically correct on everything, but its still a place where you can attack religion out of utter, complete, bottomless ignorance and not be considered to have done anything wrong. Its astounding to me to hear what some people can say with the assumption that everyone would agree with them, based on nothing whatsoever."http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2011/09/14/nothing-is-ever-lost/
As for the role of philosophy at a Catholic university, that is indeed interesting. I studied philosophy as an undergrad at a Catholic university. Gilson was the philosopher that one prof leaned on considerably. I liked Gilson who is more of a historian than a philosopher. Still, he interpreted Thomas in a compelling way. Gilson, as I recall, argued that there was indeed a uniquely Catholic philosophy. That philosophy supported the entire apparatus of faith and was the scaffolding for the life of faith. Still, it was not identical to faith nor was it intended to evangelize. Faith is not a rational gift but it is supported by the rational faculty. But that rational faculty needs to be sharpened and disciplined.Emmanuel Lvinas was in my mind a pretty first rate philosopher. I don't recall any handwringing from him concerning his Orthodox Judaism. I am sure his faith and tradition informed him and many have been enriched as a result of it.
Gutting argues persuasively thats it possible for a reflective and honest intellectual to be a certain kind of Catholic without shame or self-deception.
With all due respect to his learning, I don't need a phD in philosophy to tell me that. I have my experience, the experience of saints canonized and non-canonized, lettered and unlettered. He should get out more!
It is really annoying when poster quote others and do not specify what they differ with as far as what Gutting wrote. For example how does what he states go against Vatican II?
Hello (again) All,To the other strand of thought already in this thread: I think my impression of Gutting's essay is similar to that of Father Imbelli. Gutting does touch upon some specific reasons Catholicism is important in his life, but I think in this essay he focuses more on trying to demonstrate that some of his own commitments (such as a respect for the Enlightenment) and possibly lack thereof (such as his agnosticism regarding theistic metaphysics and his doubts about the historicity of some events recorded in scripture) are compatible with his being a Roman Catholic. In a certain sense the answer to the question "Is Gutting a Catholic?" is obviously "Yes." apart from his own arguments. Sorry for a possibly boring reminder but according to church law and teaching but all who received baptism in the Roman Catholic Church are Roman Catholics --- by that standard I was a Roman Catholic during the years I attended and participated in Protestant churches before reverting five years back. I think Gutting is clearly exploring a deeper question, which is not even easy to state. Putting it roughly, I think the question Gutting is trying to answer in the affirmative is "Can I [Gutting] remain a professing member of the Roman Catholic faith despite my reservations regarding certain particular church doctrines and teachings?". (I realize that just the way I have phrased this question invites a nasty reinterpretation: "Is it all right to be a "cafeteria Catholic" and call myself a professing or faithful Catholic?" But I certainly don't mean to put these last words I wrote in Gutting's mouth.)I found Gutting's discussion somewhat interesting, but for me a different question resonates: Does my practice of the Roman Catholic faith improve me, and in particular does this practice make me more virtuous, compassionate and loving? Speaking for myself only, if I am unable to answer "Yes." to this latter question, then I doubt I have good reason for practicing the Roman Catholic faith.
When Jesus asks his disciples who do you say I am the answer they give is definitely not "a teacher of ethics". The answer they give touches at the very heart of the Christian message: you are the Christos, the messiah. I, like Gutting, teach philosophy (in a secular college) and I, like Gutting, struggle with many of the issues he struggles with. I am glad the Church does not hand out questionnaires on Sunday or send out inquisitors to see who is "orthodox" and who isn't (I would not come close to passing any such test) but the Catholic faith Gutting describes in his piece bears little resemblance to what I understand to be at the heart of 2000 years of Catholic teaching and practice. If Catholicism means anything at all, if Christianity has anything to say to our broken world, it certainly has to have more "juice" than what Gutting offers here. Does that mean he is not a Catholic? That issue does not really interest me. And as he himself points out the Church in its own teaching grants us the latitude of an informed conscience. There will be no more Inquisitions and I am in no position to judge him or anyone else. But if I had to choose between Gutting's vision of Catholicism and the cultured "despisers" of religion (Dawkins et al) I would take the latter any day. I can get an ethic of love from the Buddha, Gandhi, the Bhagavad Gita. I can (and do) learn a lot about "the human condition" from Marx, Freud, and all the other sons and daughters of the Enlightenment. What I do not get from them is the paradox of the Cross or the promise of the Resurrection. If these are just "parables" or excuses for "theistic metaphysics" count me out.
Parables aren't false. Jesus taught with them constantly. They are metaphors for real truths. The question becomes: should we interpret Biblical statements about strange occurrences literally or metaphorically? The answer isn't always easy.
We do not get an ethic of love from other leaders the way we do with Jesus. Jesus gave up his life for us. He asked for love and received it. He hung out with the poor and downtrodden. He is the personification of God on earth. Even from a human point of view, no one compares to Jesus.
I've read a lot of Gutting's posts at The Stone. It seems to me that the kind of thing he's describing is not Christianity but instead a tribal/cultural habit, but maybe that's what Catholicism is for a lot of people? I did join the Catholic Church as a "reflective and honest intellectual" adult and I didn't and don't believe much of what it teaches about morality, but I do believe in the resurrection.
I expect that Gutting's space was limited in this piece, and I'd like to hear him in more depth on some of the positive things he writes - for example, how he reconciles the Catholic intellectual tradition and Enlightenment thought. That seems to be an area where Catholicism really is "alive" for him.He doesn't really come across here as a person who once had a deep and strong faith and then lost it via his philosophical reading and thinking. Perhaps that is in his history, but if it is, he doesn't really allude to it in this piece. Absent that trajectory, he comes across as another very common contemporary person: one who has received all his sacraments but for whom the vibrant "spirit" dimension of a faith life has never really been kindled, for whatever reason. He comes across as one of these who happens to have a talent for intellectual and academic pursuits.It seems to me that the possibility for a conversion, an awakening of the spirit, is there for him, if his heart is open to it.
Let's not let the editors off too easily. How is it that this is the guy the New York Times selects for this piece? I expect there are Commonweal contributors at Notre Dame who could have found much more to say about their Catholicism than Gutting mustered.
what's fascinating to me is how close this question is to the one asked by Dostoevsky: Can a cultured man, a European of our day, believe, really believe, in the divinity of the Son of God, Jesus Christ? Of course, Dostoevsky's question is more pointed than Gutting's, but I think that it's still the better question for Catholics and others to discuss publicly. I wonder how many could answer it without rewriting it to a form similar to that which Gutting asks himself
I suspect that what Gutting means by "theological metaphysics" is the sort of metaphysics which attempts to prove the existence of God and his nature as all-perfect by using reason alone. But Catholicism has never required that a Catholic subscribe to any particular philosophy. I grant you that when I was young there were some card-carrying Thomists who thought that to be rational one had to be a Thomist, but that was not a religious belief, much less a Catholic one.So Gutting's rejection of such metaphysics has nothing to do with whether or not he is a Catholic.
Based solely on this column (without knowing what further refinements he might make to his portrait), Mr. Gutting's Jesus seems to bear a family resemblance to Mr. Jefferson's Jesus.
This is my experience of talking with atheists:- There is a Supreme Being who created the world and whom we will call God: they may or may not subscribe to that theory, but find it reasonable- The ethical side: in essence, it is reasonable and even appealing to them; it's also largely shared by some other faiths.- The Inquisition, torture and murders committed in the name of Christianity, the propagation of antisemitism; nowadays, the rejection of gays, the prejudices against women; the condemnation of Galileo (before) and of sex (now); the sexual abuse by clergy and the dysfunction of the church institution: they wonder how I can belong to a Church that has so much wrong with it, and that does take some explanation (this is where the "born and raised Catholic" plays a role). But all that is actually not much of a problem in itself because they and I are mostly in agreement in rejecting it.- They may bring up some of the weirdest beliefs, rituals, customs, devotions, superstitions. But it turns out that I often share their skepticism. I may tolerate those in the name of psychological benefits, and they're ready to accept that.We get to more difficult terrain when we discuss the notion of mystery. The idea that love (or truth, beauty, goodness) is mysterious, that there is something about it that is not of the realm of science and beyond psychology, something that shines brightly for those who experience it, something that it is important and mysterious, something very real that cannot be explained away: that's a non-rational step and it is where some part company with me. Yet many people, especially those who have a bit of life experience behind them, stay with me there. I think that it is also there that respect is built, recognition that religion is important, that it really does contain an essential truth.That is basically as far as I have been able to carry discussions constructively. The Christian message, the historical events, Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the flesh: all that strikes them as absurd. Do I, an otherwise reasonable person, actually honestly believe that there was a man named Jesus, who lived in Israel 2000 years ago, who was crucified under Pilate, who died, but who was also God and resurrected after three days, and whose body disappeared from the tomb? That strikes them as complete nonsense, at par with the superstitions that we had earlier agreed to discount. Unfortunately I have little justification to offer there. The witness of the first Christians gets dismissed because of the absurdity of their claims. Mystical experiences receive psychological explanations and are promptly dismissed. The beauty of the Incarnation as a theoretical construct (I try that argument sometimes, because among mathematicians people are often ready to tentatively believe mathematical statements that "are so beautiful that they have to be true", and that truly carries some weight in convincing people) gets dismissed. I don't know what to say about the Resurrection that would not sound absurd, and my attempts sound pretty lame. So they shake their heads and give up on discussion. And sometimes I wonder if I, in my heart of hearts, really believe all that myself. Maybe I can't convince because I lack inner conviction. If I really took it seriously, wouldn't it change my life in revolutionary ways, and wouldn't it be obvious?
The question of theological metaphysics is indeed a tricky one. Historical consciousness lends to our knowing about development of doctrine and indeed the relativity of such development, in terms of context, language, etc. In his 'Introduction to Christianity', Joseph Ratzinger speaks of the invisible being the real vis--vis the physical. One could from this argument make a case for the perpetual development of our language concerning God in order to continually refer to the invisible in changing circumstances. However, he also takes the view the interaction of Christianity with Greek thought was providential (no mere accident), which introduces a host of issues concerning hermeneutics and what believers take to be normative. If he is right (by no means self-evident, since metaphysics itself is suspect), how do Christians transmit a faith dependent upon a metaphysical framework that is irretrievably obsolete (von Balthasar), one that involves emanation from God and participation? One could make a case either way, to hold to something obsolete, or to embrace different expressions to retain a reference to truths beyond what is immediately visible. One of the questions I have not seen addressed so far in this thread is the question of certainty. Has certainty as a concept been co-opted by scientific frameworks and theological intransigence to the point where believers either have to embrace uncritical fideism or debilitating doubt? Should we accept such a framing of the issue? Is there any room for Newmans understanding of the illative sense, which combines the many aspects of the believers life (church participation, study of scripture, reading of history, works of charity, etc.) in coming to certainty and without obliterating difficulties in believing (like the individual strands of a rope that when tied together make it unbreakable)? Perhaps it is necessary to find another term (conviction?) in the present context. I also think slavishness on the part of believers to asserting the objective truths of Christianity ultimately does a disservice to our cause, since it reinforces an historical development of the divide between nature/super-nature, which, lacking a participatory metaphysical frameworklike Thomas would have upheldinevitably leads to the challenge, Prove it.
Christopher,Thank you for a very packed reflection. It would take a month's seminar to "unpack" all the strands. But could you clarify somethings that you say in your last sentence?Can there be in your view a "non-slavish" assertion of the objective truths of Christianity?Why should such an assertion reinforce "the divide between nature and super-nature?"Does not von Balthasar himself advocate "a participatory metaphysical framework?"Thanks for any further clarification.
Perhaps I'm confused, but there seem to be two questions that can brightly be raised about Guttinng's article. One is whether the article is autobiographical, That is, is the question: "Why am I, Gary Gutting, a Catholic?" A second is: "What do I, Gary Gutting, take one's being a Catholic to mean or require?" If it is the first of these questions that is being addressed, then that is more or less interesting, depending on whether you think it's significant for you to know what's going on in Gutting's own life. If it's the second question that's being addressed, then it's a matter of deciding whether Gutting's view of what Catholicism is all about is adequate,Neither of these questions, so far as I can see, has anything to do with the propriety of Gutting's teaching philosophy at a Catholic University. Or of Enlightenment thought being taught at a Catholic University.
Fr. Imbelli,Thank you for your comments.I do believe there can be a non-slavish assertion of truth beyond the subject (I only hesitate to use objective in light of its baggage), though I would want to couch it in terms of relationship, and our growing in that relationship, both individually and communally (though growth for these two would need to be distinguished). So, like von Balthasar (at least we both have an appreciation for Gregory of Nyssa), I would also advocate a participatory metaphysical framework. Though it would need to be developed in a way relevant to frameworks of knowledge today, and most likely would itself need to be perpetually open to development. I think an unhelpful divide between nature and super-nature can be reinforced when 'Truth' becomes disconnected from people, and their participation and response in/to it. Also, when reading selections from De Lubac and von Balthasar, I seem to recall their being conscious of the fact Christianity was to some extent complicit in developing the groundwork for a self-sufficient secular order, through arguments concerning nature and super-naturethough I would have to double check to find the references.
Mr. Kaffenberger, others, we often seem to tell ourselves a narrative to make sense of history, our own and how we see the world. There have been many people born into the Christian tradition who questioned the bona fides of Christian belief outside the context of modernism, European, Enlightenment, or otherwise. They were clearly a minority. They almost always had the good sense to express their unbelief in a clandestine manner, but the Enlightenment itself was in many respects the result of these kind of doubts, not some sort of monolithic precursor of protodoubt that picked up speed and clarified its shape as it rolled down the mountain of intervening time onto the rest of us. Perhaps if we said: "to doubt is to be human" instead of "to doubt is to be modern" we might be able to locate the Guttings of the world in a more acceptable place, like Montaigne, to name an intellectual who had difficulty accepting Christianity in its full orthodoxy but who valued it and certainly considered himself to be Christian. Perhaps we should acknowledge that it is monolithic faith that is the historical aberration, not the norm that we all seem to assume.The narrative we are being told by many is that modernism or the Enlightenment constitutes some huge break, before which there was a paradise of faith and after which there is this creeping hell of unbelief. And this is outside of the context of those who go to church and profess belief but who couldn't pass even an elementary quiz of what it is that they are "supposed" to believe. Is that person "more Catholic" than Gutting? Why? Will faith now be considered to be the special province of the ignorant because they really couldn't care less what it is, exactly, they do believe? I don't actually have a lot of sympathy for Gutting's dilemma (if that's how he sees it) because at some point he must realize that the positive aspects of an intellectual (or any other) tradition can be carried forward outside of the institution that birthed and nurtured that tradition. We study Plato or Aristotle without believing in Greek gods or pining the loss of the less seemly side of Greek tradition (slavery, devaluation of women and sexual use of minors). Most of us are descended from slaves and peasants and have been only too happy to discard aspects of our "tradition" (in some cases aspects that were vehemently supported in collaboration with Orthodox Christianity) that made us helpless and hopeless. The real question, for me, is, "do I stand for what that tradition is telling us in the here and now, and where it is going?" I don't get the sense he can answer that in a positive way.
I too was intrigued enough by the subtitle of Guttings article to read it, yet it left me empty, seeming to fall well short of the promising subtitle. Perhaps my expectations too high. I was expecting some mention of the Church's claim to teach the Truth and truth and I supposed that this would be particularly enticing to an intellectual who has presumably devoted their life to such a search. But it was missing. Then I also had hope of some mention about the Church's moral teachings being difficult to grasp, and yet after expending some intellectual effort being able to find a simplicity, beauty, and truth in them despite their radically counter-cultural nature. But that was absent too. And then I thought there might be some mention of Christ's love on the cross being personal, difficult, painful, and disfiguring, and offered to save all humanity, each one of us personally. Instead all I felt offered was something that moved others (specifically saints) to do great good, but something outside the author. The whole article struck me as offering the pig-slop available to the prodigal's son when following his own will rather than the rich banquet available by conforming our wills to the generous and loving Father.
It is amazing that practically every comment interprets but gives no actual words of Gutting as proof for the interpretation. Where did he say that he does not believe in the resurrection?He may be a progressive Catholic. But he is not un-Catholic. If he questions the emphasis of the church of dogma he is not against the truth of Jesus Christ. Many Catholics question infallibility. Even Benedict XVI states that the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the selection of many popes. And doesn't the Jesus, the Messiah, stress the Beatitudes over everything..the Jesus of Love. Why are we so against the ethics of love? Since when does the ethics of love mean a watering down of the gospel?At any rate, do me the favor of quoting what words of Gutting you disagree with. Others you rate a gratuitous denial.
Shoud be: "Otherwise you rate ad gratuitous denial."
Bill, let me be the first to say that an essay such as this one would be much stronger if the writer briefly clarified the extent of his assent (or lack thereof) to core teachings (resurrection, divinity, trinity). With this kind of thing, the particular matters. One can be Christian without being Catholic. In this case, Gutting is making a case for being Catholic and one naturally wants to know which "anti-intellectual" doctrines he has given up on before one knows what to make of his claims.
Bill, he seems to say that regarding, say, the trinity, he's an agnostic; and that regarding the historical stories, say, the resurrection, it is "best taken as a parable". He does not exactly deny the empty tomb of the post-resurrection apparitions of an embodied Christ, but that wording suggests a strong possibility that he does not believe that those events actually happened.the specific teachings of the Catholic Church... I distinguish three domains: - metaphysical doctrines about the existence and nature of God, - historical accounts from the Bible of how God has intervened in human history to reveal his truth and - the ethics of love preached by Jesus.- The ethics of love I revere - As to the theistic metaphysics, Im agnostic about it taken literally, but see it as a superb intellectual construction that provides a fruitful context for understanding how our religious and moral experiences are tied to the ethics of love. - The historical stories, I maintain, are best taken as parables illustrating moral and metaphysical teachings.
Barbara:@ 10:06 a.m.BINGO!
Gutting's views are, I think, fairly common among garden-variety cradle Catholics: "I love the Church; it made me who I am; it provides guidance and, ultimately, redemption; it's where I feel comfortable; Protestant churches are just clubs."As an unsuccessful convert, I still believe that the Catholic tradition contains the best that has been thought and taught about Jesus Christ, about God's mercy, and about the purpose of humans in the world. It also reflects the greatest breadth and scope of human experience of God. I think that within such a rich tradition there must be some hooey as well.Becoming a Catholic does not allow you to rationalize and duck who and what you are--or what you have done or failed to do. It offers salvation, but the price is stripping away your dishonesty, even proclaiming it and "owning it" as the woman at the well did. This is a lifelong job. Those involved with the institutional Church at the parish or diocesan level would do well to ask whether they truly prepare converts for this job. Many do, I'm sure.Unfortunately, there is also a very legalistic and fundamentalist strain in Catholicism that requires adherents to stay within certain behavior and thought patterns, or to stay away from the Table. This is not called "excommunication," but it certainly puts many still struggling to understand and figure out how to live out these teachings on notice. It also sends the message that you're not eligible for the sacraments until you really don't need them.Whether you like Gutting's views or not, I think he's starting a conversation that Catholics need to have, and one that is vital to its mission of evangelization.I apologize in advance for the personal nature of this post, which many blog visitors find distasteful and shallow. Please do not write me offline to tell me so.
@Bill Mazella: "Careful readers will note that these three convictions do not include the belief that the specific teachings of the Catholic Church provide the fundamental truths of human life. What I do believe is that these teachings are very helpful for understanding the human condition."Having long heard the song and dance of 'in the Catholic tradition' by academics, I prefer the simplicity and directness of Dostoevsky. Gutting refers to the re-affirmation of the Christian faith at Easter time, which includes the public renewal of baptismal vows. But I think the one question of who is Jesus is the interesting one. Jean Raber is right that "Whether you like Guttings views or not, I think hes starting a conversation that Catholics need to have, and one that is vital to its mission of evangelization." For this conversation, Gutting does well to set the context as that of "reflective and honest intellectuals," but Dostoevsky does the necessary work of bringing this context face-to-face with the person of Jesus Christ.
Fred:Agree on Dostoevsky. In his Grand Inquistor, the Grand Inquisitor, challenges Jesus after Jesus raises a dead girl to life. The Inquisitor, a Cardinal, tells Jesus that he has no right to interfere in their work. He informs him in no uncertain terms that revelation ceased after the death of the last apostle and here comes Jesus interfering with that.The point for Dostoevsky is obvious, Jesus continues to act in the world. Revelation cannot be contained in neat categories as it explodes all of those categories. The problem is that the western philosophical tradition has inherited a certain style of thinking that cannot accommodate a certain type of spiritual experience. Dostoevsky was highly mistrustful of the West for this reason and even if he was a bit of a slavophile he makes a good point. Berdyaev argues similarly when it comes to discussing revelation. Revelation, Berdyaev argues, comes from the east, the land of "irrationality". The West has not produced a single religion. Ultimately the problem is that revelation will not fit neatly into a Western category of thought, try as the RC tradition has. There is an element of surrender to faith (in this I think Islam is on to something) and this is challenging and threatening to Western culture as a whole. After all, the great schism occurred almost 1000 years ago and there were tensions even before that time.I think it was Tolstoy who said that the son will rise again in the east!
Picking up on these thoughts - would suggest that there are many nuances being left out in this discussion.Faith vs. ReligionInstitutional church vs. Creedal statementsCatholic imagery, symbols, signs vs. orthodox catechismHave always been strongly indebted to those who have studied faith development esp. Fowler's *Stages of Faith*. Fowler makes a distinction between those on a journey of faith (which by definition falls more into the realm of mystery, mystogogy, etc. - taken on trust, hope, love) and denominational expressions and catechism lists of belief statements. Fowler's stages of faith development actually indicate that a fundamentalist, rigid adherence to denominational beliefs is a very low stage of development - it resists questionnning, reflects an emotional immaturity, depends upon a framework of fear so as to control behaviors, etc. The highest stages of faith development internalize the core beliefs - faith, hope, love - and see faith as a relationship that is constantly challenged, prodded, pushed...a journey in its fullest sense. This faith journey is best captured in scripture, gospel stories/imperatives, parables, Pauline charisms and gifts that build up the body of Christ. It is, as Thomas stated, faith seeking understanding. Reading Gutting seemed to me a type of journey - a type of faith seeking understanding. It is not a blind acceptance of a set of beliefs. And really, go back 100 years (esp. the modernism struggle). How often has church leadership equated various stances/decisions as core beliefs when, in fact, the expressions of these beliefs have proven to change, be wrong, etc. e.g. religious liberty and Pius IX; slavery; democracy; usury; biblical methods of interpretation; just war theories; death penalty. Some more current examples - anyone who has studied the Humanae Vitae process and decision would not be willing to include HV approaches to birth control as a core belief - it was a decision made to protect papal power and prerogatives - had little to do with the actual issue.Think about the recent Triduum - what is core - dying/rising out of love; new life; mission of servanthood.....not a list of beliefs but core relational experiences. George D's example of Dosteovsky is excellent. Isn't what Gutting is doing in philosophy just another version of what Doesteovsky did in literature?
In his final public address before assuming the Papacy, Benedict XVI stated that:"In the age of the Enlightenment, the attempt was made to define essential moral norms by saying that they would be valid 'etsi Deus non daretur', even if God did not exist. In the mutual opposition of the confessions and the looming crisis of the image of God, the attempt was made to hold on to the essential values of morality beyond the disputes, and seek evidence for them that would make them independent of the multiple divisions and uncertainties of the various philosophies and confessions. The desire was to ensure the foundation of coexistence, and, more generally, the foundation of humanity. At the time, this seemed possible, in that the great fundamental convictions established by Christianity remained in place to a large extent, and seemed undeniable. But that's no longer the case. The search for this kind of reassuring certainty, which could remain uncontested beyond all the differences, has failed. Not even the effort as heroic as it was of Kant was able to create the necessary shared certainty. Kant had denied that it was possible to know God in the domain of pure reason, but at the same time had represented God, freedom, and immortality as postulates of practical reason, without which, for him, moral action did not make sense. Does not the current situation of the world, perhaps, make us again think that he may have been right? I would like to say it in other words: the attempt, taken to the extreme, to mold human affairs by completely ignoring God brings us closer and closer to the edge of the abyss, to the total elimination of man. We should therefore reverse the axiom of the Enlightenment and say: even those who are unable to accept God should in any case seek to live and direct their lives 'veluti si Deus daretur', as if God exists. This is the same advice that Pascal had given to his nonbelieving friends; it is the advice that we would like to give today as well to our friends who do not believe. In this way, no one's freedom is limited, but all of our affairs find support and a criterion that they urgently need." ("A Philosopher Reissues the Pope's Wager: To Live As If God Exists" http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1337112?eng=y.Is there a sense here in which Benedict is acknowledging that in the act of faith that professes the Christian creed, there is an ineluctable element of agnosticism and doubt, without which faith would not be faith but indubitable knowledge and certitude? Is the "as if" character of Christian belief only a strategic move in the dialogue with non-believers, or is it in fact intrinsic to the act of faith itself within believers? This is not to say that the act of faith is irrational or that there are no warrants or evidence for the truth claims of Christianity. It is reasonable to be a believing Christian. But would we also have to say that it is unreasonable to not believe? I don't think so. The line between apophaticism and agnosticism is a very fine one, and at times it appears to vanish.Yet at the same time there is this question about the "juice" of one's commitment...can one have that degree of conviction and evangelizing enthusiasm, if faith cannot completely escape the realm of the hypothetical, the wager, the "as if?" That to me is the puzzling question that I continue to grapple with.
What Bill deHaas wrote.
Bill,I would submit that 'HV approaches ... birth control' NOT 'as a core belief ' ...but core relational experience'. Using birth control is all about relationship between male and female and their human nature; nothing about belief in God.
Sad, Bruce - like your statements above; your fundamentalist approach is showing. Any human relationship reveals aspects of God. You have fallen into a heresy - what do you think we say about Jesus Christ - both human and divine. What do we believe about creation - it is good (you did hear the first vigil reading?). Human nature says volumes about God and our respective beliefs in God.You focus only upon Good Friday - sacrifice, saving, suffering for our sins. This is not what Luke emphasized in his gospel - rather, he highlights the love of Christ; it was not just a sacrifice to save us from sin - atonement - etc. Luke says almost nothing about the crucifixion, his focus is upon resurrection, loving servant.Link: http://ncronline.org/blogs/spiritual-reflections/seeing-others-firstKey points:The evangelists certainly zero in on Jesus suffering, but for them his pain is much more psychological than physical. Their purpose in writing these narratives is not to lead their readers to proclaim, Thank you, Jesus, for dying for me! Theyre much more interested in having them simply say, Thank you, Jesus, for showing me how to die!Long before the first Gospel was written, Paul of Tarsus frequently defined a Christian as someone committed to dying and rising with Jesus. The key question for those earliest disciples was, How do we pull off that dying? Are we expected to let ourselves be physically scourged, crowned with thorns, have nails driven into our wrists and feet, and then, writhing in pain, die on a cross? Historically, few Christians would actually imitate Jesus death by dying that way. But all Christians could imitate his psychological suffering: the pain and death that accompanies the daily giving of oneself for others.With this context in mind, many Pauline scholars believe the apostle is referring to Genesis 1 -- the passage that states all men and women are created in the image and likeness of God -- and is telling his Philippian community not to let their God-image status stand in the way of their service to those around them. Nothing absolves them from imitating Jesus dying and rising, a dying and rising that took place throughout his life, long before his physical death on Golgotha.Think the current example of Francis rather than the long winded theological discourses of Benedict and his new evanglization.
George,Yes, "the western philosophical tradition has inherited a certain style of thinking that cannot accommodate a certain type of spiritual experience." And not just spiritual experience, but other experiences: unique and personal experiences: a disease whose symptoms fall outside established categories, the love between a particular mother and her child (a reluctance to acknowledge dramatic events like the big bang, or the formation of the Channeled Scablands). It does not seem reasonable to me to exclude experiences that are not easily repeatable or categorized or empirically verifiable. The surrender of Islam is one approach, and in a Western academic, it would be an acutely dualistic one. In Christianity, however, the religion of the Logos made flesh, another journey would be to take up Benedict's call to broaden reason. If you or I saw a woman's child brought back from the dead, would it be more reasonable to categorically reject it, or to at least admit that it's possible even if one can't explain why?
The first half of Gutting's article, about the Enlightenment and the Catholic church, is really more about core Christian than about specific Catholic beliefs, it seems to me. He turns towards non-Christians and tells them that he takes historical accounts as parables, is non-committal (agnostic) on "theistic metaphysics", and that love is the only thing he fully embraces.The last half of the article is about conservative vs. liberal Catholics, authority, the rights of conscience, and the right for liberal Catholics to be considered Catholic. He turns towards fellow Catholics and tells them that he's been raised Catholic, feels at home in the Catholic church, and has remained involved in its life, therefore they have no right to say that he's not Catholic.It is weird that nowhere does this week's announcement appear (Christ is resurrected!). That's what makes the article seem so empty. Is it really about Catholicism, or could more or less the same text not have been written, replacing "Catholics" by "Buddhists", "Hindus" or another religion?
Jean Raber - "Whether you like Guttings views or not, I think hes starting a conversation that Catholics need to have, and one that is vital to its mission of evangelization."But unfortunately, many will dismiss Gutting's views for the reasons he himself notes."I apologize in advance for the personal nature of this post, which many blog visitors find distasteful and shallow. Please do not write me offline to tell me so."Please don't stop posting. As someone who does not hold an advanced degree in either Philosophy or Theology, I often have more interest in what you (and Crystal and Claire and Ed and a few others) write than in the more academic threads that are unfortunately way "over my head". I understand yours, and I can often relate. The academic threads use a shorthand' that relies on naming philosophers rather than saying anything about what those philosophers believe(d) and how this might relate to the "real world" of the average christian or RC. The shorthand is understandable given space considerations, but the less academic and more "personal" observations are a needed balance - and posts with a "personal" nature that come from life experience often "say" a great deal more to some of us than do the academic posts.Although I would love to know what they are talking about, I usually do not have the energy to research what each and every philosopher cited believed. This forum is excellent for those with specific advanced education, and it is not the fault of those with this education that my long ago undergraduate courses in theology and philosophy are not up to the task of understanding their comments. So I (and I suspect many others) very much appreciate the clear and honest posts such as yours.
Unfortunately there is no "edit" function. Correction - "academic threads....rely".
Anne, that's nice of you to say, but I didn't threaten to stop posting. I just don't like offline corrections. People who disagree with me or think I'm egotistical, anecdotal, ill-informed, or bound for Hell, can tell me right on here."The academic threads use a shorthand that relies on naming philosophers rather than saying anything about what those philosophers believe(d) and how this might relate to the 'real world' of the average christian or RC."I'm not much of a student of theoretics, and I often go ADHD on theology. But thank God we DO have people who keep wrestling with these issues. It seems to me that's part of the heritage of Roman Catholicism, no? To go beyond being an "average Christian"?
You have fallen into a heresyWow Bill, that statement seems very hierarchal to me. I guess I wasnt very clear in my earlier posts. My view on Good Friday is that loving requires submitting our will to the Father and that is difficult. That seems pretty much in line with this quote from the article you linked to: But all Christians could imitate his psychological suffering: the pain and death that accompanies the daily giving of oneself for others. The happy feeling that our society seems to assign to true love misses that mark.As for HV representing a core relational belief, I'll stand by my comment. Creation is good, but that does not apply to all human behavior. There are many things we can do, but only a subset of those are things we should do. Perhaps your focus on the messy human process hides the resulting truth of the outcome.
Sorry, Bruce - we agree except on HV - that was my point. By the time the decision and announcement was made, it did not reflect any type of core relational belief - it represented another papal effort to protect its power and authority. Very few catholics, experts, theologians find HV to be any type of significant or even correct expression of natural law.
What HV represents is some bad natural law theorizing. It talks the talk in some places, but it's not persuasive.
The requirement to meet a woman in her fully functioning humanity seems perfectly rational to me. The fact that it is widely derided in no sense detracts from that rationality or its truthfulness.
Jean, I am happy that those who write to you offline will not discourage you from posting! I do appreciate the need for academics. But, since I can seldom follow their discussions, lacking the advanced education in their disciplines, I learn little from them. I just wanted to let you and others know that your contributions are greatly appreciated by some, and not thought of as "shallow" etc. I wish I could follow all they say, but I can't. My problem not theirs. But if others who express their ideas in less academic terms are discouraged from posting by negative comments offline, many readers of this blog would be disappointed. That's all I was trying to say.
I just discovered that a year 2000 debate between Joseph Ratzinger and Paolo Flores d'Arcais has just been translated and published as an ebook. It's especially interesting to see how Ratzinger describes the positive values of the Enlightenment, distinct as this evaluation is from d'Arcias and Gutting. http://www.bookrepublic.it/book/9788888240268-a-controversy-on-god/
Anne, Crystal made reference on another thread to some videos she watched. There are also MOOCs (massive open online courses) available from many colleges now. Free. I just signed up for this one at the University of Edinburgh: https://www.coursera.org/course/introphilNot sure when it starts, but I expect to learn how dumb I really am when I start it!
Garry Gutting: is he a philosopher? Maybe officially. We know and not believe as some think there is only one true philosophy called now semantic realism (Aristotle + [email protected])!Catholicism? Christianity? Dogmas? Hm, there is one dogma: A historical Jesus from Nazareth is Lord. If someone do not understand it like Mr.Gutting @all the rest go to library and learn.Gergetown University; another professor J.Haught has a problem with combining the theory of evolution with Thomas Aquinas, i.e., his definition of the term "beginning": physical or logical? He is an expert in US courts to battle ID proponents contra materialist evolutionists.Unfortunately, the present such Catholic University is a....playground for kids (1 Peter 2:1). Such authorieties fight against like me with all administrtive force to keep noble positions. 90% of such article should be burned at stake as suggested D.Hume, and I would add the claim of Jan Lukasiewicz (Warsaw -Lvov School of Logic) to reduce all Past Great Books of Humanity to 10% in the light of 20th century logic/methodology discoveries; an example: apply it to Trintiarian controeries and others then, you will see all the past as ..jokes like Gallieo-Copernicus contra Church/University in 17th century after A.Einstein's Relativity theory! Play..kids!


text:
Billboard Jan. 1948
Western singer-songwriter Jack Guthrie first made popular the song « Oklahoma Hills« . He was born Leon Jerry Guthrie on November 13, 1915, in Olive, Oklahoma. His father, an early day blacksmith, was a younger brother of Charley Guthrie, the father of Woody Guthrie. Jack Guthrie grew up around horses and grew to love them and the cowboy image. As with others in the Guthrie family, he learned to play the fiddle, guitar, bass fiddle, and other instruments from family members. The family moved often, and since Guthrie did not enjoy the discipline of public school life, he would go in the front door of a school and straight out the back door. It is doubtful that he ever completed the sixth grade. By the mid-1930s the family had settled in California. As he believed that the names Leon and Jerry were not good cowboy image names, he became known as « Jack, » « Oklahoma, » and « Oke. »
He developed a style of singing and yodeling influenced by his idol, Jimmie Rodgers (hence his Capitol transcriptions, like Rodgers' « Any Old Time« , or the premonitary 1946 « T. B. Blues« , taught from the 1932 Rodgers' song, just two years before the latter's death, and Guthrie's own death early in 1948). In the mid-1930s Guthrie competed in rodeo as a bucking-horse rider. Later he adapted his music to fit the cowboy image. In 1937 his cousin and good friend Woody Guthrie traveled to the Los Angeles area, and they became a musical team, landing the Oke & Woody Show on KFVD radio in Hollywood. During the fall of 1937 Woody wrote « Oklahoma Hills« , which they performed during their shows. However, each cousin had different ambitions and quickly went separate ways.
Jack Guthrie also was a stage performer who entertained audiences with a whip act. His wife participated in it until their marriage became rocky and Guthrie started missing the items she held, accidentally hitting her with the whip. His friend Ruth Crissman then joined the act, and when he was injured in a fall from a bucking horse and had no other career, in 1944 she provided funds to buy him a demo recording session at Capitol Records's studio. Capitol offered him a contract, and « Oklahoma Hills » was the first song he recorded. Released in 1945, it quickly became a number one country-western hit. When Woody Guthrie heard it on a jukebox, he called Capitol and claimed it as his song. Because Jack had recorded it and made it popular and had made a few changes to improve it, he and his cousin decided to share the copyright.
the page to Jack Guthrie, according to Tony Biggs
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Guy Logsdon, « Jack Guthrie: A Star That Almost Was, » The Journal of Country Music 15 (1993).
Here it is the presentation of Jack Guthrie (the man and his music) by the indefatigable Tony Biggs:
Jack Guthrie was in the U.S. Army and stationed in the Pacific when « Oklahoma Hills » was released. When discharged, he started playing Western-swing dances along the West Coast, making personal appearances, and writing songs such as « Oklahoma's Calling. » He also recorded more hit songs for Capitol, including « Oakie Boogie. » (original cut by Johnny Tyler for Stanchel in mid-1946). Guthrie was diagnosed with tuberculosis, but he was determined to take full advantage of his popularity. He avoided medical treatment or hospitalization until it was too late. In July 1947 he was admitted to Livermore Veterans Tubercular Hospital near Sacramento, California, where he was told that there was no hope. He then moved in with his sister, Wava Blake. In October he recorded a few more songs, but he was so sick that he had to lie on a cot between songs. Jack Guthrie died on January 15, 1948, two months after his thirty-second birthday, and was buried in Memorial Cemetery, Sacramento, California.
Billboard March 1, 1947
Capitol (1945-47)
201 Oklahoma Hills / I'm Brandin' My Darlin' Within My Heart – 06-45
246 When The Cactus Is In Bloom / I Loved You Once But I Can' Trust You Now – 02-46
309 I'm Tellin' You / Chained To A Memory – 10-46
341 The Clouds Rained Trouble Down / Oakie Boogie – 01-47
406 You Laughed And I Cried / It's Too Late To Change Your Mind – 04-47
40012 I'm Building A Stairway To Heaven / This Troubled Mind Of Mine – 08-47 (released on Capitol Americana)
40032 Please, Oh Please / Oklahoma's Calling – 10-47 (released on Capitol Americana)
40075 Next To The Soil / Ida Red – 01-48
posthumous issues
40118 Bow Down Brother / You're Gonna Be Sorry – 05-48
15251 In The Shadows Of My Heart / Answer To Moonlights And Skies – 09-48
15266 Oklahoma Hills / Oakie Boogie – ca. 10-48 (reissue)
57-40131 Look Out For The Crossing / No Need To Knock On My Door – 04-49
57-40222 Welcome Home Stranger / Colorado Blues – 08-49
F2128 Oklahoma Hills / Oakie Boogie – 06-52 (reissue)
6085 Oklahoma Hills / Oakie Boogie – 66 (reissue)
from Praguefrank site
A survey on Jack Guthrie's retained recordings in podcasts:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I'm using Ubuntu 10.04 and have an issue with Movie Player Totem. Recently I got a great movie. For those who know "Wall Street" 1987. So I was watching it and for no reason totem shut himself down.
Did any of you have such issue?
Is there any solution for that?
When I execute totem from command line as root it gives me such message:
(totem:2986): Totem-WARNING **: Failed to create dbus proxy for org.gnome.SettingsDaemon: Could not get owner of name 'org.gnome.SettingsDaemon': no such name
But will I start it as root or just as user doesn't matter it shuts down without any error message in terminal.


text:
Dropping the Ball
July 10, 2013
INEPT, MISMANAGED and wasteful are only some of the words used to describe the Pentagon's effort to account for tens of thousands of Americans missing in action from foreign wars....
It is rare that I agree with oluh....but he is correct. Our days as the "world police" have cost us money we dont have, lives we shouldnt have lost, and FAILURE in nearly every interference in another nations concerns. The money is gone, the young Americans are dead, and NOTHING changed in those countries.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
If the United States would stop trying to make the world politically correct, this number would go way down.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Showing 2 of 2 comments
Post a Comment
You must first login before you can comment.


text:
Please wait as the server redirects you to the proper page, or click here to view the page.
320.308.5000 or 1.800.222.1009
1540 Northway DriveSt. Cloud, MN 56303
A member of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system - Equal Opportunity Educator and Employer.
©2016 - St. Cloud Technical & Community College


text:
Michigan State Police are investigating an armed robbery that took place Monday night at the Mottville Stop-N-Go gas station on U.S. 12.
Police said the incident occurred around 11:15 p.m. Monday after a clerk had closed the business. As he walked toward his vehicle, a man confronted him and ordered him back into the store at gunpoint.
The man took the bank deposit containing an undisclosed amount of cash, ordered the clerk to the ground and fled.
A police K-9 was used to try to track the suspect.
Police describe the suspect as a male in his early 30s, possibly dark-skinned, with a height of 5-6 or 5-7. He was wearing a dark-colored ski mask.
Anyone with information may call State Police, (517) 278-2373 or 483-7611, or Crimestoppers, (800) 342-STOP.
Location, ST | website.com


text:
Is it possible to forward multiple emails in Gmail without doing each one individually?
If they're all in a single conversation, then yes: click the Forward All link in the top right when viewing the conversation. Otherwise, no, you cannot bulk-forward random emails.
In newer versions of Gmail this has moved to the More button under Forward All, and is only visible when you are viewing a conversation of stacked email (stacked by title replies):
There is an easier way. Apply a common label to all the messages that you would like to forward and then use this Google Scripts to forward them all to any other email address.
You can even try this script which I created using Google Apps Script. It helps you forward bunch of emails at one go. It allows you to load and forward first 50 recent emails from your inbox. Please see the discussion thread to know more on how to forward messages tagged to a label as well.
You can also convert the whole thing into a PDF by using the print button at the top of all email conversations.
protected by Community♦ Aug 31 '13 at 14:11
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:
That is, if I generate every possible result, and analyze the structure against, for example, a dictionary, won't that identify which of the solutions in the domain is most likely the correct one?
I realize the numbers involved, but this does ultimately reduce the problem to a hardware one. If this is not true, then I'm not understanding something correctly about one-time pads.


text:
7 Essential Rules to a Happy Family Life
6 of 8
They Don't Have to Be the Same as You
Do you look exactly like your mother? Your father? What about your brother, sister, and children? No. Of course not. You may have your mother's nose or your father's smile or your sister's funny little toe, but although you share half your genes with each of them, you have another half that are entirely different. You are unique. I always tell my children (jokingly, of course), "You're not really my child. You're just my half-child."
Same goes for personality. You may find it difficult to express emotion like your brother or be tidy bordering on the neurotic like your mother, but your combination of personality traits is unique.
So why is it that we assume that our family will feel the same way about things as we do? Why do we get irritated or disapproving when they do something we wouldn't? Not only are most us of prone to taking our family for granted, we also rarely do what we should--stop and think "What might mom be feeling now that this has happened? Is there anything she would appreciate me doing or saying?" Note the emphasis on what they would like, not what you want to do.
Next: Let Go of Your Role
More on: Instilling Values
From The Rules of Love Copyright © 2009, FT Press. Used by permission of FT Press, and Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
To order this book go to Amazon.


text:
Your Cart
Change Region:
ItemsCheckout >
- Welcome to Little Tikes
- Sign In / Register
- Track Order
- 1-800-321-0183
- Call Us: M-F 8am - 8pm
Change Region:
Home Replacement PartsxFG Parts HolderThomas & Friends Toddler Bed
Toddlers can journey to dreamland then awaken bright and shining in their very own Thomas the Train bed!
Special cubbies that hold books and small collectables
Built-in front storage area holds anything from PJs to toys
Thomas' train tracks are molded into the bed rails to allow play with toy trains
(toys not included)
Uses standard crib mattress (approximately 52in x 28 in x 6 in) with support or a
27 in x 51 in x 3/4 in sheet of plywood
Mattress and support not included
Bedding is not included
Wipe with a damp cloth to clean
Weight limit up to 50lbs.
Assembly Required
Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. A Britt Allcroft Company Production. A HIT Entertainment Company. Based on The Railway Series by the Rev W Awdry. ©2007 Gullane (Thomas) Limited.
Please note: The packaging this Thomas and Friends kids bed ships in reveals its' contents.
Product Size: 70.00''L x 34.50''W x 41.75''H --- Weight: 55.00lbs.Box Size: 33.50''L x 16.80''W x 31.00''H --- Weight: 25.00lbs.Box Size: 60.00"L x 13.00"W x 17.90"H -- - Weight: 29.00lbs
2016. The Little Tikes Company. All rights reserved.


text:
MANHATTAN, Kan. (WIBW) -- What was supposed to be a fun trip to cheer on their team in the Fiesta Bowl ended up being a horrific ordeal for two Kansas State University fans.
Michael Tysver, 21, and Cody Clark, 21, longtime friends from Great Bend, were riding in a pedicab, a cycle rickshaw, in Scottsdale after the bowl game early Friday morning when the pedicab was hit from behind by a Ford sedan.
Cody Clark's family members spoke to us about the dangerous collision from a Phoenix hospital where they remain by his bedside.
The driver of the car was going about 40 and the pedicab was merging into the left lane to turn. It hadn't turned yet and a passenger in the car noticed the pedicab and took the wheel and swerved it to the side so because of that Mike went through the windshield and Cody hit the A-bar which is the frame of the windshield so that's where his massive blow to the head came from," explained Clark's sister, Ashley Canton.
The duo had been celebrating Tysver's 21st birthday after the game and decided to take the pedicab home- what they thought was the safest decision.
"It is awful that they took the smart decision to take a safe ride home to have the safety for themselves and for others and someone else selfishly got behind the wheel. That's something we're trying not to think about but eventually we're going to have to deal with that too. We're just trying to focus on Cody and Mike getting better and their recovery but it is sad that someone took that decision in their hands and now our lives have been uprooted because of that," Canton told WIBW.
The driver of the car was not injured but was arrested for DUI. Other passengers in the car were not injured. The pedicab driver was taken to the hospital with injuries but his injuries were not life-threatening.
Tysver is in stable condition after spinal fusion surgery at a Scottsdale hospital while Clark remains in critical condition in Phoenix. His sister says he's not out of the woods yet and cannot be moved. His doctors expect him to be in the hospital for at least six months. He had surgery to relieve some of the pressure on his brain and has yet to wake up.
News of the accident hit hard back home in Kansas and members of the K-State nation are doing what they can to help the victims and their families.
Johnny Kaw's Sports Bar in Aggieville, where Cody Clark's sister Ashley works, is hosting a charity event Wednesday night in their honor.
All of the bar's profits and employees' tips will be donated.
"We were overwhelmed by all of the support Ashley has been getting on Twitter and Facebook by friends and family and a bunch of people that she didn't even know from the K-State nation and surrounding areas so we here at Johnny Kaw's wanted to do something for people that know her and about the situation and hopefully get them to donate in their time of need," said Natalie Wells, a staff member at Johnny Kaw's.
"We're hoping that we can get donations that will help benefit them, hopefully make it less of a stress during this hard time. Both victims- obviously it came as a shock and if we can help out and buy a couple of meals for them or help make a couple of mortgage payments, whatever we can do, we want to help," she added.
"Everyone has gone above and beyond anything we could have ever asked for. I know the boys appreciate it and the families do too. It's definitely put our hearts a little at ease knowing that there are so many people out there who car about Mike and Cody. It's been incredible. There's no words to explain how thankful we are for everything that everyone is doing for us. It's really great," Ashley Canton added.
The fundraiser at Johnny Kaw's will go from 9 PM- 2 AM Wednesday, January 9, 2013.
*$2 Wells, Draws, Shots, Bombs
*$3 Premiums
If you are unable to attend the event, you can make donations by going to www.CodyClarkFamilyFund.com


text:
Print-to-the-Edge Square Labels, 24 per sheet
Avery Blank Templates Microsoft Word
Easily customize your product labels, mailings, gift labels, food labels and more with this template.
Compatible Products:
Reviewed by 4 customers
- Easy To Navigate
Best Uses
This review is from AVERY Print-to-the-Edge Square Labels, 24 per sheet:
will highly recommend Avery product and template to anyone!
This review is from AVERY Print-to-the-Edge Square Labels, 24 per sheet:
I've attempted to use to use these labels for two separate projects and have abandoned both. Slippage was one issue, as noted by other users; I was unable to completely center and align my design. I also found the templates difficult to adapt and was forced to make many compromises in order to get remotely close to my original design. And it was a very simple design! After much time spent working around the templates, adjusting settings, disabling plugins and downloading of software, I was unable to get one single usable label. Though some of the difficulty I had may have been due to my computer (a very basic Dell), much of it had to do with the limitations imposed by the templates and the unprofessional look of the finished label.
This review is from AVERY Print-to-the-Edge Square Labels, 24 per sheet:
I created some small party favor boxes for my neice's graduation party and used these labels to personalize the front and back. They were the perfect size. The only issue I had was, even though I used the template, the centering of the print seemed to drift to the left and towards the top of the label as you got further down the page. Not sure if the issue is my printer or the template.
Overall, I love the product and will continue to use them.
This review is from AVERY Print-to-the-Edge Square Labels, 24 per sheet:
The 1.5" squared are theoretically great for making "designer stickers" for my <3-year-old grandkids. Theoretically because the images from the template seem to creep when printing on my HP2025DN. The top row, placed manually in my iMac (using Word 2011), fit nicely into the template. When I copy the row of four to each succeeding row, filling the page, It appears that all images are exactly in the template's squares. When I print, however, each row's images have crept down and to the right of its predecessor. It's not horrendous, but is annoying.
I don't know whether it's a problem with the template directly or some unidentified incompatibility with the iMac or the printer. And I see no way to find out.


text:
Hi all,
back after a long time.... gout in all joints and an allergy to a drug, but by the day i feel better... so i hope to start making panorama pictures soon again!
Question: What is the best solution for faster stitching gigapixel
panoramas (software i'm using: Kolor Autopano Giga 2.5) :
Exchange Intel i7 930 quad core (8 with Hyper threading) in my system for a Intel i7 970 six Core (12 with Hyper threading)
change my raptor 10.000 rpm harddisk and swap it for a SSD harddisk.
More memory is possible om the x58 mainboard: there is 24 Gb in the system.
Thanks all!


text:
President Barack Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai sign a strategic partnership agreement at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 2, 2012. (Credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
President Obama addressed the nation from a U.S. air base in Afghanistan exactly one year after he announced the death of Osama bin Laden.
"We have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war," the President said. "Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon."
The President spoke about the mission, which began just weeks after the September 11th attacks, and thanked the U.S. troops who sacrificed their safety, families and lives to see it through.
"Time and again, they have answered the call to serve in distant and dangerous places. In an age when so many institutions have come up short, these Americans stood tall."
President Obama arrived in darkness - the White House kept the trip a secret until he landed. He met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and signed an agreement, pledging U.S. support for Afghanistan for 10 years after combat troops leave in 2014.
Because this is an election year, the President's critics are sounding off on his trip. Some are accusing the president of making bin Laden's killing a campaign issue.
"I think politicizing it and trying to draw a distinction between himself and myself was an inappropriate use of the very important event that brought America together, which was the elimination of Osama bin Laden," said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
President Obama said the U.S. has been in direct talks with the Taliban to forge a permanent peace in Afhganistan.
The President also said the U.S. was not looking to build permanent bases in Afghanistan.


text:
Kaoko Throttle Locks offer the most secure, and easy to use mechanical cruise control for the BMW R1150GS, R1100GS, and R850GS. With a simple twist of the large knob on the Kaoko, you can adjust the tension of the lock on the fly, easing hand cramps and making your riding much more comfortable.
The Kaoko throttle lock simply replaces the original bar end weight on your motorcycle's handlebars.
Throttle locks can be dangerous - use at your own risk!
This throttle lock is also compatible with following BMW models:
BMW K1300GT, K1200GT, R1200RT (up to 2009), R1150RT, R1150R, R1100RT, R1100R, R850R.


text:
This is the craziest WP issues I've ever had...so my homepage main navigation reads like so...."home" "official artwork" "my artwork" "about" "links" "contact" but when I click on any other page my "official artwork" turns into "custom artwork". So thats wierd right...what's crazier is this page was deleted on my backend completely, it does not exist. I've deactivated all plugins, reinstalled theme files and wp files but still the issue....any help here would be amazing.
using the latest version of WP.


text:
FORT HOOD (December 12, 2012)-- U.S. Army Col. Tara Osborn, who was named earlier this month to preside over the case of Maj. Nidal Hasan, has set a hearing for 10 a.m. Dec. 18 to discuss the trial schedule.
Hasan is awaiting court-martial in the November 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood's Soldier Readiness Center that left 13 dead and two-dozen injured.
On Dec. 4 Osborn was named to replace Col Gregory Gross, whom the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ousted on Dec. 3.
The court also tossed Gross' order that Hasan must shave or would be shaved forcibly before the court-martial begins.
The court ruled that the command, not the judge, is responsible for enforcing grooming standards and said Gross didn't appear to be impartial in his handling of the case.
"Thus, taken together, the, decision to remove Appellant from the courtroom, the contempt citations, and the decision to order Appellant's forcible shaving in the absence of any command action to do the same, could lead an objective observer to conclude that the military judge was not impartial towards Appellant," the ruling said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is the highest-level appellate court for the U.S. military.
Hasan's court-martial has been on hold for months because of the battle over the Army psychiatrist's beard.
The Dec. 3 decision came in Hasan's appeal of a ruling in October by the U.S. Army Court of Appeals that Hasan has no right to wear a beard in uniform during his court-martial.
The Army Court of Appeals upheld Gross' finding that Hasan failed to prove the beard is an expression of a sincerely held religious belief and said even if the beard were such an expression, "compelling government interests" also justified Gross' order that Hasan meet Army grooming standards.
The court also upheld previous contempt findings against Hasan in which he was fined $1,000 six times for appearing in court out of uniform because of his beard.
The defense filed appeals seeking a ruling on whether the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act allowed Hasan to keep the beard.
The first sought to overturn contempt findings against Hasan in previous hearings and to bar any future contempt proceedings over the beard.
The second sought a ruling on whether the act allows Hasan to have a beard while in military uniform during his court-martial.


text:
The answers I receive are so poor, and sometimes people post links instead of a straight answer. I saw an answer like this, Here:
blablabla (SO character limit count)
It had 2 upvotes.
And here is an answer with 5 upvotes (it only has a link, he doesn't explain anything). While there is another answer, very well written explaining all I need to know and more, it has only 3 upvotes.
What do you think it could be done to improve the system? (Since I believe its easier to change the system than people)
Maybe flag an answer as a BAD ANSWER?


text:
12 Jan 2012 8:56 AM #1
Serious performance degrading leads me to doubt Sencha's Future
I'm a long term Ext JS user and advocate in my company (a large bank). We started to use it since Ext JS v2. We went through some pain to upgrade from v2 to v3 when v3 came out. We noticed some performance degrading but it was tolerable. Last year when Ext JS v4 came out, we immediately tried it. But to our dismay we noticed intolerable performance degrading on IE, especially for grids. As a result, we had to revert back to v3. Besides intolerable performance, we've also noticed the API underwent major revamp, which was a pain since our system is much larger now than when we upgraded from v2 to v3.
I've been since closely monitoring v4.1 progress. Based on all the discussions and our own benchmarks, it seems that v4.1 will still be much slower than v3.4 even when it is officially released. See these
So we face two blockers: one is performance and the other is code refactoring and large amount of QA associated with code change from v3 to v4. I see that upgrading our existing code from v3 is v4 is very impractical. As a result, my decision is to have a mixed system: keep existing system with v3.4 and selectively use Ext JS v4 for new pages/features if performance is good enough.
The big downside is that we now have to master two systems, both v3.4 and v4. This is a great pain, not just for experienced developers, but especially for new developers.
As an enterprise software architect and manager, I select technologies in hope the vendors will support their products, not just in the near term but also in the future. But who the hack was/is managing Sencha's product development? I understand why Sencha decided to change their class system etc, but at the stiff price of intolerable performance degrading and such dramatic API changes? It seems that some smart guys made the decision but apparently they totally lack the understanding of how enterprise software development works, or they simply decided to ignore the pain to their customers associated with the decision. To me pissing off your customers again and again does not seem to be a good strategy for a start-up.
So I've started to doubt whether I've made the right decision to stick with Ext JS.
But on the other hand, I really like Ext JS. I think it is a great piece of software. So I offer some suggestions.
1). Since Ext JS v4.1 is not going to have the same performance as Ext JS v3.4, Sencha needs to keep support and enhance Ext JS v3.4 in the near and intermediate term. Maybe you can port some nice features back to v3. I think a lot of people are going to end up doing what I'm doing: keep the existing pages written on Ext JS v3 unchanged but selectively write new pages using v4.1.
2). You really need to figure out the performance issue ASAP for v4. So far Sencha is so slow to address the issue. Maybe you have a talent drain? All the OO design stuff is cool, in theory, but what counts at the end is what the end users experience: cool features with excellent performance. Excellent OO design is cool for developers but I choose good/mediocre OO design like v3 with good performance hands down.
3). I feel Sencha is on a wrong path to somehow FORCE people to adopt certain paradigms.I'm referring to the new MVC, dynamic class loading stuff. These are great ideas and idioms - I totally agree with the ideas. But a good library should be nimble and should support all sorts of paradigms, especially since people have legacy system to support. I understand Sencha does not really FORCE people to use MVC but its documentation makes me feel that way.
My two cents.
12 Jan 2012 9:32 AM #2
It was stated in another thread that the eventual performance goal for 4.x is to be at least as fast as 3.4.
I believe this will happen, but it may take more than one point release.
Last edited by LesJ; 12 Jan 2012 at 1:20 PM. Reason: fix typo
13 Jan 2012 12:10 AM #3
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- Groningen - Netherlands
- Posts
- 1,146
- Vote Rating
- 34
The performance is not that bad. The bugs give troubles.
13 Jan 2012 12:37 AM #4
I agree - Sencha really need to land 4.1 anytime soon or they will find themselves chasing their own tail adding this, adding that and feature-creeping the 4.1 branch ad infinitum.
I hope the landing will be smooth and not a crash - we are currently in a holding-pattern on two major projects waiting for a 4.1 release (still running 3.x and one prototype project running 4.0.x but with MAJOR performance issues that are sort of fixed in 4.1b1).
Having a shared Class-structure between Touch and Desktop would be extremely nice, but guys - please land 4.1 and Touch 2.0 as separate flights before it starts to get crowded in the air and development efforts are wasted.
13 Jan 2012 6:22 AM #5
Maybe sometimes we need to think in convincing our users why is important to use a different browser. In the Internet this is not possible, but in a corporation, I think it is: it can be taken as a Non Functional Requirement.
I'm not defending Sencha, but sometimes we need to put our selves in they position.
Expanding Ext3.4 support it will be wise too, at least until we have a good performance, and more important, good stability.Ext is terrific!!
13 Jan 2012 9:26 AM #6
It looks like OP was mainly complaining about performance as it relates to IE. Personally I have not experienced performance problems but I'm using Safari so perhaps that's why.
OP went on to say that they reverted back to 3.x. That's a perfectly reasonable solution. Sencha is pushing the platform forward while taking advantage of state of the art browsers and if that means that older systems have to suffer, then so be it. If you want to better support older systems then stick with the older ExtJS.
As someone else pointed out, it may take several more dot-releases before ExtJS 4 is where everyone wants it to be, but just take a look at the overhauled layout system in 4.1b1 and you'll see that they're not ignoring it.
13 Jan 2012 12:43 PM #7
for those who cant wait for a faster and bug free version of extjs
check out KendoUI , its highly theme-able and built on jquery.
I am a big fan of extjs but their performance on IE and lack of communicating their plans have forced me to look out alternatives
KendoUI is what i am enjoying these days, moreover they are very clear on their road-maps and release schedule
for those who are good in extjs KendoUI will not demand a big learning curve
13 Jan 2012 2:36 PM #8
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- Groningen - Netherlands
- Posts
- 1,146
- Vote Rating
- 34
I got most of my app migrated to 4.1. And its stable for as far as I see. That is quite a difference compared to 4.07. Performance is still bit a slower than 3.4. But acceptable. Tab changes could be a bit quicker.
If the resizer bug is fixed.... I dare to roll it out. Performance will come. Maybe we were spoiled, and is it sometimes necessary to take a step back....there is no other framework I have seen better than ExtJs .So hopelfully Sencha gets thing back on track after this painfull migration. But good job guys!


text:
If I look into
/etc/hostname/ I can see the hostname of my device. This is however not the name that shows up when I use nslookup on our network. How do I tell the DNS server which name it should use?
To clarify I am on a small local network.
Edit: I think I have to explain this a little further.
I have a file
/etc/hostname with only one line:
We have a LAN that has the name
I was expecting if there isn't any kind of conflict, the nameserver would create the name
my_hostname.our_network.local, but when I issue the command
nslookup on my ip-address, the name is not found.


text:
Is there a way to get the distances for the second nearest neighbor between two point patterns in R? The spatstat package has a function called nncross but it only applies to the nearest neighbors between two patterns and I need the distances to the second nearest neighbors.
The function get.knnx in package FNN can compute the N-nearest neighbours in point patterns.
now nn$nn.index is a matrix such that nn$nn.index[i,j] is the row in x1 of the two nearest neighbours to row i in x2 - sorted so that the nearest is [i,1], and the next neighbour is [i,2].
The function also returns the distances for you, and has some options to compute spatial indexes for very fast searches.
I just discovered that spatstat has a crossdist function.
It takes two point patterns X and Y as inputs, and returns the matrix whose [i,j] entry is the distance from X[i] to Y[j]. To get the second nearest neighbors using crossdist:
I know I already accepted Spacedman's answer but I would like to share how I did it in another way.


text:
GCC signs strategic cooperation agreement with Turkey
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers held their 108th meeting in Jeddah yesterday. Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Saud Al-Faisal led the Saudi delegation.
At a meeting attended by Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, the ministers discussed a number of key regional issues including the situation in Palestine, Iraq and the Iranian nuclear file. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the GCC and Turkey that aims to enhance cooperation in the economic, trade, investment, defense, security, cultural and energy areas.
On the Iranian nuclear issue, the GCC ministers welcomed ongoing negotiations between Iran and the West and highlighted the importance of resolving disputes through peaceful means. They called for a Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction and reiterated the right of nations to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes within the framework of international law.
Regarding Iraq, they stressed the importance of preserving Iraq's unity, sovereignty and independence and called for national reconciliation as well as noninterference in Iraqi internal affairs.
Turning to the Middle East peace process, the GCC called for an end to Israel's siege of Gaza and to settlements in the Palestinian territories. They also urged the international community to exert pressure on Israel to comply with UN resolutions and expressed support for the resumption of Israeli-Syrian peace talks under Turkish patronage.
On other issues, the ministers reiterated their condemnation of terrorism and expressed support for all regional and international counterterrorism efforts. They welcomed measures taken by Yemen to implement development in that country and praised a proposal for strategic dialogue with China.
They also called on Iran to resolve the dispute with the UAE over the three disputed Arabian Gulf islands of Greater and Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa. The GCC supports the UAE's claim to the islands.


text:
Front-Wheel FollyWritten by on February 1, 2006 Our Neon gets all-dressed-up
It all began a few months ago, when we announced our Neon project. we were quite surprised at the volume of e-mails we received telling us what to do to it. We heard everything from "you have to do wheels and tires," all the way up to "yank the engine and transmission out, and put a V-8 in it." We must admit, the latter sounded appealing to us, but Misty (and her mom) were very adversarial to the idea. In her mom's words, "Are you crazy?"
Since no one in their right mind would argue with a mom, we opted not to gut it and make it rear-wheel drive. We did, however, decide to add a wheel and tire package. We say "package" because by simply going to www.tirerack.com, you can place a tire rack-supplied image of your car in the search window and see a variety of wheels on your car. After you choose the wheels, select the tires you want, place the order, and the tires you chose come mounted on the wheels you chose. It doesn't get any easier than that. keep in mind, it's impossible for www.tirerack.com to have every automobile ever built in their database, but if you know the wheel and tire size you're looking for, they can help.
If you are looking for suspension parts, brake parts, and even accessories, www.tirerack.com is definitely a "one stop" auto shop.
So, we placed Misty in front of a computer, and let her do the looking since it's her car. After putting an image of a black Neon on the web page, she started looking through the selection of wheels. she decided on a set of ASA wheels: model AR-1 in 17x7 inches. The AR-1 features a one-piece construction with a polished lip and painted center.
When it came time for tires, she had no clue what she needed, so we suggested an summer performance tire. by searching the desired tire size, rating, and handling characteristics, our search led us to the Avon Tech M-500 tire. We placed our order online and waited for the UPS guy. When the brown truck arrived, we found each wheel and tire protected for shipment to avoid any damage. We removed the protective foam and cardboard, and mounted the wheels and tires on the car. can it get any simpler? you don't even need to leave the house until it's time to mount them on the car!
What's it take to get a "package" from www.tirerack.com? For starters, just click on their logo here, and we'll send you there.
More Photos From This Article View Slideshow
Everyone gets a first car, but how many of us end up with a cool little cruiser that looks this good for only $1,436? That's right, $400 for the car, $716 for the wheels, and $320 for the tires.You can make your vehicle selection on the www.tirerack.com home page. First click on Select Make, and then Select Year. After that, choose the product you are looking for: wheels, tires, brakes, suspension, or one of the other choices.In our case, we are working on a black Neon. So, Misty picked a Tire Rack-supplied image of a black Neon from their pull-down menu. you can scroll through the wheel choices, and actually see your choice on the car before you buy it. If you click on View wheel up close, it takes you to a window with all the pertinent specs of the wheel.Misty chose ASA's AR-1 wheel that features a polished rim and painted center. Choosing wheels has never been easier.That took us to the tire selection page. Here you can choose the tire you want by simply checking the box next to the specification you are looking for. You want a particular brand? Just click the box and that's it. You can choose by speed rating or even the type of handling characteristics you're looking for.We ultimately chose to use Avon's Tech M-500. We have heard good things about Avon's tires and felt confident with our choice.
When our wheels and tires arrived, they were individually wrapped and protected for shipment. We put one of them in place in front of the stock wheel--it's definitely a dramatic change to the hubcaps.If you think having a wheel and tire package shipped to you will damage the wheels, think again. each tire and wheel package is wrapped with foam and cardboard.