Tag Archives: free

Golden Rule Community CU

Posted: November 21, 2016 at 11:14 am

We give thanks

Emily earning money for school at the Green Lake County Fair auction

Need help with a vehicle loan?

Whether you’re purchasing a vehicle or if you simply want to see if we can save you money or lower your payments on your existing vehicle loan . . . we’re here to assist you.

Click here to Apply Online Today!

or call us at (920) 748-5336

Click here to Apply Online Today!

It may be warming up outside . . .

but our loan rates are HOT!

Buying a car, a home, or just need some cash?

Click here to Apply Online Today!

or call us at (920) 748-5336

Please follow the links to Online Services; Applications; to print out the Employment Application

THANKS TO OUR MEMBERS, WE RAISED $298.33 AND GRCCU MATCHED THAT AMOUNT FOR A TOTAL OF $596.66

Childrens Miracle Network hospitals helping kids

GRCCU members will have one more opportunity to donate in last December/early January.

Go Green & Sign up for E-Statements!!

Sign up now for this free serviceand you will have access to the last 6 months of statements, and yourcurrent statement will be delivered to you electronically.

For more information please contact us at (920)748-5336.

PAL (Phone Access Line) NOTICE

Our local PAL (Phone Acces Line) phone number was phased out on March 3, 2015.

Please use our toll free number (855) 397-7344.

Thank you.

MasterCard Debit Card after hours (800)854-6219

MasterCard Credit Card after hours

(866)543-6308

Order checks by speaking to one of our Member Service Representative or by calling (920) 748-5336.

We are Federally Insured by the NCUA which is a credit union version of the FDIC.

Click here to see how much you are federally insured forNCUA Insurance Estimator

Third Party Content

“Golden Rule” Community Credit Union provides links to other sites. As such, “Golden Rule” Community Credit Union is a distributor of information. “Golden Rule” Community Credit Union is not in control of the content, product, or service on any of these third party websites. Also GRCCU privacy statement does not apply to the third party websites. Please consult the privacy disclosures on the third party websites.

NOTICE TO BILL PAY USERS:

BeginningSeptember 1, 2014, the PIN used to log into Bill Pay will have a length requirement of at least eight characters. Please ensure your PIN is updated to an eight-character length before September 1. PINs must not contain consecutive characters and must contain three of the following elements:

You can change your PIN by selecting ‘Options’ and then ‘Change PIN’ when you are logged into Bill Pay. This page will display PIN length requirements.

In addition, beginning in November, subscriber PINs will expire every 60 days.

If you have questions, please contact us at 920-748-5336.

Original post:

Golden Rule Community CU

Posted in Golden Rule | Comments Off on Golden Rule Community CU

The Art Of Memetics: Edward Wilson, Wes Unruh, Ray Carney …

Posted: at 11:07 am

‘).appendTo(flyout.elem());var panelGroup=flyout.getName()+’SubCats’;var hideTimeout=null;var sloppyTrigger=createSloppyTrigger($parent);var showParent=function(){if(hideTimeout){clearTimeout(hideTimeout);hideTimeout=null;} if(visible){return;} var height=$(‘#nav-flyout-shopAll’).height();$parent.animate({width:’show’},{duration:200,complete:function(){$parent.css({overflow:’visible’,’height’:height});}});visible=true;};var hideParentNow=function(){$parent.stop().css({overflow:’hidden’,display:’none’,width:’auto’,height:’auto’});panels.hideAll({group:panelGroup});visible=false;if(hideTimeout){clearTimeout(hideTimeout);hideTimeout=null;}};var hideParent=function(){if(!visible){return;} if(hideTimeout){clearTimeout(hideTimeout);hideTimeout=null;} hideTimeout=setTimeout(hideParentNow,10);};flyout.onHide(function(){sloppyTrigger.disable();hideParentNow();this.elem().hide();});var addPanel=function($link,panelKey){var panel=dataPanel({className:’nav-subcat’,dataKey:panelKey,groups:[panelGroup],spinner:false,visible:false});if(!flyoutDebug){var mouseout=mouseOutUtility();mouseout.add(flyout.elem());mouseout.action(function(){panel.hide();});mouseout.enable();} var a11y=a11yHandler({link:$link,onEscape:function(){panel.hide();$link.focus();}});var logPanelInteraction=function(promoID,wlTriggers){var logNow=$F.once().on(function(){var panelEvent=$.extend({},event,{id:promoID});if(config.browsePromos&&!!config.browsePromos[promoID]){panelEvent.bp=1;} logEvent(panelEvent);phoneHome.trigger(wlTriggers);});if(panel.isVisible()&&panel.hasInteracted()){logNow();}else{panel.onInteract(logNow);}};panel.onData(function(data){renderPromo(data.promoID,panel.elem());logPanelInteraction(data.promoID,data.wlTriggers);});panel.onShow(function(){var columnCount=$(‘.nav-column’,panel.elem()).length;panel.elem().addClass(‘nav-colcount-‘+columnCount);showParent();var $subCatLinks=$(‘.nav-subcat-links > a’,panel.elem());var length=$subCatLinks.length;if(length>0){var firstElementLeftPos=$subCatLinks.eq(0).offset().left;for(var i=1;i’+ catTitle+”);panel.elem().prepend($subPanelTitle);}} $link.addClass(‘nav-active’);});panel.onHide(function(){$link.removeClass(‘nav-active’);hideParent();a11y.disable();});panel.onShow(function(){a11y.elems($(‘a, area’,panel.elem()));});sloppyTrigger.register($link,panel);if(flyoutDebug){$link.click(function(){if(panel.isVisible()){panel.hide();}else{panel.show();}});} var panelKeyHandler=onKey($link,function(){if(this.isEnter()||this.isSpace()){panel.show();}},’keydown’,false);$link.focus(function(){panelKeyHandler.bind();}).blur(function(){panelKeyHandler.unbind();});panel.elem().appendTo($parent);};var hideParentAndResetTrigger=function(){hideParent();sloppyTrigger.disable();};for(var i=0;i

Enter your mobile number or email address below and we’ll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer – no Kindle device required.

Flip to back Flip to front

“The Art of Memetics is a much needed text on memes and how ideas grow might and power and spread as if by magic. There is more actual magic in memes than I ever saw before reading this master text by Edward Wilson and Wes Unruh. If you want your ideas to spread, you’ll read this book twice.” – Jay Conrad Levinson, Father of Guerilla Marketing

The Meme Machine (Popular Science)

Susan Blackmore

Paperback

$15.79 Prime

Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme

Paperback

$11.36 Prime

Thought Contagion

Paperback

$17.00 Prime

Memetics: Memes and the Science of Cultural Evolution

Paperback

$13.99 Prime

Occult Memetics: Reality Manipulation

Tarl Warwick

Paperback

$5.50 Prime

The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition–with a new Introduction by the Author

Paperback

$14.64 Prime

Read more:

The Art Of Memetics: Edward Wilson, Wes Unruh, Ray Carney …

Posted in Memetics | Comments Off on The Art Of Memetics: Edward Wilson, Wes Unruh, Ray Carney …

Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto – amazon.com

Posted: at 10:55 am

‘).appendTo(flyout.elem());var panelGroup=flyout.getName()+’SubCats’;var hideTimeout=null;var sloppyTrigger=createSloppyTrigger($parent);var showParent=function(){if(hideTimeout){clearTimeout(hideTimeout);hideTimeout=null;} if(visible){return;} var height=$(‘#nav-flyout-shopAll’).height();$parent.animate({width:’show’},{duration:200,complete:function(){$parent.css({overflow:’visible’,’height’:height});}});visible=true;};var hideParentNow=function(){$parent.stop().css({overflow:’hidden’,display:’none’,width:’auto’,height:’auto’});panels.hideAll({group:panelGroup});visible=false;if(hideTimeout){clearTimeout(hideTimeout);hideTimeout=null;}};var hideParent=function(){if(!visible){return;} if(hideTimeout){clearTimeout(hideTimeout);hideTimeout=null;} hideTimeout=setTimeout(hideParentNow,10);};flyout.onHide(function(){sloppyTrigger.disable();hideParentNow();this.elem().hide();});var addPanel=function($link,panelKey){var panel=dataPanel({className:’nav-subcat’,dataKey:panelKey,groups:[panelGroup],spinner:false,visible:false});if(!flyoutDebug){var mouseout=mouseOutUtility();mouseout.add(flyout.elem());mouseout.action(function(){panel.hide();});mouseout.enable();} var a11y=a11yHandler({link:$link,onEscape:function(){panel.hide();$link.focus();}});var logPanelInteraction=function(promoID,wlTriggers){var logNow=$F.once().on(function(){var panelEvent=$.extend({},event,{id:promoID});if(config.browsePromos&&!!config.browsePromos[promoID]){panelEvent.bp=1;} logEvent(panelEvent);phoneHome.trigger(wlTriggers);});if(panel.isVisible()&&panel.hasInteracted()){logNow();}else{panel.onInteract(logNow);}};panel.onData(function(data){renderPromo(data.promoID,panel.elem());logPanelInteraction(data.promoID,data.wlTriggers);});panel.onShow(function(){var columnCount=$(‘.nav-column’,panel.elem()).length;panel.elem().addClass(‘nav-colcount-‘+columnCount);showParent();var $subCatLinks=$(‘.nav-subcat-links > a’,panel.elem());var length=$subCatLinks.length;if(length>0){var firstElementLeftPos=$subCatLinks.eq(0).offset().left;for(var i=1;i’+ catTitle+”);panel.elem().prepend($subPanelTitle);}} $link.addClass(‘nav-active’);});panel.onHide(function(){$link.removeClass(‘nav-active’);hideParent();a11y.disable();});panel.onShow(function(){a11y.elems($(‘a, area’,panel.elem()));});sloppyTrigger.register($link,panel);if(flyoutDebug){$link.click(function(){if(panel.isVisible()){panel.hide();}else{panel.show();}});} var panelKeyHandler=onKey($link,function(){if(this.isEnter()||this.isSpace()){panel.show();}},’keydown’,false);$link.focus(function(){panelKeyHandler.bind();}).blur(function(){panelKeyHandler.unbind();});panel.elem().appendTo($parent);};var hideParentAndResetTrigger=function(){hideParent();sloppyTrigger.disable();};for(var i=0;i

Enter your mobile number or email address below and we’ll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer – no Kindle device required.

Flip to back Flip to front

Forewords by Dr. Aubrey de Grey (Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge) and Robert A. Freitas Jr. (Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Molecular Manufacturing) “A rare and uplifting vision of the biological future we can and should create for ourselves.” Dr. Gregory Fahy, Chief Scientific Officer, Vice President, 21st Century Medicine The debate about the ethics of human biotechnology or genetic engineering is one of the most important cultural issues of our time. “Transhumanism” is the philosophy that most of all supports genetic science and biotechnology, yet the public knows little about this emerging philosophy. Transhumanism declares unequivocal support for the attempt to eliminate disease, defeat death, and enhance the body and mind beyond the limitations of the age-old human condition. In Designer Evolution Simon Young presents a polemical espousal of transhumanist philosophy and a trenchant attack on its critics, the “Bio-Luddites.” The author calls for a rejection of premodern superstition and postmodern nihilism in favor of a renewed belief in human progress through scientific rationality. In an age when cynicism, fatalism, and nihilism are rife, Designer Evolution will rekindle a feeling of optimism about the future of our species. This is a concise, reader-friendly introduction to a vitally important philosophy that will become difficult to ignore as advances in biotechnology increasingly claim the headlines in the coming decades.

Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies — and What It Means to Be Human

Paperback

$14.89 Prime

H+/-: Transhumanism and Its Critics

Gregory R. Hansell

Paperback

$19.99 Prime

The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future

Max More

Paperback

$35.29 Prime

Beyond Humanity?: The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement (Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics)

Paperback

$27.95 Prime

More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement

Hardcover

Transhumanist Dreams and Dystopian Nightmares: The Promise and Peril of Genetic Engineering

Hardcover

$26.36 Prime

“Young rejects premodern superstition and postmodern nihilism, calling for a renewed belief in human progress through scientific rationality. Written in a breezy, populist, quotable style, this reader-friendly introduction to a vitally important philosophy will be difficult to ignore as advances in biotechnology increasingly claim the headlines in the years ahead. It is vital reading for all who care about our place and purpose in the world at a time of rapid change at the dawn of the twenty-first century.” – Innovation Watch

Simon Young (Brighton, East Sussex, UK), the son of pioneering cybernetician and science writer J. F. Young, is an accomplished pianist who has performed throughout Europe. For more on Designer Evolution visit Simon Young’s Web site at: http://www.designerevolution.net

See the original post here:
Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto – amazon.com

Posted in Transhumanist | Comments Off on Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto – amazon.com

Who Is a Libertarian? | Foundation for Economic Education

Posted: November 17, 2016 at 6:42 pm

Those of us who favor individual freedom with personal responsibility have been unable to agree upon a generally acceptable name for ourselves and our philosophy of liberty. This would be relatively unimportant except for the fact that the opposition will call us by some name, even though we might not desire to be identified by any name at all. Since this is so, we might better select a name with some logic instead of permitting the opposition to saddle us with an epithet.

Some of us call ourselves individualists, but others point out that the opposition often uses that word to describe a heartless person who doesnt care about the problems and aspirations of other people.

Some of us call ourselves conservatives, but that term describes many persons who base their approval of an institution more on its age than on its inherent worth.

Many of us call ourselves liberals. And it is true that the word liberal once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding.

Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word libertarian.

Websters New International Dictionary defines a libertarian as One who holds to the doctrine of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action.

In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violencelegal or illegalto impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today.

A libertarian believes that the government should protect all persons equally against external and internal aggression, but should otherwise generally leave people alone to work out their own problems and aspirations.

While a libertarian expects the government to render equal protection to all persons against outright fraud and misrepresentation, he doesnt expect the government to protect anyone from the consequences of his own free choices. A libertarian holds that persons who make wise choices are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their wisdom, and that persons who make unwise choices have no right to demand that the government reimburse them for their folly.

A libertarian expects his government to establish, support, and enforce the decisions of impartial courts of justicecourts which do not recognize or refer to a persons race, religion, or economic status. If justice is to be rendered, the decisions of these courts must be as binding upon government officials and their actions as upon other persons and their actions.

A libertarian respects the right of every person to use and enjoy his honestly acquired propertyto trade it, to sell it, or even to give it awayfor he knows that human liberty cannot long endure when that fundamental right is rejected or even seriously impaired.

A libertarian believes that the daily needs of the people can best be satisfied through the voluntary processes of a free and competitive market. And he holds the strong belief that free persons, using their own honestly acquired money, are in the best possible position to understand and aid their fellow men who are in need of help.

A libertarian favors a strictly limited form of government with many checks and balancesand divisions of authorityto foil the abuses of the fearful power of government. And generally speaking, he is one who sees less, rather than more, need to govern the actions of others.

A libertarian has much faith in himself and other free persons to find maximum happiness and prosperity in a society wherein no person has the authority to force any other peaceful person to conform to his viewpoints or desires in any manner. His way of life is based on respect for himself and for all others.

A libertarian doesnt advocate violent rebellion against prevailing governmentsexcept as a last resort before the concentration camps. But when a libertarian sees harm rather than good in certain acts of government, he is obligated to try his best to explain to others who advocate those measures why such compulsory means cannot bring the ends which even they desire.

The libertarians goal is friendship and peace with his neighbors at home and abroad.

It is not the difference in taste between individuals that Libertarians object to, but the forcing of ones tastes upon another.

Charles T. Sprading

The idea of governing by force another man, who I believe to be my equal in the sight of God, is repugnant to me. I do not want to do it. I do not want any one to govern me by any kind of force. I am a reasoning being, and I only need to be shown what is best for me, when I will take that course or do that thing simply because it is best, and so will you. I do not believe that a soul was ever forced toward anything except toward ruin.

Samuel Milton Jones

Liberty for the few is not liberty. Liberty for me and slavery for you means slavery for both.

Samuel Milton Jones

The institutions of civil liberty leave each man to run his career in life in his own way, only guaranteeing to him that whatever he does in the way of industry, economy, prudence, sound judgment, etc., shall redound to his welfare and shall not be diverted to someone elses benefit. Of course it is a necessary corollary that each man shall also bear the penalty of his own vices and his own mistakes.

We are told what fine things would happen if every one of us would go and do something for the welfare of somebody else; but why not contemplate also the immense gain which would ensue if everybody would do something for himself?

Wherever collective standards, codes, ideals, and motives take the place of individual responsibility, we know from ample experience that the spontaneity and independent responsibility which are essential to moral vigor are sure to be lost.

William Graham Sumner

View post:

Who Is a Libertarian? | Foundation for Economic Education

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Who Is a Libertarian? | Foundation for Economic Education

What Is Posthumanism? (Posthumanities): Cary Wolfe …

Posted: November 10, 2016 at 5:34 pm

‘).appendTo(flyout.elem());var panelGroup=flyout.getName()+’SubCats’;var hideTimeout=null;var sloppyTrigger=createSloppyTrigger($parent);var showParent=function(){if(hideTimeout){clearTimeout(hideTimeout);hideTimeout=null;} if(visible){return;} var height=$(‘#nav-flyout-shopAll’).height();$parent.animate({width:’show’},{duration:200,complete:function(){$parent.css({overflow:’visible’,’height’:height});}});visible=true;};var hideParentNow=function(){$parent.stop().css({overflow:’hidden’,display:’none’,width:’auto’,height:’auto’});panels.hideAll({group:panelGroup});visible=false;if(hideTimeout){clearTimeout(hideTimeout);hideTimeout=null;}};var hideParent=function(){if(!visible){return;} if(hideTimeout){clearTimeout(hideTimeout);hideTimeout=null;} hideTimeout=setTimeout(hideParentNow,10);};flyout.onHide(function(){sloppyTrigger.disable();hideParentNow();this.elem().hide();});var addPanel=function($link,panelKey){var panel=dataPanel({className:’nav-subcat’,dataKey:panelKey,groups:[panelGroup],spinner:false,visible:false});if(!flyoutDebug){var mouseout=mouseOutUtility();mouseout.add(flyout.elem());mouseout.action(function(){panel.hide();});mouseout.enable();} var a11y=a11yHandler({link:$link,onEscape:function(){panel.hide();$link.focus();}});var logPanelInteraction=function(promoID,wlTriggers){var logNow=$F.once().on(function(){var panelEvent=$.extend({},event,{id:promoID});if(config.browsePromos&&!!config.browsePromos[promoID]){panelEvent.bp=1;} logEvent(panelEvent);phoneHome.trigger(wlTriggers);});if(panel.isVisible()&&panel.hasInteracted()){logNow();}else{panel.onInteract(logNow);}};panel.onData(function(data){renderPromo(data.promoID,panel.elem());logPanelInteraction(data.promoID,data.wlTriggers);});panel.onShow(function(){var columnCount=$(‘.nav-column’,panel.elem()).length;panel.elem().addClass(‘nav-colcount-‘+columnCount);showParent();var $subCatLinks=$(‘.nav-subcat-links > a’,panel.elem());var length=$subCatLinks.length;if(length>0){var firstElementLeftPos=$subCatLinks.eq(0).offset().left;for(var i=1;i’+ catTitle+”);panel.elem().prepend($subPanelTitle);}} $link.addClass(‘nav-active’);});panel.onHide(function(){$link.removeClass(‘nav-active’);hideParent();a11y.disable();});panel.onShow(function(){a11y.elems($(‘a, area’,panel.elem()));});sloppyTrigger.register($link,panel);if(flyoutDebug){$link.click(function(){if(panel.isVisible()){panel.hide();}else{panel.show();}});} var panelKeyHandler=onKey($link,function(){if(this.isEnter()||this.isSpace()){panel.show();}},’keydown’,false);$link.focus(function(){panelKeyHandler.bind();}).blur(function(){panelKeyHandler.unbind();});panel.elem().appendTo($parent);};var hideParentAndResetTrigger=function(){hideParent();sloppyTrigger.disable();};for(var i=0;i

Enter your mobile number or email address below and we’ll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer – no Kindle device required.

Trade in your item Get a $3.41 Gift Card.

Flip to back Flip to front

What does it mean to think beyond humanism? Is it possible to craft a mode of philosophy, ethics, and interpretation that rejects the classic humanist divisions of self and other, mind and body, society and nature, human and animal, organic and technological? Can a new kind of humanities-posthumanities-respond to the redefinition of humanity’s place in the world by both the technological and the biological or “green” continuum in which the “human” is but one life form among many?

Exploring how both critical thought along with cultural practice have reacted to this radical repositioning, Cary Wolfe-one of the founding figures in the field of animal studies and posthumanist theory-ranges across bioethics, cognitive science, animal ethics, gender, and disability to develop a theoretical and philosophical approach responsive to our changing understanding of ourselves and our world. Then, in performing posthumanist readings of such diverse works as Temple Grandin’s writings, Wallace Stevens’s poetry, Lars von Trier’s Dancer in the Dark, the architecture of Diller+Scofidio, and David Byrne and Brian Eno’s My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, he shows how this philosophical sensibility can transform art and culture.

For Wolfe, a vibrant, rigorous posthumanism is vital for addressing questions of ethics and justice, language and trans-species communication, social systems and their inclusions and exclusions, and the intellectual aspirations of interdisciplinarity. In What Is Posthumanism? he carefully distinguishes posthumanism from transhumanism (the biotechnological enhancement of human beings) and narrow definitions of the posthuman as the hoped-for transcendence of materiality. In doing so, Wolfe reveals that it is humanism, not the human in all its embodied and prosthetic complexity, that is left behind in posthumanist thought.

The Posthuman

Paperback

$19.95 Prime

How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics

Paperback

$15.72 Prime

The Nonhuman Turn (Center for 21st Century Studies)

Richard Grusin

Paperback

$22.28 Prime

When Species Meet (Posthumanities)

Donna J. Haraway

Paperback

$23.95 Prime

Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (a John Hope Franklin Center Book)

Paperback

$21.80 Prime

Zoontologies: The Question Of The Animal

Cary Wolfe

Paperback

$18.00 Prime

Cary Wolfe is Bruce and Elizabeth Dunlevie Professor of English at Rice University. He is the author of Critical Environments: Postmodern Theory and the Pragmatics of the Outside (Minnesota, 1998) and Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species, and Posthumanist Theory, and the editor of Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal (Minnesota, 2003).

Original post:

What Is Posthumanism? (Posthumanities): Cary Wolfe …

Posted in Posthumanism | Comments Off on What Is Posthumanism? (Posthumanities): Cary Wolfe …

ROBOTC | Robotics Academy

Posted: October 25, 2016 at 7:41 am

Online Professional Development Courses Start this February!

Online Professional Development Courses Start this February! We are excited to announce our latest online training schedule! Classes start in February and you can enjoy the convenience of taking Robotics Academy courses without leaving your own computer workstation! Register for a class here! Benefits of Robotics Academy Online Training Courses:

The latest chapter within the VEX CORTEX Video Trainer Curriculum is now available Competition Programming!Located in the Engineering Section,this chapterincludes lessons designed to help students prepare their programs for a VEX Competition. Some of the lessons youll learn within this chapter includes: Creating a Competition Legal Program with the

The latest chapter within our VEX CORTEX Video Trainer Curriculum is now available Using the LCD!Located in the Sensing section, this chaptercovers how to configure and implement the LCD as a useful tool in your program. Some of the lessons youll learn within this chapter includes: Three steps to

We are excited to share our latest chapter available within our VEX CORTEX Video Trainer Curriculum Gyro Sensor!Located in the Sensing section, this chapter will allow you toto turn the robot by measurements of degrees. Some of the lessons youll learn within this chapter includes: How the Gyro Sensor

We are excited to announce our Fallonline training schedulethatstarts in September! The Robotics Academy is a world leader in robotics education and trains teacher internationally. Enjoy the convenience of taking Robotics Academy courses without leaving your own computer workstation. Robotics Academy online training includes: Online access to supplemental lessons from

We are excited to share our latest chapter available within out VEX CORTEX Video Trainer Curriculum Integrated Encoders! Located in the Movement section, this chapter will allow you to increase movement accuracy and automatic movement corrections. Some of the lessons youll learn within this chapter includes: Introduction to the

Our Robotics Summer of Learning (RSOL) opens today! This summer, students have the opportunity to learn how to program virtual robots using a FREE copy of Robot Virtual Worldswhere they can program VEX IQor LEGO MINDSTORMS EV3virtual robots.All RSOL courses are self-paced with e-mail support available at rsol@cs2n.org. Sign

We are proud to announce the return of our Robotics Summer of Learning program!This summer, students have the opportunity to learn how to program robots, earn a programming certificate and badges, and play with cool software for FREE!We will provide all of the software and training materials at no cost

Our on-site (in Pittsburgh, PA) and online Summer Professional Development classes for VEX CORTEX, VEX IQ, and LEGO MINDSTORMS are filling up quickly. Register todayto make sure you get into your preferred course (listed below!) Highlights of the Robotics Academy Training: Acquire new skills with technology and new ways to

My name is Ringo Dingrando and I teach Robotics and Physics at International School Manila in the Philippines. For the past three years, high school students have been inquiring into how to program using ROBOTC and how to use their programming skills to build robots, often with VEX hardware. In

Read the original post:

ROBOTC | Robotics Academy

Posted in Robotics | Comments Off on ROBOTC | Robotics Academy

Annotation 1 – First Amendment – FindLaw

Posted: September 22, 2016 at 7:46 pm

RELIGION

An Overview

Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ”The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ”Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ”Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .” 3 It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ”respecting” phraseology. 4 Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, 5 but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.

Scholarly Commentary .–The explication of the religion clauses by the scholars has followed a restrained sense of their meaning. Story, who thought that ”the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice,” 6 looked upon the prohibition simply as an exclusion from the Federal Government of all power to act upon the subject. ”The situation . . . of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.” 7

”Probably,” Story also wrote, ”at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.” 8 The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment. 9

This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, 10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ”aid one religion” or ”prefer one religion over another,” but as well those that ”aid all religions.” Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ”preferential” governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general. 11 The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position. 12

Court Tests Applied to Legislation Affecting Religion .–Before considering the development of the two religion clauses by the Supreme Court, one should notice briefly the tests developed by which religion cases are adjudicated by the Court. While later cases rely on a series of rather well-defined, if difficult-to-apply, tests, the language of earlier cases ”may have [contained] too sweeping utterances on aspects of these clauses that seemed clear in relation to the particular cases but have limited meaning as general principles.” 13 It is well to recall that ”the purpose [of the religion clauses] was to state an objective, not to write a statute.” 14

In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ”a wall of separation between Church and State.” 15 In Reynolds v. United States, 16 Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as ”almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.” In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jefferson’s metaphor for substantial guidance. 17 But a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on governmental action. 18 The concept of neutrality itself is ”a coat of many colors,” 19 and three standards that could be stated in objective fashion emerged as tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two standards were part of the same formulation. ”The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.” 20 The third test is whether the governmental program results in ”an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . . [T]he questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.” 21 In 1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice Burger’s opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 22 and are frequently referred to by reference to that case name.

Although at one time accepted in principle by all of the Justices, 23 the tests have sometimes been difficult to apply, 24 have recently come under direct attack by some Justices, 25 and with increasing frequency have not been applied at all by the Court. 26 While continued application is uncertain, the Lemon tests nonetheless have served for twenty years as the standard measure of Establishment Clause validity and explain most of the Court’s decisions in the area. 27 As of the end of the Court’s 1991-92 Term, there was not yet a consensus among Lemon critics as to what substitute test should be favored. 28 Reliance on ”coercion” for that purpose would eliminate a principal distinction between establishment cases and free exercise cases and render the Establishment Clause largely duplicative of the Free Exercise Clause. 29

Justice O’Connor has suggested that it is inappropriate to try to shoehorn all Establishment cases into one test, and has called instead for recognition that different contexts may call for different approaches. Supp.1 For example, the Justice proposes that cases involving government ”speech” on religious topics be judged by an endorsement test that would invalidate government actions only if a reasonable observer would perceive the action as an endorsement or disapproval of religious belief. Supp.2

Government Neutrality in Religious Disputes .–One value that both clauses of the religion section serve is to enforce governmental neutrality in deciding controversies arising out of religious disputes. Schism sometimes develops within churches or between a local church and the general church, resulting in secession or expulsion of one faction or of the local church. A dispute over which body is to have control of the property of the church will then often be taken into the courts. It is now established that both religion clauses prevent governmental inquiry into religious doctrine in settling such disputes, and instead require courts simply to look to the decision-making body or process in the church and to give effect to whatever decision is officially and properly made.

The first such case was Watson v. Jones, 30 which was decided on common-law grounds in a diversity action without explicit reliance on the First Amendment. A constitutionalization of the rule was made in Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 31 in which the Court held unconstitutional a state statute that recognized the autonomy and authority of those North American branches of the Russian Orthodox Church which had declared their independence from the general church. Recognizing that Watson v. Jones had been decided on nonconstitutional grounds, the Court thought nonetheless that the opinion ”radiates . . . a spirit of freedom for religious organizations, and independence from secular control or manipulation–in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.” 32 The power of civil courts to resolve church property disputes was severely circumscribed, the Court held, because to permit resolution of doctrinal disputes in court was to jeopardize First Amendment values. What a court must do, it was held, is to look at the church rules: if the church is a hierarchical one which reposes determination of ecclesiastical issues in a certain body, the resolution by that body is determinative, while if the church is a congregational one prescribing action by a majority vote, that determination will prevail. 33 On the other hand, a court confronted with a church property dispute could apply ”neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes,” when to do so would not require resolution of doctrinal issues. 34 In a later case the Court elaborated on the limits of proper inquiry, holding that an argument over a matter of internal church government, the power to reorganize the dioceses of a hierarchical church in this country, was ”at the core of ecclesiastical affairs” and a court could not interpret the church constitution to make an inde pendent determination of the power but must defer to the interpretation of the body authorized to decide. 35

In Jones v. Wolf, 36 however, a divided Court, while formally adhering to these principles, appeared to depart in substance from their application. A schism had developed in a local church which was a member of a hierarchical church, and the majority voted to withdraw from the general church. The proper authority of the general church determined that the minority constituted the ”true congregation” of the local church and awarded them authority over it. The Court approved the approach of the state court in applying neutral principles by examining the deeds to the church property, state statutes, and provisions of the general church’s constitution concerning ownership and control of church property in order to determine that no language of trust in favor of the general church was contained in any of them and that the property thus belonged to the local congregation. 37 Further, the Court held, the First Amendment did not prevent the state court from applying a presumption of majority rule to award control to the majority of the local congregation, provided that it permitted defeasance of the presumption upon a showing that the identity of the local church is to be determined by some other means as expressed perhaps in the general church charter. 38 The dissent argued that to permit a court narrowly to view only the church documents relating to property ownership permitted the ignoring of the fact that the dispute was over ecclesiastical matters and that the general church had decided which faction of the congregation was the local church. 39

Thus, it is unclear where the Court is on this issue. Jones v. Wolf restated the rule that it is improper to review an ecclesiastical dispute and that deference is required in those cases, but by approving a neutral principles inquiry which in effect can filter out the doctrinal issues underlying a church dispute, the Court seems to have approved at least an indirect limitation of the authority of hierarchical churches. 40

Footnotes

[Footnote 1] 1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

[Footnote 2] The committee appointed to consider Madison’s proposals, and on which Madison served, with Vining as chairman, had rewritten the religion section to read: ”No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.” After some debate during which Madison suggested that the word ”national” might be inserted before the word ”religion” as ”point[ing] the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent,” the House adopted a substitute reading: ”Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 729-31 (August 15, 1789). On August 20, on motion of Fisher Ames, the language of the clause as quoted in the text was adopted. Id. at 766. According to Madison’s biographer, ”[t]here can be little doubt that this was written by Madison.” I. Brant, James Madison–Father of the Constitution 1787-1800 at 271 (1950).

[Footnote 3] This text, taken from the Senate Journal of September 9, 1789, appears in 2 B. Schwartz (ed.), The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 1153 (1971). It was at this point that the religion clauses were joined with the freedom of expression clauses.

[Footnote 4] 1 Annals of Congress 913 (September 24, 1789). The Senate concurred the same day. See I. Brant, James Madison–Father of the Constitution 1787-1800, 271-72 (1950).

[Footnote 5] During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that ”he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789). That his conception of ”establishment” was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi; the action, explained President Madison, ”comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.”’ 8 The Writings of James Madison (G. Hunt. ed.) 132-33 (1904). Madison’s views were no doubt influenced by the fight in the Virginia legislature in 1784-1785 in which he successfully led the opposition to a tax to support teachers of religion in Virginia and in the course of which he drafted his ”Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” setting forth his thoughts. Id. at 183-91; I. Brant, James Madison–The Nationalist 1780-1787, 343-55 (1948). Acting on the momentum of this effort, Madison secured passage of Jefferson’s ”Bill for Religious Liberty”. Id. at 354; D. Malone, Jefferson the Virginian 274-280 (1948). The theme of the writings of both was that it was wrong to offer public support of any religion in particular or of religion in general.

[Footnote 6] 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1865 (1833).

[Footnote 7] Id. at 1873.

[Footnote 8] Id. at 1868.

[Footnote 9] For a late expounding of this view, see T. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States 224-25 (3d ed. 1898).

[Footnote 10] 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947). Establishment Clause jurisprudence since, whatever its twists and turns, maintains this view.

[Footnote 11] Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 91 (1985) (then-Justice Rehnquist dissenting). More recently, dissenters, including now-Chief Justice Rehnquist, have appeared reconciled to a ”constitutional tradition” in which governmental endorsement of religion is out of bounds, even if it is not correct as a matter of history. See Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2678, 2683-84 (1992) (Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices White and Thomas, dissenting).

[Footnote 12] Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2667 (1992) (Justice Souter, joined by Justices Stevens and O’Connor, concurring).

[Footnote 13] Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 668 (1970).

[Footnote 14] Id.

[Footnote 15] 16 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 281 (A. Libscomb ed., 1904).

[Footnote 16] 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879).

[Footnote 17] Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947); Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211 , 212 (1948); cf. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 317 (1952) (Justice Black dissenting). In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971), Chief Justice Burger remarked that ”the line of separation, far from being a ‘wall,’ is a blurred, indistinct and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.” Similar observations were repeated by the Chief Justice in his opinion for the Court in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984) (the metaphor is not ”wholly accurate”; the Constitution does not ”require complete separation of church and state [but] affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any”).

[Footnote 18] Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 (1952); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 305 (1963) (Justice Goldberg concurring); Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 694 -97 (1970) (Justice Harlan concurring). In the opinion of the Court in the latter case, Chief Justice Burger wrote: ”The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.” Id. at 669.

[Footnote 19] Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 249 (1968) (Justice Harlan concurring).

[Footnote 20] Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 222 (1963).

[Footnote 21] Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 674 -75 (1970).

[Footnote 22] 403 U.S. 602, 612 -13 (1971).

[Footnote 23] E.g., Committee for Public Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 653 (1980), and id. at 665 (dissenting opinion); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 40 (1980), and id. at 43 (dissenting opinion).

[Footnote 24] The tests provide ”helpful signposts,” Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741 (1973), and are at best ”guidelines” rather than a ”constitutional caliper;” they must be used to consider ”the cumulative criteria developed over many years and applying to a wide range of governmental action.” Inevitably, ”no ‘bright line’ guidance is afforded.” Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677 -78 (1971). See also Committee for Public Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 761 & n.5, 773 n.31 (1973); Committee for Public Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 662 (1980), and id. at 663 (Justice Blackmun dissenting).

[Footnote 25] See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 636 -40 (1987) (Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, dissenting) (advocating abandonment of the ”purpose” test); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 108 -12 (1985) (Justice Rehnquist dissenting); Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402, 426 -30 (1985) (Justice O’Connor, dissenting) (addressing difficulties in applying the entanglement prong); Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 768 -69 (Justice White concurring in judgment) (objecting to entanglement test). Justice Kennedy has also acknowledged criticisms of the Lemon tests, while at the samed time finding no need to reexamine them. See, e.g., Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 655 -56 (1989). At least with respect to public aid to religious schools, Justice Stevens would abandon the tests and simply adopt a ”no-aid” position. Committee for Public Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 671 (1980).

[Footnote 26] See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative prayers on the basis of historical practice); Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2655 (1992) (rejecting a request to reconsider Lemon because the practice of invocations at public high school graduations was invalid under established school prayer precedents); Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1 (1993) (upholding provision of sign-language interpreter to deaf student attending parochial school); Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481 (1994) (invalidating law creating special school district for village composed exclusively of members of one religious sect). The Court has also held that the tripartite test is not applicable when law grants a denominational preference, distinguishing between religions; rather, the distinction is to be subjected to the strict scrutiny of a suspect classification. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 -46 (1982).

[Footnote 27] Justice Blackmun, concurring in Lee, contended that Marsh was the only one of 31 Establishment cases between 1971 and 1992 not to be decided on the basis on the Lemon tests. 112 S. Ct. at 2663, n.4.

[Footnote 28] In 1990 Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Scalia, proposed that ”neutral” accommodations of religion should be permissible so long as they do not establish a state religion, and so long as there is no ”coercion” to participate in religious exercises. Westside Community Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 260 -61. The two Justices parted company, however, over the permissiblity of invocations at public high school graduation ceremonies, Justice Scalia in dissent strongly criticizing Justice Kennedy’s approach in the opinion of the Court for its reliance on psychological coercion. Justice Scalia would not ”expand[ ] the concept of coercion beyond acts backed by threat of penalty.” Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2684 (1992). Chief Justice Rehnquist has advocated limiting application to a prohibition on establishing a national (or state) church or favoring one religious group over another. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 98 , 106 (1985) (dissenting).

[Footnote 29] Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 222 -23 (1963). See also Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 248 -49 (1968); and Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 689 (1971); Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2673 (Justice Souter concurring) (”a literal application of the coercion test would render the Establishment Clause a virtual nullity”).

[Footnote 1 (1996 Supplement)] Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet,114 S. Ct. 2481, 2498-99 (1994).

[Footnote 2 (1996 Supplement)] Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (concurring); Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 625 (1989) (concurring); Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481, 2500 (1994) (concurring).

[Footnote 30] 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1872).

[Footnote 31] 344 U.S. 94 (1952). Kedroff was grounded on the Free Exercise Clause. Id. at 116. But the subsequent cases used a collective ”First Amendment” designation.

[Footnote 32] Id. at 116. On remand, the state court adopted the same ruling on the merits but relied on a common-law rule rather than the statute. This too was struck down. Kreshik v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 363 U.S. 190 (1960).

[Footnote 33] Presbyterian Church v. Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 447 , 450-51 (1969); Maryland and Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, 396 U.S. 367 (1970). For a similar rule of neutrality in another context, see United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944) (denying defendant charged with mail fraud through dissemination of purported religious literature the right to present to the jury evidence of the truthfulness of the religious views he urged).

[Footnote 34] Presbyterian Church v. Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449 (1969); Maryland and Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God v. Church of God of Sharpsburg, 396 U.S. 367, 368 (1970). See also id. at 368-70 (Justice Brennan concurring).

[Footnote 35] The Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Dionisije Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 697, 720 -25 (1976). In Gonzalez v. Archbishop, 280 U.S. 1 (1929), the Court had permitted limited inquiry into the legality of the actions taken under church rules. The Serbian Eastern Court disapproved of this inquiry with respect to concepts of ”arbitrariness,” although it reserved decision on the ”fraud” and ”collusion” exceptions. 426 U.S. at 708 -20.

[Footnote 36] 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In the majority were Justices Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, Rehnquist, and Stevens. Dissenting were Justices Powell, Stewart, White, and Chief Justice Burger.

[Footnote 37] Id. at 602-06.

[Footnote 38] Id. at 606-10. Because it was unclear whether the state court had applied such a rule and applied it properly, the Court remanded.

[Footnote 39] Id. at 610.

[Footnote 40] The Court indicated that the general church could always expressly provide in its charter or in deeds to property the proper disposition of disputed property. But here the general church had decided which faction was the ”true congregation,” and this would appear to constitute as definitive a ruling as the Court’s suggested alternatives. Id. at 606.

Follow this link:
Annotation 1 – First Amendment – FindLaw

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Annotation 1 – First Amendment – FindLaw

Ron Paul Liberty Report – Home

Posted: at 7:42 pm

Do you really own something if the governmentforces youto make never-ending payments on it?

I think the answer is no.

Youpossesssuch an item, but you dontownit outright. Its an important distinction.

A ridiculous threat to property rights has infected most of the world like a virus. Most people unquestioningly accept it as a normal part of lifelike gravity or the sun setting in the west.

Read the rest

Read the rest

Read the rest

Government seeks to help the poor, but only succeeds in hurting them even more. The same can be said for when government seeks to provide “paid maternity leave”. Once again, in its attempt to supposedly help women, it can only end up hurting them.

Read the rest

Are you tired of the exhausting displays of political correctness in America? Can’t you just feel the liberty and ability to think freely being squeezed out of society? Did you ever wonder where it all came from? After all, there is nothing more powerful than ideas. How did we get here, and who has been behind it? Well, below you’ll find an extremely easy to understand presentation that will open your eyes. Make the time to watch it. You won’t regret it:

Today’s Liberty Report is joined by US Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) to discuss the state of the liberty movement both inside and outside of government. What can we do to make a difference? Streamed LIVE Sept 21, 2016

Just over a week after a ceasefire deal was announced by the US and Russia, the deal is a smoldering ruin. A US strike on Syrian forces, US-backed rebel groups that refuse to break with al-Qaeda, and an attack yesterday on a humanitarian aid convoy in Aleppo have obliterated any hopes for an end to the violence. What should the US do next? Streamed LIVE Sept 20, 2016

Has the surveillance state claimed the last bit of our privacy? Our lives are being stored at enormous “data centers” in the US and abroad. Everything we do, every transaction, every website we visit. This has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with control. Today’s Liberty Report is joined by former State Department official Peter Van Buren to discuss the surveillance state as so masterfully depicted in the recent Oliver Stone film, Snowden.Published Sept 19, 2016

As Hillary Clinton calls millions of Americans “irredeemable” and “deplorable,” Ron Paul explains why those terms apply to American politics itself. Gang warfare and a sprawling government enforcer wasn’t supposed to be the fate of the “land of the free.” There is a better way to live. Don’t miss today’s Myth-Busters! Publishes Sept 16, 2016

Yesterday US National Security Advisor Susan Rice signed a “memorandum of understanding” committing the US to providing $38 billion in military aid over the next ten years. Philip Giraldi joins today’s Liberty Report to break down the agreement and discuss whether it really does, as Rice claims, benefit US security. Streamed LIVE Sept 15, 2016

Here is the original post:
Ron Paul Liberty Report – Home

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul Liberty Report – Home

The Abolition of Work and Other Essays: Bob Black …

Posted: September 20, 2016 at 7:11 pm

Bob Black (born Robert Charles Black, Jr. in 1951) is an American anarchist, and author of books such as Anarchy After Leftism, Friendly Fire (New Autonomy Series), and Beneath the Underground.

This book contains various essays, mostly written from 1977-1985. They have previously appeared in a very large variety of periodicals (e.g., Beatniks from Space; Church of the Latter Day Punk; Loompanics Unlimited Book Catalog; Semiotext(e); Twisted Imbalance, etc.).

He begins the title essay by stating, “No one should ever work. Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world.” (Pg. 17) He later elaborates, “Work is a much better explanation for the creeping cretinization all around us then even such significant moronizing mechanisms as television and education.” (Pg. 22) He concludes with the exhortation, “Workers of the world… relax!” (Pg. 33)

His observations are often pointed and humorous: e.g., “Remember, pain is just God’s way of hurting you” (Pg. 37); “A libertarian is just a Republican who takes drugs” (pg. 141); “The typical Loompanics reader is, I conjecture, a surrealist trapped in the body of an engineer.” (Pg. 154)

Black’s writing is quite interesting, and of interest to libertarians, individualists, anarchists, and other free spirits.

Read this article:

The Abolition of Work and Other Essays: Bob Black …

Posted in Abolition Of Work | Comments Off on The Abolition of Work and Other Essays: Bob Black …