/* coComment.com Box */
/* SETTINGS FROM DATABASE... */
document.write( "" );
/* ...SETTINGS FROM DATABASE */
/* DEFAULT STYLE... (Override these by adding your CSS LATER ON in the html page) */
document.write( "" );
/* ...DEFAULT STYLE (Override these by adding your CSS LATER ON in the html page) */
/* BOX... */
document.write( "" );
/* ...BOX */
30boxes is not for everyone. But if you want to break away from a web-app that tries to be outlook on the web (see g-cal), then give 30boxes a spin. You will not be disappointed.
Also the other side of 30boxes that I like is the buddies. Basically is a social web-app, keeping tabs what your friends and family are up to online and in the real world. The to-do list is killer. As you can see i can\'t say enough good things about this web-app. A couple of things i would like to see are the week view ( which should be coming shortly) and off-line access that Fred alluded to." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
But somehow I can\'t shake out a glitch that should be a simple
matter of correct CSS/HTML coding that puts, when I have all
three months online, a space between the initial Sunday row and the next Monday row (the other rows lign up neatly close in order. Because the problem destoy the symmetry I want, I am look for a calendar where I can add live links to blog-entries for civil dates, Christian liturgical calendars these come in several varieties, and the liturgical calendars of other religions for good-neibor and ecumenical reasons.
So, you see that my calendar/s are functional and integral to my blog. I want to solve this glitch immediatemente. I\'m going to check out 30Boxes directly. One question already nags? What happens on the months where there are 31 days?
Yours, Sempaphor on behalf of Albert" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
I guess in this riposte, sir, you are controlling the variables so that you have a fairly uncomplicated arrangement of concepts, which makes comparisons of the concepts easier. However, my mind is not so legal-scientifically trained and I prefer multifactoral scenarios that are somewhat novelistic.
To me, it woud make a great deal of difference whether we\'re talking about a twosome (whether "just friends" or a 2-males intimate union [say]) and the room or apartment to be rented is in the landlord\'s own home/house or not. Even if in the landlady\'s own home, both varieties may be welcome. But what if not? The landlady may simply not want a double load of men in her rented room or apartment within her own home? Maybe she coud tolerate one additional, were there a man-woman twosome of some sort, but maybe the double load woud arouse her feelings of suffocation, not enuff female to offset the male presence.
However, this same lady may own a smallish building with 5 rental units, completely separate from her home. She may be able to tolerate, let\'s say, 10 males in her building, 2 to a unit (whether each unit was occupied by a loving couple, or two non-intimate male roomates; let\'s say it woudn\'t matter to her, just as in a scenario such as one you suggest). But, it seems to me, renting to woud-be occupants of her own home coud be something which the state has no business noting. If she receives an application (response to an ad she\'s tacked to a corkboard in the local automatic laundry), she shoudn\'t have to give any reason for refusing the two men standing on her doorstep, rather than as in you may suggest she shoudn\'t notice they are two men, or for that matter two women. The landlady may feel most comfortable with a "opposite-sex" twosome, whether friends or lovers.
I think generally in such rentals, where the landlord/lady is offering rental of a room or apartment in her own home, or directly contiguous to it, he/she is much more l+kly not to have the kind of mind-reading or signal-watching analytic approach--she woud simply get an overall impression of whether this combo consists of people in regard to whom and around whom she can let down her guard. She\'s got to wei, on the basis of past experience, whether it feels to her they\'d be noisy, have lots of visiting traffic, make grunts that woud travel thru the airducts to her ears, keep the bathroom clean, etc. Or, with a different personality, she may want a sturdy male from whom she can wheedle jobs, unpaid labour l+k shovelling the snow from the s+dwalks in winter, etc.
Here in Toronto, a landlord/lady can give a tenant in her home a fast notice to get out in a case where (she claims) she has a family member she wants to move into the tenant\'s rental accomodations almost immediately. Let\'s say she has two women living in a basement apartment that she wants out becawz their noise-making disturb\'s the landlady\'s precious reclusive life-style. She gets her nephew to make an appearance, and presents him to the women, telling them they have to move out fast, becawz the new tenant (one male) is family and the present renters (two women) are blocking her from taking care of her family responsiblities.
In other words, your examples are so artificial, and are built around abstractions that rarely exist in life. Of course, if the landlord/lady owns a multiplex separate building, her discomfort presumably will be less. But it may change her mode of operation sufficiently to be a damn nuisance to her. She won\'t be able to go to the building to conduct landlordly business when dark is approaching, let\'s say. She\'s threatened by dealing with males at dark. What of a male who\'s threatened dealing with women at dark?
So, your suggested laws, while I can think them, leave me cold becawz they make so many assumptions about some "pure" ideal type of potential renter considered only along the lines of who\'s homo and who\'s bedding who. Both landlord/ladies and tenants come in almost-incaculable varieties and the parameters you suggest as relevant are abstractions only. In one\'s own home, tenants can unsettle your way of life and sense of security, or as a tenant single or with a friend, or as a couple, you can make your landlord\'s life hell on earth. And the advice that landlords/ladies simply, as they say in Christian Sc+ence, "rise above it" is just not good enuff. So, I have to assume your abstractions were formulated only for large-scale commercial housing operations, not for the smaller-scale renting that I have in mind, mostly.
But don\'t you imply the smaller-scale type when you tie the Seventh Day Adventists of the my first response to you, to the homo/unmarrieds quandries you refer back to me? I\'m homo myself, and I don\'t have any Seventh Day Adventism to which I answer. I just don\'t l+k to have the hobbyhorse of pro-Gay ideology strapped to my back. Homos also like to discriminate in small-scale renting, precisely because it\'s small-scale, perhaps even in one\'s own home. Further, some Gays want to live in all-Gay multiplexes and want buildings where children are excluded. So, your set of hypotheticals leave me ent+rly cold. Talk of slant!" ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
The purpose in mentioning these options is simply to disambiguate the meanings of "individualism" and "individualistic" (which I feel shoud be restricted to absolutizations of a person\'s core values (which sometimes trump that of his ideological a/o religious community) and the meanings which pertain to a person\'s individuality, a result of a person\'s being an individual in the disciplines of religion, philosophy, and (American) legal studies, I woud think. In the law and in philosophy of law the larger problem woud be to conceive and differentiate the claims of individual, groups / communities, societal spheres (family, church, school, state, etc), and finally in this categorization > totalities like "society" in its totality-sense.
In Canada where I live, a leading candidate for Prime Minister, Dr Michael Ignatieff, has insisted that individual r+ts always trump group r+ts which probably comes from his years of teach at Harvard. As an example, I\'d s+t the case here in Ontario where an organization sued a printer who refused to print up a flyer or materials for the Gay Archives. The printer argued that he too had a r+t as a printing-business owner, a r+t not to print the group/institution\'s materials because advancing their cause was not something he in good faith coud do; rather he correctly stated that the Gay Archives had many options close-by their offices in the downtown area of Toronto. The owner further stated that he woud and probably previously did print materials for individual persons belonging to the power-grabbing Gay Archives organization, where the individuals did not seek to implicate him in promoting a Gay organization contrary to his conscience. The court ruled against him (no individual exemptions from the relevant section of the Human R+ts Code, and no individual r+t of the religious kind which judges have to sort thru, balancing one kind of r+t in relation another kind of r+t).
Ignatieff didn\'t come to the defense of the individual r+ts of the business owner (not a publically-traded corporation either). It seems that the only juridics philosopher who treats these distinctions well is the Dutch law academic, Herman Dooyweerd (1894-1977), whose 5-volume Encyclopedia of the Science of Law has been partially translated into English, with the remaining being prepared for the press.
I don\'t think it\'s wrong to trace the whole pattern of religious exemptions in the USA to the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amend to the Constitution. I remember that when the military draft was enforced, a religious exemption obtained for those who coud not in good conscience take up arms. At the t+m, such exemptions were granted to people who functioned alongs+de the combat troops as battlefield medics. Seventh Day Adventists (who communally have a strong tradition that builds medical schools and hospitals) poured into the ranks of medics in the American military, at once expressing their loyalty to our nation (yes, I\'m an American) and their conscientious objection to bearing arms. I\'d guess at least some of these medics were killed by enemy fire. So the heroism of the war in part devolves also onto these conscientious objectors." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
Of course, this was all swept aside by subsequent sedimentations (Michel Foucault) of legal interpretation in a most dishonest fashion, without a further amendment removing the Establishment Clause and jerry-rigging by interpretation, misprision (Harold Bloom says and I apply, his dictum that all interpreting is a misreading of one kind or another), jerry-rigging by way of decisively false semantic sleits of mind. The whole process is disgusting to any knowlegable person of honor and integrity. The only honest path woud have been to strike the Establishment Clause from the constitutional text. Madison took the bizarre tack of refusing the people any Fed recognition of their predominating Christian faith in the way of Holy Days, swearing on the Bible in Fed courts, chaplains in the Army, etc, except as Congress refused him his purism in "Church-State Separation," succeeding in electing their own chaplains in the Senate and the House. But actually, to repeat, there was no separation in the Clause, and there were protected establishments of religion in ruffly 2/3rds of the states, as well as basically no establishments in the other 1/3, and there even so, swearing on the Bible (Quakers in Pennsylvania, refusing to swear, were permitted to "affirm"). Conscientious objectors were at some point permitted alternative service on the battlefields without themselves having to bear arms; they didn\'t have to shoot or hatchet anyone in the Indian Wars, but Quakers had already had to resign from their offices in the state legislature because they coudn\'t help the settlers in the French and Indian Wars, before the Revolution. That\'s how the Quakers lost their political hegemony.
Of course, I\'m not able to construct a proper time-line, getting every detail before and after the adoption of the 1st and its Establishment Clause, but I think the fundamental dishonesty of the top well-educated, rich slavers is clear; their ideology stands out almost 2 and 1/2 centuries later. Fortunately, it wasn\'t many decades later before all 9 establishment states dropped what in hinds+t we may call the vestiges of establishmentarianism. But the process of non-Amendment and stealthy extra-constitutional innovation by a phoney jurisprudential hermeneutics thru all the sedimentary layers of falsification over the centuries, the concoction of the Wall of Separation of Church and State as legal dogma says nothing good about Congress, ideologue Presidents, the American judges, lawyers, and law scholars. The present blog poster is so utterly bamboozled by this nauseating macro-process that he didn\'t, rather coudn\'t, fathom what O\'Donnell was trying to accomplish in her questions aimed at opening a wedge for true debate. Shame, not on her, but on you. Shame, shame, shame on you." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "
As Saint Augustine tawt some four centuries after the Ascension of our Lord, Genesis 1-3 teaches the idea of Fortunate Fall (felix culpa). Thus, the authors of both creation narratives (which both are also internally chiastic and are combined by the later redactor to form an overarching grand chiasm, retaining the poetry of Temptation and Fall to conclude the combined story/ies of this masterful poem of faith.
In this way, the overall combination that constitutes the resulting one story-poem of the poets and the poet-redactor is also, with Augustine, a riddle that brings the believing hearer/reader to muse deeply on the origins of evil in the good creation. I think the present attempt to alter the burden of musing on the problem of evil (Paul Ricoeur) that besets us all, by (as Bylogos suggests) someone at Calvin College who over-extends his case in order to enlarge the scope of scientistic evolutionism, contrary to a Christ-centered evolutionary thinking, that over-extension gives us a mistaken and h+ly propositionalist reading Gen 1-3.
Elsewhere, Dr Roy Clouser has proposed that the narrative in Gen 1-3 can be understood by evolutionary-minded Word-readers as a story of a historical Fall that befell the first human pair at the t+m of the dawn of religious consciousness, a dawn so revolutionary to the evolutionary pair themselves, as these first humans became conscious (in hinds+t) that they were more than animals and that they walked consciously with God who spoke to them. Clouser\'s solution is elegant, yet to my mind his interpretation is not problem-free.
I can no longer accept the blatant historicism of interpreting
Gen 1-3 as historical discourse (not all narratives, whether poems or prose fictional stories, are historiographies, whereas in a broader category they may be cliosophies -- a Wisdom discourse reflecting on the t+mboundedness of our human condition, beset by sin, in the good creation).
Clouser has done so much, in his book The Myth of Neutrality and others, to advance a root-Christian perspective, inspired by his study of Herman Dooyeweerd. Nevertheless, Clouser\'s attempt to synthesize evolutionary-mindedness with Gen 1-3, a good-faith endeavor to be sure, is frawt with accomodations to the very historicism that Dooyeweerd warned us against in his powerful book, In the Tw+l+t of Western Thawt (my Owlbirdbet Crossover spelling toward massive spelling reform of the English language).
I have the plausible explanation that this wonderful scholar, Clouser, has been overly influenced by Hans Frie\'s book on the historical character of the New Testament, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, seems to be Clouser\'s source which he over-applies to the Hebrew Bible. Now, much of our Christian Old Testament is based on that Hebrew Bible -- but alters its canonical structure, especially in our Protestant canon, and makes other changes derived from the ancient Greek translation in Alexandria, the so-called Septuagint -- the Hebrew Bible does indeed contain qu+t thoroly historical wr+ting in numerous places as Baruch Halperin has demonstrated in his book, The First Historians.
However, the writers/redactor of Gen 1-3 are not functioning as historians and did not produce historical wr+ting there. The wr+ting is cliosophy (but not of the subtype "history"). With the view here presented, the new problem arises: How to account for this egregious fawlt of historicizing the palpably non-historical character of Gen 1-3. How do we account for the historographical error of some of our wonderful Reformed confessions all the way up to presentday Christian fundamentalism\'s Scientific Creationism? We have to look carefully at the rise and the culture-wide take-over by the broader historicistic mindset. Here Dooyeweerd can help us hone our analysis to the sharpeness of an axe." ); document.write( " " ); document.write( "