Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

I just finished 'listening' to Religulous because I got the wrong type of DVD (so there is no video). Hey!! It looks like I can watch it after all!! http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/religulous/ Anyway, it was pretty much what I expected -- a sarcastic and caustic survey of religious people throughout the world. It was sort of funny on one level -- and sad on another level. But really, if one of the religious people had suggested that 'we are star people -- and that they had scientific proof that we had been created by aliens' I'm sure that Bill Maher would've had a good laugh, and would've asked some unanswerable questions -- to make the whole thing look ridiculous. http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/we-are-star-people-scientific-proof-we-were-created-by-aliens/story-fn5fsgyc-1226617200225 But really, my limited research and speculation has led me in that direction -- even though it's mostly science-fiction to me -- at this point anyway.

What if these aliens (angels led by a renegade archangel(s)?) created "us" -- and then incarnated into "us" (on a soul level) -- essentially becoming "us" -- which really angered the other aliens (conservative angels?) in the universe -- so much so, that they sent a couple of bad@ss archangels (Gabriel and Lucifer??) to clean up the mess??!! In this little hypothetical story -- I'm not sure if Michael and Lucifer were a Galactic Pinky and the Brain OR if Michael was BOTH Pinky and the Brain -- as a Crazy-Maker of sorts. What if one of these archangels (Lucifer??) decided to help the new race of beings (before or after the creation of humanity) -- and fought side by side with the other archangel (Michael??) -- but ultimately failed to win -- switched sides (to survive??) -- and was tasked with enslaving humanity (under the direction of this other victorious archangel)?? What if all of us are considered to be "Fallen-Angels" by the rest of the universe?? What if Lucifer has been the Solar System Administrator aka God of This World -- for thousands of years?? What if Lucifer mediates between God (Gabriel??) and Man (Michael??)?? What if Humanity has done better than expected -- yet things continue to get worse and worse?? What if no one gives a damn about what I just said???

What if all of the seemingly ridiculous religions were invented by these two archangels to keep humanity in chains?? This wouldn't mean that there were no gods and no afterlife. It would simply mean that mankind was on the galactic fecal-list -- and was getting royally-screwed. My point is that Bill Maher might be right (in a way) -- and the people he was making fun-of might be right (in a way). The main thing, for me, is that people try to think about philosophical and theological themes. I talked to an SUV full of Jehovah's Witnesses today. I thought of them as being The God Squad!! I have no intention of joining them -- yet we had a brief and interesting conversation. We didn't get angry. We weren't mean. We used a lot of mutual positive-reinforcement before going our separate ways. I think that even the most absurd religious systems can serve as mental and spiritual exercises to those who participate in them. Even the most respectable religions might ultimately turn-out to be utter bull$hit. But even if they do, I still think we need churches and religion. They provide structure, fellowship, challenge, refinement, education, business-contacts, etc.

As I've said so many times, I'm just going to keep doing what I've been doing on this website (unless I get excommunicated)!! If I ever get kicked-out -- I'll just do my thing somewhere else. The point is, I'm making a big deal about politics and religion -- without making a big deal about politics and religion. This is just a Tempest in a Teapot. Still, I think that some really cool science-fiction MIGHT result from this seeming exercise in futility -- and that ultimately, a lot of it might prove to be more factual than fictional. This is only the beginning. I see a helluva lot of smoke -- but I have yet to see the fire. I'm sure that the most powerful forces in this solar system would like to keep it that way. Just a hunch. I get the feeling that a lot of atheists and agnostics simply don't wish to wade through all the BS. They can't be bothered. They've got more important things to do. It takes a lot of time and energy to think through the various possibilities. In a sense, this thread is sort of my religion -- with a very loose definition of 'religion'.

Regardless of what ends up being true and false -- there is a HUGE infowar and global communication network. Whether this will help or hurt us long-term remains to be seen. So far, it seems as if the good and bad are counterbalancing each other. It's the same old BS -- but on a different level. I seem to have been BADLY burned by all of the madness -- probably because of my radical theories -- and who I might be on a reincarnational-basis. I have been very hesitant to speculate about who I might've been -- going way, way back -- but I have been modeling the possibility of being Archangel Michael -- but NOT in the sense of various self-proclaimed Messianic-Gurus -- out to make a fast-buck. This is just a mind-game which helps me look at history in a different light. The Ancient Egyptian Deity called me 'Michael' while we shopped at Wal*Mart one night -- but I didn't take it seriously. It seemed to be some sort of a test. They later asked me "if I thought I was the one hanging on the cross?" I didn't think so -- and I don't think so.

Regarding Michael -- I think Archangel Michael might have had something to do with the Teachings Attributed to Jesus -- but I'm thinking that Michael was NOT the Historical Jesus -- at least in the Greatest Story Ever Told sense. I'm thinking that Archangel Lucifer might've played the role of Jesus Christ over the past 2,000 years. This might sound blasphemous -- yet it represents no disrespect to who Christians are devoted to. I simply think that this thing might be much nastier and more complex than we think. I simply think that Michael has been in Demoted-Mode for thousands of years -- while Lucifer has been the God of This World for thousands of years. I suspect that Archangel Gabriel has been the Queen of Nibiru aka Queen of Heaven -- for thousands (if not millions) of years. I'm NOT going to spell this out for you. YOU will have to do your homework -- and come to your OWN conclusions. Think Long and Hard About This One. Just know that I mean NO harm. I come in peace. Wait a minute. No I don't.

Comment by eleni: "Is it not possible the reptoids have been demonized and the real malevolent factors are just the PTB and are not controlled by ET's (or original species as the reptoids supposed look at their-selves as such) but by dark forces they tap into via ritual magic and have nothing at all to do with off planet species?"

Here is another comment which I posted on another thread, but which is relevant to this thread by Seashore: "I think it's that they are outnumbered. I'll throw this in: Stewart Swerdlow said in Blue Blood, True Blood that most human civilizations that exist elsewhere are totalitarian by necessity because of the constant Reptilian threat."

My Response: Are we in the middle of a civil war involving two rival Human Gods...one Pleiadian and one Aldebaran Luciferian? http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11123&highlight=giza+intelligence This would mean two rival Theocracies. Do both sides do business with Interdimensional Reptilians...or is it just the Aldebaran Luciferian side? Do the Interdimensional Reptilians wish for this Human Civil War to result in the extermination of every man, woman, and child on Earth? Do they have to make us destroy ourselves? Are they unable to destroy us directly?

I have received the following internet messages saying 'Try not to think in terms of good or bad. Understand this is not your planet. Then, understand nothing can be done to you that you don't do to yourself. Know that there are quadrillions of planets and they don't have a massive climate change every 26,000 years and violent deranged people like yourselves. Why on Earth would any race want to live here with you knowingly? The most intelligent life on the planet is not human.' And 'You can't rule yourselves'. And 'We're in your back'. And 'Y'all love fantisizing over my ancestral decorations, places, spirituality that you don't get, the greatness you won't achieve, and the melanin you'll never have. This depiction of my ancestors is pathetic. Y'all always make them look just as degenerative and recessive as you. Anyway, play and have fun as much as you still can. Yes you are running out of time, and to be honest, there is absolutly nothing you can do about it. I have no mercy, you lie and mock and blasphem all the way to hell.' And 'You know this isn't funny! The Lord God will judge you for claiming God ship. Just because God showed you a little bit of His secrets you think you know everything. He will NOT have mercy on you!' These comments did not sound human.

It seems to me that both rival Human Gods are wrong. Theocracy is always wrong. http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15014 Tyranny is always wrong. Could both Human Gods have been deceived by the Interdimensional Reptilians? I don't know. It further seems to me that Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15878 is a way to get the rival Human Gods to stop fighting...and to make the Interdimensional Reptilians leave the Pleiades, Aldebaran, Sirius, Our Solar System...and who knows where else? Are the Teachings of Jesus, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights representative of this third non-theocratic way? Is this the Andromedan perspective which Alex Collier speaks of? Please rewatch his videos with this post in mind. Please forgive me for posting these videos one more time. I just think they are helpful in connecting the dots connected with these subjects. Some things need to be repeated over and over before they are grasped.

YouTube - Leo Zagami the 2012 Armageddon
YouTube - Ra Stargate - Devil Came To Me

I know that Human Beings exist. I know that Spirits exist. I know that UFO's are real. I know that we are in huge trouble. Other than that...I don't have privileged inside information. HJ...Do you have evidence or inside information?

I'm just dealing in possibilities and probabilities...and treating all of this as science fiction...which just might be true.

Could we be dealing with a perfect storm of a combined war of the races...war of the sexes...and war of the gods? I caught a glimpse of something the other day...that just about floored me. I don't wish to be specific. It's too explosive.

Annunaki, Draconian, Pigmented, Non-Pigmented, Male, Female, Theocratic, Non-Theocratic, Human, Non-Human, Physical, Non-Physical. Just think about various combinations and conflicts regarding these words. This is not an exhaustive list either. There may be huge seemingly irreconcilable differences among various factions throughout the universe.

But once again...why can't this hypothetical mess be addressed in the context of Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom in the context of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in the context of the United Nations? I don't wish for any group to be misused or abused...or done away with. Could future U.N. sessions look like the Star Wars Bar?

I found this in Wikipedia. Could this have something to do with that which is brewing? Gnostic Neo-Nazis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldebaran

An esoteric neo-Nazi sect headquartered in Vienna, Austria called the Tempelhofgesellschaft, founded in the early 1990s, teaches a form of Gnosticism called Marcionism[citation needed]. They distribute pamphlets claiming that the Aryan race originally came to Atlantis from the star Aldebaran (this information is supposedly based on "ancient Sumerian manuscripts"). They maintain that the Aryans from Aldebaran derive their power from the vril energy of the Black Sun. They teach that since the Aryan race is of extraterrestrial origin it has a divine mission to dominate all the other races. It is believed by adherents of this religion that an enormous space fleet is on its way to Earth from Aldebaran which, when it arrives, will join forces with the Nazi Flying Saucers from Antarctica to establish the Western Imperium. [8]

Thank-you eleni and TRANCOSO. I am researching the links presently...along with that Patricia Cori interview. Sometimes I think that I just want to ask questions and speculate...rather than seriously research...and find unexpected answers that throw me for a loop...and make me eat crow! On the other hand...I think that intuitive inquisitiveness has it's place with subjects as bizzare as this one! I am definitely out of my element...and in over my head...regarding the major secret power factions in this solar system. I feel very uncomfortable thinking about this subject. I know that this is playing with fire...and I am prepared to stop...and proceed in a different direction. There's a reason why some people have Q Clearances or Cosmic Clearances...and why others, such as myself, are lucky to get a passport. Anyway, I hope this thread is doing more good than harm.

Could this link have something to do with Giza Intelligence? http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16588&page=21

Four Factions in the Solar System?

1. Human Pleiadians (Pigmented God the Father/Mother Theocracy)

2. Human Aldebarans (Nazi Aryan/Luciferian Theocracy)

3. Human Andromedans (Christlike Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom)

4. Reptilian Draconians and Annunaki (Dominating Factions #1 and #2)

Solution: Exorcise Faction #4 from the Solar System...and unite Factions #1 and #2 under Christlike Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom.

Usual disclaimer: All of the above may be total bs.

The bottom line is that I just want things to work out well for all factions and all individuals. Namaste to All.

Here is another version of the previous post. I'm just stumbling through this...and probably into a heap of trouble.

I'm still trying to think through three major hypothetical factions. Richard Hoagland speaks of the Nazis, Masons, and Magicians within NASA. I would guess that they represent the major players in the Solar System. There are supposedly three major factions in three major underground (under ice?) bases under one of the polar icecaps (can't remember which). A third of the 'angels' were kicked out of 'heaven'. Is this reference indicitive of three Pleiadian factions? One Pleiadian/PTB faction? One Pleiadian/Luciferian faction? One Pleiadian faction who chose not to participate in the 'War in Heaven'? I'm thinking that the Pleiades, Aldebaran, and Andromeda are key to understanding these three hypothetical factions. Could the 'Trilateral Commission' be so named because of the three major hypothetical factions? Are the following groupings somewhat accurate? However the groupings are arranged...I'm becoming more certain that we have three major players (four if we include the Interdimensional Reptilians). The first two factions are extremely dangerous...and the third faction is the least powerful (but has the solution to the sad state of affairs). Just speculation, of course.

1. Pleiades/Humans/Draconians/Sirius-A/Annunaki/Nibiru(Sirius-C?)/Mars/Lemuria/Zionism/Magicians/Vatican/Illuminati.
2. Aldebaran/Humans/Draconians/Radical-Luciferian/Sirius-B/Venus/Earth's-Moon/Teutonic-Zionism/Nazis/Giza-Intelligence/Bavarian-Illuminati.
3. Pleiades/Andromeda/Arcturus/Moderate-Luciferian/Masons/US-Constitution/Responsible-Freedom/Less Draconian Involvement (but still some).

The existence of each of these hypothetical factions may be completely justified from a historical perspective...and I'm sure they all have their sad-stories and horror-stories. But can't we do better than this in modernity? Why can't these three factions (if they exist as described) unite under Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom...in the context of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights...in the context of the United Nations...and applied to the entire Solar System? They could continue to address all grievances via Constructive Competition in an Open Court. A Solar System Exorcism would undoubtedly be necessary to make this proposal a reality. The Universal Super Powers That Be would undoubtedly have to agree to allow this to occur...or it would be a non-starter.

Why does this have to be so hard?

Orion the Hunter is holding and looking at Aldebaran. Is this correct? Is this significant? Where is Orion the Hunter from? Where is he going? Is it significant that M42 is part of the sword? Sirius is supposedly the All Seeing Eye at the top of the pyramid. Or is the eye simply illuminated by Sirius. Or is Sirius 'illuminated' by Aldebaran? Sirius is located by one of Orion's feet. Does this represent a hierarchy? 'As above...so below'? Aldebaran>Sirius B>Giza Intelligence? Are the Andromedans a moderate faction of Giza Intelligence? Here is another piece of the puzzle: http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/gaiaguys/AYTF-Giza.htm

The mythology surrounding the various factions seems to be mostly traditional and arbitrary. I'm mainly interested in who the major hidden groups are...and what can be done to prevent Armageddon, the Seven Last Plagues, Earth-Changes, Theocracy, Tyranny, the New World Order, Extermination, Enslavement, etc.

Does anyone have insights regarding the major hidden factions in our solar system? I've suggested some possibilities...but I don't really know. I smell smoke...and I'm sure there's fire. I'm suspecting that the power centers of these hypothetical factions are in underground bases here and on the moon.

Why can't the various factions reconcile...reveal everything to the public...and then just rejoin the human race? Why does all of this have to be so dark and creepy? Can't we just move forward as a united and free human race? I feel like I only know .01% of what's really going on.

I'm sure these hidden factions (if they exist) are very advanced technologically and intellectually...but I suspect that, with the exception of one of the groups, that their spirituality is very dark and powerful. But what do I know? Too much? Too little? Probably both.

Were Giza Intelligence the real 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'? Were the World Wars really Zionism vs Teutonic Zionism? Was Indiana Jones an Andromedan Sympathizer? YouTube- Teutonic Zionism

Which of the factions do you suppose was responsible for 9/11 no caste? Did ET phone Rome...and call 911? Your last two comments were fascinating! What shall we talk about? 9/11? Artifacts? Freudian debris? Strands of DNA? The origin of 'V' species? Which reminds me of the incident in Paris involving Dr. Claudie Haignere...her overdose and lab fire. One source suggested that she was doing DNA research which might have involved aliens. She supposedly exclaimed 'The World Must Be Warned!' 1. http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9394&highlight=claudie+haignere 2. http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2008/12/franch-alien-dna-researcher-astronaut.html

Where have all the microbiologists gone?

Perhaps the Dracs possess the PLF's/Greys. The Dracs seem to be physically challenged...from what I've heard.

Please consider this http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15878 in the context of the current thread.

Try this one: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15663&highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads I just want to say one more time...that I really don't know what I'm doing with all of this stuff. I'm just trying to get in the middle of all the fringe material...and try to rationally deal with it by just posting random thoughts about all of it. I know you know that...but some others might not. Everything in our world seems to be up for grabs right now. It seems to be a somewhat unstable situation...which could invite WWIII and a harsh tyranny...if we're not very careful.

I watched the first linked video you just posted some time ago...but it was good to watch it again. It sounds like 'we' thought we could 'deal with the devil' without getting $crewed. It sounds like we now have hell to pay. How do we extricate ourselves from this mess? Did we think we were taking advantage of the 'aliens'...when the reality was that they were the ones who were taking advantage of us? To paraphrase JFK...those who ride to power on the back of a tiger...ususally end up inside. Are we presently inside?

Regarding the secret major factions...I just hope that everything can be worked out without millions of people being killed or sacrificed. I don't necessarily have a problem with Earth Humans or Extraterrestrials working behind the scenes to make things better...but I'm sensing that all is not well...that things are out of control...and that everyone is in a very desperate situation. Even if this is not the case...it is a possibility which should be exhaustively explored.

A Solar System based upon Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom...in the context of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights...in the context of the United Nations...might be a good place to begin...to keep us from being enslaved or exterminated. But that's just my two cents worth of paradigms. Just the simple and naive thoughts of a neurotic disfunctional underachieving human.

Is Gizeh Intelligence the main-game in our Solar System? Is it both good and evil? Is Lucifer at the helm? Is a Draconian at the helm? Are the major factions really branches of Gizeh Intelligence? I'm very confused about all of this. I think if I really knew what was going on...I would be told to shut-up in no uncertain terms. I realize this pseudo-quest is playing with fire.

I just have huge problems with things like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Civil War, the World Wars, Vietnam, Iraq, Assassinations, Terrorism, 9/11, the Great Depression, Planned Financial Collapses, Starvation, Disappearing Middle Class, Satanic Rituals, Human Sacrifices, Earth Changes, the New World Order, Theocracies, etc, etc, etc. Why is this world so violent and stupid? In a sense...I don't care if there are secret organizations, underground bases, and a secret space program. I just feel like this world has been out of control for a long, long time...and that something very, very evil is going on. Someone please straighten this BS out. I can't do it by arguing on the internet. This seems to be an exercise in futility.

Once again...I continue to lean toward eliminating nearly all of the secrecy, and basing the Solar System on Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom...in the context of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights...in the context of the United Nations. I don't want to eliminate Gizeh Intelligence, the Vatican, the City of London, Washington D.C., the United Nations, etc. I just want them to clean up their acts...and run this Solar System properly. If there are Draconian Reptilians running the show...perhaps they need to be relocated out of the Solar System. I have a sinking feeling that we live in a Haunted Solar System. What the hell is going on? Or what from hell is going on? We can't just keep sweeping this cr@p under the rug...into Deep Underground Military Bases.

I don't know what's going on with whoever was instrumental in the original creation/evolution of the Human Race. I'm not seeing this being or beings anywhere close to our Solar System. I'm rewatching 'Stargate SG1' and that may describe a lot of what is really going on. I keep thinking that something very bad happened to whoever made us...perhaps in a war or a coup d' etat. I'm seeing stand-in wannbe gods throughout Earth history...right up to the present. I'm thinking that we are mostly on our own. I'm thinking that Earth Humans need to be their own God. I don't trust anyone else. Actually...I don't even trust us...but we may be the best that we're going to get.

I think we may all be Renegade Pleiadians who rebelled against a Pleiadian/Draconian Theocracy...and ended up in the Aldebaran Star System...and subsequently traveled to the Sirius Star System...and finally to our Solar System. We may be Fallen Angels...under the direction of Lucifer. If so...I think that despite a valiant effort...we may be right back into Draconian Theocracy territory...and that Lucifer has been partially insane ever since we got here. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about all of this...but pieces of the puzzle are beginning to fit...and I don't like what I'm seeing. I so hope I'm wrong.

I really don't want to think about this anymore. I'm starting to read the 'Wall Street Journal' and to watch 'Bloomberg'...so I may just focus on business...and forget about this stuff. And then I might not have to have a close encounter of the worst kind with the Alphabet Guys or the Jesuits. Those are some of the people who I think really and truly know what's going on. But their bosses frown on loose cannons running around stirring up trouble and sticking their noses into sources of forbidden knowledge. Again...I hope that I'm just a paranoid nut-case...and that none of this stuff is true.

I just feel like I'm frantically going round and round and round...under the watchful and scornful gaze of the Dracs...just like in this video! YouTube- smart turbo with hayabusa engine

This might sound dumb...but I'm going to OD on SG1 and WSJ for awhile. This is not a random selection. I may or may not return.

One last thought (for awhile)...the U.S. Constitution provides for an organized decentralism...or organized anarchy...or a non-theocratic spiritual state. It's not perfect...but bi+ching about a lifeboat's deficiencies (and not climbing aboard) after being shipwrecked...is the epitome of stupidity.

Godspeed.

I posted this elsewhere...but it seemed to fit this thread as well. Don't forget to watch the third episode of 'V' tonight. Think about the following while you watch. Once again...the following is educated speculation. It is a possibility.

Could it be that Satan and Demons are really Interdimensional Draconian Reptilians who hate Humans? Could it be that God, Lucifer, and Jesus are Pleiadian Humans...and that even Lucifer is a good-guy or good-gal? They could all possibly be good. Could it be that they are all at odds with the Dracs...and that they simply have different philosophies regarding how to deal with them? Do they lead the three or four factions which I suspect are headquartered in underground bases...here and on the Moon? I believe in the literal existence of all of the above. With this in mind...consider the following link regarding God, Jesus, Satan, Lucifer, etc: http://www.lucifer.com/lucifer.html Do the Dracs control the Vatican...against the will of the Curia and the Pope? Is the term 'Luciferian' really a cover for 'Draconian'? I keep thinking that the Dracs need to be kicked out of our Solar System. I keep thinking that no one should bow down and worship anyone...including worshipping God, Jesus, Satan, Lucifer, etc. We should simply reverence the Divinity Within Humanity aka The Christlike Holy Spirit. We should see Christ in All Persons. Lucifer...is this correct? I continue to suspect that you would be ok if the Dracs were gone...you retired...and if our Solar System was based upon Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom. I still wish to hear you improvise on the Cavaille-Coll pipe-organ at Saint Sulpice...after this mess is resolved. Lucifer...can you use your Galactic Rolodex to arrange a Solar System Exorcism...and to arrange replacing the U.N. Charter with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights...and have this apply to the entire Solar System? I tend to think that you can. Perhaps you have already called in the strike. If so...thank-you in advance. See you at Saint Sulpice. Namaste Lucifer.

Could the four factions which I discussed previously...be lead by the following?

1. God (Pleiadian Human) - Zionist - Theocratic
2. Lucifer (Pleiadian Human) - Teutonic Zionist - Giza Intelligence - Dictatorship
3. Jesus (Pleiadian Human) - Andromedan - Christlike Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom
4. Satan (Draconian Interdimensional Reptilian) - Demands Worship, Praise, Submission, and Obedience. Plays God. Dominates #1 and #2. Attacks #3 with a vengeance.

Is #4 the real problem? Could I convince most of you Dracs to choose #3...and rebel against your leaders? You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Murcuriel...thank-you for your posts. Sometimes it takes thick skin to survive in this philosophical and spiritual food-for-thought fight. Hang in there!

I found this on a thread by the eXchanger. I condensed it, and transfered it. Thank-you eXchanger!

I found the following to be highly interesting. It wouldn't surprise me if this is quite close to the truth. This could really be who we are...and who our 'gods' are...and I'm not talking about the Founders or the Creator God of the Universe. I'm not seeing this Ultimate Divine Presence at work in this Solar System at this time. I wish I knew what happened to the original God. The vacuum is being filled by stand-ins and wannabe gods. I appreciate their efforts...I guess...but perhaps we don't need any gods whatsoever. I have no way of verifying the information...and I assume that it was channeled. I am wary of channeling...yet I still found the information to be fascinating. Reader discretion advised.

How does Gizeh Intelligence fit into all of this? Darned if I know! The truth is down there! Or...the truth is down there...up there...on the Moon!

The Truth about ETs - Original source: http://www.salrachele.com

Approximately 60% of all UFOs reported are from solar systems outside our own. The majority are from Zeta Reticuli, Alpha Centauri, Rigel & Betelguese (Orion), Sirius A & B, and the Pleiades. Approximately 20% are above top-secret military tests of experimental craft, often reverse engineered from Zeta craft. Approximately 20% are natural phenomena mistakenly identified as artificial craft.

In addition to the above, there are millions of encounters with beings from other dimensions (parallel, higher, etc.), most of whom are benevolent.

We Are All ETs to Some Extent

There is really no difference between ETs and humans, because Earth has been genetically manipulated for aeons by different ET races to the point that almost all of us have genetics from other star systems. There are often some physical genetic markers carried from generation to generation that can help identify one’s ET heritage. For example, those carrying genetic material from Nordic Pleaideans are often tall and muscular, with blond hair and blue eyes.. But with all the mixing and blending of our melting pot planet, this is a hard thing to track. For example, I am Venusian, but I do not have any markers that I'm aware of (I'm Italian with dark hair and eyes and olive skin while most Venusians are fair skinned and blond by nature).

Actually, if a non-human being were to walk among us (and some do), he/she might not even be noticed. Not only can some alien races disguise themselves, but many already look a lot like us.

As I've stated before, approximately 80% of all ETs are benevolent, kind, loving souls who sincerely want to lift humanity and welcome them back into the cosmic family. About 20% of ETs are malevolent, power-hungry beings with total disregard or even disdain of humans. Of course, there's some neutral middle ground (mostly alien scientists who have no ill feelings toward humanity but are not evolved enough spiritually to be in a position to decide what's best for us). In the name of research, they might dissect a human to learn more about him/her. (The subject of abductions is another matter for another time.)

The problem is, most of the negative ETs are vibrating in the 3D and 4D realms and so are often visible to 3D and 4D humans. Many of the higher, more loving races exist in 5D, 6D and 7D and can only be contacted by humans who are attuned to those densities.

So it APPEARS there are a lot of negative ETs involved with Earth. And of course, most of the world's rulers are controlled by negative ETs (because of their lust for power).

There are many different "species" of aliens. Here's my latest assessment including those in human embodiment:

Orion Constellation: Councils of Rigel & Betelguese, Incarnates from Mars and Maldek. 80%
Pleiades System 7D: Adamic Race (original earthlings) from Lyra/Vega DNA, Atlantean Priest-Kings. 15%
Sirius B Binary System: Biblical Gods, Greek Gods, descendants of Israel & the Middle East. 2%
Venus, 6th Density: Generally blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned humans. 1%
Pleiades System 4D: Nordic-type tall muscular humans (original Vikings, Scandinavian races). 1%
Andromedan 4D: Oriental-type humans with small slanted eyes. 0.5%
Antares 4D: Red giant race mentioned in Genesis, Nordic-types, stocky European. 0.3%
Zeta Reticuli 3D: Human incarnates of original Zeta race before hybridization. 0.1%
Zeta Reticuli 3D Hybrid: Human incarnates derived from breeding programs. less than 0.1%
Andromedan 3D Hybrid: Human incarnates derived from breeding programs. less than 0.1%
Tau Ceti, Alpha Centauri, Polaris: Human incarnates from these star systems. (mostly 6D-8D). less than 0.1%
Arcturus 7D-9D: Emissaries incarnate in human form. less than one million.
Nibiru (Planet X): Nibiruan Council members, on and off-planet incarnations. about 80,000
ETs in alien bodies: Humanoids with off-planet incarnations. about 32,000
Walk-ins (soul transfers): Various races taking over human bodies through soul transfer. about 6,000
Other categories (3D-12D): Humans from star systems not mentioned above. about 50 million
Other entities (7D or higher): Spiritual masters from higher dimensions (avatars in manufactured bodies). about 300

Population percentage breakdown by density (current vibratory level of humans):

3D -- About 78%
4D -- About 22% (includes yours truly at approx. 4.65)
5D -- About 0.1%
6D -- About 0.00001%
7D -- About 0.000000001%

Here is my assessment of the types of craft observed in our skies, including the ones I've seen physically. The percentages are out of the total observed by humans:

Grey, saucer shaped, 10m-20m diameter - Zeta Reticuli - 3D/4D. 50%
Grey, saucer shaped, 10m-20m diameter - Illuminati Black Ops (Earth). 30%
Black, triangular, a few meters across - Alpha Draconis 3D (Reptilian). 10%
Multicolor, saucer-shaped - Pleiades 4D/7D, Venus 6D. 3%
Spherical, green glowing - Pleiades 4D/7D 1%
Black, triangular, very large - Illuminati Black Ops (Earth). 1%
Cigar-shaped (mothercraft - very large) - Zeta Reticuli - 3D/4D. 1%
Grey, Cylindrical - Andromeda - 3D/4D. 1%
Interdimensional, various sizes and colors - Sirius B, Orion, other systems (5D-9D). about 3%

NOTE: The Orions interbred with humans nearly half a million years ago. To my knowledge they have only a handful of emissaries from the constellation circling our heavens. The same goes for the Sirians. What about an impending invasion? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it already happened over 500,000 years ago and yeah, they won. No new invasion will be successful because Gaia (Mother Earth) is ascending, and only those souls on the path of ascension will be allowed to remain on Earth beyond the 2012 - 2030 A.D. window. See Earth Changes.

Please use your own divine judgment when dealing with ETs and especially when dealing with humans, as the percentage of negatively vibrating humans is much higher than that of ETs. In fact, if it were up to chance (which it is not), you would stand a better chance of meeting a positive ET than a positive human.

Detailed Descriptions of ETs - A complete description is found in Life On the Cutting Edge.

The Orions look like us because almost 80% of us are Orions.
The Pleiadeans look like us because they were the original root race of Earth.
The Sirians are a bit taller and lighter than the average humans.
The Antareans are large, muscular and have reddish-brown skin.
The Andromedans tend to incarnate as orientals, but the original ETs are tall and lanky with large heads and small slanted almond eyes.

The Zetas come in three main flavors:

(1) alabaster white and short with huge black almond eyes;
(2) short and grey with large black almond eyes (the most common); and
(3) tall, blue-skinned hybrids with small slanted almond eyes.

The other races are higher dimensional and can change their appearance at will.
The Venusians are fair-skinned, blond and translucent.
The Arcturians are large, blue-skinned translucent beings.
The higher-dimensional Pleiadeans are shimmering golden figures of light.
The highest level Pleiadeans look like the blue-white stars in the visible Pleiades star cluster.

ETs in Our Solar System - Note: Some of this information is also available in the article on Souls and Soul Rays.

Jupiter has advanced civilizations in the etheric atmosphere of the giant planet, vibrating at 5th and 6th density levels. They are not completely free of service-to-self (STS) vibrations and there is some kind of hierarchy to their government. They are large translucent beings originating in many local sectors of the galaxy. They were called to Jupiter to learn and grow spiritually with the assistance of Arcturians and Venusians. These beings have developed the power side of their nature more than the love side, although they are generally of a positive energy. However, that energy is somewhat harsh compared to the Venusians. Their biggest lesson appears to be finding balance between love, wisdom and power and integrating the mistakes they made during the Mars experience hundreds of thousands of years ago.

The Orions (who have controlled Earth for the last half million years) sometimes incarnate etherically in the atmosphere of Jupiter once they have ascended from the warrior-masculine-aggressive Martian paradigm.

Most of the rulers of the Jupiter conclave (about 1,000 rulers and 150,000 entities) are being tutored from higher realms in the ways of unconditional love, and how to govern a planet without ego superiority issues (a tough lesson).

The Venusians are a sixth density race from which the goddess mythology arose. They look very much as pictured in visionary paintings – long flowing golden hair, flowing robes and translucent bodies of light, some with wings.

The Martians are really the Orions prior to coming to Earth. They began their incarnations on the surface of Mars and later went underground when their atmosphere was destroyed by warfare.

The Maldekians are really Orions that once inhabited Maldek, the planet between Mars and Jupiter. They blew their planet apart with warfare and what’s left is the asteroid belt. The souls incarnated on Mars and Earth after the destruction of Maldek. The destruction of this planet threw the other planets out of their original orbits and created problems far beyond the solar system. For this reason, the Divine Councils of the higher dimensions have intervened and will not allow the total destruction of any more planets in this sector.

The Saturn Tribunal is a council of higher-dimensional entities from various systems that use etheric Saturn as their base of operations.

Original source for the above information: http://www.salrachele.com

Murcuriel...you are obviously very knowledgeable and intelligent. I often feel as though I should not be posting so much about things I know so little about...but my insecurities drive me forward into areas which make me even more insecure. Your post contains so much profound insight.

A sentence from the last post before yours really reinforced something I have suspected for a long time...namely that a high level of spiritual development is necessary to contact the higher realms. Here is the quote:

"The problem is, most of the negative ETs are vibrating in the 3D and 4D realms and so are often visible to 3D and 4D humans. Many of the higher, more loving races exist in 5D, 6D and 7D and can only be contacted by humans who are attuned to those densities."

I suspect that most of the channelers and gurus who conduct workshops and sell books...are not as highly spiritually evolved as they think (or would like us to think). This is why I don't get involved in this stuff. I watch from a safe distance (if that's possible). I am frightened by traditional religion and New Age religion. I applaud everyone for trying to do the right thing...but believer beware. I think we live in a haunted prison planet...and that we are in huge trouble. We need to focus on responsibility and self-governance...rather than focusing on hocus-pocus and mumbo-jumbo. http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15878 On the other hand...Jesus said 'Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness...and all these things shall be added unto you.' But I have concluded that the true Kingdom of God is defined by Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom. Jesus also said that the 'Kingdom of God is within you'...and that 'the truth will set you free.' More than anything...I think that Jesus was a whistleblower-insider...who we have not really carefully listened to and taken seriously.

Please consider this Amen Ra thread http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=202245&posted=1#post202245 in the context of the Gizeh Intelligence thread. They might be interconnected. The Dog-Star Sirius, Ancient Egypt, Amen Ra, and Gizeh Intelligence may be at the center of everything here on Earth. What would Daniel Jackson say? What would Hathor say?

I'm starting to get really nervous and shaky regarding all of this. All of the above may be fully aware of who I am...and what I am posting. If this is true...I doubt that they are overwhelmed with feelings of love and joy. Probably just the opposite. The spirits may be restless...and the gods may be angry.

Check this source out: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20738632/3290626-Secret-Societies-and-Their-Power

Here is another link which you might find interesting (John Rhodes): http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/reptiles/reptiles38.htm

Here's yet another speculative intellectual ejaculation resulting from the masturbation of the mind:

What if Reptilians evolved...but not Humans? What if the entire universe was Reptilian? What if there were no Humans anywhere? What if the entire universe was a Reptilian Universal Church Theocracy? What if Humans were created as a slave race? ('Let us make man in our image') What if Lucifer (Ptah?) was the Reptilian in charge of the genetic engineering project which resulted in the creation of Human Beings? What if Humans were mistreated as slaves? What if a group of Reptilians, led by Lucifer, conspired with Humans, to kill God the Father (Ra?)...and take over 'Heaven'? What if this was the Luciferian Rebellion which led to War in Heaven...and the death of God the Father (Ra?)? What if the Reptilians loyal to God (Ra?) fought against the Luciferian Reptilians and Human Beings...driving them out of the Garden of Eden (Heaven?) What if Battlestar Moon was used to transport the Luciferian Reptilians and Humans to Aldebaran, Sirius, and Earth...while being violently pursued by Nibiru? What if Interdimensional Reptilians aka The Spirit of God aka Amen battle with Luciferian Interdimensional Reptilians and the Divinity Within Humanity aka The Holy Spirit...to regain control of the Renegade Human Race? What if the New World Order is the Kingdom of Ra? What if the Luciferian Reptilians and a select group of Humans run Earth from underground bases on Earth and the Moon? Could this be Gizeh Intelligence? Could Reptilians and Humans loyal to Ra be Zionists? Could Reptilians and Humans loyal to Lucifer be Teutonic Zionists? Could a pacifist union of both factions be Followers of Jesus? Could Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom be the solution to this ancient mess?

How much trouble am I in now? Probably quite a bit. But once again...this is just speculation...with no inside information whatsoever.

Thank-you Echo6. Who knows if they're true? But I am trying very hard to approximate reality. I'm not pulling these theories out of a black hole.

Echo6 stated "From what i can gather, you are doing a reasonably good job so far. Maybe expand your search parameters a little."

Thank-you Echo6. I'm just trying to find peace. The violence, corruption, lies, attitudes, etc...are difficult for me to handle. I'm just trying to solve the world's problems...and by so doing...solve my own problems. I want to spend more time envisioning a Perfected Humanity Living in a Perfected Solar System. In a sense...I want to live in a Dream Solar System...and I want everyone to make it...including the Regressives. This sort of thinking is what I call Positive Reality Based Science Fiction. I am trying to cultivate a Solar System View...rather than a World View. I am trying to be on Everyone's Side...even though this is probably impossible.

I don't have a problem with interacting with Genuinely Benevolent Non-Humans.
I don't have a problem with Globalism based upon Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom.
I don't have a problem with Deep Underground Military Bases...as long as every square-meter of them are open to our representatives and top ranking military personnel...and as long as nothing clandestine or horrific is transpiring in them. I love watching Stargate SG-1.
I don't have a problem with Underground Cities. I think that most of the Earth's population should live underground.
I don't have a problem with Underground Mach Whatever Leviton Trains. They should probably become the preferred method of future transportation.
I don't have a problem with Advanced Spacecraft and Interplanetary Travel.
I don't have a problem with Philosophically and Theologically Rethinking Everything.
I don't have a problem with Reasonable Amnesty and Immunity for Complete Disclosure, Cooperation, and Reasonable Restitution...so that we can clean this mess up...and MOVE ON TO BIGGER AND BETTER THINGS. The Regressives, the Elites...AND the General Public should probably share equal blame for the mess we are in.

I just want the Secrecy, Corruption, Violence, Starvation, War, Terrorism, Deception, Etc...to STOP NOW!!!

Here's a behind the scenes look at what happened in a Deep Underground Military Base when Gizeh Intelligence pulled the plug on Adolph Hitler in 1941. The Computer Gaming Language was just a cover for what really happened. The horror! (viewer discretion advised) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qi_9lEbdJg Seriously...what really did happen in 1941 regarding Hitler and Gizeh Intelligence? The Roman Catholic interaction with Hitler is very interesting as well. Did Pope Pius XII and Adolph Hitler mean well in the 30's? Was Hitler not supposed to go to war...and not supposed to mistreat the Jews? Some say so. What the hell went wrong then? Will we ever know the truth? Has Gizeh Intelligence been historically necessary? Was/is it a matter of fighting fire with fire? What force stands in opposition to Gizeh Intelligence? I keep hypothesizing a Zionist vs Teutonic Zionist conflict...going way back in history. I have also recently been taking a closer look at Gabriel, Michael, Lucifer, the Luciferian Rebellion, and the War in Heaven. Was World War II simply a continuation of a conflict which began before there was Human life on Earth?

Take a look at the following link: http://servicetoone.wordpress.com/category/05a-chapter-v-part-2/ I found this most interesting:

"I am going to quote Jan van Helsing from his well researched book: “Secret Societies and Their Power in the 20th Century” again and this time when comes to explaining what Agarthi/Agartha is, because his research confirms to some extent what members from Thule have told me, but is still just a part of the story. Again, Chapter X will explain it in more details:

“ULTIMA THULE” apparently was the capital city of the first continent peopled by Aryans. This was called HYPERBOREA and was older than Lemuria and Atlantis (continents with advanced cultures since submerged). The Scandinavians have a tale of “Ultima Thule”, the wonderful land in the high North, where the sun never sets and the ancestors of the Aryan race dwell. Hyperborea was up in the North Sea and sank during an ice age. It is assumed that the Hyperboreans came from the solar system Alderbaran which is the main star in the constellation Taurus, and that they were about four meters tall, white, blond and blue-eyed. They knew no war [1] and we[r]e vegetarians (so was Hitler). According to alleged Thule texts they were technically very advanced and flew “Vril-ya”, flying machines that today we call UFOs. These flying disks were capable of levitation, extreme speeds and the maneuvers known from today’s UFOs due to two counter-rotating magnetic fields and they used the so-called Vril power as energy potential or fuel (Vril = ether, Od, Prana, Chi, Ki, cosmic force, Orgon…, but also from the academic “vri-IL” = as the highest deity = God-like), i.e., they take the energy from the earth’s magnetic field (free energy) like the “tachyon converter” of Captain Hans Coler.When HYPERBOREA began to sink the Hyperboreans are said to have burrowed with huge machines gigantic tunnels into the Earth’s crust and settled under the Himalayan region. The subterranean realm is called AGHARTA and its capital SHAMBALLAH. The Persians call this land “Aryana” the land of origin of the Aryans.

Here we should mention that Karl Haushofer claimed that Thule was actually called Atlantis and – contrary to all other researchers of Tibet and India – he said that the surviving Thule-Atlanteans were separated into two groups, a good one and an evil one. Those who called themselves after their oracle Agharta were the good and settled in the Himalayan region, the evil ones were the Shamballah who wanted to subjugate humanity and they went West. He maintained that the fight between the people of Agharta and Shamballah had been going on for thousands of years and that in the Third Reich the Thule-Gesellschaft as Agharta’s representative continued it against the representatives of Shamballah, the Freemasons and the Zionists. This perhaps was his mission."

Does the last paragraph describe the origins of Zionism and Teutonic Zionism? Or...is this rivalry even more ancient...possibly going back to the fabled 'War in Heaven'? I wish to make it clear that I have zero animosity toward Jewish or German people. I'm just curious regarding the true story of our past and present...rather than the sugar-coated and dumbed-down version of tripe...which passes as history.

Aldebaran > Thule > Agharta > Altlantis > Gizeh Intelligence > Teutonic Zionism? (Followers of Lucifer?)

Aldebaran > Thule > Shamballah > Lemuria > Zionism? (Followers of Gabriel?)

Damned if I know.

Your points are well taken Mercuriel. My guess is that historically...one thing led to another...and things got out of control...if they ever were in control. Is it helpful to think of Universal History as one big mess involving power struggles between powerful (but not all powerful) Reptilian and Human Gods and Goddesses? Is the concept of having ALL of the Gods and Goddesses retire...and basing everything on Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom...a valid idea? It seems reasonable to me...but I have no idea what the actual realities are throughout the Universe...or even in this Solar System. I'm just seeing very powerful hidden forces at work...and I'm very, very frightened and disillusioned. I know that I'm still really living in a dreamworld...and I don't think I could handle the full reality of the Universal Predicament. The most powerful beings in the Universe may not be in the best position to make the best decisions. Think long and hard about that one! Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. I don't think there are any exceptions...and insanity might be part of the deal. If we really arrived at the top of the Universal Pyramid...we might not like the view...

Here is a really wild theory: "รูปนี้คือเส้นวงโคจร" Any questions? Seriously, the translation is as follows: What if there are a lot of moons and planets orbiting Nibiru? Some say that there are.

http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4GGIR_enUS216US217&q=nibiru&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=E7PsTIDhFYu0sAPPg6yMBw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQsAQwBA

What if our moon was once in orbit around Nibiru? What if we all are Nibiruans spiritually or soul-wise? What if there was a rebellion - and we all got brought to Earth via the Moon? What if all of us participated in stealing fire from the gods - and the Moon was our getaway car? Might Lucifer and Michael have been the leaders of said rebellion? Was this rebellion, theft, and war - the Original Sin - which all mankind is guilty of? Now isn't that heretical? Then - what if a genetic hybridization program created many races? Who came first - the Humans or the Reptilians? Is there a star war every time Nibiru approaches Earth? Is this what the PTB are preparing for? Or - is all of this Nibiru, Annunaki, and Reptilian stuff a great big load of you know what? Did we come here 14,400 years ago? Did Nibiru try to destroy us with a global flood 10,800 years ago? What happened 7,200 and 3,600 years ago? Or - should I be following these numbers with BC? If so, Nibiru isn't due back here for another 1,500+ years! I'm getting tired of asking questions - and the answers might cause me to abandon all hope. I keep asking question after question after question - and receiving very few answers. What the hell is really going on? Lucifer??? Gabriel??? Michael??? Amen Ra??? Queen of Heaven??? Somebody talk to me!!! Google seems to be my one and only friend. See the following:

Check this out! http://www.futuretg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=441:indipendence-day-was-450000-years-ago-&catid=45:human-evolution&Itemid=67 (Un-edited)

"Most people suppose that some alien civilization will land and will destroy us, will exterminate us. But this will not happens, because happens millenniums ago. Honestly, the civilization that visit us, don't want to exterminate us. They simply want slaves to stole the light and the result of their job, as well the earth's jewels.
They still rule us ...

From Patricia Cori Atlantis Rising, we got a list of the visit of the Annunaki from 450,000 BC until Zero Point, when the Christ born. Here is the list,

What becomes significant in our discussion of the Annunaki is how their planet's continual reentry into your system coincides with periods of great upheaval and monumental change upon the Earth. Visitations from the Annunaki have marked the following key time frames in your solar system's history:

450,000 years ago, the Nebiruans first visit Earth, returning at regular intervals since then, approximately every 3,600 years

97,200 BC (The Annunaki intervene in the Great Experiment- the seeding of Homo sapiens

52,400 BC (Nebiru's entry into your solar system coincides with other celestial events which cause Planet Earth to flip its axis, initiating your most recent Ice Age

28,800 BC (The second cycle of Atlantis comes to a close with the glaciation of the continent

25,200 BC (The Annunaki establish military bases on Mars.)

21,600 BC (Annunaki transit stations are created on the Moon.)

18,000 BC (The first Annunaki settlements in the land known to you as Africa establish mining colonies of precious ores.)

14,400 BC (The Annunaki land in Atlantis, which coincides with the beginnings of opposition in the Priesthood.)

10,800 BC (Atlantis disappears below the ocean.)

7200 BC (The Annunaki appear in Mesopotamia, intervening in the Sumerian civilization.)

3600 BC (The Annunaki intervene in Egypt, a civilization established through direct intervention with Sirian and Pleiadian Light Emissaries.)

ZERO TIME (The birthing of the Christed One.)

Calculating a 3,600 year cycle, it is clear that the lone planet is not scheduled back into your solar system in time for the Mayan date or 21 December 2012 AD. This is of particular significance to the cosmic unfolding of events occurring at that projected point in the space-time continuum and devastating to the Nebiruans. Just as before, with the collapse of Satais, all heavenly bodies orbiting the ascending star will be pulled through the black hole and into the higher dimension. Nebiru, however, will be out there in galactic winter, at a remote point somewhere between the Sirius star system and yours, neither close enough to be pulled through with you, nor near enough to Sirius to grab orbit in our system. They are fearful, worried about their fate, and they are searching desperately for a solution.

So, when they arrive for the first time, we were in embryo. Then, they modify our DNA. They are the so-called Dark Brothers. The Family of Light, did nothing to change this because they know how the Universe works. Their visit, was a continuous challenge for us, valid still today, but soon they will become not-operative.

No additional comment, is necessary. Thanks, Giovanni A. Orlando."

Treat all of this as if it were science fiction. I sample and speculate. I don't know much for certain. I guess I'm trying to place myself in the middle of life, the universe, and everything - in a somewhat neutral and non-committal manner. The more I look at all of this - the less I think I know - and the less capable I feel. I mostly point to the work and skills of others. Thank-you for the heads-up on the Andromeda Collective. I have listened to Alex Collier quite a bit in the past - and he claims to have had extensive contact with the Andromedans - but I consider his material to be a combination of fact and fiction. I really like Alex, and I am very close to his thinking editorially and politically (at least regarding his past lectures). If you are interested in further study regarding Gizeh Intelligence - I would suggest taking a very close look at the Nazi phenomenon - before, during, and after World War II. Consider all of Joseph Farrell's ('SS Brotherhood of the Bell') and Jim Marrs' ('Rule by Secrecy', 'Rise of the Fourth Reich') books, interviews, and lectures. My goal is mostly to change myself - and I do this by thinking out-loud on the internet. But, as I'm sure you know, everything is monitored. Viewing and posting on these controversial subjects probably gets one placed on dozens of lists. At this point - I don't care. I'm really trying to communicate with everyone - especially those on the inside - which would include those working for various agencies which might be monitoring sites such as this one. Hi guys and gals! The goal is to get informed - without getting mad, or going mad.

Carol stated "As I stand rocking back and forth in my corner here OXY I really think we are too far down on the totom pole for anyone to want us on any list."

You're probably right, Carol - but it's sort of fun to think that some mysterious and powerful agency actually gives a damn about little-old me! I sure hope that I'm not on anyone's fecal-list when the excrement hits the air-conditioning system! People start out, worrying about what people think of them. Then, they stop worrying about what people think. Finally, they realize that no one really gives a rat's @$$! I'm half-joking and half-serious when I speak of rocking back and forth in a corner. The internal conflict generated by considering life, the universe, and everything - combined with a feeling of utter uselessness and helplessness - is quite intense, at times. Wanting everything - while having nothing - is a form of mental illness which I experience each and every day. Some of us nobodies wish to be somebodies - and we engage in self-aggrandizing tempests in internet-teapots - while rocking back and forth in the corner - doing you know what...

Even maliciously fabricated BS has value, in the sense that it provides us with a mental and spiritual workout. I like to sample a wide variety of sources and subjects. That way, I don't have to agonize as much over whether a particular person or story is genuine. I just take it all in - and formulate a hypothesis. Then I just keep working with that hypothesis, to see if it holds up. The problem I am having, is in trying to stimulate and maintain rational coversation regarding the controversial topics and theories which particularly interest me. I mostly have to talk to myself. I don't wish to walk alone - but if I have to, I will. Most of the time - only my dog will walk with me. Sometimes, he won't even go...

I assume that I am accompanied by both good and evil unseen beings continually. This sort of tramples on the right to privacy - but what the heck. Sometimes I even swear at these beings - in a friendly way - but I don't wish for them to talk back! I'm really annoyed by the whole state of affairs - historically and presently. It seems to be utterly absurd. I mostly have to live in my own little dreamworld, to maintain my sanity - and perhaps this, in and of itself, is insanity. There are advantages and disadvantages to standing apart from the crowd. Independence is a good thing - but too much independence is disastrous. One should not be a Rebel Without a Clue. I'm actually attempting to befriend the Powers That Be (Human and Otherwise) in a rather detached, antagonistic, sarcastic, and irreverent manner. I'd love to tour the full extent of Gizeh Intelligence Facilities (throughout the solar system?) someday - but I don't wish to sell my soul to you know who - in order to be granted the privilege of doing so. I'm trying to be the worst enemy and the best buddy of the PTB. Don't try this at home kiddies...

The following quotation is the third-chapter of Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing by Ellen G. White: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mb/mb3.html


It was Christ who, amid thunder and flame, had proclaimed the law upon Mount Sinai. The glory of God, like devouring fire, rested upon its summit, and the mountain quaked at the presence of the Lord. The hosts of Israel, lying prostrate upon the earth, had listened in awe to the sacred precepts of the law. What a contrast to the scene upon the mount of the Beatitudes! Under the summer sky, with no sound to break the stillness but the song of birds, Jesus unfolded the principles of His kingdom. Yet He who spoke to the people that day in accents of love, was opening to them the principles of the law proclaimed upon Sinai.

When the law was given, Israel, degraded by the long bondage in Egypt, had need to be impressed with the power and majesty of God; yet He revealed Himself to them no less as a God of love.

"The Lord came from Sinai,
And rose from Seir unto them;
He shined forth from Mount Paran,
And He came from the ten thousands of holy ones:
At His right hand was a fiery law unto them.
Yea, He loveth the tribes;
All their holy ones are in Thy hand:
And they sat down at Thy feet;
Everyone received of Thy words."
Deuteronomy 33:2, 3, R.V., margin.

It was to Moses that God revealed His glory in those wonderful words that have been the treasured heritage of the ages: "The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Exodus 34:6, 7.

The law given upon Sinai was the enunciation of the principle of love, a revelation to earth of the law of heaven. It was ordained in the hand of a Mediator--spoken by Him through whose power the hearts of men could be brought into harmony with its principles. God had revealed the purpose of the law when He declared to Israel, "Ye shall be holy men unto Me." Exodus 22:31

But Israel had not perceived the spiritual nature of the law, and too often their professed obedience was but an observance of forms and ceremonies, rather than a surrender of the heart to the sovereignty of love. As Jesus in His character and work represented to men the holy, benevolent, and paternal attributes of God, and presented the worthlessness of mere ceremonial obedience, the Jewish leaders did not receive or understand His words. They thought that He dwelt too lightly upon the requirements of the law; and when He set before them the very truths that were the soul of their divinely appointed service, they, looking only at the external, accused Him of seeking to overthrow it.

The words of Christ, though calmly spoken, were uttered with an earnestness and power that stirred the hearts of the people. They listened for a repetition of the lifeless traditions and exactions of the rabbis, but in vain. They "were astonished at His teaching: for He taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes." Matthew 7:29, R.V. The Pharisees noted the vast difference between their manner of instruction and that of Christ. They saw that the majesty and purity and beauty of the truth, with its deep and gentle influence, was taking firm hold upon many minds. The Saviour's divine love and tenderness drew the hearts of men to Him. The rabbis saw that by His teaching the whole tenor of the instruction they had given to the people was set at nought. He was tearing down the partition wall that had been so flattering to their pride and exclusiveness; and they feared that, if permitted, He would draw the people entirely away from them. Therefore they followed Him with determined hostility, hoping to find some occasion for bringing Him into disfavor with the multitudes and thus enabling the Sanhedrin to secure His condemnation and death.

On the mount, Jesus was closely watched by spies; and as He unfolded the principles of righteousness, the Pharisees caused it to be whispered about that His teaching was in opposition to the precepts that God had given from Sinai. The Saviour said nothing to unsettle faith in the religion and institutions that had been given through Moses; for every ray of divine light that Israel's great leader communicated to his people was received from Christ. While many are saying in their hearts that He has come to do away with the law, Jesus in unmistakable language reveals His attitude toward the divine statutes. "Think not," He said, "that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets."

It is the Creator of men, the Giver of the law, who declares that it is not His purpose to set aside its precepts. Everything in nature, from the mote in the sunbeam to the worlds on high, is under law. And upon obedience to these laws the order and harmony of the natural world depend. So there are great principles of righteousness to control the life of all intelligent beings, and upon conformity to these principles the well-being of the universe depends. Before this earth was called into being, God's law existed. Angels are governed by its principles, and in order for earth to be in harmony with heaven, man also must obey the divine statutes. To man in Eden Christ made known the precepts of the law "when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." Job 38:7. The mission of Christ on earth was not to destroy the law, but by His grace to bring man back to obedience to its precepts.

The beloved disciple, who listened to the words of Jesus on the mount, writing long afterward under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, speaks of the law as of perpetual obligation. He says that "sin is the transgression of the law" and that "whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law." 1 John 3:4. He makes it plain that the law to which he refers is "an old commandment which ye had from the beginning." 1 John 2:7. He is speaking of the law that existed at the creation and was reiterated upon Mount Sinai.

Speaking of the law, Jesus said, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." He here used the word "fulfill" in the same sense as when He declared to John the Baptist His purpose to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15); that is, to fill up the measure of the law's requirement, to give an example of perfect conformity to the will of God. His mission was to "magnify the law, and make it honorable." Isaiah 42:21. He was to show the spiritual nature of the law, to present its far-reaching principles, and to make plain its eternal obligation.

The divine beauty of the character of Christ, of whom the noblest and most gentle among men are but a faint reflection; of whom Solomon by the Spirit of inspiration wrote, He is "the chiefest among ten thousand, . . . yea, He is altogether lovely" (Song of Solomon 5:10-16); of whom David, seeing Him in prophetic vision, said, "Thou art fairer than the children of men" (Psalm 45:2); Jesus, the express image of the Father's person, the effulgence of His glory; the self-denying Redeemer, throughout His pilgrimage of love on earth, was a living representation of the character of the law of God. In His life it is made manifest that heaven-born love, Christlike principles, underlie the laws of eternal rectitude.

"Till heaven and earth pass," said Jesus, "one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." By His own obedience to the law, Christ testified to its immutable character and proved that through His grace it could be perfectly obeyed by every son and daughter of Adam. On the mount He declared that not the smallest iota should pass from the law till all things should be accomplished--all things that concern the human race, all that relates to the plan of redemption. He does not teach that the law is ever to be abrogated, but He fixes the eye upon the utmost verge of man's horizon and assures us that until this point is reached the law will retain its authority so that none may suppose it was His mission to abolish the precepts of the law. So long as heaven and earth continue, the holy principles of God's law will remain. His righteousness, "like the great mountains" (Psalm 36:6), will continue, a source of blessing, sending forth streams to refresh the earth.

Because the law of the Lord is perfect, and therefore changeless, it is impossible for sinful men, in themselves, to meet the standard of its requirement. This was why Jesus came as our Redeemer. It was His mission, by making men partakers of the divine nature, to bring them into harmony with the principles of the law of heaven. When we forsake our sins and receive Christ as our Saviour, the law is exalted. The apostle Paul asks, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31.

The new-covenant promise is, "I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them." Hebrews 10:16. While the system of types which pointed to Christ as the Lamb of God that should take away the sin of the world was to pass away at His death, the principles of righteousness embodied in the Decalogue are as immutable as the eternal throne. Not one command has been annulled, not a jot or tittle has been changed. Those principles that were made known to man in Paradise as the great law of life will exist unchanged in Paradise restored. When Eden shall bloom on earth again, God's law of love will be obeyed by all beneath the sun.

"Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven." "All His commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness." "Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them forever." Psalms 119:89; 111:7, 8; 119:152.

"Whosoever . . . shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19.

That is, he shall have no place therein. For he who willfully breaks one commandment, does not, in spirit and truth, keep any of them. "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10.

It is not the greatness of the act of disobedience that constitutes sin, but the fact of variance from God's expressed will in the least particular; for this shows that there is yet communion between the soul and sin. The heart is divided in its service. There is a virtual denial of God, a rebellion against the laws of His government.

Were men free to depart from the Lord's requirements and to set up a standard of duty for themselves, there would be a variety of standards to suit different minds and the government would be taken out of the Lord's hands. The will of man would be made supreme, and the high and holy will of God-- His purpose of love toward His creatures--would be dishonored, disrespected.

Whenever men choose their own way, they place themselves in controversy with God. They will have no place in the kingdom of heaven, for they are at war with the very principles of heaven. In disregarding the will of God, they are placing themselves on the side of Satan, the enemy of God and man. Not by one word, not by many words, but by every word that God has spoken, shall man live. We cannot disregard one word, however trifling it may seem to us, and be safe. There is not a commandment of the law that is not for the good and happiness of man, both in this life and in the life to come. In obedience to God's law, man is surrounded as with a hedge and kept from the evil. He who breaks down this divinely erected barrier at one point has destroyed its power to protect him; for he has opened a way by which the enemy can enter to waste and ruin.

By venturing to disregard the will of God upon one point, our first parents opened the floodgates of woe upon the world. And every individual who follows their example will reap a similar result. The love of God underlies every precept of His law, and he who departs from the commandment is working his own unhappiness and ruin.

"Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:20.

The scribes and Pharisees had accused not only Christ but His disciples as sinners because of their disregard of the rabbinical rites and observances. Often the disciples had been perplexed and troubled by censure and accusation from those whom they had been accustomed to revere as religious teachers. Jesus unveiled the deception. He declared that the righteousness upon which the Pharisees set so great value was worthless. The Jewish nation had claimed to be the special, loyal people who were favored of God; but Christ represented their religion as devoid of saving faith. All their pretensions of piety, their human inventions and ceremonies, and even their boasted performance of the outward requirements of the law, could not avail to make them holy. They were not pure in heart or noble and Christlike in character.

A legal religion is insufficient to bring the soul into harmony with God. The hard, rigid orthodoxy of the Pharisees, destitute of contrition, tenderness, or love, was only a stumbling block to sinners. They were like the salt that had lost its savor; for their influence had no power to preserve the world from corruption. The only true faith is that which "worketh by love" (Galatians 5:6) to purify the soul. It is as leaven that transforms the character.

All this the Jews should have learned from the teachings of the prophets. Centuries before, the cry of the soul for justification with God had found voice and answer in the words of the prophet Micah: "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? . . . He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:6-8.

The prophet Hosea had pointed out what constitutes the very essence of Pharisaism, in the words, "Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself." Hosea 10:1. In their professed service to God, the Jews were really working for self. Their righteousness was the fruit of their own efforts to keep the law according to their own ideas and for their own selfish benefit. Hence it could be no better than they were. In their endeavor to make themselves holy, they were trying to bring a clean thing out of an unclean. The law of God is as holy as He is holy, as perfect as He is perfect. It presents to men the righteousness of God. It is impossible for man, of himself, to keep this law; for the nature of man is depraved, deformed, and wholly unlike the character of God. The works of the selfish heart are "as an unclean thing;" and "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." Isaiah 64:6.

While the law is holy, the Jews could not attain righteousness by their own efforts to keep the law. The disciples of Christ must obtain righteousness of a different character from that of the Pharisees, if they would enter the kingdom of heaven. God offered them, in His Son, the perfect righteousness of the law. If they would open their hearts fully to receive Christ, then the very life of God, His love, would dwell in them, transforming them into His own likeness; and thus through God's free gift they would possess the righteousness which the law requires. But the Pharisees rejected Christ; "being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness" (Romans 10:3), they would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Jesus proceeded to show His hearers what it means to keep the commandments of God--that it is a reproduction in themselves of the character of Christ. For in Him, God was daily made manifest before them.

"Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment." Matthew 5:22, R.V.

Through Moses the Lord had said, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart. . . . Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Leviticus 19:17, 18. The truths which Christ presented were the same that had been taught by the prophets, but they had become obscured through hardness of heart and love of sin.

The Saviour's words revealed to His hearers the fact that, while they were condemning others as transgressors, they were themselves equally guilty; for they were cherishing malice and hatred. Across the sea from the place where they were assembled was the country of Bashan, a lonely region, whose wild gorges and wooded hills had long been a favorite lurking ground for criminals of all descriptions. Reports of robbery and murder committed there were fresh in the minds of the people, and many were zealous in denouncing these evildoers. At the same time they were themselves passionate and contentious; they cherished the most bitter hatred of their Roman oppressors and felt themselves at liberty to hate and despise all other peoples, and even their own countrymen who did not in all things conform to their ideas. In all this they were violating the law which declares, "Thou shalt not kill."

The spirit of hatred and revenge originated with Satan, and it led him to put to death the Son of God. Whoever cherishes malice or unkindness is cherishing the same spirit, and its fruit will be unto death. In the revengeful thought the evil deed lies enfolded, as the plant in the seed. "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15.

"Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca [vain fellow], shall be in danger of the council." In the gift of His Son for our redemption, God has shown how high a value He places upon every human soul, and He gives to no man liberty to speak contemptuously of another. We shall see faults and weaknesses in those about us, but God claims every soul as His property--His by creation, and doubly His as purchased by the precious blood of Christ. All were created in His image, and even the most degraded are to be treated with respect and tenderness. God will hold us accountable for even a word spoken in contempt of one soul for whom Christ laid down His life.

"Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth." 1 Corinthians 4:7; Romans 14:4.

"Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire." R.V. In the Old Testament the word "fool" is used to designate an apostate, or one who has abandoned himself to wickedness. Jesus says that whoever shall condemn his brother as an apostate or a despiser of God shows that he himself is worthy of the same condemnation.

Christ Himself, when contending with Satan about the body of Moses, "durst not bring against him a railing accusation." Jude 9. Had He done this, He would have placed Himself on Satan's ground, for accusation is the weapon of the evil one. He is called in Scripture, "the accuser of our brethren." Revelation 12:10. Jesus would employ none of Satan's weapons. He met him with the words, "The Lord rebuke thee." Jude 9.

His example is for us. When we are brought in conflict with the enemies of Christ, we should say nothing in a spirit of retaliation or that would bear even the appearance of a railing accusation. He who stands as a mouthpiece for God should not utter words which even the Majesty of heaven would not use when contending with Satan. We are to leave with God the work of judging and condemning.

"Be reconciled to thy brother." Matthew 5:24.

The love of God is something more than a mere negation; it is a positive and active principle, a living spring, ever flowing to bless others. If the love of Christ dwells in us, we shall not only cherish no hatred toward our fellows, but we shall seek in every way to manifest love toward them.

Jesus said, "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." The sacrificial offerings expressed faith that through Christ the offerer had become a partaker of the mercy and love of God. But for one to express faith in God's pardoning love, while he himself indulged an unloving spirit, would be a mere farce.

When one who professes to serve God wrongs or injures a brother, he misrepresents the character of God to that brother, and the wrong must be confessed, he must acknowledge it to be sin, in order to be in harmony with God. Our brother may have done us a greater wrong than we have done him, but this does not lessen our responsibility. If when we come before God we remember that another has aught against us, we are to leave our gift of prayer, of thanksgiving, of freewill offering, and go to the brother with whom we are at variance, and in humility confess our own sin and ask to be forgiven. If we have in any manner defrauded or injured our brother, we should make restitution. If we have unwittingly borne false witness, if we have misstated his words, if we have injured his influence in any way, we should go to the ones with whom we have conversed about him, and take back all our injurious misstatements.

If matters of difficulty between brethren were not laid open before others, but frankly spoken of between themselves in the spirit of Christian love, how much evil might be prevented! How many roots of bitterness whereby many are defiled would be destroyed, and how closely and tenderly might the followers of Christ be united in His love!

"Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28.

The Jews prided themselves on their morality and looked with horror upon the sensual practices of the heathen. The presence of the Roman officers whom the imperial rule had brought into Palestine was a continual offense to the people, for with these foreigners had come in a flood of heathen customs, lust, and dissipation. In Capernaum, Roman officials with their gay paramours haunted the parades and promenades, and often the sound of revelry broke upon the stillness of the lake as their pleasure boats glided over the quiet waters. The people expected to hear from Jesus a stern denunciation of this class, but what was their astonishment as they listened to words that laid bare the evil of their own hearts!

When the thought of evil is loved and cherished, however secretly, said Jesus, it shows that sin still reigns in the heart. The soul is still in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. He who finds pleasure in dwelling upon scenes of impurity, who indulges the evil thought, the lustful look, may behold in the open sin, with its burden of shame and heart-breaking grief, the true nature of the evil which he has hidden in the chambers of the soul. The season of temptation, under which, it may be, one falls into grievous sin, does not create the evil that is revealed, but only develops or makes manifest that which was hidden and latent in the heart. As a man "thinketh in his heart, so is he;" for out of the heart "are the issues of life." Proverbs 23:7; 4:23.

"If thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee." Matthew 5:30, R.V.

To prevent disease from spreading to the body and destroying life, a man would submit to part even with his right hand. Much more should he be willing to surrender that which imperils the life of the soul.

Through the gospel, souls that are degraded and enslaved by Satan are to be redeemed to share the glorious liberty of the sons of God. God's purpose is not merely to deliver from the suffering that is the inevitable result of sin, but to save from sin itself. The soul, corrupted and deformed, is to be purified, transformed, that it may be clothed in "the beauty of the Lord our God," "conformed to the image of His Son." "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him." Psalm 90:17; Romans 8:29; 1 Corinthians 2:9. Eternity alone can reveal the glorious destiny to which man, restored to God's image, may attain.

In order for us to reach this high ideal, that which causes the soul to stumble must be sacrificed. It is through the will that sin retains its hold upon us. The surrender of the will is represented as plucking out the eye or cutting off the hand. Often it seems to us that to surrender the will to God is to consent to go through life maimed or crippled. But it is better, says Christ, for self to be maimed, wounded, crippled, if thus you may enter into life. That which you look upon as disaster is the door to highest benefit.

God is the fountain of life, and we can have life only as we are in communion with Him. Separated from God, existence may be ours for a little time, but we do not possess life. "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." 1 Timothy 5:6. Only through the surrender of our will to God is it possible for Him to impart life to us. Only by receiving His life through self-surrender is it possible, said Jesus, for these hidden sins, which I have pointed out, to be overcome.

It is possible that you may bury them in your hearts and conceal them from human eyes, but how will you stand in God's presence? If you cling to self, refusing to yield your will to God, you are choosing death. To sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire. If you choose sin, and refuse to separate from it, the presence of God, which consumes sin, must consume you.

It will require a sacrifice to give yourself to God; but it is a sacrifice of the lower for the higher, the earthly for the spiritual, the perishable for the eternal. God does not design that our will should be destroyed, for it is only through its exercise that we can accomplish what He would have us do. Our will is to be yielded to Him, that we may receive it again, purified and refined, and so linked in sympathy with the Divine that He can pour through us the tides of His love and power. However bitter and painful this surrender may appear to the willful, wayward heart, yet "it is profitable for thee."

Not until he fell crippled and helpless upon the breast of the covenant angel did Jacob know the victory of conquering faith and receive the title of a prince with God. It was when he "halted upon his thigh" (Genesis 32:31) that the armed bands of Esau were stilled before him, and the Pharaoh, proud heir of a kingly line, stooped to crave his blessing. So the Captain of our salvation was made "perfect through sufferings" (Hebrews 2:10), and the children of faith "out of weakness were made strong," and "turned to flight the armies of the aliens" (Hebrews 11:34). So do "the lame take the prey" (Isaiah 33:23), and the weak become "as David," and "the house of David . . . as the angel of the Lord" (Zechariah 12:.

"Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?" Matthew 19:3.

Among the Jews a man was permitted to put away his wife for the most trivial offenses, and the woman was then at liberty to marry again. This practice led to great wretchedness and sin. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus declared plainly that there could be no dissolution of the marriage tie, except for unfaithfulness to the marriage vow. "Everyone," He said, "that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery." R.V.

When the Pharisees afterward questioned Him concerning the lawfulness of divorce, Jesus pointed His hearers back to the marriage institution as ordained at creation. "Because of the hardness of your hearts," He said, Moses "suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Matthew 19:8. He referred them to the blessed days of Eden, when God pronounced all things "very good." Then marriage and the Sabbath had their origin, twin institutions for the glory of God in the benefit of humanity. Then, as the Creator joined the hands of the holy pair in wedlock, saying, A man shall "leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one" (Genesis 2:24), He enunciated the law of marriage for all the children of Adam to the close of time. That which the Eternal Father Himself had pronounced good was the law of highest blessing and development for man.

Like every other one of God's good gifts entrusted to the keeping of humanity, marriage has been perverted by sin; but it is the purpose of the gospel to restore its purity and beauty. In both the Old and the New Testament the marriage relation is employed to represent the tender and sacred union that exists between Christ and His people, the redeemed ones whom He has purchased at the cost of Calvary. "Fear not," He says; "thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is His name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." "Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you." Isaiah 54:4, 5; Jeremiah 3:14. In the "Song of Songs" we hear the bride's voice saying, "My Beloved is mine, and I am His." And He who is to her "the chiefest among ten thousand," speaks to His chosen one, "Thou art all fair, My love; there is no spot in thee." Song of Solomon 2:16; 5:10; 4:7.

In later times Paul the apostle, writing to the Ephesian Christians, declares that the Lord has constituted the husband the head of the wife, to be her protector, the house-band, binding the members of the family together, even as Christ is the head of the church and the Saviour of the mystical body. Therefore he says, "As the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives." Ephesians 5:24-28. The grace of Christ, and this alone, can make this institution what God designed it should be--an agent for the blessing and uplifting of humanity. And thus the families of earth, in their unity and peace and love, may represent the family of heaven.

Now, as in Christ's day, the condition of society presents a sad comment upon heaven's ideal of this sacred relation. Yet even for those who have found bitterness and disappointment where they had hoped for companionship and joy, the gospel of Christ offers a solace. The patience and gentleness which His Spirit can impart will sweeten the bitter lot. The heart in which Christ dwells will be so filled, so satisfied, with His love that it will not be consumed with longing to attract sympathy and attention to itself. And through the surrender of the soul to God, His wisdom can accomplish what human wisdom fails to do. Through the revelation of His grace, hearts that were once indifferent or estranged may be united in bonds that are firmer and more enduring than those of earth--the golden bonds of a love that will bear the test of trial.

"Swear not at all." Matthew 5:34.

The reason for this command is given: We are not to swear "by the heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black." R.V.

All things come of God. We have nothing that we have not received; and, more than this, we have nothing that has not been purchased for us by the blood of Christ. Everything we possess comes to us stamped with the cross, bought with the blood that is precious above all estimate, because it is the life of God. Hence there is nothing that we have a right to pledge, as if it were our own, for the fulfillment of our word.

The Jews understood the third commandment as prohibiting the profane use of the name of God; but they thought themselves at liberty to employ other oaths. Oath taking was common among them. Through Moses they had been forbidden to swear falsely, but they had many devices for freeing themselves from the obligation imposed by an oath. They did not fear to indulge in what was really profanity, nor did they shrink from perjury so long as it was veiled by some technical evasion of the law.

Jesus condemned their practices, declaring that their custom in oath taking was a transgression of the commandment of God. Our Saviour did not, however, forbid the use of the judicial oath, in which God is solemnly called to witness that what is said is truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus Himself, at His trial before the Sanhedrin, did not refuse to testify under oath. The high priest said unto Him, "I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus answered, "Thou hast said." Matthew 26:63, 64. Had Christ in the Sermon on the Mount condemned the judicial oath, He would at His trial have reproved the high priest and thus, for the benefit of His followers, have enforced His own teaching.

There are very many who do not fear to deceive their fellow men, but they have been taught, and have been impressed by the Spirit of God, that it is a fearful thing to lie to their Maker. When put under oath they are made to feel that they are not testifying merely before men, but before God; that if they bear false witness, it is to Him who reads the heart and who knows the exact truth. The knowledge of the fearful judgments that have followed this sin has a restraining influence upon them.

But if there is anyone who can consistently testify under oath, it is the Christian. He lives constantly as in the presence of God, knowing that every thought is open to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do; and when required to do so in a lawful manner, it is right for him to appeal to God as a witness that what he says is the truth, and nothing but the truth.

Jesus proceeded to lay down a principle that would make oath taking needless. He teaches that the exact truth should be the law of speech. "Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one." R.V.

These words condemn all those meaningless phrases and expletives that border on profanity. They condemn the deceptive compliments, the evasion of truth, the flattering phrases, the exaggerations, the misrepresentations in trade, that are current in society and in the business world. They teach that no one who tries to appear what he is not, or whose words do not convey the real sentiment of his heart, can be called truthful.

If these words of Christ were heeded, they would check the utterance of evil surmising and unkind criticism; for in commenting upon the actions and motives of another, who can be certain of speaking the exact truth? How often pride, passion, personal resentment, color the impression given! A glance, a word, even an intonation of the voice, may be vital with falsehood. Even facts may be so stated as to convey a false impression. And "whatsoever is more than" truth, "is of the evil one."

Everything that Christians do should be as transparent as the sunlight. Truth is of God; deception, in every one of its myriad forms, is of Satan; and whoever in any way departs from the straight line of truth is betraying himself into the power of the wicked one. Yet it is not a light or an easy thing to speak the exact truth. We cannot speak the truth unless we know the truth; and how often preconceived opinions, mental bias, imperfect knowledge, errors of judgment, prevent a right understanding of matters with which we have to do! We cannot speak the truth unless our minds are continually guided by Him who is truth.

Through the apostle Paul, Christ bids us, "Let your speech be alway with grace." "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." Colossians 4:6; Ephesians 4:29. In the light of these scriptures the words of Christ upon the mount are seen to condemn jesting, trifling, and unchaste conversation. They require that our words should be not only truthful, but pure.

Those who have learned of Christ will "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness." Ephesians 5:11. In speech, as in life, they will be simple, straightforward, and true; for they are preparing for the fellowship of those holy ones in whose mouth "was found no guile." Revelation 14:5.

"Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39, R.V.

Occasions of irritation to the Jews were constantly arising from their contact with the Roman soldiery. Detachments of troops were stationed at different points throughout Judea and Galilee, and their presence reminded the people of their own degradation as a nation. With bitterness of soul they heard the loud blast of the trumpet and saw the troops forming around the standard of Rome and bowing in homage to this symbol of her power. Collisions between the people and the soldiers were frequent, and these inflamed the popular hatred. Often as some Roman official with his guard of soldiers hastened from point
to point, he would seize upon the Jewish peasants who were laboring in the field and compel them to carry burdens up the mountainside or render any other service that might be needed. This was in accordance with the Roman law and custom, and resistance to such demands only called forth taunts and cruelty. Every day deepened in the hearts of the people the longing to cast off the Roman yoke. Especially among the bold, rough-handed Galileans the spirit of insurrection was rife. Capernaum, being a border town, was the seat of a Roman garrison, and even while Jesus was teaching, the sight of a company of soldiers recalled to His hearers the bitter thought of Israel's humiliation. The people looked eagerly of Christ, hoping that He was the One who was to humble the pride of Rome.

With sadness Jesus looks into the upturned faces before Him. He notes the spirit of revenge that has stamped its evil imprint upon them, and knows how bitterly the people long for power to crush their oppressors. Mournfully He bids them, "Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

These words were but a reiteration of the teaching of the Old Testament. It is true that the rule, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Leviticus 24:20), was a provision in the laws given through Moses; but it was a civil statute. None were justified in avenging themselves, for they had the words of the Lord: "Say not thou, I will recompense evil." "Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me." "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth." "If he that hateth thee be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink." Proverbs 20:22; 24:29, 17; 25:21, 22, R.V., margin.

The whole earthly life of Jesus was a manifestation of this principle. It was to bring the bread of life to His enemies that our Saviour left His home in heaven. Though calumny and persecution were heaped upon Him from the cradle to the grave, they called forth from Him only the expression of forgiving love. Through the prophet Isaiah He says, "I gave My back to the smiters, and My cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not My face from shame and spitting." "He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth: He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth." Isaiah 50:6; 53:7. And from the cross of Calvary there come down through the ages His prayer for His murderers and the message of hope to the dying thief.

The Father's presence encircled Christ, and nothing befell Him but that which infinite love permitted for the blessing of the world. Here was His source of comfort, and it is for us. He who is imbued with the Spirit of Christ abides in Christ. The blow that is aimed at him falls upon the Saviour, who surrounds him with His presence. Whatever comes to him comes from Christ. He has no need to resist evil, for Christ is his defense. Nothing can touch him except by our Lord's permission, and "all things" that are permitted "work together for good to them that love God." Romans 8:28.

"If any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat [tunic], let him have thy cloak [mantle] also. And whosoever shall impress thee to go one mile, go with him twain." R.V., margin.

Jesus bade His disciples, instead of resisting the demands of those in authority, to do even more than was required of them. And, so far as possible, they should discharge every obligation, even if it were beyond what the law of the land required. The law, as given through Moses, enjoined a very tender regard for the poor. When a poor man gave his garment as a pledge, or as security for a debt, the creditor was not permitted to enter the dwelling to obtain it; he must wait in the street for the pledge to be brought to him. And whatever the circumstances the pledge must be returned to its owner at nightfall. Deuteronomy 24:10-13. In the days of Christ these merciful provisions were little regarded; but Jesus taught His disciples to submit to the decision of the court, even though this should demand more than the law of Moses authorized. Though it should demand a part of their raiment, they were to yield. More than this, they were to give to the creditor his due, if necessary surrendering even more than the court gave him authority to seize. "If any man would go to law with thee," He said, "and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." R.V. And if the couriers require you to go a mile with them, go two miles.

Jesus added, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." The same lesson had been taught through Moses: "Thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: but thou shalt open
thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth." Deuteronomy 15:7, 8. This scripture makes plain the meaning of the Saviour's words. Christ does not teach us to give indiscriminately to all who ask for charity; but He says, "Thou shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need;" and this is to be a gift, rather than a loan; for we are to "lend, hoping for nothing again." Luke 6:35. "Who gives himself with his alms feeds three, Himself, his hungering neighbor, and Me." "Love your enemies." Matthew 5:44.

The Saviour's lesson, "Resist not him that is evil," was a hard saying for the revengeful Jews, and they murmured against it among themselves. But Jesus now made a still stronger declaration:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven."

Such was the spirit of the law which the rabbis had misinterpreted as a cold and rigid code of exactions. They regarded themselves as better than other men, and as entitled to the special favor of God by virtue of their birth as Israelites; but Jesus pointed to the spirit of forgiving love as that which would give evidence that they were actuated by any higher motives than even the publicans and sinners, whom they despised. He pointed His hearers to the Ruler of the universe, under the new name, "Our Father." He would have them understand how tenderly the heart of God yearned over them. He teaches that God cares for every lost soul; that "like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him." Psalm 103:13. Such a conception of God was never given to the world by any religion but that of the Bible. Heathenism teaches men to look upon the Supreme Being as an object of fear rather than of love--a malign deity to be appeased by sacrifices, rather than a Father pouring upon His children the gift of His love. Even the people of Israel had become so blinded to the precious teaching of the prophets concerning God that this revelation of His paternal love was as an original subject, a new gift to the world.

The Jews held that God loved those who served Him,--according to their view, those who fulfilled the requirements of the rabbis,--and that all the rest of the world lay under His frown and curse. Not so, said Jesus; the whole world, the evil and the good, lies in the sunshine of His love. This truth you should have learned from nature itself; for God "maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

It is not because of inherent power that year by year the earth produces her bounties and continues her motion round the sun. The hand of God guides the planets and keeps them in position in their orderly march through the heavens. It is through His power that summer and winter, seedtime and harvest, day and night follow each other in their regular succession. It is by His word that vegetation flourishes, that the leaves appear and the flowers bloom. Every good thing we have, each ray of sunshine and shower of rain, every morsel of food, every moment of life, is a gift of love.

While we were yet unloving and unlovely in character, "hateful, and hating one another," our heavenly Father had mercy on us. "After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." Titus 3:3-5. His love received, will make us, in like manner, kind and tender, not merely toward those who please us, but to the most faulty and erring and sinful.

The children of God are those who are partakers of His nature. It is not earthly rank, nor birth, nor nationality, nor religious privilege, which proves that we are members of the family of God; it is love, a love that embraces all humanity. Even sinners whose hearts are not utterly closed to God's Spirit, will respond to kindness; while they may give hate for hate, they will also give love for love. But it is only the Spirit of God that gives love for hatred. To be kind to the unthankful and to the evil, to do good hoping for nothing again, is the insignia of the royalty of heaven, the sure token by which the children of the Highest reveal their high estate.

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48.

The word "therefore" implies a conclusion, an inference from what has gone before. Jesus has been describing to His hearers the unfailing mercy and love of God, and He bids them therefore to be perfect. Because your heavenly Father "is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil" (Luke 6:35), because He has stooped to lift you up, therefore, said Jesus, you may become like Him in character, and stand without fault in the presence of men and angels.

The conditions of eternal life, under grace, are just what they were in Eden--perfect righteousness, harmony with God, perfect conformity to the principles of His law. The standard of character presented in the Old Testament is the same that is presented in the New Testament. This standard is not one to which we cannot attain. In every command or injunction that God gives there is a promise, the most positive, underlying the command. God has made provision that we may become like unto Him, and He will accomplish this for all who do not interpose a perverse will and thus frustrate His grace.

With untold love our God has loved us, and our love awakens toward Him as we comprehend something of the length and breadth and depth and height of this love that passeth knowledge. By the revelation of the attractive loveliness of Christ, by the knowledge of His love expressed to us while we were yet sinners, the stubborn heart is melted and subdued, and the sinner is transformed and becomes a child of heaven. God does not employ compulsory measures; love is the agent which He uses to expel sin from the heart. By it He changes pride into humility, and enmity and unbelief into love and faith.

The Jews had been wearily toiling to reach perfection by their own efforts, and they had failed. Christ had already told them that their righteousness could never enter the kingdom of heaven. Now He points out to them the character of the righteousness that all who enter heaven will possess. Throughout the Sermon on the Mount He describes its fruits, and now in one sentence He points out its source and its nature: Be perfect as God is perfect. The law is but a transcript of the character of God. Behold in your heavenly Father a perfect manifestation of the principles which are the foundation of His government.

God is love. Like rays of light from the sun, love and light and joy flow out from Him to all His creatures. It is His nature to give. His very life is the outflow of unselfish love.

"His glory is His children's good;
His joy, His tender Fatherhood."

He tells us to be perfect as He is, in the same manner. We are to be centers of light and blessing to our little circle, even as He is to the universe. We have nothing of ourselves, but the light of His love shines upon us, and we are to reflect its brightness. "In His borrowed goodness good," we may be perfect in our sphere, even as God is perfect in His.

Jesus said, Be perfect as your Father is perfect. If you are the children of God you are partakers of His nature, and you cannot but be like Him. Every child lives by the life of his father. If you are God's children, begotten by His Spirit, you live by the life of God. In Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9); and the life of Jesus is made manifest "in our mortal flesh" (2 Corinthians 4:11). That life in you will produce the same character and manifest the same works as it did in Him. Thus you will be in harmony with every precept of His law; for "the law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul." Psalm 19:7, margin. Through love "the righteousness of the law" will be "fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:4.

Psalm 91: 1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. 2 I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust . 3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. 4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust : his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. 5 Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; 6 Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. 7 A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. 8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked. 9 Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation; 10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. 11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. 12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. 13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet . 14 Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high , because he hath known my name. 15 He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him. 16 With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.

Psalm 92: 1 It is a good thing to give thanks unto the LORD, and to sing praises unto thy name, O most High: 2 To shew forth thy lovingkindness in the morning, and thy faithfulness every night, 3 Upon an instrument of ten strings, and upon the psaltery; upon the harp with a solemn sound. 4 For thou, LORD, hast made me glad through thy work: I will triumph in the works of thy hands. 5 O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep . 6 A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this. 7 When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish ; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever: 8 But thou, LORD, art most high for evermore. 9 For, lo, thine enemies , O LORD, for, lo, thine enemies shall perish ; all the workers of iniquity shall be scattered . 10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil. 11 Mine eye also shall see my desire on mine enemies, and mine ears shall hear my desire of the wicked that rise up against me. 12 The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. 13 Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish in the courts of our God. 14 They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing; 15 To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.

Psalm 93: 1 The LORD reigneth , he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished , that it cannot be moved . 2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. 3 The floods have lifted up , O LORD, the floods have lifted up their voice; the floods lift up their waves. 4 The LORD on high is mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the mighty waves of the sea. 5 Thy testimonies are very sure : holiness becometh thine house, O LORD, for ever .

Psalm 94: 1 O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself. 2 Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud. 3 LORD, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph ? 4 How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves? 5 They break in pieces thy people, O LORD, and afflict thine heritage. 6 They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. 7 Yet they say , The LORD shall not see , neither shall the God of Jacob regard it. 8 Understand , ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise ? 9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear ? he that formed the eye, shall he not see ? 10 He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct ? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? 11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. 12 Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest , O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law; 13 That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked. 14 For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance. 15 But judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it. 16 Who will rise up for me against the evildoers ? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? 17 Unless the LORD had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence. 18 When I said , My foot slippeth ; thy mercy, O LORD, held me up . 19 In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul. 20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? 21 They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. 22 But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. 23 And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off .

Psalm 95: 1 O come , let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation. 2 Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto him with psalms. 3 For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods. 4 In his hand are the deep places of the earth: the strength of the hills is his also. 5 The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land. 6 O come , let us worship and bow down : let us kneel before the LORD our maker . 7 For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice, 8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. 10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said , It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: 11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

Psalm 96: 1 O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth. 2 Sing unto the LORD, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day. 3 Declare his glory among the heathen, his wonders among all people. 4 For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised : he is to be feared above all gods. 5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens. 6 Honour and majesty are before him: strength and beauty are in his sanctuary. 7 Give unto the LORD, O ye kindreds of the people, give unto the LORD glory and strength. 8 Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come into his courts. 9 O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth. 10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth : the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved : he shall judge the people righteously. 11 Let the heavens rejoice , and let the earth be glad ; let the sea roar , and the fulness thereof. 12 Let the field be joyful , and all that is therein: then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice 13 Before the LORD: for he cometh , for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.

Psalm 97: 1 The LORD reigneth ; let the earth rejoice ; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof. 2 Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne. 3 A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. 4 His lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw , and trembled . 5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth. 6 The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory. 7 Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods. 8 Zion heard , and was glad ; and the daughters of Judah rejoiced because of thy judgments, O LORD. 9 For thou, LORD, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods. 10 Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked. 11 Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. 12 Rejoice in the LORD, ye righteous; and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness.

Psalm 98: 1 O sing unto the LORD a new song; for he hath done marvellous things : his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory . 2 The LORD hath made known his salvation: his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen. 3 He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. 4 Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise , and rejoice , and sing praise. 5 Sing unto the LORD with the harp; with the harp, and the voice of a psalm. 6 With trumpets and sound of cornet make a joyful noise before the LORD, the King. 7 Let the sea roar , and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. 8 Let the floods clap their hands: let the hills be joyful together 9 Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.

Psalm 99: 1 The LORD reigneth ; let the people tremble : he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved . 2 The LORD is great in Zion; and he is high above all the people. 3 Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy. 4 The king's strength also loveth judgment; thou dost establish equity, thou executest judgment and righteousness in Jacob. 5 Exalt ye the LORD our God, and worship at his footstool ; for he is holy. 6 Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among them that call upon his name; they called upon the LORD, and he answered them. 7 He spake unto them in the cloudy pillar: they kept his testimonies, and the ordinance that he gave them. 8 Thou answeredst them, O LORD our God: thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions. 9 Exalt the LORD our God, and worship at his holy hill; for the LORD our God is holy.

Psalm 100: 1 Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all ye lands. 2 Serve the LORD with gladness: come before his presence with singing. 3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture. 4 Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name. 5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

Psalm 101: 1 I will sing of mercy and judgment: unto thee, O LORD, will I sing . 2 I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart. 3 I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me. 4 A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person. 5 Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off : him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer . 6 Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me. 7 He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight. 8 I will early destroy all the wicked of the land; that I may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the LORD.

Psalm 102: 1 Hear my prayer, O LORD, and let my cry come unto thee. 2 Hide not thy face from me in the day when I am in trouble; incline thine ear unto me: in the day when I call answer me speedily. 3 For my days are consumed like smoke, and my bones are burned as an hearth. 4 My heart is smitten , and withered like grass; so that I forget to eat my bread. 5 By reason of the voice of my groaning my bones cleave to my skin. 6 I am like a pelican of the wilderness: I am like an owl of the desert. 7 I watch , and am as a sparrow alone upon the house top. 8 Mine enemies reproach me all the day; and they that are mad against me are sworn against me. 9 For I have eaten ashes like bread, and mingled my drink with weeping, 10 Because of thine indignation and thy wrath: for thou hast lifted me up , and cast me down . 11 My days are like a shadow that declineth ; and I am withered like grass. 12 But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations. 13 Thou shalt arise , and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to favour her, yea, the set time, is come . 14 For thy servants take pleasure in her stones, and favour the dust thereof. 15 So the heathen shall fear the name of the LORD, and all the kings of the earth thy glory. 16 When the LORD shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory. 17 He will regard the prayer of the destitute, and not despise their prayer. 18 This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD. 19 For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the LORD behold the earth; 20 To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death; 21 To declare the name of the LORD in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem; 22 When the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the LORD. 23 He weakened my strength in the way; he shortened my days. 24 I said , O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. 25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. 26 They shall perish , but thou shalt endure : yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed : 27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end . 28 The children of thy servants shall continue , and their seed shall be established before thee.

Psalm 103: 1 Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. 2 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: 3 Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; 4 Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies; 5 Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's. 6 The LORD executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed . 7 He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel. 8 The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. 9 He will not always chide : neither will he keep his anger for ever. 10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. 11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. 12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us. 13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him. 14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust. 15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth . 16 For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more. 17 But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; 18 To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them. 19 The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. 20 Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. 21 Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure. 22 Bless the LORD, all his works in all places of his dominion: bless the LORD, O my soul.

Psalm 104: 1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great ; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. 2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: 3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: 4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: 5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever . 6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At thy rebuke they fled ; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. 8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over ; that they turn not again to cover the earth. 10 He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills. 11 They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst. 12 By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation , which sing among the branches. 13 He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. 14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; 15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine , and bread which strengtheneth man's heart. 16 The trees of the LORD are full of sap; the cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted ; 17 Where the birds make their nests : as for the stork, the fir trees are her house. 18 The high hills are a refuge for the wild goats; and the rocks for the conies. 19 He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down. 20 Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth. 21 The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God. 22 The sun ariseth , they gather themselves together , and lay them down in their dens. 23 Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening. 24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. 25 So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts. 26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein. 27 These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. 28 That thou givest them they gather : thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good. 29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled : thou takest away their breath, they die , and return to their dust. 30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created : and thou renewest the face of the earth. 31 The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works. 32 He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth : he toucheth the hills, and they smoke . 33 I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. 34 My meditation of him shall be sweet : I will be glad in the LORD. 35 Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.

Psalm 105: 1 O give thanks unto the LORD; call upon his name: make known his deeds among the people. 2 Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him: talk ye of all his wondrous works . 3 Glory ye in his holy name: let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD. 4 Seek the LORD, and his strength: seek his face evermore. 5 Remember his marvellous works that he hath done ; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth; 6 O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen. 7 He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth. 8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. 9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: 11 Saying , Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: 12 When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. 13 When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people; 14 He suffered no man to do them wrong : yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; 15 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm . 16 Moreover he called for a famine upon the land: he brake the whole staff of bread. 17 He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant: 18 Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron: 19 Until the time that his word came : the word of the LORD tried him. 20 The king sent and loosed him; even the ruler of the people, and let him go free . 21 He made him lord of his house, and ruler of all his substance: 22 To bind his princes at his pleasure; and teach his senators wisdom . 23 Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham. 24 And he increased his people greatly; and made them stronger than their enemies. 25 He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants. 26 He sent Moses his servant; and Aaron whom he had chosen . 27 They shewed his signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham. 28 He sent darkness, and made it dark ; and they rebelled not against his word. 29 He turned their waters into blood, and slew their fish. 30 Their land brought forth frogs in abundance , in the chambers of their kings. 31 He spake , and there came divers sorts of flies, and lice in all their coasts. 32 He gave them hail for rain, and flaming fire in their land. 33 He smote their vines also and their fig trees; and brake the trees of their coasts. 34 He spake , and the locusts came , and caterpillers, and that without number, 35 And did eat up all the herbs in their land, and devoured the fruit of their ground. 36 He smote also all the firstborn in their land, the chief of all their strength. 37 He brought them forth also with silver and gold: and there was not one feeble person among their tribes. 38 Egypt was glad when they departed : for the fear of them fell upon them. 39 He spread a cloud for a covering; and fire to give light in the night. 40 The people asked , and he brought quails, and satisfied them with the bread of heaven. 41 He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out ; they ran in the dry places like a river. 42 For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant. 43 And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness: 44 And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people; 45 That they might observe his statutes, and keep his laws. Praise ye the LORD.

Psalm 106: 1 Praise ye the LORD. O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. 2 Who can utter the mighty acts of the LORD? who can shew forth all his praise? 3 Blessed are they that keep judgment, and he that doeth righteousness at all times. 4 Remember me, O LORD, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation; 5 That I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance. 6 We have sinned with our fathers, we have committed iniquity , we have done wickedly . 7 Our fathers understood not thy wonders in Egypt; they remembered not the multitude of thy mercies; but provoked him at the sea, even at the Red sea. 8 Nevertheless he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make his mighty power to be known . 9 He rebuked the Red sea also, and it was dried up : so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness. 10 And he saved them from the hand of him that hated them, and redeemed them from the hand of the enemy . 11 And the waters covered their enemies: there was not one of them left . 12 Then believed they his words; they sang his praise. 13 They soon forgat his works; they waited not for his counsel: 14 But lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert. 15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul. 16 They envied Moses also in the camp, and Aaron the saint of the LORD. 17 The earth opened and swallowed up Dathan, and covered the company of Abiram. 18 And a fire was kindled in their company; the flame burned up the wicked. 19 They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped the molten image. 20 Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass. 21 They forgat God their saviour , which had done great things in Egypt; 22 Wondrous works in the land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red sea. 23 Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them. 24 Yea, they despised the pleasant land, they believed not his word: 25 But murmured in their tents, and hearkened not unto the voice of the LORD. 26 Therefore he lifted up his hand against them, to overthrow them in the wilderness: 27 To overthrow their seed also among the nations, and to scatter them in the lands. 28 They joined themselves also unto Baalpeor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead . 29 Thus they provoked him to anger with their inventions: and the plague brake in upon them. 30 Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment : and so the plague was stayed . 31 And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore. 32 They angered him also at the waters of strife , so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes: 33 Because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips. 34 They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them: 35 But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. 36 And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. 37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, 38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. 39 Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. 40 Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance. 41 And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them. 42 Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand. 43 Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity. 44 Nevertheless he regarded their affliction, when he heard their cry: 45 And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies. 46 He made them also to be pitied of all those that carried them captives . 47 Save us, O LORD our God, and gather us from among the heathen, to give thanks unto thy holy name, and to triumph in thy praise. 48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say , Amen. Praise ye the LORD.

Psalm 107: 1 O give thanks unto the LORD, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. 2 Let the redeemed of the LORD say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy; 3 And gathered them out of the lands, from the east, and from the west, from the north, and from the south. 4 They wandered in the wilderness in a solitary way; they found no city to dwell in. 5 Hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted in them. 6 Then they cried unto the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them out of their distresses. 7 And he led them forth by the right way, that they might go to a city of habitation. 8 Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! 9 For he satisfieth the longing soul, and filleth the hungry soul with goodness. 10 Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron; 11 Because they rebelled against the words of God, and contemned the counsel of the most High: 12 Therefore he brought down their heart with labour; they fell down , and there was none to help . 13 Then they cried unto the LORD in their trouble, and he saved them out of their distresses. 14 He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder . 15 Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! 16 For he hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder . 17 Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted . 18 Their soul abhorreth all manner of meat; and they draw near unto the gates of death. 19 Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he saveth them out of their distresses. 20 He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. 21 Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! 22 And let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare his works with rejoicing. 23 They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; 24 These see the works of the LORD, and his wonders in the deep. 25 For he commandeth , and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof. 26 They mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depths: their soul is melted because of trouble. 27 They reel to and fro , and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wits' end . 28 Then they cry unto the LORD in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses. 29 He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still . 30 Then are they glad because they be quiet ; so he bringeth them unto their desired haven. 31 Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! 32 Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the assembly of the elders. 33 He turneth rivers into a wilderness, and the watersprings into dry ground; 34 A fruitful land into barrenness, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein. 35 He turneth the wilderness into a standing water, and dry ground into watersprings . 36 And there he maketh the hungry to dwell , that they may prepare a city for habitation; 37 And sow the fields, and plant vineyards, which may yield fruits of increase. 38 He blesseth them also, so that they are multiplied greatly; and suffereth not their cattle to decrease . 39 Again, they are minished and brought low through oppression, affliction, and sorrow. 40 He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness, where there is no way. 41 Yet setteth he the poor on high from affliction, and maketh him families like a flock. 42 The righteous shall see it, and rejoice : and all iniquity shall stop her mouth. 43 Whoso is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the lovingkindness of the LORD.

Psalm 108: 1 O God, my heart is fixed ; I will sing and give praise , even with my glory. 2 Awake , psaltery and harp: I myself will awake early. 3 I will praise thee, O LORD, among the people: and I will sing praises unto thee among the nations. 4 For thy mercy is great above the heavens: and thy truth reacheth unto the clouds. 5 Be thou exalted , O God, above the heavens: and thy glory above all the earth; 6 That thy beloved may be delivered : save with thy right hand, and answer me. 7 God hath spoken in his holiness; I will rejoice , I will divide Shechem, and mete out the valley of Succoth. 8 Gilead is mine; Manasseh is mine; Ephraim also is the strength of mine head; Judah is my lawgiver ; 9 Moab is my washpot ; over Edom will I cast out my shoe; over Philistia will I triumph . 10 Who will bring me into the strong city? who will lead me into Edom? 11 Wilt not thou, O God, who hast cast us off ? and wilt not thou, O God, go forth with our hosts? 12 Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man. 13 Through God we shall do valiantly: for he it is that shall tread down our enemies.

Psalm 109: 1 Hold not thy peace , O God of my praise; 2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue. 3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause. 4 For my love they are my adversaries : but I give myself unto prayer. 5 And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love. 6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. 7 When he shall be judged , let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. 8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office. 9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. 10 Let his children be continually vagabonds , and beg : let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. 11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. 12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. 13 Let his posterity be cut off ; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out . 14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out . 15 Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. 16 Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart. 17 As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. 18 As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones. 19 Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually. 20 Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD, and of them that speak evil against my soul. 21 But do thou for me, O GOD the Lord, for thy name's sake: because thy mercy is good, deliver thou me. 22 For I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me. 23 I am gone like the shadow when it declineth : I am tossed up and down as the locust. 24 My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness. 25 I became also a reproach unto them: when they looked upon me they shaked their heads. 26 Help me, O LORD my God: O save me according to thy mercy: 27 That they may know that this is thy hand; that thou, LORD, hast done it. 28 Let them curse , but bless thou: when they arise , let them be ashamed ; but let thy servant rejoice . 29 Let mine adversaries be clothed with shame, and let them cover themselves with their own confusion, as with a mantle. 30 I will greatly praise the LORD with my mouth; yea, I will praise him among the multitude. 31 For he shall stand at the right hand of the poor, to save him from those that condemn his soul.

Psalm 110: 1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool . 2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies . 3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. 4 The LORD hath sworn , and will not repent , Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. 5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. 6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. 7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.

Psalm 111: 1 Praise ye the LORD. I will praise the LORD with my whole heart, in the assembly of the upright, and in the congregation. 2 The works of the LORD are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein. 3 His work is honourable and glorious: and his righteousness endureth for ever. 4 He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered: the LORD is gracious and full of compassion. 5 He hath given meat unto them that fear him: he will ever be mindful of his covenant. 6 He hath shewed his people the power of his works, that he may give them the heritage of the heathen. 7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure . 8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness. 9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name. 10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

Psalm 112: 1 Praise ye the LORD. Blessed is the man that feareth the LORD, that delighteth greatly in his commandments. 2 His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed . 3 Wealth and riches shall be in his house: and his righteousness endureth for ever. 4 Unto the upright there ariseth light in the darkness: he is gracious, and full of compassion, and righteous. 5 A good man sheweth favour , and lendeth : he will guide his affairs with discretion. 6 Surely he shall not be moved for ever: the righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance. 7 He shall not be afraid of evil tidings: his heart is fixed , trusting in the LORD. 8 His heart is established , he shall not be afraid , until he see his desire upon his enemies. 9 He hath dispersed , he hath given to the poor; his righteousness endureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted with honour. 10 The wicked shall see it, and be grieved ; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away : the desire of the wicked shall perish .

Psalm 113: 1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise , O ye servants of the LORD, praise the name of the LORD. 2 Blessed be the name of the LORD from this time forth and for evermore. 3 From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same the LORD'S name is to be praised . 4 The LORD is high above all nations, and his glory above the heavens. 5 Who is like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high , 6 Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth! 7 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill; 8 That he may set him with princes, even with the princes of his people. 9 He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the LORD.

Psalm 114: 1 When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language ; 2 Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his dominion. 3 The sea saw it, and fled : Jordan was driven back. 4 The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs . 5 What ailed thee, O thou sea, that thou fleddest ? thou Jordan, that thou wast driven back? 6 Ye mountains, that ye skipped like rams; and ye little hills, like lambs ? 7 Tremble , thou earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob; 8 Which turned the rock into a standing water, the flint into a fountain of waters.

Psalm 115: 1 Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake. 2 Wherefore should the heathen say , Where is now their God? 3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased . 4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. 5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: 6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: 7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. 8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them. 9 O Israel, trust thou in the LORD: he is their help and their shield. 10 O house of Aaron, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield. 11 Ye that fear the LORD, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield. 12 The LORD hath been mindful of us: he will bless us; he will bless the house of Israel; he will bless the house of Aaron. 13 He will bless them that fear the LORD, both small and great. 14 The LORD shall increase you more and more, you and your children. 15 Ye are blessed of the LORD which made heaven and earth. 16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men. 17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence. 18 But we will bless the LORD from this time forth and for evermore. Praise the LORD.

Psalm 116: 1 I love the LORD, because he hath heard my voice and my supplications. 2 Because he hath inclined his ear unto me, therefore will I call upon him as long as I live. 3 The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. 4 Then called I upon the name of the LORD; O LORD, I beseech thee, deliver my soul. 5 Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful . 6 The LORD preserveth the simple: I was brought low , and he helped me. 7 Return unto thy rest, O my soul; for the LORD hath dealt bountifully with thee. 8 For thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling. 9 I will walk before the LORD in the land of the living. 10 I believed , therefore have I spoken : I was greatly afflicted : 11 I said in my haste , All men are liars . 12 What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me? 13 I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD. 14 I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people. 15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. 16 O LORD, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid: thou hast loosed my bonds. 17 I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD. 18 I will pay my vows unto the LORD now in the presence of all his people, 19 In the courts of the LORD'S house, in the midst of thee, O Jerusalem. Praise ye the LORD.

Psalm 117: 1 O praise the LORD, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people. 2 For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD.

Psalm 118: 1 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: because his mercy endureth for ever. 2 Let Israel now say , that his mercy endureth for ever. 3 Let the house of Aaron now say , that his mercy endureth for ever. 4 Let them now that fear the LORD say , that his mercy endureth for ever. 5 I called upon the LORD in distress: the LORD answered me, and set me in a large place. 6 The LORD is on my side; I will not fear : what can man do unto me? 7 The LORD taketh my part with them that help me: therefore shall I see my desire upon them that hate me. 8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. 9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes. 10 All nations compassed me about : but in the name of the LORD will I destroy them. 11 They compassed me about ; yea, they compassed me about : but in the name of the LORD I will destroy them. 12 They compassed me about like bees; they are quenched as the fire of thorns: for in the name of the LORD I will destroy them. 13 Thou hast thrust sore at me that I might fall : but the LORD helped me. 14 The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation. 15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted : the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 17 I shall not die , but live , and declare the works of the LORD. 18 The LORD hath chastened me sore : but he hath not given me over unto death. 19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD: 20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter . 21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. 23 This is the LORD'S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. 24 This is the day which the LORD hath made ; we will rejoice and be glad in it. 25 Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity . 26 Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD. 27 God is the LORD, which hath shewed us light : bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar. 28 Thou art my God, and I will praise thee: thou art my God, I will exalt thee. 29 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Psalm 119: 1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD. 2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart. 3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways. 4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently. 5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes! 6 Then shall I not be ashamed , when I have respect unto all thy commandments. 7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments. 8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly. 9 BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. 10 With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. 11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. 12 Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes. 13 With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth. 14 I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches. 15 I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways. 16 I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word. 17 GIMEL. Deal bountifully with thy servant, that I may live , and keep thy word. 18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. 19 I am a stranger in the earth: hide not thy commandments from me. 20 My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments at all times. 21 Thou hast rebuked the proud that are cursed , which do err from thy commandments. 22 Remove from me reproach and contempt; for I have kept thy testimonies. 23 Princes also did sit and speak against me: but thy servant did meditate in thy statutes. 24 Thy testimonies also are my delight and my counsellors . 25 DALETH. My soul cleaveth unto the dust: quicken thou me according to thy word. 26 I have declared my ways, and thou heardest me: teach me thy statutes. 27 Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works . 28 My soul melteth for heaviness: strengthen thou me according unto thy word. 29 Remove from me the way of lying: and grant me thy law graciously . 30 I have chosen the way of truth: thy judgments have I laid before me. 31 I have stuck unto thy testimonies: O LORD, put me not to shame . 32 I will run the way of thy commandments, when thou shalt enlarge my heart. 33 HE. Teach me, O LORD, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end. 34 Give me understanding , and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart. 35 Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight . 36 Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness. 37 Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way. 38 Stablish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear. 39 Turn away my reproach which I fear : for thy judgments are good. 40 Behold, I have longed after thy precepts: quicken me in thy righteousness. 41 VAU. Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word. 42 So shall I have wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in thy word. 43 And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments. 44 So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever. 45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts. 46 I will speak of thy testimonies also before kings, and will not be ashamed . 47 And I will delight myself in thy commandments, which I have loved . 48 My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved ; and I will meditate in thy statutes. 49 ZAIN. Remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me to hope . 50 This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me. 51 The proud have had me greatly in derision : yet have I not declined from thy law. 52 I remembered thy judgments of old, O LORD; and have comforted myself. 53 Horror hath taken hold upon me because of the wicked that forsake thy law. 54 Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage. 55 I have remembered thy name, O LORD, in the night, and have kept thy law. 56 This I had, because I kept thy precepts. 57 CHETH. Thou art my portion, O LORD: I have said that I would keep thy words. 58 I intreated thy favour with my whole heart: be merciful unto me according to thy word. 59 I thought on my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimonies. 60 I made haste , and delayed not to keep thy commandments. 61 The bands of the wicked have robbed me: but I have not forgotten thy law. 62 At midnight I will rise to give thanks unto thee because of thy righteous judgments. 63 I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts. 64 The earth, O LORD, is full of thy mercy: teach me thy statutes. 65 TETH. Thou hast dealt well with thy servant, O LORD, according unto thy word. 66 Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments. 67 Before I was afflicted I went astray : but now have I kept thy word. 68 Thou art good, and doest good ; teach me thy statutes. 69 The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart. 70 Their heart is as fat as grease; but I delight in thy law. 71 It is good for me that I have been afflicted ; that I might learn thy statutes. 72 The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver. 73 JOD. Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding , that I may learn thy commandments. 74 They that fear thee will be glad when they see me; because I have hoped in thy word. 75 I know , O LORD, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me. 76 Let, I pray thee, thy merciful kindness be for my comfort , according to thy word unto thy servant. 77 Let thy tender mercies come unto me, that I may live : for thy law is my delight. 78 Let the proud be ashamed ; for they dealt perversely with me without a cause: but I will meditate in thy precepts. 79 Let those that fear thee turn unto me, and those that have known thy testimonies. 80 Let my heart be sound in thy statutes; that I be not ashamed . 81 CAPH. My soul fainteth for thy salvation: but I hope in thy word. 82 Mine eyes fail for thy word, saying , When wilt thou comfort me? 83 For I am become like a bottle in the smoke; yet do I not forget thy statutes. 84 How many are the days of thy servant? when wilt thou execute judgment on them that persecute me? 85 The proud have digged pits for me, which are not after thy law. 86 All thy commandments are faithful: they persecute me wrongfully; help thou me. 87 They had almost consumed me upon earth; but I forsook not thy precepts. 88 Quicken me after thy lovingkindness; so shall I keep the testimony of thy mouth. 89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. 90 Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth . 91 They continue this day according to thine ordinances: for all are thy servants. 92 Unless thy law had been my delights, I should then have perished in mine affliction. 93 I will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me. 94 I am thine, save me; for I have sought thy precepts. 95 The wicked have waited for me to destroy me: but I will consider thy testimonies. 96 I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad. 97 MEM. O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. 98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies : for they are ever with me. 99 I have more understanding than all my teachers : for thy testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. 101 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. 102 I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. 103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 Through thy precepts I get understanding : therefore I hate every false way. 105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. 106 I have sworn , and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments. 107 I am afflicted very much: quicken me, O LORD, according unto thy word. 108 Accept , I beseech thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me thy judgments. 109 My soul is continually in my hand: yet do I not forget thy law. 110 The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts. 111 Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. 112 I have inclined mine heart to perform thy statutes alway, even unto the end. 113 SAMECH. I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love . 114 Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word. 115 Depart from me, ye evildoers : for I will keep the commandments of my God. 116 Uphold me according unto thy word, that I may live : and let me not be ashamed of my hope. 117 Hold thou me up , and I shall be safe : and I will have respect unto thy statutes continually. 118 Thou hast trodden down all them that err from thy statutes: for their deceit is falsehood. 119 Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross: therefore I love thy testimonies. 120 My flesh trembleth for fear of thee; and I am afraid of thy judgments. 121 AIN. I have done judgment and justice: leave me not to mine oppressors . 122 Be surety for thy servant for good: let not the proud oppress me. 123 Mine eyes fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy righteousness. 124 Deal with thy servant according unto thy mercy, and teach me thy statutes. 125 I am thy servant; give me understanding , that I may know thy testimonies. 126 It is time for thee, LORD, to work : for they have made void thy law. 127 Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. 128 Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right ; and I hate every false way. 129 PE. Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them. 130 The entrance of thy words giveth light ; it giveth understanding unto the simple. 131 I opened my mouth, and panted : for I longed for thy commandments. 132 Look thou upon me, and be merciful unto me, as thou usest to do unto those that love thy name. 133 Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me. 134 Deliver me from the oppression of man: so will I keep thy precepts. 135 Make thy face to shine upon thy servant; and teach me thy statutes. 136 Rivers of waters run down mine eyes, because they keep not thy law. 137 TZADDI. Righteous art thou, O LORD, and upright are thy judgments. 138 Thy testimonies that thou hast commanded are righteous and very faithful. 139 My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies have forgotten thy words. 140 Thy word is very pure : therefore thy servant loveth it. 141 I am small and despised : yet do not I forget thy precepts. 142 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth. 143 Trouble and anguish have taken hold on me: yet thy commandments are my delights. 144 The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding , and I shall live . 145 KOPH. I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O LORD: I will keep thy statutes. 146 I cried unto thee; save me, and I shall keep thy testimonies. 147 I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried : I hoped in thy word. 148 Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word. 149 Hear my voice according unto thy lovingkindness: O LORD, quicken me according to thy judgment. 150 They draw nigh that follow after mischief: they are far from thy law. 151 Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. 152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. 153 RESH. Consider mine affliction, and deliver me: for I do not forget thy law. 154 Plead my cause, and deliver me: quicken me according to thy word. 155 Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes. 156 Great are thy tender mercies, O LORD: quicken me according to thy judgments. 157 Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. 158 I beheld the transgressors , and was grieved ; because they kept not thy word. 159 Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness. 160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. 161 SCHIN. Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word. 162 I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil. 163 I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love . 164 Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments. 165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them. 166 LORD, I have hoped for thy salvation, and done thy commandments. 167 My soul hath kept thy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly. 168 I have kept thy precepts and thy testimonies: for all my ways are before thee. 169 TAU. Let my cry come near before thee, O LORD: give me understanding according to thy word. 170 Let my supplication come before thee: deliver me according to thy word. 171 My lips shall utter praise, when thou hast taught me thy statutes. 172 My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness. 173 Let thine hand help me; for I have chosen thy precepts. 174 I have longed for thy salvation, O LORD; and thy law is my delight. 175 Let my soul live , and it shall praise thee; and let thy judgments help me. 176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.

Psalm 120: 1 In my distress I cried unto the LORD, and he heard me. 2 Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue. 3 What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue? 4 Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper. 5 Woe is me, that I sojourn in Mesech, that I dwell in the tents of Kedar! 6 My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. 7 I am for peace: but when I speak , they are for war.

Trying to discuss solar system governance is like talking to a brick-wall. Once again, I may need to be reminded to be a bad@ss banker-warrior in my next incarnation -- in order to get some respect and attention. Perhaps another War in Heaven will get everyone's attention. Is Earth-Humanity worth fighting for? What do you think?? Do you give a damn?? Is this whole thing a failed project?? Do you all wish to be what we were before we were human?? Do you NOT want responsible-freedom?? What the hell do you want??? I'm slowly learning to not care if anyone pays any attention to what I post, or not. This is just my little secret society which is available to anyone -- worldwide -- yet which very few will view. I've sort of begged for internet friends -- but I really don't care anymore. I haven't become more tolerant. I simply don't give a damn -- especially if no one else does. I realize that I'm an intellectual lightweight. I realize that I'm not an entertainer. I realize that I don't have connections. I realize that I don't know people who know people. I think I'm a reject in more ways than even I can imagine. I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing -- and watch. This is going to be interesting. Very interesting indeed. I'll just use this thread as a study-guide -- to prepare myself for my next incarnation -- which I intend to make VERY different than this stupid attempt to think properly and honestly. Hopefully, I'll know better next time -- but someone PLEASE remind me that this whole mess is not about being reasonable and doing the right thing. It's about Money, Power, and Appearances. Right?????

Here are the links to my threads on AV1 and MOA. I included them here because they are really an ongoing research project. I'm trying to change myself - and I am trying to encourage others to think in unconventional yet productive ways. This is a unique approach - which may make it of some value to someone somewhere or somewhen. This thread is an experiment (aren't they all?)...which includes mostly threads based on videos...or threads which contain many video links...which I have started. I'm not particularly bright or noteworthy...but the videos which I have viewed...especially when viewed as a group...are earth shattering to me. The threads are a healthy mixture of problems and solutions. If you have the time...which is doubtful...please look at all of these threads...and look for commonalities. There is a bit of a theological slant...but certainly not an orthodox or Bible thumping slant. Prepare to be shocked...to cry...to get mad...to be enlightened...and to experience the Eureka Phenomenon!

I would love to read a twenty page critique of all of these threads - written by a Jesuit or a CIA analyst - complete with a psychological evaluation, etc. I'm very serious. I don't need to be right. I just don't feel as though anyone has seriously considered these threads. They were designed to make people think - and then to arrive at their own conclusions - but I don't think that happened at all. I honestly feel as though Gabriel, Michael, Lucifer, and a couple of alphabet agents and Jesuits are the only ones who looked at this material with a penetrating gaze. Even if I was very close to the mark - I wasn't a threat (I didn't try to be) - because no one seemed to pay much attention to any of it. I had hoped for some very detailed and passionate debating. The 'Amen Ra' thread seemed to generate the most interest (13,200 views and counting) - but I have no idea what the reactions were and are now that AV1 is closed to posting. I feel very empty and lost in all of this. I feel as though I wasted my time and energy - accomplishing nothing. I am making a renewed call for help - into the vast regions of space and cyberspace - to seriously look at this material as a group - and tell me what you think - positive or negative. Where are the scholars? Is there any intelligent life out there that isn't so high and mighty that they can't take a few hours to make a proper evaluation of all of this? Come down out of your ivory tower - I dare you! The water's warm. Come-on in! I'm waiting - but I'm not holding my breath. You important people with your degrees and badges have more important things to do - don't you? Like getting us into even more trouble than we're already in? Don't take what I just said too seriously. I am impatient and frustrated - and I'm simply taking my dissatisfaction with life out on those who don't deserve it. Life isn't fair - is it?

1. God, Jesus, Satan, Lucifer, et al: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15014&highlight=orthodoxymoron

2. Secrets of the Vatican: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13767&highlight=orthodoxymoron

3. Tell Me Who I Am: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14402&highlight=orthodoxymoron

4. Waco Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15185&highlight=orthodoxymoron

5. Al Bielek - Philadelphia Experiment and Montauk Project: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14348&highlight=orthodoxymoron

6. Xcon Potpurri: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14241&highlight=orthodoxymoron

7. Kevin Trudeau with Alex Jones - 5-26-09: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14241&highlight=orthodoxymoron

8. Red Letter Church: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13495&highlight=orthodoxymoron

9. Reptilians and Mind Control: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13373&highlight=orthodoxymoron

10. 'V' Movie(Series) Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13202&highlight=orthodoxymoron

11. Jesus: The Last Pharaoh?: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13776&highlight=orthodoxymoron

12. Important Mass Manipulation Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12702&highlight=orthodoxymoron

13. 1990's Prophets: Vindicated or Debunked?: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11000&highlight=orthodoxymoron

14. Alien Advice: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10158&highlight=orthodoxymoron

15. Cool Music Videos: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15470&highlight=cool+music+videos

16. NASA: Triumph and Tragedy: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15618&highlight=tragedy+triumph

17. United Nations Charter: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15552&highlight=Shadow+moon

18. In the Shadow of the Moon: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15635&highlight=Shadow+moon

19. TWA 800 Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15187

20. Unique War Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14409

21. Bilderberg Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12970

22. Dogon Sirius Mystery - C2C: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15731&highlight=dogon

23. The Point: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=158238#post158238

24. The Washington Mutual Story: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13996&highlight=washington+mutual+story

25. Oklahoma City Bombing Revisited: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=158668#post158668

26. The United States of the Solar System: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15878

27. What is Giza Intelligence? http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11123&highlight=giza+intelligence

28. Called to Be Free - a Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13882&highlight=worldwide+church

29. Lucifer: Deity of the Elite: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=163179#post163179

30. Tesla: Master of Lightning: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16193

31. Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=165729#post165729

32. The Dulce Book: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=167075#post167075

33. New World Order: Devil in the Vatican: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=167745#post167745

34. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16609&highlight=lucifer+effect

35. Enron Video: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=175040#post175040

36. No End In Sight: Iraq War Documentary: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16897

37. Ted Gunderson Interviews Chip Tatum (CIA, Drugs, Etc.): http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=177127#post177127

38. Sirius Issues: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=178234#post178234

39. Superimposed Parallel Universes: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=178255#post178255

40. Lawyerese Goes Galactic: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17276&highlight=wall+street+journal

41. Stargate SG-1: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17834

42. Amen Ra: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18223

43. The Dark Side of the Moon Mission: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18273&highlight=moon+video+orthodoxymoron

44. Open Letter to the Beings of the Universe: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19065&highlight=open+letter+beings+universe

45. Moonraker: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19284

46. Who Are Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer? http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19376&highlight=gabriel%2C+michael%2C+lucifer%3F

47. Krlll: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=238849#post238849

48. Cartoon Aliens: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20141&highlight=cartoon+aliens

49. Thuban Thoughts: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20379

50. Thuban Thoughts II: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20963

51. Very Cool Short Videos: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20400&highlight=cool+short+videos

52. Violent Movies, Books, Games, Cartoons, and Toys: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20849

53. Abortion, Euthanasia, Suicide, and Murder: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20852

54. Prevention is Central to Healthcare: http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21143

55. I Have a Dream! Free at Last! http://www.projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=261981#post261981

I may have been a bit harsh, self-pitying, and self-centered in that introduction. Lots of very bright people did participate on those threads - and I didn't have to pay them. The top people with top clearances, degrees and badges probably don't dare open-up on the internet - and for good reason. Many of them may have had to sell their souls to you know who, to get where they are. The higher up one goes (especially regarding the subjects in question) the more controlled and watched one may become. I have attended so many classes which involved people with doctorate degrees - discussing this and that - especially theological issues - that I know what a high tension academic discussion feels like - and I have extrapolated to know what a behind closed doors academic discussion would feel like - and I crave this. Of course - if I got what I wanted - I probably still wouldn't be happy!

Thank-you for your interest. Dogs have owners. Cats have staff. I'm just trying to put together something which is neither traditional religion or new age. I lost my faith - and I'm trying to establish a new faith. I keep thinking I need to stop - but then I keep thinking that if we don't arrive at a proper understanding regarding all of this - that the long term consequences will be devastating. I really shouldn't have been so brash regarding top people with top clearances. I have no idea what they have to deal with. I'm just frustrated and impatient. I'm flying blind - and I have no idea if I'm helping or hurting legitimate efforts to save the world - and make it a better place. I'm almost feeling as though I'm trying to partner (uninvited) with the best aspects of the secret government - so as to edge out the worst aspects. I don't wish to be a crusading rebel without a clue - and I don't wish to be a dumb dog who will not bark. It seems to me that it will take an almost superhuman effort to really get this right.

Thank-you Linda and Carol for your very thoughtful comments. Have either of you studied comparative gods, goddesses, theologies, and mythologies - rather than simply comparative religions? I'm leaning toward Humanist Christocentric Egyptological Science Fiction to try to salvage my shattered faith. Most people stop studying theology when they lose their faith. People should study theology twice as much after they lose their faith! I'm actually more angry with myself than I am with anyone else. I guess I have the most problems with the extremes and absurdities. History is a mess. Something has been very wrong. I actually would welcome an ideal world and solar system government which operates like a well-run corporation (with the U.S. Constitution and Teachings of Jesus at it's core). On the one hand - I rail against the corrupt and incompetent powers that be. On the other hand - I rail against the stupid general public sheeple. I'm actually trying to redesign world and solar system government - and imagine myself as being an active participant in it. I just started a novel to that effect. And I just gave up on proceding with this novel. The first page scared the heck out of me. This is all a big cause and effect game. Life is a game. The Most Dangerous Game. We are all players in the Game of the Millenium. We are all actors and actresses on the stage of the Theater of the Universe. I'm really trying to figure out who the *&%$#! script-writer is. Hello Lucifer! Smile!

I'm not going to keep commenting on my own threads to try to generate interest. The ball is in your court. There are some other threads I wish to follow - but I think I'm done with my threads for the foreseeable future. This does not imply a lack of interest or a change of heart. I just don't wish to play the part of the crusader. I might try to visit the United Nations, Washington D.C., the City of London, and the Vatican once again (I visited them many years ago). I will continue to fantasize about being a part of a Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom Solar System which includes the U.N., Washington D.C., the City of London, the Vatican, the Underground Bases, and the Secret Space Program - except that in my dreamworld there is no secrecy or corruption. Once again - I don't wish to fight the New World Order - I wish to HI-JACK IT!! 'Take me to Nirvana!!' I'd love to put the dream into practice - but I'm not going to push it right now. If someone wants to pick me up in a UFO, and take me to the Darkside of the Moon to meet with Lucifer - I'll be ready to go at a moments notice. What am I saying?

Are Satan, Lucifer, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Royal Family, and the Vatican the biggest seed-money rock stars on the planet - who are doing the most to make the world a better place? Trickle down theory voodoo economics? Where are the Billionaire Ghandi's? Jesus was pretty tough on rich people. Are billionaires the most socially responsible people on the planet? Did they gain their money through socially responsible activities? Can wealth become anticompetitive at some point? Should those with the most money have the greatest political clout? Should those with the gold - RULE? One of the greatest tragedies of history is the non compassionate use of accumulated wealth. I know that a lot of contactees and gurus are opposed to money - but I disagree. Money and private property are expressions of freedom. The problem with money is the irresponsible pursuit and use of money. Perhaps the billionaires should be placed under the scanning electron microscope to look for illegality and irresponsibility. Blood Money, Drug Money, and Destructive Money of All Kinds - should be repaid to society - with interest and penalties. I'm also not a big fan of ET Mentoring. Have the Gods, Goddesses, Angels, Archangels, ET's, and Ascended Masters been promoting Responsibility, Freedom, and Human Sovereignty (other than the Andromedans)? Boy - I sure got a lot out of my system - and I didn't even feel hostile. It must've been something I ate - or maybe the devil made me do it.

Having said all of the above - I'm getting tired of being an internet warrior. It seems to be a monumental waste of time. Remember what Jesus said about pearls and such? Money Talks and BS Walks. The Bottom Line is the Bottom Line. Winning Isn't Everything. It's the Only Thing. Perhaps the secret is to be a Humanitarian on the Surface - and a Shrewd and Ruthless SOB Below the Radar. Could the Worship of Fame, Fortune, and Power - rather than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - help to explain why the Corrupt Rule the Stupid? Is Greed Good? I need to go for a long walk with my dog - and then perhaps I need to create a ten-year business plan. Who knows - in ten years I might have to change my tune and eat my words...

OK...I'm back from my walk...and I decided that the Corrupt Will Always Rule the Stupid - because both the Corrupt and the Stupid are happy with the arrangement - despite all outward appearances. Additionally - Both the Corrupt and the Stupid are Threatened by Non-Corrupt Highly Intelligent People - and will Fight Them Vigorously. Think about THAT... Perhaps this is why no one has REALLY followed the Red Letter Teachings of Jesus for 2,000 years - and why they probably never will... Narrow is the way. Read Revelation 20:12. Is December 21, 2012 really Judgement Day?

I'm on the verge of pusuing a business plan which is neither corrupt or stupid - and which will be executed in a manner which threatens neither the corrupt or the stupid. I may simply live a life of quiet decadence...and leave the corrupt and the stupid to their own devices...

When Avalon 1 was closed to posting - I decided not to participate in any other forum sites (including Avalon 2) - so I just posted on YouTube. I really enjoyed posting on a wide variety of videos - not just on the esoteric or controversial ones. Now that I'm back on a forum site - I see the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach. There is a HUGE amount of information and insight on Avalon 1 & 2, and Mists of Avalon - but the participants can get into a rut - and can even become desensitized and irritable. I just decided not to post more threads, or add to the ones I have already posted. Preaching to the choir is a major reason for this. I'll probably keep looking at Avalon and Mists of Avalon - and I may post on someone elses thread once in a while - but I'm going to spend a lot more time on business and on getting out in nature. Growing food, buying organic food, being vegetarian, eating raw food, exercising in nature, seeing a naturopathic physician, and listening to inspiring music - are excellent ways to cultivate physical, mental, and spiritual health. Too much esoteric, conspiracy, religious, and political info-warring (on the internet or otherwise) is probably a recipe for disaster. Nuff said. Now I'm going for another walk with my dog.

WE THE PEOPLE OF EARTH CAN HAVE TRUTH OR RESPOSE - WE CAN HAVE ONE OR THE OTHER - BUT WE CAN'T HAVE BOTH

I have freely admitted that I am emotionally-challenged, intellectually-limited, and a perpetual-speculator - but have I seriously gotten it wrong over the past couple of years? This madness is an ongoing-test and a paradigm-shift. I really don't know where I will ultimately end up - but I am concerned that alternative thinking seems to lack a common center. Like it or not - the major religions have a depth which comes from discipline, repetition, and sheer numbers. Perhaps this is why I am thinking of myself as sort of a Renegade Roman Catholic - even though I have never been one. I continue to try to harmonize the Teachings of Jesus, the U.S. Constitution, and the Latin Mass. My existence is a very strange one - and it seems to be getting stranger every day. I am also imagining myself to be a part of a Non-Corrupt and Completely-Open Solar System Government. When I finally end up in the nut-house - the shrinks are gonna go nucking futs!!

I think I'm beginning to mellow a bit. I really don't wish to be shrill toward anyone - even toward the really b@d@$$ nasties - human or otherwise. But I still think we need a Solar System Exorcism of sorts - a Galactic Time-Out - for the worst of the worst. You b@$t@rds know who you are!!! Try watching the Star Wars movies with all of these threads in mind - especially regarding a Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom Solar System aka The United States of the Solar System - based upon Responsibility and the U.S. Constitution. Again - this is a test. This is only a test.

The avatar is the work of an artist named Harry Anderson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Anderson_(artist) - and was probably painted in the 60's. It depicts Jesus Christ knocking on the United Nations (as a giant door) and attempting to gain admission. "Behold - I stand at the door, and knock." From what I have seen - Jesus is still knocking - and U.N. troops may be on the way to deal with the 'threat'! Here is some more of Harry Anderson's art: http://www.goodsalt.com/search/results.html?&keyword1=results&search_terms=harry%20anderson&image_x=0&image_y=0&ipp=30

Carol, your post completely caught me off guard, and blew me away! Thank-you for the appreciation, and thank-you for the hybridization information. All types of technology have the potential for good or evil - but I keep getting the feeling that technology is out of control - and that secret laboratories are spawning all types of very dangerous products of technology. How should technology be properly managed throughout the solar system? And yes, if the entire solar system is not covered - some very horrible experimentation might be proceeding unchecked on Phobos or Iapetus. My internet posting is really catharsis. What worries me is that most people don't have the time or energy to really sift through all of the conflicting and confusing information - and that they won't be able handle what we are presently discussing. Heck - couples fight over how toothpaste gets squeezed out! People look out of it and dazed as it is. I work with the public every day, and half the people barely make eye contact with me. I'm sensing an insensitivity and lostness which will make it very difficult for the general public to understand and cope with what's been going on under our noses, over our heads, and under our feet - for a very long time - seemingly using tax money, drug money, and even blood money.

You mentioned Paola Harris, and I immediately thought of Col. Philip Corso, and I watched part of one of Paola's lectures, and noted that Col. Corso was Head of Intelligence (U.S) in Rome, from 1944-47 (and was heavily involved in Project Paperclip, if I'm not mistaken). I'm presently leaning toward the theory that Roswell 1947 and Muroc 1954 were staged by the Secret Government and Secret Space Program, of which Project Paperclip was no doubt an integral part. I suspect that real UFO's and PGLF's or Hybrids were used - but that they originated from Earth Underground Bases rather than Distant Stars or Planets. Underground Bases, Hybridization Programs, Ancient UFO Technology, and Occult Wisdom and Spirituality - going back thousands of years - may explain most of the Alien and UFO phenomenon. That's my theory - and I'm sticking to it - at least for now. Have there been any recent interviews or books by Philip Corso, Jr.? He seems to know a heck of a lot - but seems reluctant to really open up - for understandable reasons.

Once again - I'm trying to imagine being on the inside of a non-corrupt solar system government - as a mechanism for dealing with the historical madness and this present darkness. If the ideal and the reality can gradually be brought closer together - we might actually survive - and emerge as a model solar system. Hope springs eternal. I'm trying to imagine living inside of the United Nations, Washington D.C., the City of London, the Vatican, the Secret Government, the Secret Space Program, and the Underground Bases - throughout the solar system - as sort of an observer and facilitator - obviously in a delusional dreamworld. "Mr. Smith Goes to the Darkside of the Moon!" Perhaps this is a coping mechanism. I think I'm going to start reading the CFR journal 'Foreign Affairs' again - just to foster a creative link between little old me - and Megalomaniacs Anonymous. I want to try to be a non-corrupt 'One of Them' - rather than fighting with the PTB from the 'outside'. This is very tricky territory, and if it isn't done properly, I could see someone going downhill in a great big hurry. My preoccupation with an 'Anna', 'Kali', or 'Lucifer' character, who rules over all of us, might be an indication that I'm picking up speed on the slippery slope to perdition. The horror...

Thank-you for your detailed and thoughtful reply. You have obviously done a huge amount of research. The alien reincarnating into a human story is fascinating because I am fixated on the hybridization theory of the alien presence - that we are really them - and they are really us. I ironically posted an internet page a couple of years ago, where I 'claimed' to be a human reincarnation of the alien KRLLL - and that I had gone turncoat - and sided with the human race. I received a very angry response from someone stating that I was claiming 'godship' and that I would be severely punished!! I don't doubt that ancient aliens came to Earth (possibly from Sirius and Aldebaran). We may be some of those aliens. What I am enamored with is the idea of a Lucifer/Shiva/Kali/Anna figure being in charge of Earth - lifetime after lifetime - possibly as a hermaphroditic hybrid goddess of sorts - with complete reincarnational recall, with 100% use of their brain capacity - unlimited access to possibly stolen ancient advanced technology and wisdom - and so on. Could such a hypothetical figure have created most of our mythologies and theologies - secretly ruling over us with deception and force? I'm not questioning that a very real event occurred at Roswell in 1947 - involving real otherworldly technology and beings. But I am considering that the Secret Government is the same one which has been ruling Earth for thousands of years - and controls the megalomaniacs we love to hate.

Monday, February 18, 2008

I am known to humans as KRLLL. I am known to humans as an alien. I have been living on Planet Earth since the middle of the twentieth century. My planet of origin is located in the Pleiades. It is known as Pleon. I bring peace and wisdom. There is another alien force on Planet Earth who is your master. This alien force is not your friend, and yet you obey. I bring liberation, and yet you do not listen. Time is running out. Change course or forever face enslavement.

Here is something for you to consider:

1. Evolution of Everything (Physical & Spiritual).

2. Genetic Engineering & Rule by Good Aliens/Spirits (God) in the Garden of Eden (Ancient Earth). General Peace & Harmony.

3. Attack/Deception/War of Evil Aliens/Spirits against the Good Aliens/Spirits/Humans. The Good Aliens/Spirits are driven from the Garden of Eden (Ancient Earth). Humanity made a mistake of Biblical proportions. Genesis reads a bit differently, doesn't it? But what makes more sense? The Reptillian Devil was in charge, which is why Genesis reads the way it does!

4. Genetic Engineering & Rule by Evil Aliens/Spirits with Humans fighting with each other. Ancient religion emerges (Summarian, Egyptian, etc. - created by Evil Aliens/Spirits to control Humans).

5. Moses & Others rebel against the Evil Aliens/Spirits/Religions with the help of Good Aliens/Spirits. The Bible (Old Testament) is a mixture of Good & Evil. One has to carefully read between the lines to figure out what is really going on. The truth had to be disguised. Some activity atributed to God is really evil and of Satanic origin. Atrocities and sacrifices are examples.

6. Jesus intensifies the rebellion and establishes a condensed, non-corrupt version of the Old Testament religion promoted by Moses and Others. The Teachings of Jesus are generally ignored by the Christian Church for 2,000 years. Thus, the Evil Aliens/Spirits/Religions retain their control of Planet Earth.

7. People finally do what Jesus said to do (they haven't so far), and the Battle of Armageddon results. Good Aliens/Spirits/People battle Evil Aliens/Spirits/People for control of Planet Earth.

8. The Evil Aliens/Spirits/People are driven from Planet Earth and onto Nibiru, which becomes the Devil's Island Prison Planet of the Universe. The Good Aliens/Spirits/People gain total control of Planet Earth. This is the Garden of Eden regained, and what is known as Heaven or Paradise.

Proceed wisely.

KRLLL

Here is the response I received on April 7, 2008:

"You know this isn't funny! The Lord God will judge you for claiming God ship. Just because God showed you a little bit of His secrets you think you know everything. He will NOT have mercy on you!"

I'm thinking that my AV1 and MOA threads - combined with my YouTube posting will ultimately benefit mostly myself. I know that sounds selfish - and it probably is - but trying to convince others to travel the same road that I am on is probably an exercise in futility. I am starting to go through my old threads - and I am enjoying this immensely. I didn't do market research - and then tell people what they wanted to hear, and give them what they wanted. Some of my areas of study, my questions and conclusions - are downright politically incorrect and blasphemous. At a later date - some of them could be outlawed as being hate speech. Who knows - I may eventually be arrested - or worse. When will the excrement really hit the air-conditioning system? Obedience can be a good thing. Obedience can be a bad thing. I will ultimately go along with anything which is reasonable and rational - even if it isn't my own idea. I have been trying to quietly influence the infowar. So far - this worldwide infowar has been a cold-war - and I hope that it will continue to be so - but judging from history - it may very well turn violent at some point. I suspect that infiltration and instigation will be used to get people all riled-up and running in the streets - again judging from history. Then the noose will be tightened to 'restore and maintain order'. I obviously support law and order - but the best way to control the masses is to teach them responsibility and self-control. Unfortunately - I don't see this being done. The Irresponsible are leading the Irresponsible. The Corrupt are ruling the Stupid. The Blind are leading the Blind. The Bland are leading the Bland. This is very, very sad...

Don't be afraid. I mean no harm. This is just a modification of my previous 'out of here' message. I am going to retrace my steps - and really attempt to absorb the territory I have covered so hastily and hesitatingly - and really attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. I will also attempt to internalize the wheat - and to walk the walk. I have tried to bring others along with me on my journey - and this may have been a mistake. But I really do think that the areas covered are key - and that they should be studied carefully. What I should probably do - is proceed as though I were writing a doctoral dissertation - and produce a 1,000 page scholarly book - with 100 pages of footnotes. I doubt that such a lofty goal will materialize - judging from my limited track record - but someone needs to do this. Joseph Farrell - where are you?

I'm also going to read a bunch of fringe books - and watch a bunch of sci-fi DVD's. I'm really going to try to post a lot less - but I'm not mad. Speaking of which - the more calm and passive the discovery process, the better. The disclosure material itself is so explosive - that one should probably go out of their way to take it slow and easy. I'm still interested in a job which helps to facilitate a Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom Solar System aka The United States of the Solar System - which involves access without authority. Hell - I just want to fly in a UFO - without getting shipped off to a slave-labor yttrium mine on Planet 666 - and then used as food when I slow down. I really and truly hope that this solar system is in the process of becoming much more reasonable and ethical - with or without me. Namaste. I am of peace. Always.

I found it time consuming to dig up the old threads...and sometimes the search would not produce the long lost threads. Also...there is a progression of thought which has occurred...although some might call it a digression. At this point...I am filled with a mixture of dispair and hope. These threads are not intended to make anyone happy. They are intended to approach the reality of what is really going on in this universe...and then to facilitate the most positive long-term outcome possible...for all beings...throughout the universe. I want to view all of the gory details...and then begin to create order out of chaos...and rise to new heights...sort of like the Flight of the Phoenix.

Thank-you Anchor. All I can do is point in directions where I see light. I have nothing original...yet I can sense when other people are on the right track...I think. I don't have everything figured out. I'm just struggling and thinking out loud. One probably shouldn't do that in public...but I don't consider this forum to be public. The groupings of the videos seemed to be important to me. They fit together...and complement each other. The puzzle is quite large and complex. Smoke is just pouring out of my ears.

I just keep hoping that people will be able to adjust to all of the new information without becoming violent or going insane. There is so much upsetting and conflicting information out there. Plus...I believe there is an unseen battle on a supernatural level. We are getting pushed and pulled in all directions...and we all have breaking points. Each person must find their own way in their own time. In many ways...I think the transition is going well. It could be going a hell of a lot worse.

I'm going to go through all of the above threads...and watch all of the videos. The people in these videos are not the last word...but many of them are trail blazers or pioneers who should not be ignored...and who can help us discern the truth or error in subsequent prophets or whistle-blowers. I like to consider information which is at least five years old...in order to evaluate the validity of the then new information or predictions. People need to win my trust. But no one is perfect. Some of my favorites had very serious flaws. I like Bill Cooper a lot, for example...but he struggled with alcohol and temper issues. He was very confrontational with authorities...and sometimes did not know when to stop. In other words...no one should become an idol or a god.

When I listed these threads...I realized that they were not particularly profound...but that they covered some territory which I hadn't found elsewhere on this site. I guess this is just another potential piece of the puzzle...and what a puzzle it is! Good luck everyone!

I would love to meet with a group of scholars regarding the above threads...and have a completely blunt...non politically correct...take off the gloves...12 hour marathon discussion/debate. This group might include Jesuits, Alphabet Agency Representatives, Reptilians, Greys, Researchers, Lucifer, etc. Unfortunately...at the end of the 12 hours...I would know way, way too much...and we all know what that would mean. Actually, I would probably be so depressed...that they wouldn't have to do a thing...if you know what I mean. I feel like we are just scratching the surface here in this forum...but we may all need much thicker skin to be able to properly handle the full truth. In a sense...we may need to go to hell...before we can go to heaven. I tend to think that many leaders fear that the human race would go to hell...and stay there if they were told the full uncensored truth. This may be a major reason why there is not full disclosure. There are some legitimate reasons for secrecy...but I think that most of the reasons are evil and corrupt as hell. This forum may be an experiment...to see how non-insiders react or respond to the gradual release of inside information. This may help non-corrupt powers that be to properly introduce the new information to the general public. Just a thought.

Thank-you. I love it when they all find out that the aircraft engineer is a toy plane designer!! Surprise! What if the person who has the most to offer to get us out of this mess...has absolutely no credentials or credibility?! Do we evaluate ideas based strictly upon merit...or do we worship titles and resumes? Haven't the experts of the world gotten us into this mess? Why should we trust them to get us out of this mess? What if a being in the form of a young lady...runs the solar system?

Step right up! Pick a thread! Any thread! But be prepared to have your preconceived notions completely unravel. :shocked:

You know...I would love to see a file on my posting activity...done by a seasoned C.I.A. analyst. Maybe someday I will see such a file...in the hands of a prosecuting attorney. I hope not...but these are very crazy times. I have absolutely no idea whether these threads...plus any other postings on this site and YouTube...are in any way, shape, or form...considered to be a problem by any authorities...at any level. I tend to think that so few people view this material...that the effect is really inconsequential. And of those few people...the ones who actually connect the dots may actually be non-existent. But for those in the know...I have a sneaking hunch that they see exactly what I am seeing...and that this composite picture is quite startling...and potentially destabilizing.

At this point...I don't really see what the point of all this really is. I open myself up to being placed on lists of troublemakers. Very few people are influenced. And these few are probably less happy after seeing some of what I'm seeing. So I'm thinking that maybe we really are sheep who cannot lead ourselves...and that efforts to change this may be futile at best...and detrimental and destabilizing at worst.

I keep saying that I am going to take a break...but I just can't stop posting. Well...I'm going to try again.

I'm trying to take a break from posting...but I just couldn't resist requesting that someone make a critical study of these threads...and issue a verdict. I'm too close to them...at this point...to be objective. They are sort of a road less traveled. Be honest about the overall picture which emerges. Thank-you in advance.

I'm transmitting a request for help into the vast regions of space and cyberspace...for conversation regarding these threads. Is there intelligent life out there? The threads are very diverse...yet there is a common thread. I'm just trying to figure things out...and I don't have the answers...or even the questions. Again, I'm too close to these threads to really be objective...and I need some criticism...constructive or otherwise. Consider these threads to be Orthodoxymoron University. Upon completion...you will receive a Disoriented to the nth Degree. :shocked: And you think you have problems now?

I'm running out of steam (if I had any to begin with). On an ongoing basis...over many months...the subjects and concepts which I am interested in...seem to spark very little interest in others. I can understand this...but I don't know where to turn...to continue my quest...or if I should be a quester at all. Any ideas? If I had lied...and claimed to be a hybrid abductee with all the answers...and dire predictions…complete with dates...there would probably be huge interest! What the hell is going on?

GOING...Going...almost gone...

Because the search function continues to be non-functional...I thought I'd bump this thread to see if there are any takers. 'Come into my threads'...orthodoxymoron said to the unsuspecting Avalon members.

Thank-you JesterTerrestrial. I don't know what to do. For now...I'm going on a bump-strike. I'm going to bump this thread every few days until the search function is completely restored! I wanna talk about some of these threads. Maybe I should reincarnate to the forum as a claimed ET from Planet BS...and do a mentoring thread titled 'The New Attitude of Gratitude and Servitude'...full of bs and exotic terminology aka intergalactic mumbo jumbo aka the universal language. Then there would probably be tens of thousands of views and hundreds of comments. Then I could write a book...and move out of this dump. You sneak and peak guys know what I'm talking about. Please flush the toilet next time...

Thank-you. They know more about us than we know about ourselves.

I like to think that we are the best buddies of the non-corrupt powers that be...because we are rationally examining some very controversial subjects...rather than going crazy. I like to think that we are sort of a buffer...which will help to keep society balanced. I like to think that we are a part of a low-key disclosure project...where a lot of the secrets of the universe...and dark secrets...are gradually being integrated into the public consciousness...in an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary manner.

I'm still looking for unsuspecting mortals to communicate with. I'm just trying to build on what I have examined thus far. I'm not new to thinking about spiritual things and science...but I am new to looking at all of the relatively new information available on the internet. It's quite startling and overwhelming to me. I'm looking for a unified field theory of the alien presence. I have a feeling that when we research everything to death...in a free and open society...we will be astonished at how simple and obvious things will turn out to be. We seem to be presently wallowing in a fog of illusions, smoke, and mirrors. I feel like I'm at sea most of the time. I want things to start clarifying and solidifying...even if I don't like the reality which emerges.

The most important thread to me is the 'United States of the Solar System' thread. http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15878 I'm trying to pull all of the theological and metaphysical stuff into the orbit of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights...as a non-theocratic union of spirituality and state. It may seem dry and boring at first...but I think there are a lot of dazzling possibilities in this approach. I'm not a constitutional scholar...but I am sold on the concept of Constitutional Responsible Freedom. I don't know where this will lead...but I am going to attempt to take this concept as far as I can...and hopefully more capable people will take the concept where it deserves to go. I'm just a crazy mixed-up pseudo-intellectual who is trying to find peace and happiness in a very crazy universe. I am completely convinced that facing reality...including the realities of historical atrocities and enslavements...will pave the way for a better universe. We may have to wade through an unbelievable amount of negative material in order to see the light. The threads can be somewhat negative...but there is always an attempt to find solutions and to emerge with a stronger paradigm.

The second most important thread to me is the one on 'God, Jesus, Satan, Lucifer, Etc.' http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15014&highlight=orthodoxymoron This thread is quite irreverent...but a stronger spiritual foundation is that which is desired. I believe that this thread dovetails with 'The United States of the Solar System' thread. I confess that I am a heretic...but I'm really trying to exorcise the demons from the church and from the solar system. All of the ufo/alien/spiritual/religious/political discussion should be addressed from a theological and constitutional perspective.

So please take a look at both of these threads, if you haven't already...or take another look. Most of the other threads are instructive regarding these two primary threads. Oh what a tangled web I'm weaving...and I'm not practicing deceiving. Just the opposite.

Thank-you Noela. The link seems to not be functional. Here is a link which works. http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Introduction%20to%20the%20Divine%20Council%20MTIT.pdf Here is a link to a Dr. Michael Heiser interview. http://derekpgilbert.com/?p=3342 It's really quite good. I love this sort of thing! Here is a video of an Old Testament scholar who has a doctorate from the University of Edinburgh...Dr. Alden Thompson. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4523891344008092279# I have one of his books 'Who's Afraid of the Old Testament God?' He is a very pastoral scholar who presents problems...or hints at problems...and then resolves them in a soothing and pastoral manner. I once told him that I didn't think that Jesus was God. He unsuccessfully attempted to change my mind. I like him a lot...but I am taking a radical surgery approach presently...and hoping that the patient doesn't die while I attempt to remove the theocratic-cancer which I believe is growing on the human race. I am attempting to replace a Universal Church Theocracy with Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom. I can't be fired for my radical views. My livelihood is not tied to my editorial bias. I think that we need to stop beating around the burning bush. We need to be very, very honest...even if this results in severe pain and suffering. We need to take a swig of whiskey...bite the bullet...and get on with it. Avalon seems to be an appropriate place to attempt this. I would never try this in a church setting. The resulting controversy would be an intellectual and spiritual Armageddon. There is a time and a place for everything. I'm admittedly a pseudo-intellectual bull in a theological china closet...a real loose cannon...armed with a tactical nuke! "Calling all Jesuits! Calling all Jesuits! Be on the lookout for orthodoxymoron! That cursed Judas!"

Seriously...I would love to be present during a top-level Jesuit theological discussion. They fascinate me...and they terrify me. They could do much to promote Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom...and to breathe spiritual and ethical life into it...once Lucifer (or equivalent) retires...and they are freely able to integrate their discipline, organization, and education into modern life. I'm serious. They know better...but their hands seem to be tied...and they are obedient servants. They need to be free. That's what I think anyway...but what do I know? I don't want the church to disappear. I want the church to be completely reformed and purified. I'm not sure about the details.

I like listening to people who know how to combine academic freedom with pastoral responsibility. The two people in the previous post (Heiser and Thompson) know how to do this very well.

Jordan Maxwell has a Roman Catholic background...and as a child listened in on conversations regarding Vatican intrigue. I have heard him hint that the Vatican does what it is told to do (by non-humans who are not necessarily good). He properly understands that the historical and contemporary Vatican does not view the United States and the U.S. Constitution as a positive development on the world stage...to say the least.

Now I'm going to listen to Jordan Maxwell. I still find it interesting how his lecture at Awake and Aware was seemingly cut short while he was talking about the Vatican being the biggest enemy of the United States. I think this is true...but I don't think the Vatican really wants to be...but they do what they are told to do.

This may sound crazy...but the Draconians may have to decide that Responsible Freedom is in their best interest...before the Vatican can really do the right thing. I think the historical and present hierarchical arrangement of the universe is all wrong...but what do I know?

I'm sorry you wasted your time on the WCG video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWAtvE1xiRk I have noticed a decided preference for the sensational throughout society...and not just on this site. Hollywood has trained us well to expect to be entertained...while we as a society ignorantly head straight toward the hot place. I hope that the new 'V' series will combine attention-grabbing sensationalism with a solid dose of reality regarding the trouble we are really in.

However boring they may be...documentaries which chronicle how people have been misled and manipulated...can prevent untold disillusionment and heartache. I see people jumping out of the frying pan...right into the fire...every single day.

Jordan Maxwell seems to have a crystal clear view of the trouble we are in. He convincingly presents the problems. Unfortunately...he offers few solutions. I have feebly offered some of my solutions here in Avalon. Unfortunately...there seems to be almost no interest in them. Jordan may be right. We may be so apathetic and desensitized...that we are past the point of no return regarding the New World Order Theocracy scenario.

The cynical views of Sigmund Freud and Edwin Bernays may be spot-on. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Anyone?

Welcome beren...and thank-you. I agree with Jordan Maxwell that we are in a spiritual war...which could help to explain why valid solutions are skipped-over, ignored, or actively opposed. If we could see the unseen forces which I believe surround each and every one of us...we would probably be horrified. Ignorance is bliss...but it can get us enslaved and exterminated.

See you on the Jordan Maxwell thread.

The battles which go on just beyond our perceptions must be something to behold. I still think that evil entities can tempt, harass and annoy us...despite angelic protection. Obviously I don't know the details. This is just what I think.

Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. Are there any beings in the universe who are exempt from the truth of this concept? I don't think so. Has universal history consisted of tyrants replacing tyrants replacing tyrants replacing tyrants? I think so. How long does it take for a good-guy to become a bad-guy once they achieve Absolute Power? Not very long...in my view.

I have not read J.R.R. Tolkein's books...but I have read several C.S. Lewis books. My favorite is 'Screwtape Letters'.

You rightly understand the relationship between freedom and responsibility. I'm just starting to grasp this subject. This is the key to everything. This is the truth which will set us free.

If we choose to do the right thing...the bad-guys are going to try to keep us from doing the right thing. To believe that believers are somehow exempt from competition with evil entities is naive in my view. We are in the middle of a spiritual war.

Thank-you for your insights.

I'm just thinking out loud here...which is what I do every day here...for better or for worse. I'm going to renew my vow to review these threads. Sometimes repetition is essential. Churches use repetition...week after week after week. This is partly good and partly bad. The alternative crowd runs around like chickens with their heads cut off! I guess what I'm saying...is that I'm going to try to build on a foundation. I'm considering the United States of the Solar System thread to be the foundational thread...with the other 52 threads as supporting evidence. I doubt that anyone else has the time, motivation, or energy to help me do this...but one never knows.

It's no secret that I'm burned-out big-time with traditional religions of all kinds. I seem to pick on the Roman Catholics...but they're just the biggest game in town...which most of the others follow...whether they realize it or not. I don't hate any of them...but I'm still burned-out. I am equally suspicious of New Age philosophies, religions, and programming’s. I'm really one miserable S.O.L.S.O.B. But misery loves company...so here is my invitation to accompany me on my spiritual quest...but don't expect it to make you happy. I just want the truth. I don't care about the happy part. The PTB will give you what you want...and tell you what you want to hear...as they lead you down the primrose path...on the Highway to Hell...paved with bad intentions.

I hope no one takes any of these threads too seriously. I'm just trying to make everyone think...sometimes by being a bit contrarian and irreverent. I want to stop posting...but I just can't seem to help myself. The areas of study are more important than any conclusions I have seemed to reach. Your answers are more important than my answers.

Which is more important and desirable...Peaceful Dialogue or Triumphant Victory? Which of these two options should the most powerful factions in our Solar System choose to pursue?

I don't really know...because I don't really know the facts. All I know is that what has been (and is presently) transpiring...is really $crewed-up. Just look at the carnage and misery of the past 100 years. And we're supposed to be 'civilized'. For shame.

I'm having a bad day. I don't want a solution. I just wanna bitch.

The most recent Avalon meltdown screwed up most of the video links...and I have been spending hours repairing the damage. I made a post...just before the meltdown...where I questioned whether I should post it or not. Well...when I tried to...I got that database problem screen repeatedly. I went to another site...and when I returned...the message had posted. Shortly thereafter...the site went down. I'm sure there was no connection...but it made me wonder at the time. Also right after I made that questionable post...I could have sworn that something supernatural briefly appeared between me and the monitor. Probably just my imagination...but it made me wonder at the time. This whole thing seems to be an uphill battle...with few rewards...and many possible problems...such as getting on lists for discussing controversial topics in a public forum. It really seems to be an exercise in futility and a tempest in a teapot. Gotta go take my medicine...before I really get going. Over and out.

Thank-you Jacqui D. I'm just dealing with the kid's-stuff...and even that is scaring the heck out of me. :shocked:

To all the new people...I have been stumbling around the internet for a while now...and this is a collection of some of my escapades. Please take a look...and tell me what you think. I think the regulars got tired of me a long time ago...so maybe I can pick a fight with some of you newbies...before you get me all figured out! These threads probably won't make you happy. They might cause you to become very upset...so be forewarned. My goal is to make you think...and not to spoon-feed anyone with anything. I keep saying that I don't know...and I really don't. I'm just trying to deal with the crazy world and universe we live in. I see things getting worse...before they get better. We are going through a trial by fire...on the way to bigger and better things.

Some of the links in the threads may be ruined. There was a site meltdown...and it destroyed most of the links on my threads. I've reconstructed some of them...but it may be a few days before I finish repairing the damage.

Just another invitation for conversation. I'm not trying to make anyone happy. I'm just trying to relentlessly pursue the truth...and not necessarily according to SaLuSa. If you want to be happy...move to Oregon and smoke weed. :smoke:

Rational conversations and concepts do not seem to succeed. Fame, fortune, power, and pleasure seem to do very well. We also seem to be sitting ducks for exciting, sensational, and entertaining things...even if these things are not ultimately in our best interest. It may be past time to move on. I think I wore out my welcome a long time ago. I often feel as though I got dropped off on this planet by mistake. I don't feel like I belong here. Maybe I don't. I've been neglecting my personal finances and home maintenance. Idealistic dreamers may always lose to greedy b@$t@rd$. The bottom-line may be the bottom-line after all.

This is just an renewed invitation to talk to me about some of these threads. The subjects were not chosen with malice and forethought. They were pretty much random choices of roads less traveled. I have encountered few kindred spirits throughout my life...but hope springs eternal. I'm still searching.

This is pointless. I'm out of here. I need to concentrate on doing what pays the rent. I also feel like I'm grandstanding and self promoting...and I don't like that. Also...this stuff is too controversial...and I want to try to get myself off of the lists before the theocracy and enslavement really kicks in. I have learned the hard way that people really do not want to be free...and I certainly do not wish to force freedom on anyone. That would be an oxymoron.

I am still interested in discussing these threads. Is this an appropriate forum to do so? Is there another forum which might be more interested and receptive? Should I join the crowd...and Groove with the Thubans? Maybe I should start channeling...conjure up UFO's...or have an intimate relationship with a Reptilian. It's got to be sensational...doesn't it? Give 'em what they want...right? Tell 'em what they want to hear...right? Maybe I should do some market research...and post accordingly. Any ideas?

I'm still interested in some rational conversation on these quite diverse and random threads. There is a common editorial slant...which should become clear as you sample the various threads. It's sort of a road less traveled...but that might make all the difference. I don't try to make people scared or angry...and I don't claim special powers or experiences...so there is limited interest. However...simple and boring might be the way out of this mess.

I'm trying to let go of a lot of this stuff. One side of me wants to be a crusader for The United States of the Solar System. The other side of me wants to shut the @#$% up...and just live...especially since it appears that most of us are not interested in being responsibly free or in the self-rule of this Solar System. I completely identify with Jordan Maxwell's comments at the end of the Camelot interview. I have sensed the same thing in many other progressive and profound thinkers.

I may just gather what I have done on the site...and craft it into something...I don't know what. I just need to do something different. Maybe I'll just review everything. I've been trying to build some sort of a foundation...as in philosophical and theological roots...which would actually work for everyone. I think I just need to go through all of the threads...and rethink everything. A little bit of knowledge...and a lot of emotion...can be very dangerous...and I don't wish to be dangerous. Just the opposite. So...I'm going to try to post a lot less. I've tried to do this before...but the abraxasinas situation and my first ufo sighting sort of wore me down to an all-time low.

I really think you might find these 52 threads to be a profitable road less travelled. I've tried to be honest...but I am a master of none of the subjects. I claim very little. I just wanted to discuss various topics which mostly were not the latest craze. I have longed for some academic analysis of my speculations and thinking...but so far...this has not occurred...and I doubt that it ever will. I guess I'll just have to keep using my imagination...to explore these roads less traveled. Perhaps that will make all the difference.

Thank-you for your wise words Devakas. The whole world contains much wisdom...and that includes India. I'm trying to think of myself as a citizen of Earth...and open to all cultures, races, and religions. I live in the United States...but I don't think of myself as an American...in a nationalistic or protectionist sense. I like the principles and concepts of the founders and the founding documents...but I consider myself to be a citizen of India as much as a citizen of the U.S.

Thank-you lisa. I'm often more shallow and gullible...than I am truly open. But I'm working on it. It takes an open person to know an open person...and you seem to be equally open. Namaste. People have lives. They have families. They have jobs. They have problems. They don't have the time, energy, and inclination to basically become monks...and think everything though...with much pain and suffering. It's a nasty job...but someone's gotta do it! Thank-you for the tip on the meditation course. Of course...my problem may be that I meditate too much! Or...do I vegetate too much? Some call it laziness. I call it deep thought! Forget Deep-Throat. Listen to Deep-Thought! Everyone's too involved!

What if nearly everything is BS? What if we are all deluded? What if our battles are really delusions in conflict? What if we need to start from scratch? I'm just considering these threads to be my attempt to sample various modalities of thinking. The real answers may yet be on the horizon. I feel very unsatisfied with nearly everyone and everything. The United States of the Solar System is my best idea for a next step. If we do this...the stage may be set for doing something of a more refined nature in 100 years. I believe in evolutionary change...and this seems to be a logical next step. But I think we're just scratching the surface of considering the possibilities regarding what things should really be like here in this Solar System. Please think long, hard, and independently...but don't get angry or go crazy. Good Luck!!

I just want everyone to be happy and get along with each other. This is the goal behind all of my threads and posts...even the most controversial ones. I'm thinking that I've pretty much made my point...and that I probably should not post nearly as much. I probably won't go to Avalon 2...but I'll always be lurking in the shadows. Thanks to all who have helped me to learn about life, the universe, and everything...and that includes you abraxasinas.

Consider Abortion. You've Come a Long Way Baby. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion My take on this madness is that probably 99% of all abortions should NOT occur. There are reasonable exceptions to most rules. Doctors, parents, attorneys, clergy, social-workers, ethics-committees, et al would have to sort out which abortions might be ABSOLUTELY necessary -- but it seems to me that second and third trimester abortions should almost NEVER occur. Abortion seems to be an Irresponsible-Activity to Deal with an Irresponsible Activity. We Need to Teach RESPONSIBILITY. I almost threw-up making this post. Aren't we just so goddamn civilized and sophisticated??!! Speaking of God -- with Three Jewish, and Six Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justices -- why in the hell is Rowe v Wade still the Law of the Land??!! http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_religion_of_each_US_Supreme_Court_Justice Which God do these Supreme Court Justices answer to (and/or take orders from)?? There will be a helluva lot of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth in the Final Judgment IMHO. Perhaps it is high-time to utter those dreadful words "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." I do NOT desire the extermination of humanity or the souls animating humanity -- but justice must somehow be served -- and righteousness must be reestablished in this solar system. Perhaps a Workers-Purgatory Prison-Planet Titan might serve as at least a temporary remedy for sin -- while a more permanent solution is sought. Just a thought.

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.[note 1] An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.

Abortion, when induced in the developed world in accordance with local law, is among the safest procedures in medicine.[1] However, unsafe abortions result in approximately 70,000 maternal deaths and 5 million hospital admissions per year globally.[2] An estimated 44 million abortions are performed globally each year, with slightly under half of those performed unsafely.[3] The incidence of abortion has stabilized in recent years,[3] having previously spent decades declining as access to family planning education and contraceptive services increased.[4] Forty percent of the world's women have access to induced abortions (within gestational limits).[5]

Induced abortion has a long history and has been facilitated by various methods including herbal abortifacients, the use of sharpened tools, physical trauma, and other traditional methods. Contemporary medicine utilizes medications and surgical procedures to induce abortion. The legality, prevalence, cultural and religious status of abortion vary substantially around the world. Its legality can depend on specific conditions such as incest, rape, fetal defects, socioeconomic factors or the mother's health being at risk. In many parts of the world there is prominent and divisive public controversy over the ethical and legal issues of abortion.

Types

Induced

Approximately 205 million pregnancies occur each year worldwide. Over a third are unintended and about a fifth end in induced abortion.[3][6] Most abortions result from unintended pregnancies.[7][8] A pregnancy can be intentionally aborted in several ways. The manner selected often depends upon the gestational age of the embryo or fetus, which increases in size as the pregnancy progresses.[9][10] Specific procedures may also be selected due to legality, regional availability, and doctor or patient preference.

Reasons for procuring induced abortions are typically characterized as either therapeutic or elective. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; prevent harm to the woman's physical or mental health; terminate a pregnancy where indications are that the child will have a significantly increased chance of premature morbidity or mortality or be otherwise disabled; or to selectively reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy.[11][12] An abortion is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons.[12] Confusion sometimes arises over the term "elective" because "elective surgery" generally refers to all scheduled surgery, whether medically necessary or not.[13]

Spontaneous

Spontaneous abortion, also known as miscarriage, is the unintentional expulsion of an embryo or fetus before the 24th week of gestation.[14] A pregnancy that ends before 37 weeks of gestation resulting in a live-born infant is known as a "premature birth" or a "preterm birth".[15] When a fetus dies in utero after viability, or during delivery, it is usually termed "stillborn".[16] Premature births and stillbirths are generally not considered to be miscarriages although usage of these terms can sometimes overlap.[17]

Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[18] The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception,[12] and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners can detect an embryo.[19] Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[20]

The most common cause of spontaneous abortion during the first trimester is chromosomal abnormalities of the embryo or fetus,[12][21] accounting for at least 50% of sampled early pregnancy losses.[22] Other causes include vascular disease (such as lupus), diabetes, other hormonal problems, infection, and abnormalities of the uterus.[21] Advancing maternal age and a patient history of previous spontaneous abortions are the two leading factors associated with a greater risk of spontaneous abortion.[22] A spontaneous abortion can also be caused by accidental trauma; intentional trauma or stress to cause miscarriage is considered induced abortion or feticide.[23]

Methods

Medical abortion

Medical abortions are those induced by abortifacient pharmaceuticals. Medical abortion became an alternative method of abortion with the availability of prostaglandin analogs in the early 1970s and the antiprogestogen mifepristone in the 1980s.[24][25][26]

The most common early first-trimester medical abortion regimens use mifepristone in combination with a prostaglandin analog (misoprostol or gemeprost) up to 9 weeks gestational age, methotrexate in combination with a prostaglandin analog up to 7 weeks gestation, or a prostaglandin analog alone.[24] Mifepristone–misoprostol combination regimens work faster and are more effective at later gestational ages than methotrexate–misoprostol combination regimens, and combination regimens are more effective than misoprostol alone.[25] This regime is effective in the second trimester.[27]

In very early abortions, up to 7 weeks gestation, medical abortion using a mifepristone–misoprostol combination regimen is considered to be more effective than surgical abortion (vacuum aspiration), especially when clinical practice does not include detailed inspection of aspirated tissue.[28] Early medical abortion regimens using mifepristone, followed 24–48 hours later by buccal or vaginal misoprostol are 98% effective up to 9 weeks gestational age.[29] If medical abortion fails, surgical abortion must be used to complete the procedure.[30]

Early medical abortions account for the majority of abortions before 9 weeks gestation in Britain,[31][32] France,[33] Switzerland,[34] and the Nordic countries.[35] In the United States, the percentage of early medical abortions is far lower.[36][37]

Medical abortion regimens using mifepristone in combination with a prostaglandin analog are the most common methods used for second-trimester abortions in Canada, most of Europe, China and India,[26] in contrast to the United States where 96% of second-trimester abortions are performed surgically by dilation and evacuation.[38]

Surgical

Up to 15 weeks' gestation, suction-aspiration or vacuum aspiration are the most common surgical methods of induced abortion.[39] Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) consists of removing the fetus or embryo, placenta, and membranes by suction using a manual syringe, while electric vacuum aspiration (EVA) uses an electric pump. These techniques differ in the mechanism used to apply suction, in how early in pregnancy they can be used, and in whether cervical dilation is necessary.

MVA, also known as "mini-suction" and "menstrual extraction", can be used in very early pregnancy, and does not require cervical dilation. Dilation and curettage (D&C), the second most common method of surgical abortion, is a standard gynecological procedure performed for a variety of reasons, including examination of the uterine lining for possible malignancy, investigation of abnormal bleeding, and abortion. Curettage refers to cleaning the walls of the uterus with a curette. The World Health Organization recommends this procedure, also called sharp curettage, only when MVA is unavailable.[40]

From the 15th week of gestation until approximately the 26th, other techniques must be used. Dilation and evacuation (D&E) consists of opening the cervix of the uterus and emptying it using surgical instruments and suction. Premature labor and delivery can be induced with prostaglandin; this can be coupled with injecting the amniotic fluid with hypertonic solutions containing saline or urea. After the 16th week of gestation, abortions can also be induced by intact dilation and extraction (IDX) (also called intrauterine cranial decompression), which requires surgical decompression of the fetus's head before evacuation. IDX is sometimes called "partial-birth abortion," which has been federally banned in the United States.

In the third trimester of pregnancy, abortion may be performed by IDX as described above, induction of labor, or by hysterotomy. Hysterotomy abortion is a procedure similar to a caesarean section and is performed under general anesthesia. It requires a smaller incision than a caesarean section and is used during later stages of pregnancy.[41]

First-trimester procedures can generally be performed using local anesthesia, while second-trimester methods may require deep sedation or general anesthesia.[37]

Other methods

Historically, a number of herbs reputed to possess abortifacient properties have been used in folk medicine: tansy, pennyroyal, black cohosh, and the now-extinct silphium (see history of abortion).[42] The use of herbs in such a manner can cause serious—even lethal—side effects, such as multiple organ failure, and is not recommended by physicians.[43]

Abortion is sometimes attempted by causing trauma to the abdomen. The degree of force, if severe, can cause serious internal injuries without necessarily succeeding in inducing miscarriage.[44] In Southeast Asia, there is an ancient tradition of attempting abortion through forceful abdominal massage.[45] One of the bas reliefs decorating the temple of Angkor Wat in Cambodia depicts a demon performing such an abortion upon a woman who has been sent to the underworld.[45]

Reported methods of unsafe, self-induced abortion include misuse of misoprostol, and insertion of non-surgical implements such as knitting needles and clothes hangers into the uterus. These methods are rarely seen in developed countries where surgical abortion is legal and available.[46]

Safety

The health risks of abortion depend on whether the procedure is performed safely or unsafely. The World Health Organization defines unsafe abortions as those performed by unskilled individuals, with hazardous equipment, or in unsanitary facilities.[47] Legal abortions performed in the developed world are among the safest procedures in medicine.[1][48] In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures, making abortion about 14 times safer than childbirth (8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).[49][50] The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks' gestation.[51][52][53]

Vacuum aspiration in the first trimester is the safest method of surgical abortion, and can be performed in a primary care office, abortion clinic, or hospital. Complications are rare and can include uterine perforation, pelvic infection, and retained products of conception requiring a second procedure to evacuate.[54] Preventive antibiotics (such as doxycycline or metronidazole) are typically given before elective abortion,[55] as they are believed to substantially reduce the risk of postoperative uterine infection.[37][56] Complications after second-trimester abortion are similar to those after first-trimester abortion, and depend somewhat on the method chosen.

There is little difference in terms of safety and efficacy between medical abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol and surgical abortion (vacuum aspiration) in early first trimester abortions up to 9 weeks gestation.[28] Medical abortion using the prostaglandin analog misoprostol alone is less effective and more painful than medical abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol or surgical abortion.[57][58]

Some purported risks of abortion are promoted primarily by anti-abortion groups, but lack scientific support.[59] For example, the question of a link between induced abortion and breast cancer has been investigated extensively. Major medical and scientific bodies (including the World Health Organization, the US National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) have concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer,[60] although such a link continues to be promoted by anti-abortion groups.[59]

Similarly, current scientific evidence indicates that induced abortion does not cause mental-health problems.[61][62] The American Psychological Association has concluded that a single abortion is not a threat to women's mental health, and that women are no more likely to have mental-health problems after a first-trimester abortion than after carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.[63][64] Abortions performed after the first trimester because of fetal abnormalities are not thought to cause mental-health problems.[65] Some proposed negative psychological effects of abortion have been referred to by anti-abortion advocates as a separate condition called "post-abortion syndrome", which is not recognized by any medical or psychological organization.[66]

Unsafe abortion

Soviet poster circa 1925, warning against midwives performing abortions. Title translation: "Abortions performed by either trained or self-taught midwives not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death."
Main article: Unsafe abortion

Women seeking to terminate their pregnancies sometimes resort to unsafe methods, particularly when access to legal abortion is restricted. They may attempt to self-abort or rely on another person who does not have proper medical training or access to proper facilities. This has a tendency to lead to severe complications, such as incomplete abortion, sepsis, hemorrhage, and damage to internal organs.[67]

Unsafe abortions are a major cause of injury and death among women worldwide. Although data are imprecise, it is estimated that approximately 20 million unsafe abortions are performed annually, with 97% taking place in developing countries.[1] Unsafe abortion is believed to result in millions of injuries and approximately 68,000 deaths annually,[1][68] accounting for 13% of all maternal deaths.[69] Groups such as the World Health Organization have advocated a public-health approach to addressing unsafe abortion, emphasizing the legalization of abortion, the training of medical personnel, and ensuring access to reproductive-health services.[70]

The legality of abortion is one of the main determinants of its safety. Countries with restrictive abortion laws have significantly higher rates of unsafe abortion (and similar overall abortion rates) compared to those where abortion is legal and available.[2][3][70][71][72][73] For example, the 1996 legalization of abortion in South Africa had an immediate positive impact on the frequency of abortion-related complications,[74] with abortion-related deaths dropping by more than 90%.[75] In addition, a lack of access to effective contraception contributes to unsafe abortion. It has been estimated that the incidence of unsafe abortion could be reduced by up to 75% (from 20 million to 5 million annually) if modern family planning and maternal health services were readily available globally.[76]

Forty percent of the world's women are able to access therapeutic and elective abortions within gestational limits,[5] while an additional 35 percent have access to legal abortion if they meet certain physical, mental, or socioeconomic criteria.[77] While maternal mortality seldom results from safe abortions, unsafe abortions result in 70,000 deaths and 5 million disabilities per year.[2] Complications of unsafe abortion account for approximately an eighth of maternal mortalities worldwide,[78] though this varies by region.[79] Secondary infertility caused by an unsafe abortion affects an estimated 24 million women.[72] The rate of unsafe abortions has increased from 44% to 49% between 1995 and 2008.[3] Health education, access to family planning, and improvements in health care during and after abortion have been proposed to address this phenomenon.[80]

Incidence

There are two commonly used methods of measuring the incidence of abortion:
Abortion rate – number of abortions per 1000 women between 15 and 44 years of age
Abortion percentage – number of abortions out of 100 known pregnancies (pregnancies include live births, abortions and miscarriages)

The number of abortions performed worldwide has remained stable in recent years, with 41.6 million having been performed in 2003 and 43.8 million having been performed in 2008.[3] The abortion rate worldwide was 28 per 1000 women, though it was 24 per 1000 women for developed countries and 29 per 1000 women for developing countries.[3] The same 2012 study indicated that in 2008, the estimated abortion percentage of known pregnancies was at 21% worldwide, with 26% in developed countries and 20% in developing countries. [3]

On average, the incidence of abortion is similar in countries with restrictive abortion laws and those with more liberal access to abortion. However, restrictive abortion laws are associated with increases in the percentage of abortions which are performed unsafely.[5][81][82] The unsafe abortion rate in developing countries is partly attributable to lack of access to modern contraceptives; according to the Guttmacher Institute, providing access to contraceptives would result in about 14.5 million fewer unsafe abortions and 38,000 fewer deaths from unsafe abortion annually worldwide.[83]

The incidence of induced abortion varies extensively worldwide. The ratio of induced abortion ranges from ten to thirty percent; figures in the developing world vary widely and are often incomplete.[84]

Abortion rates also vary depending on the stage of pregnancy and the method practiced. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 26% of abortions in the United States were known to have been obtained at less than 6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, 15% at 8 weeks, 4.1% at 16 through 20 weeks and 1.4% at more than 21 weeks. 90.9% of these were classified as having been done by "curettage" (suction-aspiration, dilation and curettage, dilation and evacuation), 7.7% by "medical" means (mifepristone), 0.4% by "intrauterine instillation" (saline or prostaglandin), and 1.0% by "other" (including hysterotomy and hysterectomy).[85] According to the CDC, due to data collection difficulties the data must be viewed as tentative and some fetal deaths reported beyond 20 weeks may be natural deaths erroneously classified as abortions if the removal of the fetus is accomplished by the same procedure as an induced abortion.[86]

The Guttmacher Institute estimated there were 2,200 intact dilation and extraction procedures in the US during 2000; this accounts for 0.17% of the total number of abortions performed that year.[87] Similarly, in England and Wales in 2006, 89% of terminations occurred at or under 12 weeks, 9% between 13 to 19 weeks, and 1.5% at or over 20 weeks. 64% of those reported were by vacuum aspiration, 6% by D&E, and 30% were medical.[88] Later abortions are more common in China, India, and other developing countries than in developed countries.[89]

Personal and social factors

The reasons why women have abortions are diverse and vary dramatically across the world. Some of the most common reasons are to postpone childbearing to a more suitable time or to focus energies and resources on existing children. Others include being unable to afford a child either in terms of the direct costs of raising a child or the loss of income while she is caring for the child, lack of support from the father, inability to afford additional children, desire to provide schooling for existing children, disruption of one's own education, relationship problems with their partner, a perception of being too young to have a child, unemployment, and not being willing to raise a child conceived as a result of rape or incest, among others.[90][91] An additional factor is risk to maternal or fetal health, which was cited as the primary reason for abortion in over a third of cases in some countries and as a significant factor in only a single-digit percentage of abortions in other countries.[86][90]

An American study in 2002 concluded that about half of women having abortions were using a form of contraception at the time of becoming pregnant. Inconsistent use was reported by half of those using condoms and three-quarters of those using the birth-control pill; 42% of those using condoms reported failure through slipping or breakage.[92] The Guttmacher Institute estimated that "most abortions in the United States are obtained by minority women" because minority women "have much higher rates of unintended pregnancy."[93]

Some abortions are undergone as the result of societal pressures. These might include the preference for children of a specific sex, disapproval of single or early motherhood, stigmatization of people with disabilities, insufficient economic support for families, lack of access to or rejection of contraceptive methods, or efforts toward population control (such as China's one-child policy). These factors can sometimes result in compulsory abortion or sex-selective abortion.

History

"French Periodical Pills." An example of a clandestine advertisement published in an 1845 edition of the Boston Daily Times.
Main article: History of abortion

Induced abortion has long history, and can be traced back to civilizations as varied as China under Shennong (c. 2700 BCE), Ancient Egypt with its Ebers Papyrus (c. 1550 BCE), and the Roman Empire in the time of Juvenal (c. 200 CE).[94] There is evidence to suggest that pregnancies were terminated through a number of methods, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques.

Some medical scholars and abortion opponents have suggested that the Hippocratic Oath forbade Ancient Greek physicians from performing abortions;[94] other scholars disagree with this interpretation,[94] and note the medical texts of Hippocratic Corpus contain descriptions of abortive techniques.[95] Aristotle, in his treatise on government Politics (350 BCE), condemns infanticide as a means of population control. He preferred abortion in such cases, with the restriction[96] "[that it] must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive."[97]In Christianity, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) is noted as the first Pope to declare that abortion is homicide regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[98] the Catholic Church had previously been divided on whether if believed that abortion was murder, and did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[94] Islamic tradition has traditionally permitted abortion until a point in time when Muslims believe the soul enters the fetus,[94] considered by various theologians to be at conception, 40 days after conception, 120 days after conception, or quickening.[99] However, abortion is largely heavily restricted or forbidden in areas of high Islamic faith such as the Middle East and North Africa.[100]

In Europe and North America, abortion techniques advanced starting in the 17th century. However, conservatism by most physicians with regards to sexual matters prevented the wide expansion of safe abortion techniques.[94] Other medical practitioners in addition to some physicians advertised their services, and they were not widely regulated until the 19th century, when the practice was banned in both the United States and the United Kingdom.[94] Church groups as well as physicians were highly influential in anti-abortion movements.[94] In the US, abortion was more dangerous than childbirth until about 1930 when incremental improvements in abortion procedures relative to childbirth made abortion safer.[note 2] The Soviet Union (1919), Iceland (1935) and Sweden (1938) were among the first countries to legalize certain or all forms of abortion.[101] In 1935 Nazi Germany, a law was passed permitting abortions for those deemed "hereditarily ill," while women considered of German stock were specifically prohibited from having abortions.[102] Beginning in the second half of the twentieth century, abortion was legalized in a greater number of countries.[94]

Abortion debate

Induced abortion has long been the source of considerable debate, controversy, and activism. An individual's position concerning the complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issues which surround abortion is often related to his or her value system. Opinions of abortion may be described as being a combination of beliefs about abortion's morality the proper extent of governmental authority in public policy; and on the rights and responsibilities of the woman seeking to have an abortion. Religious ethics also has an influence on both personal opinion and the greater debate over abortion.

In both public and private debate, arguments presented in favor of or against abortion access focus on either the moral permissibility of an induced abortion, or justification of laws permitting or restricting abortion. Abortion debates, especially pertaining to abortion laws, are often spearheaded by groups advocating one of these two positions. Anti-abortion groups who favor greater legal restrictions on abortion, including complete prohibition, most often describe themselves as "pro-life" while abortion rights groups who are against such legal restrictions describe themselves as "pro-choice". Generally, the former position argues that a human fetus is a human being with a right to live, making abortion morally the same as murder. The latter position argues that a woman has certain reproductive rights, especially the choice whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

Abortion law

Current laws pertaining to abortion are diverse. Religious, moral, and cultural sensibilities continue to influence abortion laws throughout the world. The right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security of person, and the right to reproductive health are major issues of human rights that are sometimes used as justification for the existence or absence of laws controlling abortion.

In jurisdictions where abortion is legal, certain requirements must often be met before a woman may obtain a safe, legal abortion (an abortion performed without the woman's consent is considered feticide). These requirements usually depend the age of the fetus, often using a trimester-based system to regulate the window of legality. Some jurisdictions require a waiting period before the procedure, prescribe the distribution of information on fetal development, or require that parents be contacted if their minor daughter requests an abortion.[105] Other jurisdictions may require that a woman obtain the consent of the fetus' father before aborting the fetus, that abortion providers inform patients of health risks of the procedure—sometimes including "risks" not supported by the medical literature—and that multiple medical authorities certify that the abortion is either medically or socially necessary. Many restrictions are waived in emergency situations.

Other jurisdictions ban abortion almost entirely. Many, but not all, of these allow legal abortions in a variety of circumstances. These circumstances vary based on jurisdiction, but may include whether the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, the fetus' development is impaired, the woman's physical or mental well-being is endangered, or socioeconomic considerations make childbirth a hardship.[77] In countries where abortion is banned entirely, such as Nicaragua, medical authorities have recorded rises in maternal death directly and indirectly due to pregnancy as well as deaths due to doctors' fears of prosecution if they treat other gynecological emergencies.[106][107] Some countries, such as Bangladesh, that nominally ban abortion, may also support clinics that perform abortions under the guise of menstrual hygiene.[108] This is also a terminology in traditional medicine.[109] In places where abortion is illegal or carries heavy social stigma, pregnant women may engage in medical tourism and travel to countries where they can terminate their pregnancies.[110] Women without the means to travel can resort to providers of illegal abortions or attempt to perform an abortion by themselves.[111]

Emergency contraception is generally available in countries that have not restricted abortion and is also sometimes available in countries that have otherwise banned abortion, such as Chile.[112][113] This has caused controversy, as some anti-abortion groups assert that certain forms of emergency contraception are not contraceptives but abortifacients (See, e.g., Abortion in the Dominican Republic.)

Sex-selective abortion

Sonography and amniocentesis allow parents to determine sex before childbirth. The development of this technology has led to sex-selective abortion, or the termination of a fetus based on sex. The selective termination of a female fetus is most common.

Sex-selective abortion is partially responsible for the noticeable disparities between the birth rates of male and female children in some countries. The preference for male children is reported in many areas of Asia, and abortion used to limit female births has been reported in Taiwan, South Korea, India, and China.[114] This deviation from the standard birth rates of males and females occurs despite the fact that the country in question may have officially banned sex-selective abortion or even sex-screening.[115][116][117][118] In China, a historical preference for a male child has been exacerbated by the one-child policy, which was enacted in 1979.[119]

Many countries have taken legislative steps to reduce the incidence of sex-selective abortion. At the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 over 180 states agreed to eliminate "all forms of discrimination against the girl child and the root causes of son preference",[120] which was also condemned by a PACE resolution in 2011.[121] The World Health Organization and UNICEF, along with other United Nations agencies, have found that measures to reduce access to abortion are much less effective at reducing sex-selective abortions than measures to reduce gender inequality.[120]

Anti-abortion violence

In a number of cases, abortion providers and these facilities have been subjected to various forms of violence, including murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, stalking, assault, arson, and bombing. Anti-abortion violence is classified by both governmental and scholarly sources as terrorism.[122][123] Only a small fraction of those opposed to abortion commit violence, often rationalizing their actions as justifiable homicide or defense of others, committed in order to protect the lives of fetuses. Invasion of privacy and stalking of doctors, clinic workers, and patients, even by police officers, is similarly justified.[124]

In the United States, four physicians who performed abortions have been murdered: David Gunn (1993), John Britton (1994), Barnett Slepian (1998), and George Tiller (2009). Also murdered, in the U.S. and Australia, have been other personnel at abortion clinics, including receptionists and security guards such as James Barrett, Shannon Lowney, Lee Ann Nichols, and Robert Sanderson. Woundings (e.g., Garson Romalis) and attempted murders have also taken place in the United States and Canada, Hundreds of bombings, arsons, acid attacks, invasions, and incidents of vandalism against abortion providers have also occurred.[125][126] Notable perpetrators of anti-abortion violence include Eric Robert Rudolph, Scott Roeder, Shelley Shannon, and Paul Jennings Hill, the first person to be executed in the United States for murdering an abortion provider.[127]

Legal protection of access to abortion has been brought into some countries where abortion is legal. These laws typically seek to protect abortion clinics from obstruction, vandalism, picketing, and other actions, or to protect patients and employees of such facilities from threats and harassment.

Art, literature and film

A Bas-relief at Angkor Wat, Cambodia, c. 1150, depicts a demon inducing an abortion by pounding the abdomen of a pregnant woman with a pestle.[45][128]

Art serves to humanize the abortion issue and illustrates the myriad of decisions and consequences it has. One of the earliest known representations of abortion is in a bas relief at Angkor Wat (c. 1150). Anti-abortion activist Børre Knudsen was linked to a 1994 art theft as part of an anti-abortion drive in Norway surrounding the 1994 Winter Olympics.[129] A Swiss gallery removed a piece from a Chinese art collection in 2005, that had the head of a fetus attached to the body of a bird.[130] In 2008, a Yale student proposed using aborted excretions and the induced abortion itself as a performance art project.[131]

The Cider House Rules (novel 1985, film 1999) follows the story of Dr. Larch an orphanage director who is a reluctant abortionist after seeing the consequences of back-alley abortions, and his orphan medical assistant Homer who is against abortion.[132] Feminist novels such as Braided Lives (1997) by Marge Piercy emphasize the struggles women had in dealing with unsafe abortion in various circumstances prior to legalization.[133] Physician Susan Wicklund wrote This Common Secret (2007) about how a personal traumatic abortion experience hardened her resolve to provide compassionate care to women who decide to have an abortion. As Wicklund crisscrosses the West to provide abortion services to remote clinics, she tells the stories of women she's treated and the sacrifices she and her loved ones made.[134] In 2009, Irene Vilar revealed her past abuse and addiction to abortion in Impossible Motherhood, where she aborted 15 pregnancies in 17 years. According to Vilar it was the result of a dark psychological cycle of power, rebellion and societal expectations.[135] In Annie Finch's mythic epic poem and opera libretto Among the Goddesses (2010), the heroine's abortion is contextualized spiritually by the goddesses Demeter, Kali, and Inanna.[136]

Various options and realities of abortion have been dramatized in film. In Riding in Cars with Boys (2001) an underage woman carries her pregnancy to term as abortion is not an affordable option, moves in with the father and finds herself involved with drugs, has no opportunities, and questioning if she loves her child. In Juno (2007) a 16-year-old initially goes to have an abortion but decides to bear the child and allow a wealthy couple to adopt it. The films Dirty Dancing (1987) and If These Walls Could Talk (1996) explore the availability, affordability and dangers of illegal abortions. The emotional impact of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy alone is the focus of Things You Can Tell Just By Looking at Her (2000) and Circle of Friends (1995). In The Godfather Part II (1974) Kay informed Michael Corleone that she had obtained an abortion without his knowledge nor consent.[137] On the abortion debate, an irresponsible drug addict is used as a pawn in a power struggle between abortion rights and anti-abortion groups in Citizen Ruth (1996).[138] The Law & Order television episode "Dignity" deals with the trial of a man who killed a late-term abortion doctor; the storyline was inspired by the assassination of abortion provider George Tiller.[139]

In other animals

Spontaneous abortion occurs in various animals. For example, in sheep, it may be caused by crowding through doors, or being chased by dogs.[140] In cows, abortion may be caused by contagious disease, such as Brucellosis or Campylobacter, but can often be controlled by vaccination.[141] Eating pine needles can also induce abortions in cows.[142][143] In horses, a fetus may be aborted or resorbed if it has Lethal white syndrome (congenital intestinal aganglionosis). Foal embryos that are homozygous for the dominant white gene (WW) are often resorbed before birth.[144]

Viral infection can cause abortion in dogs.[145] Cats can experience spontaneous abortion for many reasons, including hormonal imbalance. A combined abortion and spaying is performed on pregnant cats, especially in Trap-Neuter-Return programs, to prevent unwanted kittens from being born.[146][147][148]

Abortion may also be induced in animals, in the context of animal husbandry. For example, abortion may be induced in mares that have been mated improperly, or that have been purchased by owners who did not realize the mares were pregnant, or that are pregnant with twin foals.[149] Feticide can occur in horses and zebras due to male harassment of pregnant mares or forced copulation,[150][151][152] although the frequency in the wild has been questioned.[153] Male gray langur monkeys may attack females following male takeover, causing miscarriage.[154]

You've Come a Long Way Baby. Abortion Continued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion My take on this madness is that probably 99% of all abortions should NOT occur. There are reasonable exceptions to most rules. Doctors, parents, attorneys, clergy, social-workers, ethics-committees, et al would have to sort out which abortions might be ABSOLUTELY necessary -- but it seems to me that second and third trimester abortions should almost NEVER occur. Abortion seems to be an Irresponsible-Activity to Deal with an Irresponsible Activity. We Need to Teach RESPONSIBILITY. I almost threw-up making this post. Aren't we just so goddamn civilized and sophisticated??!! Speaking of God -- with Three Jewish, and Six Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justices -- why in the hell is Rowe v Wade still the Law of the Land??!! http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_religion_of_each_US_Supreme_Court_Justice Which God do these Supreme Court Justices answer to (and/or take orders from)?? There will be a helluva lot of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth in the Final Judgment IMHO. Perhaps it is high-time to utter those dreadful words "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." I do NOT desire the extermination of humanity or the souls animating humanity -- but justice must somehow be served -- and righteousness must be reestablished in this solar system. Perhaps a Workers-Purgatory Prison-Planet Titan might serve as at least a temporary remedy for sin -- while a more permanent solution is sought. Just a thought.

References

1.^ a b c d Grimes, D. A.; Benson, J.; Singh, S.; Romero, M.; Ganatra, B.; Okonofua, F. E.; Shah, I. H. (2006). "Unsafe abortion: The preventable pandemic" (PDF). The Lancet 368 (9550): 1908–1919. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69481-6. PMID 17126724.
2.^ a b c Shah, I.; Ahman, E. (December 2009). "Unsafe abortion: global and regional incidence, trends, consequences, and challenges" (PDF). Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 31 (12): 1149–58. PMID 20085681.
3.^ a b c d e f g h Sedgh, G.; Singh, S.; Shah, I. H.; Åhman, E.; Henshaw, S. K.; Bankole, A. (2012). "Induced abortion: Incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008". The Lancet 379 (9816): 625–632. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61786-8. PMID 22264435.
4.^ Sedgh G, Henshaw SK, Singh S, Bankole A, Drescher J (September 2007). "Legal abortion worldwide: incidence and recent trends". Int Fam Plan Perspect 33 (3): 106–116. doi:10.1363/ifpp.33.106.07. PMID 17938093.
5.^ a b c Culwell KR, Vekemans M, de Silva U, Hurwitz M (July 2010). "Critical gaps in universal access to reproductive health: Contraception and prevention of unsafe abortion". International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 110: S13–16. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.04.003. PMID 20451196.
6.^ Cheng L. (1 November 2008). "Surgical versus medical methods for second-trimester induced abortion". The WHO Reproductive Health Library. World Health Organization. Archived from the original on 17 June 2011. Retrieved 17 June 2011.
7.^ Bankole et al. (1998). "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries". International Family Planning Perspectives 24 (3): 117–127 & 152.
8.^ Finer, Lawrence B.; Frohwirth, Lori F.; Dauphinee, Lindsay A.; Singh, Susheela; Moore, Ann M. (2005). "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives" (PDF). Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37 (3): 110–118. doi:10.1111/j.1931-2393.2005.tb00045.x. PMID 16150658.
9.^ Stubblefield, Phillip G. (2002). "10. Family Planning". In Berek, Jonathan S.. Novak's Gynecology (13 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-0-7817-3262-8.
10.^ Bartlett, LA; Berg, CJ; Shulman, HB; Zane, SB; Green, CA; Whitehead, S; Atrash, HK (2004). "Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States" (PDF). Obstetrics & Gynecology 103 (4): 729–37. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000116260.81570.60. PMID 15051566.
11.^ Roche, Natalie E. (28 September 2004). "Therapeutic Abortion". eMedicine. Archived from the original on 14 December 2004. Retrieved 19 June 2011.
12.^ a b c d Schorge, John O.; Schaffer, Joseph I.; Halvorson, Lisa M.; Hoffman, Barbara L.; Bradshaw, Karen D.; Cunningham, F. Gary, eds. (2008). "6. First-Trimester Abortion". Williams Gynecology (1 ed.). McGraw-Hill Medical. ISBN 978-0-07-147257-9.
13.^ "Elective surgery". Encyclopedia of Surgery. Retrieved 2012-12-17. "An elective surgery is a planned, non-emergency surgical procedure. It may be either medically required (e.g., cataract surgery), or optional (e.g., breast augmentation or implant) surgery.
14.^ Churchill Livingstone medical dictionary. Edinburgh New York: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier. 2008. ISBN 978-0-443-10412-1. "The preferred term for unintentional loss of the product of conception prior to 24 weeks' gestation is miscarriage."
15.^ Annas, George J.; Elias, Sherman (2007). "51. Legal and Ethical Issues in Obstetric Practice". In Gabbe, Steven G.; Niebyl, Jennifer R.; Simpson, Joe Leigh. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies (5 ed.). Churchill Livingstone. p. 669. ISBN 978-0-443-06930-7. "A preterm birth is defined as one that occurs before the completion of 37 menstrual weeks of gestation, regardless of birth weight."
16.^ "Stillbirth". Concise Medical Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2010. "birth of a fetus that shows no evidence of life (heartbeat, respiration, or independent movement) at any time later than 24 weeks after conception"
17.^ "Documenting Stillbirth (Fetal Death)" (PDF). United States Department of State. 18 February 2011. Archived from the original on 27 June 2011. Retrieved 27 June 2011.
18.^ Annas, George J.; Elias, Sherman (2007). "24. Pregnancy loss". In Gabbe, Steven G.; Niebyl, Jennifer R.; Simpson, Joe Leigh. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies (5 ed.). Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 978-0-443-06930-7.
19.^ Katz, Vern L. (2007). "16. Spontaneous and Recurrent Abortion – Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment". In Katz, Vern L.; Lentz, Gretchen M.; Lobo, Rogerio A. et al. Katz: Comprehensive Gynecology (5 ed.). Mosby. ISBN 978-0-323-02951-3.
20.^ Stovall, Thomas G. (2002). "17. Early Pregnancy Loss and Ectopic Pregnancy". In Berek, Jonathan S.. Novak's Gynecology (13 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-0-7817-3262-8.
21.^ a b Stöppler, Melissa Conrad. "Miscarriage (Spontaneous Abortion)". In Shiel, William C., Jr. MedicineNet.com. WebMD. Retrieved 2009-04-07.
22.^ a b Jauniaux E, Kaminopetros P, El-Rafaey H (1999). "Early pregnancy loss". In Whittle MJ, Rodeck CH. Fetal medicine: basic science and clinical practice. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. p. 837. ISBN 978-0-443-05357-3. OCLC 42792567.
23.^ "Fetal Homicide Laws". National Conference of State Legislatures. Archived from the original on 29 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-07.
24.^ a b Kulier R, Kapp N, Gülmezoglu AM, Hofmeyr GJ, Cheng L, Campana A (2011). "Medical methods for first trimester abortion". Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11 (11): CD002855. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002855.pub4. PMID 22071804.
25.^ a b Creinin MD, Gemzell-Danielsson K (2009). "Medical abortion in early pregnancy". In Paul M, Lichtenberg ES, Borgatta L, Grimes DA, Stubblefield PG, Creinin MD (eds.). Management of unintended and abnormal pregnancy: comprehensive abortion care. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 111–134. ISBN 1-4051-7696-2.
26.^ a b Kapp N, von Hertzen H (2009). "Medical methods to induce abortion in the second trimester". In Paul M, Lichtenberg ES, Borgatta L, Grimes DA, Stubblefield PG, Creinin MD (eds.). Management of unintended and abnormal pregnancy: comprehensive abortion care. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 178–192. ISBN 1-4051-7696-2.
27.^ Wildschut, H; Both, MI; Medema, S; Thomee, E; Wildhagen, MF; Kapp, N (2011 Jan 19). "Medical methods for mid-trimester termination of pregnancy.". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (1): CD005216. PMID 21249669.
28.^ a b WHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research (23 November 2006). Frequently asked clinical questions about medical abortion. Geneva: World Health Organization. ISBN 92-4-159484-5. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
29.^ Fjerstad M, Sivin I, Lichtenberg ES, Trussell J, Cleland K, Cullins V (September 2009). "Effectiveness of medical abortion with mifepristone and buccal misoprostol through 59 gestational days". Contraception 80 (3): 282–286. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2009.03.010. PMID 19698822. The regimen (200 mg of mifepristone, followed 24–48 hours later by 800 mcg of vaginal misoprostol) previously used by Planned Parenthood clinics in the United States from 2001 to March 2006 was 98.5% effective through 63 days gestation—with an ongoing pregnancy rate of about 0.5%, and an additional 1% of patients having uterine evacuation for various reasons, including problematic bleeding, persistent gestational sac, clinician judgment or patient request. The regimen (200 mg of mifepristone, followed 24–48 hours later by 800 mcg of buccal misoprostol) currently used by Planned Parenthood clinics in the United States since April 2006 is 98.3% effective through 59 days gestation.
30.^ Holmquist S, Gilliam M (2008). "Induced abortion". In Gibbs RS, Karlan BY, Haney AF, Nygaard I (eds.). Danforth's obstetrics and gynecology (10th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 586–603. ISBN 978-0-7817-6937-2.
31.^ "Abortion statistics, England and Wales: 2010". London: Department of Health, United Kingdom. 24 May 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
32.^ "Abortion statistics, year ending 31 December 2010". Edinburgh: ISD, NHS Scotland. 31 May 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
33.^ Vilain A, Mouquet M-C (22 June 2011). "Voluntary terminations of pregnancies in 2008 and 2009". Paris: DREES, Ministry of Health, France. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
34.^ . (5 July 2011). "Abortions in Switzerland 2010". Neuchâtel: Office of Federal Statistics, Switzerland. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
35.^ Gissler M, Heino A (21 February 2011). "Induced abortions in the Nordic countries 2009". Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
36.^ Jones RK, Kooistra K (March 2011). "Abortion incidence and access to services in the United States, 2008". Perspect Sex Reprod Health 43 (1): 41–50. doi:10.1363/4304111. PMID 21388504. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
37.^ a b c Templeton, A.; Grimes, D. A. (2011). "A Request for Abortion". New England Journal of Medicine 365 (23): 2198–2204. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1103639.
38.^ Hammond C, Chasen ST (2009). "Dilation and evacuation". In Paul M, Lichtenberg ES, Borgatta L, Grimes DA, Stubblefield PG, Creinin MD (eds.). Management of unintended and abnormal pregnancy: comprehensive abortion care. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 178–192. ISBN 1-4051-7696-2.
39.^ Healthwise (2004). "Manual and vacuum aspiration for abortion". WebMD. Archived from the original on 28 October 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
40.^ World Health Organization (2003). "Dilatation and curettage". Managing Complications in Pregnancy and Childbirth: A Guide for Midwives and Doctors. Geneva: World Health Organization. ISBN 978-92-4-154587-7. OCLC 181845530. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
41.^ McGee, Glenn; Jon F. Merz. "Abortion". Encarta. Microsoft. Archived from the original on 31 October 2009. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
42.^ Riddle, John M. (1997). Eve's herbs: a history of contraception and abortion in the West. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-27024-4. OCLC 36126503.[page needed]
43.^ Ciganda C, Laborde A (2003). "Herbal infusions used for induced abortion". J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol. 41 (3): 235–239. doi:10.1081/CLT-120021104. PMID 12807304.
44.^ Smith, J. (1998). "Risky choices: The dangers of teens using self-induced abortion attempts". Journal of Pediatric Health Care 12 (3): 147–151. doi:10.1016/S0891-5245(98)90245-0. PMID 9652283. edit
45.^ a b c Potts, M.; Graff, M.; Taing, J. (2007). "Thousand-year-old depictions of massage abortion". Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care 33 (4): 233–234. doi:10.1783/147118907782101904. PMID 17925100.
46.^ Thapa, S. R.; Rimal, D.; Preston, J. (2006). "Self induction of abortion with instrumentation". Australian Family Physician 35 (9): 697–698. PMID 16969439.
47.^ "The Prevention and Management of Unsafe Abortion" (PDF). World Health Organization. April 1995. Archived from the original on 30 May 2010. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
48.^ Grimes, DA; Creinin, MD (2004). "Induced abortion: an overview for internists". Ann. Intern. Med. 140 (: 620–6. doi:10.1001/archinte.140.5.620. PMID 15096333.
49.^ Raymond, E. G.; Grimes, D. A. (2012). "The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States". Obstetrics & Gynecology 119 (2, Part 1): 215–219. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823fe923. PMID 22270271.
50.^ Grimes DA (January 2006). "Estimation of pregnancy-related mortality risk by pregnancy outcome, United States, 1991 to 1999". Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 194 (1): 92–4. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2005.06.070. PMID 16389015.
51.^ Bartlett LA, Berg CJ, Shulman HB et al. (April 2004). "Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States". Obstet Gynecol 103 (4): 729–37. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000116260.81570.60. PMID 15051566.
52.^ Trupin, Suzanne (27 May 2010). "Elective Abortion". eMedicine. Retrieved 1 June 2010. "At every gestational age, elective abortion is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term."
53.^ Pittman, Genevra (23 January 2012). "Abortion safer than giving birth: study". Reuters. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
54.^ Westfall JM, Sophocles A, Burggraf H, Ellis S (1998). "Manual vacuum aspiration for first-trimester abortion". Arch Fam Med 7 (6): 559–62. doi:10.1001/archfami.7.6.559. PMID 9821831.
55.^ ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology (May 2009). "ACOG practice bulletin No. 104: antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures". Obstet Gynecol 113 (5): 1180–9. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181a6d011. PMID 19384149.
56.^ Sawaya GF, Grady D, Kerlikowske K, Grimes DA (May 1996). "Antibiotics at the time of induced abortion: the case for universal prophylaxis based on a meta-analysis". Obstet Gynecol 87 (5 Pt 2): 884–90. PMID 8677129.
57.^ Grossman D (3 September 2004). "Medical methods for first trimester abortion: RHL commentary". Reproductive Health Library. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
58.^ Chien P, Thomson M (15 December 2006). "Medical versus surgical methods for first trimester termination of pregnancy: RHL commentary". Reproductive Health Library. Geneva: World Health Organization. Archived from the original on 17 May 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-01.
59.^ a b Jasen P (October 2005). "Breast cancer and the politics of abortion in the United States". Med Hist 49 (4): 423–44. PMC 1251638. PMID 16562329.
60.^ Position statements of major medical bodies on abortion and breast cancer include: World Health Organization: "Induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk (Fact sheet N°240)". World Health Organization. Archived from the original on 13 February 2011. Retrieved 6 January 2011.
National Cancer Institute: "Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk". National Cancer Institute. Archived from the original on 21 December 2010. Retrieved 11 January 2011.
American Cancer Society: "Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?". American Cancer Society. 23 September 2010. Archived from the original on 5 June 2011. Retrieved 20 June 2011. "At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer."
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: "The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion" (PDF). Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. p. 9. Retrieved 29 June 2008. "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: "ACOG Finds No Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk". American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 31 July 2003. Archived from the original on 2 January 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2011.

61.^ Cockburn, Jayne; Pawson, Michael E. (2007). Psychological Challenges to Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Clinical Management. Springer. p. 243. ISBN 978-1-84628-807-4.
62.^ Adler, NE; David, HP; Major, BN; Roth, SH; Russo, NF; Wyatt, GE (1990). "Psychological responses after abortion". Science 248 (4951): 41–4. doi:10.1126/science.2181664. PMID 2181664.
63.^ "APA Task Force Finds Single Abortion Not a Threat to Women's Mental Health" (Press release). American Psychological Association. 12 August 2008. Retrieved 7 September 2011.
64.^ "Report of the APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion". Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 13 August 2008.
65.^ Steinberg, J. R. (2011). "Later Abortions and Mental Health: Psychological Experiences of Women Having Later Abortions—A Critical Review of Research". Women's Health Issues 21 (3): S44–S48. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2011.02.002. PMID 21530839.
66.^ See, for example: Grimes, DA; Creinin, MD (2004). "Induced abortion: an overview for internists". Ann Intern Med 140 (: 620–6. doi:10.1001/archinte.140.5.620. PMID 15096333. "Abortion does not lead to an increased risk for breast cancer or other late psychiatric or medical sequelae. ... The alleged 'postabortion trauma syndrome' does not exist."
Stotland, NL (2003). "Abortion and psychiatric practice". J Psychiatr Pract 9 (2): 139–149. doi:10.1097/00131746-200303000-00005. PMID 15985924. "Currently, there are active attempts to convince the public and women considering abortion that abortion frequently has negative psychiatric consequences. This assertion is not borne out by the literature: the vast majority of women tolerate abortion without psychiatric sequelae."
Stotland NL (October 1992). "The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome". J Am Med Assoc 268 (15): 2078–9. doi:10.1001/jama.268.15.2078. PMID 1404747.

67.^ Okonofua, F. (2006). "Abortion and maternal mortality in the developing world" (PDF). Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 28 (11): 974–979. PMID 17169222.
68.^ Haddad, LB.; Nour, NM. (2009). "Unsafe abortion: unnecessary maternal mortality". Rev Obstet Gynecol 2 (2): 122–6. PMC 2709326. PMID 19609407.
69.^ Darney, Leon Speroff, Philip D. (2010). A clinical guide for contraception (5th ed. ed.). Philadelphia, Pa.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 406. ISBN 1-60831-610-6.
70.^ a b Berer M (2000). "Making abortions safe: a matter of good public health policy and practice". Bull. World Health Organ. 78 (5): 580–92. PMC 2560758. PMID 10859852.
71.^ Sedgh G, Henshaw S, Singh S, Ahman E, Shah IH (2007). "Induced abortion: estimated rates and trends worldwide". Lancet 370 (9595): 1338–45. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61575-X. PMID 17933648.
72.^ a b "Unsafe abortion: Global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2003" (PDF). World Health Organization. 2007. Archived from the original on 16 February 2011. Retrieved 7 March 2011.
73.^ Berer M (November 2004). "National laws and unsafe abortion: the parameters of change". Reprod Health Matters 12 (24 Suppl): 1–8. doi:10.1016/S0968-8080(04)24024-1. PMID 15938152.
74.^ Jewkes R, Rees H, Dickson K, Brown H, Levin J (March 2005). "The impact of age on the epidemiology of incomplete abortions in South Africa after legislative change". BJOG 112 (3): 355–9. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00422.x. PMID 15713153.
75.^ Bateman C (December 2007). "Maternal mortalities 90% down as legal TOPs more than triple". S. Afr. Med. J. 97 (12): 1238–42. PMID 18264602.
76.^ "Facts on Investing in Family Planning and Maternal and Newborn Health" (PDF). Guttmacher Institute. 2010. Retrieved 24 May 2012.
77.^ a b Boland, R.; Katzive, L. (2008). "Developments in Laws on Induced Abortion: 1998–2007". International Family Planning Perspectives 34 (3): 110–120. doi:10.1363/ifpp.34.110.08. PMID 18957353.
78.^ Maclean, Gaynor (2005). "XI. Dimension, Dynamics and Diversity: A 3D Approach to Appraising Global Maternal and Neonatal Health Initiatives". In Balin, Randell E. Trends in Midwifery Research. Nova Publishers. pp. 299–300. ISBN 978-1-59454-477-4.
79.^ Salter, C., Johnson, H.B., and Hengen, N. (1997). "Care for Postabortion Complications: Saving Women's Lives". Population Reports (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health) 25 (1). Archived from the original on 1 September 2011.
80.^ UNICEF, United Nations Population Fund, WHO, World Bank (2010). "Packages of interventions: Family planning, safe abortion care, maternal, newborn and child health". Retrieved 31 December 2010.
81.^ Shah I, Ahman E (December 2009). "Unsafe abortion: global and regional incidence, trends, consequences, and challenges". J Obstet Gynaecol Can 31 (12): 1149–58. PMID 20085681. "However, a woman's chance of having an abortion is similar whether she lives in a developed or a developing region: in 2003 the rates were 26 abortions per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 in developed areas and 29 per 1000 in developing areas. The main difference is in safety, with abortion being safe and easily accessible in developed countries and generally restricted and unsafe in most developing countries"
82.^ Rosenthal, Elizabeth (12 October 2007). "Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 July 2011.
83.^ "Facts on Investing in Family Planning and Maternal and Newborn Health" (PDF). Guttmacher Institute. November 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2011.
84.^ Sedgh, G.; Singh, S.; Henshaw, S. K.; Bankole, A. (2011). "Legal Abortion Worldwide in 2008: Levels and Recent Trends". Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 43 (3): 188–198. doi:10.1363/4318811. PMID 21884387.
85.^ Strauss, L. T.; Gamble, S. B.; Parker, W. Y.; Cook, D. A.; Zane, S. B.; Hamdan, S.; Centers for Disease Control Prevention (2006). "Abortion surveillance—United States, 2003". Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries 55 (SS11): 1–32. PMID 17119534.
86.^ a b "The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion". Issues in Brief. New York: The Guttmacher Institute. 1997.
87.^ Finer, L. B.; Henshaw, S. K. (2003). "Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States in 2000". Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 35 (1): 6–15. doi:10.1363/3500603. PMID 12602752.
88.^ Department of Health (2007). "Abortion statistics, England and Wales: 2006". Retrieved 2007-10-12.
89.^ Cheng L. "Surgical versus medical methods for second-trimester induced abortion : RHL commentary" (last revised: 1 November 2008). The WHO Reproductive Health Library; Geneva: World Health Organization.
90.^ a b Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor (1998). "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries". International Family Planning Perspectives 24 (3): 117–127; 152.
91.^ Finer, L. B.; Frohwirth, L. F.; Dauphinee, L. A.; Singh, S.; Moore, A. M. (2005). "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives". Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37 (3): 110–118. doi:10.1111/j.1931-2393.2005.tb00045.x. PMID 16150658.
92.^ Jones, R. K.; Darroch, J. E.; Henshaw, S. K. (2002). "Contraceptive Use Among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 2000–2001" (PDF). Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 34 (6): 294–303. doi:10.2307/3097748. PMID 12558092.
93.^ Susan A. Cohen: Abortion and Women of Color: The Bigger Picture, Guttmacher Policy Review, Summer 2008, Volume 11, Number 3.
94.^ a b c d e f g h i Joffe, Carole (2009). "1. Abortion and medicine: A sociopolitical history" (PDF). In MPaul, ES Lichtenberg, L Borgatta, DA Grimes, PG Stubblefield, MD Creinin. Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy (1st ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN 978-1-4443-1293-5. Archived from the original on 21 October 2011.
95.^ Miles, Steven (2005). The Hippocratic Oath and the Ethics of Medicine. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-518820-2.
96.^ Carrick, Paul (2001). Medical Ethics in the Ancient World. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 978-0-87840-849-8.
97.^ Rackham, H. (1944). "Aristotle, Politics". Harvard University Press. Retrieved 2011-06-21.
98.^ Brind'Amour, Katherine (2007). "Effraenatam". Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Arizona State University. Archived from the original on 1 February 2012.
99.^ "Religions – Islam: Abortion". BBC. Retrieved 2011-12-10.
100.^ Dabash, Rasha; Roudi-Fahimi, Farzaneh (2008). "Abortion in the Middle East and North Africa" (PDF). Population Research Bureau. Archived from the original on 8 July 2011.
101.^ "Abortion Law, History & Religion". Childbirth By Choice Trust. Archived from the original on 8 February 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
102.^ For sources describing abortion policy in Nazi Germany, see: Friedlander, Henry (1995). The origins of Nazi genocide: from euthanasia to the final solution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-8078-4675-9. OCLC 60191622.
Proctor, Robert (1988). Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 122, 123 and 366. ISBN 978-0-674-74578-0. OCLC 20760638.
Arnot, Margaret L.; Cornelie Usborne (1999). Gender and Crime in Modern Europe. New York: Routledge. p. 231. ISBN 978-1-85728-745-5. OCLC 186748539.
DiMeglio, Peter M. (1999). "Germany 1933–1945 (National Socialism)". In Helen Tierney. Women's studies encyclopedia. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p. 589. ISBN 978-0-313-31072-0. OCLC 38504469.

103.^ http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2011abortion/2011wallchart.pdf
104.^ World Abortion Policies 2007, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
105.^ Theodore J. Joyce, Stanley K. Henshaw, Amanda Dennis, Lawrence B. Finer and Kelly Blanchard (April 2009). "The Impact of State Mandatory Counseling and Waiting Period Laws on Abortion: A Literature Review" (PDF). Guttmacher Institute. Archived from the original on 14 January 2011. Retrieved 31 December 2010.
106.^ "European delegation visits Nicaragua to examine effects of abortion ban". Ipas. 26 November 2007. Archived from the original on 17 April 2008. Retrieved 2009-06-15. "More than 82 maternal deaths had been registered in Nicaragua since the change. During this same period, indirect obstetric deaths, or deaths caused by illnesses aggravated by the normal effects of pregnancy and not due to direct obstetric causes, have doubled."
107.^ "Nicaragua: "The Women's Movement Is in Opposition"". Montevideo: Inside Costa Rica. IPS. 28 June 2008.
108.^ "Surgical Abortion: History and Overview". National Abortion Federation. Archived from the original on 22 September 2006. Retrieved 2006-09-04.
109.^ Nations MK, Misago C, Fonseca W, Correia LL, Campbell OM. (1997-06). "Women's hidden transcripts about abortion in Brazil". Soc Sci Med 44 (12): 1833–45. PMID 9194245. Retrieved 2012-12-17. "Two folk medical conditions, "delayed" (atrasada) and "suspended" (suspendida) menstruation, are described as perceived by poor Brazilian women in Northeast Brazil. Culturally prescribed methods to "regulate" these conditions and provoke menstrual bleeding are also described ..."
110.^ Henshaw, S. K. (1991). "The Accessibility of Abortion Services in the United States". Family Planning Perspectives 23 (6): 246–263. doi:10.2307/2135775.
111.^ Marcy Bloom (25 February 2008). "Need Abortion, Will Travel". RH Reality Check. Retrieved 2009-06-15.
112.^ Ross, Jen (12 September 2006). "In Chile, free morning-after pills to teens". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2006-12-07.
113.^ Gallardoi, Eduardo (26 September 2006). "Morning-After Pill Causes Furor in Chile". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-12-07.
114.^ Banister, Judith. (16 March 1999). Son Preference in Asia – Report of a Symposium. Retrieved 2006-01-12.
115.^ Reaney, Patricia. "Selective abortion blamed for India's missing girls". Reuters. Archived from the original on 20 February 2006. Retrieved 2008-12-03.
116.^ Sudha, S.; Rajan, S. Irudaya (July 1999). "Female Demographic Disadvantage in India 1981–1991: Sex Selective Abortions and Female Infanticide". Development and Change 30 (3): 585–618. doi:10.1111/1467-7660.00130. PMID 20162850. Archived from the original on 1 January 2003. Retrieved 2008-12-03.
117.^ "Sex Selection & Abortion: India". Library of Congress. 4 April 2011. Retrieved 18 July 2011.
118.^ "China Bans Sex-selection Abortion." (22 March 2002). Xinhua News Agency.'.' Retrieved 2006-01-12.
119.^ Graham, Maureen J.; Larsen; Xu (June 1998). "Son Preference in Anhui Province, China". International Family Planning Perspectives 24 (2): 72–77. doi:10.2307/2991929. Archived from the original on 21 October 2011.
120.^ a b "Preventing gender-biased sex selection". UNFPA. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
121.^ "Prenatal sex selection". PACE. Retrieved 27 April November 2012.
122.^ Smith, G. Davidson (Tim) (1998). "Single Issue Terrorism Commentary". Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Archived from the original on 15 October 2007. Retrieved 1 September 2011.
123.^ Wilson, M.; Lynxwiler, J. (1988). "Abortion clinic violence as terrorism". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 11 (4): 263–273. doi:10.1080/10576108808435717.
124.^ Burghardt, Tom. "ANTI-ABORTION COP USES POLICE COMPUTER TO TRACK CLINIC WORKERS". Holy Smoke. Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights. Retrieved 26 February 2013.
125.^ "The Death of Dr. Gunn". New York Times. 12 March 1993.
126.^ "Incidence of Violence & Disruption Against Abortion Providers in the U.S. & Canada" (PDF). National Abortion Federation. 2009. Retrieved 9 February 2010.
127.^ Borger, Julian (3 February 1999). "The bomber under siege". The Guardian (London).
128.^ Mould R (1996). Mould's Medical Anecdotes. CRC Press. p. 406. ISBN 978-0-85274-119-1.
129.^ "Art theft linked to pro-life drive Abortion foe hints painting's return hinges on TV film". thestar.com. 18 February 1994. Retrieved 2010-09-25.
130.^ "Principally relating to Xiao Yu's work Ruan". Other Shore Artfile. Retrieved 2010-06-27.
131.^ Soupcoff, Marni (17 April 2008). "Marni Soupcoff's Zeitgeist: Photofiddle, Rentbetter.org, Mandie Brady and Aliza Shvarts". Full Comment. National Post. Retrieved 2008-04-30.
132.^ John Irving (1985). The Cider House Rules. New York: William Morrow. ISBN 978-0-688-03036-0.
133.^ Marge Piercy (1997). Braided Lives. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0-449-00091-5.
134.^ Susan Wicklund (2007). This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-58648-480-4.
135.^ Irene Vilar (2009). Impossible Motherhood: Testimony of an Abortion Addict. Other Press. ISBN 978-1-59051-320-0.
136.^ Finch, Annie (2010). Among the Goddesses. California: Red Hen Press. ISBN 978-1-59709-161-9.
137.^ "Godfather II". 1974. Retrieved 2011-12-27. "Oh, Michael. Michael, you are blind. It wasn't a miscarriage. It was an abortion. An abortion, Michael. Just like our marriage is an abortion. Something that's unholy and evil. I didn't want your son, Michael! I wouldn't bring another one of you sons into this world! It was an abortion, Michael! It was a son Michael! A son! And I had it killed because this must all end!"
138.^ "films that discuss Abortion ... a movie list". movietrain.net. Archived from the original on 26 July 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-13.
139.^ Wyatt, Edward (22 October 2009). "NBC's 'Law & Order' to Take on Abortion Issue". New York Times. Archived from the original on 26 July 2011. Retrieved 26 July 2011.
140.^ Spencer, James (1911). Sheep Husbandry in Canada. p. 124.
141.^ "Beef cattle and Beef production: Management and Husbandry of Beef Cattle". Encyclopaedia of New Zealand. 1966.
142.^ Myers, Brandon; Beckett, Jonathon (2001). "Pine needle abortion". Animal Health Care and Maintenance. Tucson, AZ: Arizona Cooperative Extension, University of Arizona. pp. 47–50. Retrieved 10 April 2013.
143.^ Kim, Ill-Hwa; Choi, Kyung-Chul; An, Beum-Soo; Choi, In-Gyu; Kim, Byung-Ki; Oh, Young-Kyoon; Jeung, Eui-Bae (2003). "Effect on abortion of feeding Korean pine needles to pregnant Korean native cows". Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research (Canadian Veterinary Medical Association) 67 (3): 194–197. PMC 227052. Retrieved 10 April 2013.
144.^ Overton, Rebecca (2003-03). "By a Hair". Paint Horse Journal. Retrieved 2012-12-19.
145.^ "Herpesvirus in Dog Pups". petMD. Retrieved 2012-12-18.
146.^ "Spaying Pregnant Females". Carol's Ferals. Retrieved 2012-12-17.
147.^ Coates, Jennifer (7 May 2007). "Feline abortion: often an unnerving necessity". petMD. Retrieved 2012-12-18.
148.^ Khuly, Patty (1 April 2011). "Feline abortion: often an unnerving necessity (Part 2)". petMD. Retrieved 2012-12-18.
149.^ McKinnon, Angus O.; Voss, James L. (1993). Equine Reproduction. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 563. ISBN 0-8121-1427-2.
150.^ Berger, Joel W; Vuletić, L; Boberić, J; Milosavljević, A; Dilparić, S; Tomin, R; Naumović, P (5 May 1983). "Induced abortion and social factors in wild horses". Nature 303 (5912): 59–61. doi:10.1038/303059a0. PMID 7 668248 7.
151.^ Pluháček, Jan; Bartos, L (2000). "Male infanticide in captive plains zebra, Equus burchelli". Animal Behaviour 59 (4): 689–694. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1371. PMID 10792924.
152.^ Pluháček, Jan (2005). "Further evidence for male infanticide and feticide in captive plains zebra, Equus burchelli". Folia Zool. 54 (3): 258–262.
153.^ Kirkpatrick, J. F.; Turner, J. W. (1991). "Changes in Herd Stallions among Feral Horse Bands and the Absence of Forced Copulation and Induced Abortion". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 29 (3): 217–219. doi:10.1007/BF00166404. JSTOR 4600608.
154.^ Agoramoorthy, G.; Mohnot, S. M.; Sommer, V.; Srivastava, A. (1988). "Abortions in free ranging Hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus) — a male induced strategy?". Human Evolution 3 (4): 297–308. doi:10.1007/BF02435859.

Notes

1.^ Definitions of abortion, as with many words, vary from source to source. The following is a partial list of definitions as stated by obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) textbooks, dictionaries, and other encyclopedias: Major OB/GYN textbooks The National Center for Health Statistics defines an "abortus" as "[a] fetus or embryo removed or expelled from the uterus during the first half of gestation—20 weeks or less, or in the absence of accurate dating criteria, born weighing < 500 g." They also define "birth" as "[t]he complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of a fetus after 20 weeks' gestation. ... in the absence of accurate dating criteria, fetuses weighing <500 g are usually not considered as births, but rather are termed abortuses for purposes of vital statistics." Cunningham, FG; Leveno, KJ; Bloom, SL; Hauth, JC; Rouse, DJ; Spong, CY, eds. (2010). "1. Overview of Obstetrics". Williams Obstetrics (23 ed.). McGraw-Hill Medical. ISBN 978-0-07-149701-5.

"[T]he standard medical definition of abortion [is] termination of a pregnancy when the fetus is not viable". Annas, George J.; Elias, Sherman (2007). "51. Legal and Ethical Issues in Obstetric Practice". In Gabbe, Steven G.; Niebyl, Jennifer R.; Simpson, Joe Leigh. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies (5 ed.). Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 978-0-443-06930-7.

"Termination of a pregnancy, whether spontaneous or induced." Kottke, Melissa J.; Zieman, Mimi (2008). "33. Management of Abortion". In Rock, John A.; Jones III, Howard W. TeLinde's Operative Gynecology (10 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-0-7817-7234-1.

Other OB/GYN textbooks "Termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks' gestation calculated from date of onset of last menses. An alternative definition is delivery of a fetus with a weight of less than 500 g. If abortion occurs before 12 weeks' gestation, it is called early; from 12 to 20 weeks it is called late." Katz, Vern L. (2007). "16. Spontaneous and Recurrent Abortion – Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment". In Katz, Vern L.; Lentz, Gretchen M.; Lobo, Rogerio A. et al. Katz: Comprehensive Gynecology (5 ed.). Mosby. ISBN 978-0-323-02951-3.

"Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability. Because popular use of the word abortion implies a deliberate pregnancy termination, some prefer the word miscarriage to refer to spontaneous fetal loss before viability ... The National Center for Health Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO) define abortion as pregnancy termination prior to 20 weeks' gestation or a fetus born weighing less than 500 g. Despite this, definitions vary widely according to state laws." Schorge, John O.; Schaffer, Joseph I.; Halvorson, Lisa M.; Hoffman, Barbara L.; Bradshaw, Karen D.; Cunningham, F. Gary, eds. (2008). "6. First-Trimester Abortion". Williams Gynecology (1 ed.). McGraw-Hill Medical. ISBN 978-0-07-147257-9.

Major medical dictionaries "The spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age." "Taber's Medical Dictionary: abortion". Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. F.A. Davis. Archived from the original on 14 June 2011. Retrieved 14 June 2011.

"Expulsion from the uterus an embryo or fetus prior to the stage of viability (20 weeks' gestation or fetal weight <500g). A distinction made between [abortion] and premature birth: premature infants are those born after the stage of viability but prior to 37 weeks." Stedman's Medical Dictionary (27 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0-683-40008-8.

"[P]remature expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception, either the embryo or a nonviable fetus." Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary (31 ed.). Saunders. 2007. ISBN 978-1-4160-2364-7.

Other medical dictionaries "[T]he termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus". "Medical Dictionary". Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on 15 June 2011. Retrieved 15 June 2011.

"Induced termination of pregnancy, involving destruction of the embryo or fetus." "abortion." The American Heritage Science Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2005. ISBN 978-0-618-45504-1.

"Interruption of pregnancy before the fetus has attained a stage of viability, usually before the 24th gestational week." "abortion." Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 2005. OCLC 54374716.

"[A] spontaneous or deliberate ending of pregnancy before the fetus can be expected to survive." "abortion." Mosby's Emergency Dictionary. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences. 1998. OCLC 37553784.[verification needed]

"[A] situation where a fetus leaves the uterus before it is fully developed, especially during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, or a procedure which causes this to happen ... [T]o have an abortion to have an operation to make a fetus leave the uterus during the first period of pregnancy." ""abortion"". Dictionary of Medical Terms. London: A & C Black. 2005. OCLC 55634250.

"1. Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the fetus or embryo; therapeutic abortion. 2. Spontaneous abortion." The American Heritage Medical Dictionary (reprint ed.). Houghton Mifflin. 2008. p. 2. ISBN 0-618-94725-6. OCLC 608212441.

"Although the term abortion is generic and implies a premature termination of pregnancy for any reason, the lay public better understands the word 'miscarriage' for involuntary fetal loss or fetal wastage." The Dictionary of Modern Medicine. Parthenon Publishing. 1992. p. 3. ISBN 1-85070-321-3.

"The termination of pregnancy or premature expulsion of the products of conception by any means, usually before fetal viability." Churchill's Medical Dictionary. Churchill Livingstone. 1989. p. 3. ISBN 0-443-08691-5.

Major English dictionaries (general-purpose) "1. a. The expulsion or removal from the womb of a developing embryo or fetus, spec. (Med.) in the period before it is capable of independent survival, occurring as a result either of natural causes (more fully spontaneous abortion) or of a deliberate act (more fully induced abortion); the early or premature termination of pregnancy with loss of the fetus; an instance of this." "abortion, n.". Oxford English Dictionary (Third ed.). Oxford University Press. September 2009; online version September 2011.

"[A]n operation or other procedure to terminate pregnancy before the fetus is viable" or "[T]he premature termination of pregnancy by spontaneous or induced expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus". "abortion". Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 11th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. Retrieved 7 October 2012.

"[T]he removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy" or "[A]ny of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months." "abortion". Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 27 June 2011.

"[T]he termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as (a) spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation (b) induced expulsion of a human fetus (c) expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy." Merriam-Webster Dictionary, from Merriam-Webster, an Encyclopedia Brittanica Company.

"1. medicine the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus before it is sufficiently developed to survive independently, deliberately induced by the use of drugs or by surgical procedures. Also called termination or induced abortion. 2. medicine the spontaneous expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus before it is sufficiently developed to survive independently. Also called miscarriage, spontaneous abortion." Chambers 21st Century Dictionary. London: Chambers Harrap, 2001.

"a medical operation to end a pregnancy so that the baby is not born alive". Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, online edition.

Other dictionaries "The deliberate termination of a pregnancy, usually before the embryo or fetus is capable of independent life." The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (3rd ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. 2005.

"A term that, in philosophy, theology, and social debates, often means the deliberate termination of pregnancy before the fetus is able to survive outside the uterus. However, participants in these debates sometimes use the term abortion simply to mean the termination of pregnancy before birth, regardless of whether the fetus is viable or not." "abortion." Dictionary of World Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2001.

"1. An artificially induced termination of a pregnancy for the purpose of destroying an embryo or fetus. 2. The spontaneous expulsion of an embryo or fetus before viability;" Garner, Bryan A. (June 2009). Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). Thomson West. ISBN 978-0-314-19949-2.

Encyclopedias "[T]he expulsion of a fetus from the uterus before it has reached the stage of viability (in human beings, usually about the 20th week of gestation)." "Abortion (pregnancy)". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2011. Archived from the original on 26 June 2011. Retrieved 26 June 2011.

"Expulsion of the products of conception before the embryo or fetus is viable. Any interruption of human pregnancy prior to the 28th week is known as abortion." "Abortion". The Columbia Encyclopedia. New York: Columbia University Press. 2008.

"The expulsion or removal of a fetus from the womb before it is capable of independent survival." "Abortion". Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 2008.

"[Abortion] is commonly misunderstood outside medical circles. In general terms, the word 'abortion' simply means the failure of something to reach fulfilment or maturity. Medically, abortion means loss of the fetus, for any reason, before it is able to survive outside the womb. The term covers accidental or spontaneous ending, or miscarriage, of pregnancy as well as deliberate termination. The terms 'spontaneous abortion' and 'miscarriage' are synonymous and are defined as loss of the fetus before the twenty-eighth week of pregnancy. This definition implies a legal perception of the age at which a fetus can survive out of the womb. With great advances in recent years in the ability to keep very premature babies alive, this definition is in need of revision." "Abortion and miscarriage". The Royal Society of Medicine Health Encyclopedia. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. 2000.

"Abortion is the intentional removal of a fetus or an embryo from a mother's womb for purposes other than that of either producing a live birth or disposing of a dead embryo." "Abortion". Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 1945 (1 ed.). Santa Barbara, California: Routledge. 1999. ISBN 978-1-57958-166-4.

2.^ By 1930, medical procedures in the US had improved for both childbirth and abortion but not equally, and induced abortion in the first trimester had become safer than childbirth. In 1973, Roe vs. Wade acknowledged that abortion in the first trimester was safer than childbirth: "The 1970s". Time communication 1940–1989: retrospective. Time, Inc. 1989. "Blackmun was also swayed by the fact that most abortion prohibitions were enacted in the 19th century when the procedure was more dangerous than now."

Will, George (1990). Suddenly: the American idea abroad and at home, 1986–1990. Free Press. p. 312. ISBN 0-02-934435-2.
Lewis, J.; Shimabukuro, Jon O. (28 January 2001). "Abortion Law Development: A Brief Overview". Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original on 14 May 2011. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
*Schultz, David Andrew (2002). Encyclopedia of American law. Infobase Publishing. p. 1. ISBN 0-8160-4329-9.
Lahey, Joanna N. (24 September 2009). "Birthing a Nation: Fertility Control Access and the 19th Century Demographic Transition" (PDF; preliminary version). Colloquium. Pomona College.

You've Come a Long Way Baby. Consider Rowe v Wade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade My take on this madness is that probably 99% of all abortions should NOT occur. There are reasonable exceptions to most rules. Doctors, parents, attorneys, clergy, social-workers, ethics-committees, et al would have to sort out which abortions might be ABSOLUTELY necessary -- but it seems to me that second and third trimester abortions should almost NEVER occur. Abortion seems to be an Irresponsible-Activity to Deal with an Irresponsible Activity. We Need to Teach RESPONSIBILITY. I almost threw-up making this post. Aren't we just so goddamn civilized and sophisticated??!! Speaking of God -- with Three Jewish, and Six Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justices -- why in the hell is Rowe v Wade still the Law of the Land??!! http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_religion_of_each_US_Supreme_Court_Justice Which God do these Supreme Court Justices answer to (and/or take orders from)?? There will be a helluva lot of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth in the Final Judgment IMHO. Perhaps it is high-time to utter those dreadful words "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." I do NOT desire the extermination of humanity or the souls animating humanity -- but justice must somehow be served -- and righteousness must be reestablished in this solar system. Perhaps a Workers-Purgatory Prison-Planet Titan might serve as at least a temporary remedy for sin -- while a more permanent solution is sought. Just a thought.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]

In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[3][4] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today, about issues including whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.

Background

History of abortion laws in the United States

According to the Court, "the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage." In 1821, Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion. Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.[5] In the United States, abortion was sometimes considered a common law crime,[6] though Justice Blackmun would conclude that the criminalization of abortion did not have "roots in the English common-law tradition."[7]

Prior history of the case

In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthorized site had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.[8] (McCorvey would give birth before the case was decided.)

In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas. McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was the result of rape, and later acknowledged that she had lied about having been raped.[9][10] "Rape" is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in this case.[11]

The district court ruled in McCorvey's favor on the legal merits of her case, and declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion.[11] The district court's decision was based upon the 9th Amendment, and the court relied upon a concurring opinion by Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut,[12] finding in the decision for a right to privacy.[13]

Before the Supreme Court

Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court on appeal in 1970. The Justices delayed taking action on Roe and a closely related case, Doe v. Bolton, until they decided Younger v. Harris, as they felt that the appeals raised difficult questions on judicial jurisdiction, and United States v. Vuitch, where they considered the constitutionality of a District of Columbia statute that criminalized abortion except where the mother's life or health was endangered. In Vuitch, the Court narrowly upheld the statute, though in doing so, it treated abortion as a medical procedure and stated that the physician must be given room to determine what suffices as a danger to (physical or mental) health. The day after they announced their decision in Vuitch, they voted to hear both Roe and Doe.[14]

Arguments were scheduled by the full Court for December 13, 1971. Before the Court could hear the oral arguments, Justices Black and Harlan retired. Chief Justice Burger asked Justices Stewart and Blackmun to determine whether Roe and Doe, among others, should be heard as scheduled. According to Blackmun, Stewart felt that the cases were a straightforward application of Younger v. Harris and recommended that the Court move forward as scheduled.[15]

Following a first round of arguments, all seven Justices tentatively agreed that the law should be struck down, but for varying reasons.[16] Burger assigned the role of writing the Court's opinion in Roe (as well as Doe) to Blackmun, who began drafting a preliminary opinion that emphasized what he saw as the Texas law's vagueness.[17] Justices Rehnquist and Powell joined the Supreme Court too late to hear the first round of arguments. Additionally, Blackmun felt that his opinion was an inadequate reflection of his liberal colleagues' opinions.[18] In May 1972, Blackmun proposed that the case be reargued. Justice Douglas threatened to write a dissent from the reargument order (he and the other liberal Justices were suspicious that Rehnquist and Powell would vote to uphold the statute), but was coaxed out of the action by his colleagues, and his dissent was merely mentioned in the reargument order without further statement or opinion.[19][20] The case was reargued on October 11, 1972. Weddington continued to represent Roe, and Texas Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Flowers stepped in to replace Jay Floyd for Texas.

Blackmun continued work on his opinions in both cases over the summer recess, despite the fact that there was no guarantee that he would be assigned to write the opinions again. Over the recess, Blackmun spent a week researching the history of abortion at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, where he had worked in the 1950s. After the Court heard the second round of arguments, Powell stated that he would agree with Blackmun's conclusion but pushed for Roe to be the lead of the two abortion cases being considered. Powell also suggested that the Court strike down the Texas law on privacy grounds. White was unwilling to sign on to Blackmun's opinion, and Rehnquist had already decided to dissent.[21]

Supreme Court decision

Harry Blackmun wrote the Court’s opinion. The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Burger and Douglas' concurring opinions and White's dissenting opinion were issued along with the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade). The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.[22]

Right to privacy

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[23] Douglas, in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."[24]

The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests – protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life". Following its earlier logic, the Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health. The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician's right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general.[25] The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.[26]

The Justices had discussed the trimester framework extensively. Powell had suggested that the point where the State could intervene be placed at viability, which Marshall supported as well.[27] Blackmun wrote of the majority decision he authored: "You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary."[28] Douglas preferred the first trimester line,[29] while Stewart said the lines were "legislative" and wanted more flexibility and consideration paid to the state legislatures, though he joined Blackmun's decision.[30] Brennan proposed abandoning frameworks based on the age of the fetus and instead allowing states to regulate the procedure based on its safety for the mother.[29]

Justiciability

An aspect of the decision that attracted comparatively little attention was the Court's disposition of the issues of standing and mootness. Under the traditional interpretation of these rules, Jane Roe's appeal was "moot" because she had already given birth to her child and thus would not be affected by the ruling; she also lacked "standing" to assert the rights of other pregnant women.[31] As she did not present an "actual case or controversy" (a grievance and a demand for relief), any opinion issued by the Supreme Court would constitute an advisory opinion, a practice forbidden by Article III of the United States Constitution.

The Court concluded that the case came within an established exception to the rule; one that allowed consideration of an issue that was "capable of repetition, yet evading review".[32] This phrase had been coined in 1911 by Justice Joseph McKenna.[33] Blackmun's opinion quoted McKenna, and noted that pregnancy would normally conclude more quickly than an appellate process: "If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied."[34]

Dissents

Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist wrote emphatic dissenting opinions in this case. White wrote:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[35][36]

White asserted that the Court "values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries." Despite White suggesting he "might agree" with the Court's values and priorities, he wrote that he saw "no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States." White criticized the Court for involving itself in this issue by creating "a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it." He would have left this issue, for the most part, "with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."

Rehnquist elaborated upon several of White's points, by asserting that the Court's historical analysis was flawed:

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[37][38][39]

From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded that, "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted." Therefore, in his view, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

Reception

Political

The most prominent organized groups that mobilized in response to Roe are the National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Right to Life Committee.

Support

Advocates of Roe describe it as vital to the preservation of women's rights, personal freedom, and privacy. Denying the abortion right has been equated to compulsory motherhood, and some scholars (not including any member of the Supreme Court) have argued that abortion bans therefore violate the Thirteenth Amendment:

When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment….[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant.[40]

Some opponents of abortion maintain that personhood begins at fertilization (also referred to as conception), and should therefore be protected by the Constitution;[41] the dissenting justices in Roe instead wrote that decisions about abortion "should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."[35]

The majority opinion allowed states to protect "fetal life after viability" even though a fetus is not "a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment". Supporters of Roe contend that the decision has a valid constitutional foundation, or contend that justification for the result in Roe could be found in the Constitution but not in the articles referenced in the decision.[41][40]

Opposition

Every year on the anniversary of the decision, opponents of abortion march up Constitution Avenue to the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. in the March for Life.[42] Around 250,000 people attend the march each year.[43][44]

Opponents of Roe[who?] have asserted that the decision lacks a valid constitutional foundation. Like the dissenters in Roe, they have maintained that the Constitution is silent on the issue, and that proper solutions to the question would best be found via state legislatures and the legislative process, rather than through an all-encompassing ruling from the Supreme Court.[citation needed]

A prominent argument against the Roe decision is that, in the absence of consensus about when meaningful life begins, it is best to avoid the risk of doing harm.[45]

In response to Roe v. Wade, most states enacted or attempted to enact laws limiting or regulating abortion, such as laws requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions, parental notification laws, spousal mutual consent laws, spousal notification laws, laws requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals but not clinics, laws barring state funding for abortions, laws banning intact dilation and extraction (also known as partial-birth abortion), laws requiring waiting periods before abortion, and laws mandating women read certain types of literature and watch a fetal ultrasound before undergoing an abortion.[46] Congress in 1976 passed the Hyde Amendment, barring federal funding of abortions (except in the cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother) for poor women through the Medicaid program. The Supreme Court struck down several state restrictions on abortions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, but upheld restrictions on funding, including the Hyde Amendment, in the case of Harris v. McRae (1980).[47]

Perhaps the most notable opposition to Roe comes from Roe herself; in 1995, Norma L. McCorvey revealed that she became pro-life and is now a vocal opponent of abortion.[48]

Legal

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2012)

Harry Blackmun, who authored the decision, became inexorably attached to the decision. Despite his initial reluctance, he eventually became the decision's chief champion and protector during his later years on the Court.[49] Others have joined him in support of Roe, including Judith Jarvis Thomson, who before the decision had offered an influential defense of abortion.[50]

Liberal and feminist legal scholars have had various reactions to Roe, not always giving the decision unqualified support. One reaction has been to argue that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way.[51] Another reaction has been to argue that the end achieved by Roe does not justify the means.[52]

Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the decision, has suggested that it should have been more narrowly focused on the issue of privacy. According to Stevens, if the decision had avoided the trimester framework and simply stated that the right to privacy included a right to choose abortion, "it might have been much more acceptable" from a legal standpoint.[53] His colleague Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had, before joining the Court, criticized the decision for terminating a nascent movement to liberalize abortion law through legislation.[54] Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote: "[Roe’s] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations.... Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution."[55]

In a highly-cited 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal,[56] Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision which "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."[57] Ely added: "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure." Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."[58] Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz,[59] Cass Sunstein,[60] and Kermit Roosevelt[61] have also expressed disappointment with Roe.

Jeffrey Rosen[62] and Michael Kinsley[63] echo Ginsburg, arguing that a legislative approach movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. William Saletan wrote that "Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference."[64] Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe "disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply".[65] And Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe’s author like a grandfather" wrote: "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible....Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."[66]

The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the Court's decision.[67] The "viability" criterion, which Blackmun acknowledged was arbitrary, is still in effect, although the point of viability has changed as medical science has found ways to help premature babies survive.[68]

Public opinion

A Gallup poll conducted in May 2009 indicates that a minority of Americans, 37%, believe that abortion should be legal in any or most circumstances, compared to 41% in May 2008.[69] Similarly, an April 2009 Pew Research Center poll showed a softening of support for legal abortion compared to the previous years of polling. People who said they support abortion in all or most cases dropped from 54% in 2008 to 46% in 2009.[70]

In contrast, an October 2007 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade asked the following question:

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?[71]

In reply, 56 percent of respondents indicated favour while 40 percent indicated opposition. The Harris organization concluded from this poll that "56 percent now favours the U.S. Supreme Court decision." Pro-life activists have disputed whether the Harris poll question is a valid measure of public opinion about Roe's overall decision, because the question focuses only on the first three months of pregnancy.[72][73] The Harris poll has tracked public opinion about Roe since 1973:[71][74]

Regarding the Roe decision as a whole, more Americans support it than support overturning it.[75] When pollsters describe various regulations that Roe prevents legislatures from enacting, support for Roe drops.[75][76]

Role in subsequent decisions and politics

Opposition to Roe on the bench grew when President Reagan—who supported legislative restrictions on abortion—began making federal judicial appointments in 1981. Reagan denied that there was any litmus test: "I have never given a litmus test to anyone that I have appointed to the bench…. I feel very strongly about those social issues, but I also place my confidence in the fact that the one thing that I do seek are judges that will interpret the law and not write the law. We've had too many examples in recent years of courts and judges legislating."[77]

In addition to White and Rehnquist, Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor began dissenting from the Court's abortion cases, arguing in 1983 that the trimester-based analysis devised by the Roe Court was "unworkable."[78] Shortly before his retirement from the bench, Chief Justice Warren Burger suggested in 1986 that Roe be "reexamined";[79] the associate justice who filled Burger's place on the Court—Justice Antonin Scalia—vigorously opposed Roe. Concern about overturning Roe played a major role in the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination to the Court in 1987; the man eventually appointed to replace Roe-supporter Lewis Powell was Anthony M. Kennedy.

The Supreme Court of Canada used the rulings in both Roe and Doe v. Bolton as grounds to find Canada's federal law restricting access to abortions unconstitutional. That Canadian case, R. v. Morgentaler, was decided in 1988.[80]

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

In a 5–4 decision in 1989's Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, declined to explicitly overrule Roe, because "none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri Act properly before us conflict with the Constitution."[81] In this case, the Court upheld several abortion restrictions, and modified the Roe trimester framework.[81]

In concurring opinions, O'Connor refused to reconsider Roe, and Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Court and O'Connor for not overruling Roe.[81] Blackmun – author of the Roe opinion – stated in his dissent that White, Kennedy and Rehnquist were "callous" and "deceptive," that they deserved to be charged with "cowardice and illegitimacy," and that their plurality opinion "foments disregard for the law."[81] White had recently opined that the majority reasoning in Roe v. Wade was "warped."[79]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

During initial deliberations for Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), an initial majority of five Justices (Rehnquist, White, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) were willing to effectively overturn Roe. Kennedy changed his mind after the initial conference,[82] and O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter joined Blackmun and Stevens to reaffirm the central holding of Roe,[83] saying, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."[84] Only Justice Blackmun would have retained Roe entirely and struck down all aspects of the statute at issue in Casey.

Scalia's dissent acknowledged that abortion rights are of "great importance to many women", but asserted that it is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, because the Constitution does not mention it, and because longstanding traditions have permitted it to be legally proscribed. Scalia concluded: "[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish."[84]

Stenberg v. Carhart

During the 1990s, Nebraska attempted to ban a certain second-trimester abortion procedure known as intact dilation and extraction (sometimes called partial birth abortion). The Nebraska ban allowed other second-trimester abortion procedures called dilation and evacuation abortions. Ginsburg (who replaced White) stated, "this law does not save any fetus from destruction, for it targets only 'a method of performing abortion'."[85] The Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska ban by a 5–4 vote in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), citing a right to use the safest method of second trimester abortion.

Kennedy, who had co-authored the 5-4 Casey decision upholding Roe, was among the dissenters in Stenberg, writing that Nebraska had done nothing unconstitutional.[85] Kennedy described the second trimester abortion procedure that Nebraska was not seeking to prohibit: "The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off." Kennedy wrote that since this dilation and evacuation procedure remained available in Nebraska, the state was free to ban the other procedure sometimes called "partial birth abortion."[85]

The remaining three dissenters in Stenberg – Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist – disagreed again with Roe: "Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so."

Gonzales v. Carhart

In 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which led to a lawsuit in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. The Court had previously ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a state's ban on "partial birth abortion" was unconstitutional because such a ban would not allow for the health of the woman. The membership of the Court changed after Stenberg, with John Roberts and Samuel Alito replacing Rehnquist and O'Connor, respectively. Further, the ban at issue in Gonzales v. Carhart was a clear federal statute, rather than a relatively vague state statute as in the Stenberg case.

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down a 5 to 4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, asserting that Congress was within its power to generally ban the procedure, although the Court left the door open for as-applied challenges. Kennedy's opinion did not reach the question whether the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart were valid, and instead the Court said that the challenged statute is consistent with those prior decisions whether or not those prior decisions were valid.

Joining the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Ginsburg and the other three justices dissented, contending that the ruling ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent, and also offering an equality-based justification for that abortion precedent. Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Scalia, contending that the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be reversed, and also noting that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act may exceed the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause.

Activities of Norma McCorvey

Norma McCorvey became a member of the pro-life movement in 1995; she now supports making abortion illegal. In 1998, she testified to Congress:

It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.[10]

As a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in U.S. District Court in Texas to have Roe v. Wade overturned. However, the Fifth Circuit decided that her case was moot, in McCorvey v. Hill.[86] In a concurring opinion, Judge Edith Jones agreed that McCorvey was raising legitimate questions about emotional and other harm suffered by women who have had abortions, about increased resources available for the care of unwanted children, and about new scientific understanding of fetal development, but Jones said she was compelled to agree that the case was moot. On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of certiorari, and McCorvey's appeal ended.

Presidential positions

President Richard Nixon did not publicly comment about the decision.[87] In private conversation later revealed as part of the Nixon tapes, Nixon said "There are times when an abortion is necessary, I know that. When you have a black and a white" (a reference to interracial pregnancies) "or a rape."[88][89] However, Nixon was also concerned that greater access to abortions would foster "permissiveness," and said that "it breaks the family."[88]

Generally, presidential opinion has been split between major party lines. The Roe decision was opposed by Presidents Gerald Ford,[90] Ronald Reagan,[91] and George W. Bush.[92] President George H.W. Bush also opposed Roe, though he had supported abortion rights earlier in his career.[93][94]

President Jimmy Carter supported legal abortion from an early point in his political career, in order to prevent birth defects and in other extreme cases; he encouraged the outcome in Roe and generally supported abortion rights.[95] Roe was also supported by President Bill Clinton.[96] President Barack Obama has taken the position that "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade."[97]

State laws regarding Roe

Since 2010 there has been an increase in state restrictions on abortion.
Several states have enacted so-called trigger laws which would take effect in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Those states include Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota.[98] Additionally, many states did not repeal pre-1973 statutes that criminalized abortion, and some of those statutes could again be in force if Roe were reversed.[99]

Other states have passed laws to maintain the legality of abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Those states include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington.[98]

The Mississippi Legislature has attempted to make abortion infeasible without having to overturn Roe v. Wade. However the law is currently being challenged in Federal courts and has been temporarily blocked.[100]

See also

Birth control movement in the United States
Doe v. Bolton
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 410
A, B and C v Ireland [2010], the leading decision on abortion in the European Court of Human Rights

Footnotes

1.^ "Roe v. Wade and Beyond", Frontline, PBS (2006-01-19): "while reaffirming the central holding of Roe v. Wade, the court rejected 'Roe's rigid trimester framework'...."
2.^ Wood, Mary and Hawkins, Lisa. "State Regulation of Late Abortion and the Physician's Duty of Care to the Viable Fetus", 45 Mo. L. Rev. 394 (1980).
3.^ Mears, William; Franken, Bob (2003-01-22). "30 years after ruling, ambiguity, anxiety surround abortion debate". CNN. "In all, the Roe and Doe rulings impacted laws in 46 states."
4.^ Greenhouse 2005, p. 72
5.^ Cole, George; Frankowski, Stanislaw. Abortion and protection of the human fetus : legal problems in a cross-cultural perspective, page 20 (1987): "By 1900 every state in the Union had an anti-abortion prohibition." Via Google Books. Retrieved (2008-04-08).
6.^ Wilson, James, "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals" (1790–1792): "In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb." Also see Blackstone, William. Commentaries (1765): "Life ... begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb."
7.^ Greenhouse 2005, p. 92
8.^ McCorvey, Norma and Meisler, Andy. I Am Roe: My Life, Roe V. Wade, and Freedom of Choice (Harper Collins 1994).
9.^ Richard Ostling. "A second religious conversion for 'Jane Roe' of Roe vs. Wade", Associated Press (1998-10-19): "She confessed that her tale of rape a decade before had been a lie; she was simply an unwed mother who later gave the child up for adoption.".
10.^ a b McCorvey, Norma. Testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights (1998-01-21), also quoted in the parliament of Western Australia (PDF) (1998-05-20): "The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn’t happen the way I said it did, pure and simple." Retrieved 2007-01-27
11.^ a b Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (1970): "On the merits, plaintiffs argue as their principal contention that the Texas Abortion Laws must be declared unconstitutional because they deprive single women and married couple of their rights secured by the Ninth Amendment to choose whether to have children. We agree." Retrieved 2008-09-04.
12.^ O'Connor, Karen. Testimony before U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, "The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton", via archive.org (2005-06-23). Retrieved 2007-01-30
13.^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 78–79
14.^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 77–79
15.^ Greenhouse 2005, p. 80
16.^ Greenhouse 2005, p. 81
17.^ Schwartz 1988, p. 103
18.^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 81–88
19.^ Garrow 1994, p. 556
20.^ Greenhouse 2005, p. 89
21.^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 93–95
22.^ Although abortion is still considered a fundamental right under current jurisprudence, subsequent cases, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Stenberg v. Carhart, and Gonzales v. Carhart have affected the legal standard.
23.^ Chase, H. et al. Supplement to Edward S. Corwin's The constitution and what it means today: Supreme Court decisions of 1973, 1974, and 1975, page 36 (Princeton University Press 1975): "The abortion cases afforded the Supreme Court another opportunity to caress the Ninth Amendment without embracing it."
24.^ Devins, Neal and Watson, Wendy. Judicial Nominations, page 225 (1995).
25.^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 98–99
26.^ Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, Section IX (S. Ct. 1973).
27.^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 96–97
28.^ Woodward, Bob. "The Abortion Papers", Washington Post (1989-01-22). Retrieved 2007-02-03.
29.^ a b Greenhouse 2005, p. 97
30.^ Kmiec, Douglas. "Testimony Before Subcommittee on the Constitution, Judiciary Committee, U.S. House of Representatives" (1996-04-22), via the "Abortion Law Homepage". Retrieved 2007-01-23.
31.^ Abernathy, M. et al., Civil Liberties Under the Constitution (U. South Carolina 1993), page 4. Retrieved 2007-02-04.
32.^ Chemerinsky, Erwin (2003). Federal Jurisdiction. Introduction to Law (4th ed.). Aspen Publishers. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-7355-2718-8.
33.^ Southern Pacific v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 498 (1911). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26
34.^ Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, 125 (1973); see also Schwartz 1988, pp. 108–109
35.^ a b Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26.
36.^ Potts, Malcolm et al. Abortion, page 347 (1977).
37.^ Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1972). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26
38.^ Currie, David (1994). The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second Century, 1888–1986 2. University of Chicago Press. p. 470.
39.^ "Rehnquist's legacy", The Economist (2005-06-30).
40.^ a b Koppelman, Andrew. "Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion", Northwestern Law Review, Volume 84, page 480 (1990).
41.^ a b What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said; The Nation’s Top Legal Experts Rewrite America’s Most Controversial decision, Jack Balkin Ed. (NYU Press 2005). Retrieved 2007-01-26
42.^ Shimron, Yonat. "Democratic Gains Spur Abortion Foes into Action," The News & Observer (2009-01-18): "The annual March for Life procession is already among Washington's largest rallies, drawing an estimated 200,000 people."
43.^ Harper, Jennifer. "Pro-life marchers lose attention," Washington Times (2009-01-22): "the event has consistently drawn about 250,000 participants since 2003."
44.^ Johnston, Laura. "Cleveland's first March for Life anti-abortion event draws 200," The Plain Dealer (2009-01-18): "the Washington March for Life…draws 200,000 annually on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision."
45.^ Reagan, Ronald. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, (Nelson 1984): "If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn." Retrieved 2007-01-26
46.^ Guttmacher Institute, "State Policies in Brief, An Overview of Abortion Laws (PDF)", published 2007-01-01. Retrieved 2007-01-26.
47.^ Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26.
48.^ McCorvey, Norma, with Andy Meisler. 1994. I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice. New York: Harper-Collins.
49.^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 183–206; 250
50.^ Thomson, Judith. "A Defense of Abortion", in Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (1971), pp. 47–66.
51.^ Balkin, Jack. Bush v. "Gore and the Boundary Between Law and Politics", 110 Yale Law Journal 1407 (2001): "Liberal and feminist legal scholars have spent decades showing that the result was correct even if Justice Blackmun’s opinion seems to have been taken from the Court’s Cubist period."
52.^ Cohen, Richard. "Support Choice, Not Roe", Washington Post, (2005-10-19): "If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument — but a bit of our soul as well." Retrieved 2007-01-23.
53.^ Rosen, Jeffrey. "The Dissenter", The New York Times Magazine (2007-09-23). Rosen notes that Stevens is "the oldest and arguably most liberal justice."
54.^ Ginsburg, Ruth. "Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade", 63 North Carolina Law Review 375 (1985): "The political process was moving in the early 1970s, not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict." Retrieved 2007-01-23.
55.^ Cox, Archibald. The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government, 113–114 (Oxford U. Press 1976), via Google Books. Retrieved 2007-01-26. Stuart Taylor has argued that "Roe v. Wade was sort of conjured up out of very general phrases and was recorded, even by most liberal scholars like Archibald Cox at the time, John Harvey Link – just to name two Harvard scholars – as kind of made-up constitutional law." See Stuart Taylor Jr., Online News Hour, PBS 2000-07-13.
56.^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 135–136
57.^ Ely, John Hart. "The Wages of Crying Wolf", 82 Yale Law Journal 920 (1973). Retrieved 2007-01-23. Professor Ely "supported the availability of abortion as a matter of policy." See Liptak, Adam. "John Hart Ely, a Constitutional Scholar, Is Dead at 64", New York Times (2003-10-27). Ely is generally regarded as having been a "liberal constitutional scholar." Perry, Michael (1999). We the People: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court at Google Books Archived June 25, 2007 at the Wayback Machine
58.^ Tribe, Laurence (1973). "The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law". Harvard Law Review 87: 1 [p. 7]. doi:10.2307/1339866. Quoted in Morgan, Richard Gregory (1979). "Roe v. Wade and the Lesson of the Pre-Roe Case Law". Michigan Law Review (The Michigan Law Review Association) 77 (7): 1724–1748. doi:10.2307/1288040. JSTOR 1288040.
59.^ Dershowitz, Alan. Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (Oxford U. Press 2001): "Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)...." quoted by Green, "Bushed and Gored: A Brief Review of Initial Literature", in The Final Arbiter: The Consequences of Bush V. Gore for Law And Politics, ed. Banks C, Cohen D & Green J., editors, page 14 (SUNY Press 2005), via Google Books. Retrieved 2007-01-26.
60.^ Sunstein, Cass. Quoted by McGuire, New York Sun (2005-11-15): "What I think is that it just doesn't have the stable status of Brown or Miranda because it's been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning....As a constitutional matter, I think Roe was way overreached." Retrieved 2007-01-23. Sunstein is a "liberal constitutional scholar." See Herman, Eric. "Former U of C law prof on everyone's short court list", Chicago Sun-Times (2005-07-11). Archived December 23, 2007 at the Wayback Machine
61.^ Roosevelt, Kermit. "Shaky Basis for a Constitutional ‘Right’", Washington Post, (2003-01-22): "[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result….This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional ‘person’ entitled to the protection of the 14th Amendment....By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values." Retrieved 2007-01-23. Archived March 19, 2007 at the Wayback Machine
62.^ Rosen, Jeffrey. "Why We’d Be Better off Without Roe: Worst Choice", The New Republic via Archive.org (2003-02-24): "In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people." Retrieved 2007-01-23.
63.^ Kinsley, Michael. "Bad choice", The New Republic (2004-06-13): "Against all odds (and, I'm afraid, against all logic), the basic holding of Roe v. Wade is secure in the Supreme Court....[A] freedom of choice law would guarantee abortion rights the correct way, democratically, rather than by constitutional origami." Retrieved 2007-01-23.
64.^ Saletan, William. "Unbecoming Justice Blackmun", Legal Affairs, May/June 2005. Retrieved 2007-01-23. Saletan is a self-described liberal. See Saletan, William. "Rights and Wrongs: Liberals, progressives, and biotechnology", Slate (2007-07-13).
65.^ Wittes, Benjamin. "Letting Go of Roe", The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005. Retrieved 2007-01-23. Wittes also said, "I generally favor permissive abortion laws." Wittes has elsewhere noted that, "In their quieter moments many liberal scholars recognize that the decision is a mess." See Wittes, Benjamin. "A Little Less Conversation", The New Republic 2007-11-29
66.^ Lazarus, Edward. "The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell’s Nomination Only Underlined Them", Findlaw's Writ (2002-10-03). Retrieved 2007-01-23.
67.^ Bush, George W. Quoted in Boston Globe, p. A12 (2000-01-22). "Roe v. Wade was wrong because it 'usurped the power of the legislatures,' Bush said. 'I felt like it was a case where the court took the place of what legislatures should do in America,' he said. But Bush refused to say how he felt each state should act. Instead, he said that when it comes to legalizing abortion, 'it should be up to each legislature.'" Retrieved 2007-02-02.
68.^ Stith, Irene. Abortion Procedures, CRS Report for Congress (PDF) (1997-11-17). Retrieved 2007-02-02.
69.^ Saad, Lydia. More Americans "Pro-Life" Than "Pro-Choice" for First Time, Gallup (2009-05-15).
70.^ "Public Takes Conservative Turn on Gun Control, Abortion Americans Now Divided Over Both Issues", Pew Research Center (2009-04-30).
71.^ a b Harris Interactive, (2007-11-09). "Support for Roe v. Wade Increases Significantly, Reaches Highest Level in Nine Years." Retrieved 2007-12-14.
72.^ Franz, Wanda. "The Continuing Confusion About Roe v. Wade", NRL News (June 2007).
73.^ Adamek, Raymond. "Abortion Polls", Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 411–413. Dr. Adamek is pro-life. Dr Raymond J Adamek, PhD Pro-Life Science and Technology Symposium.
74.^ Harris Interactive. 'U.S. Attitudes Toward Roe v. Wade". The Wall Street Journal Online, (2006-05-04). Retrieved 2007-02-03.
75.^ a b Ayres McHenry Poll Results on Roe v. Wade via Angus Reid Global Monitor (2007).
76.^ Gallagher, Maggie. "Pro-Life Voters are Crucial Component of Electability", Realclearpolitics.com (2007-05-23).
77.^ Reagan, Ronald. Interview With Eleanor Clift, Jack Nelson, and Joel Havemann of the Los Angeles Times (1986-06-23). Retrieved 2007-01-23.
78.^ Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26.
79.^ a b Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-02-02.
80.^ R. v. Morgentaler 1 S.C.R. 30 (1988).
81.^ a b c d Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-02-02.
82.^ Totenberg, Nina (2004-03-04). "Documents Reveal Battle to Preserve 'Roe'; Court Nearly Reversed Abortion Ruling, Blackmun Papers Show". Morning Edition (NPR). Retrieved 2007-01-30.
83.^ Greenhouse 2005, pp. 203–206
84.^ a b Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Retrieved 2007-02-03.
85.^ a b c Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000). Retrieved 2007-02-02.
86.^ McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F3d 846 (PDF) (5th Cir 2004). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26
87.^ Reeves, Richard (2001). President Nixon: Alone in the White House (1st ed.). Simon & Schuster. p. 563. ISBN 0-684-80231-7. "The President did not comment directly on the decision."
88.^ a b Savage, Charlie (June 23, 2009). "On Nixon Tapes, Ambivalence Over Abortion, Not Watergate". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-18.
89.^ Harnden, Toby. "President Richard Nixon Said it Was 'Necessary' to Abort Mixed-Race Babies, Tapes Reveal," The Daily Telegraph (2009-06-24).
90.^ Ford, Gerald. Letter to the Archbishop of Cincinnati, published online by The American Presidency Project. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (1976-09-10).
91.^ Reagan, Ronald. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation (Nelson 1984).
92.^ Kornblut, Anne E. (January 22, 2000). "Bush Tells Addicts He Can Identify". Boston Globe. p. A12.
93.^ Fritz, Sara (August 18, 1992). "'92 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION: Rigid Anti-Abortion Platform Plank OKd Policy". Los Angeles Times. "President George Bush supported abortion rights until 1980, when he switched sides after Ronald Reagan picked Bush as his running mate."
94.^ Bush, George Herbert Walker.Remarks to Participants in the March for Life Rally (1989-01-23): "I think the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade was wrong and should be overturned."
95.^ Carter, James Earl. Larry King Live, CNN, Interview With Jimmy Carter (2006-02-01). Also see Bourne, Peter, Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Postpresidency: "Early in his term as governor, Carter had strongly supported family planning programs including abortion in order to save the life of a woman, birth defects, or in other extreme circumstances. Years later, he had written the foreword to a book, Women in Need, that favored a woman's right to abortion. He had given private encouragement to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit, Doe v. Bolton, filed against the state of Georgia to overturn its archaic abortion laws."
96.^ Clinton, Bill. My Life, page 229 (Knopf 2004).
97.^ Obama, Barack. "1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test", Project Vote Smart, via archive.org. Retrieved on 2007-01-21.
98.^ a b Vestal, Christine. "States probe limits of abortion policy", Stateline.org (2007-06-11).
99.^ Marcus, Frances Frank. "Louisiana Moves Against Abortion", New York Times (1989-07-08).
100.^ LZ Granderson "Mississippi's end run around abortion", CNN (2012-07-12).

References

Garrow, David J. (1994). Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-542755-5.
Greenhouse, Linda (2005). Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun's Supreme Court Journey. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8050-7791-X.
Schwartz, Bernard (1988). The Unpublished Opinions of the Burger Court. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505317-3.

Further reading

Critchlow, Donald T. (1996). The Politics of Abortion and Birth Control in Historical Perspective. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-01570-5.
Critchlow, Donald T. (1999). Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504657-9.
Hull, N.E.H. (2004). The Abortion Rights Controversy in America: A Legal Reader. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-2873-4.
Hull, N.E.H.; Peter Charles Hoffer (2001). Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-1143-6.
Mohr, James C. (1979). Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800–1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-502616-0.
Rubin, Eva R. [ed.] (1994). The Abortion Controversy: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood. ISBN 0-313-28476-8.
Staggenborg, Suzanne (1994). The Pro-Choice Movement: Organization and Activism in the Abortion Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-506596-4.

Now, THIS is interesting!! The wikipedia entry for SIN is really tiny!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin I wonder why that might be?? Whatever Became of SIN?? What Would Karl Menninger Say?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Menninger What if this entire solar system is one big STING OPERATION for Humans and Aliens -- to cleanse the Sanctuary of that which defiles?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmDQiL3UNj4 I've spoken in some rather non-complimentary ways about Gabriel and Lucifer -- while being somewhat positive concerning Michael (in a rather restrained manner) -- but what if this whole thing is a set-up?? I tend to think that whoever set this thing up in the beginning, knew exactly what was going to happen. I think I might've spoken to representatives (at least) of Gabriel and Lucifer -- and I got along well with them -- but I didn't necessarily agree with what they said. I found this to be quite strange and confusing. I've tried to be neutral about a lot of things which I'm not really neutral about. This whole thread is a continuing experiment -- which I feel VERY uncomfortable with. I find it interesting and amusing that the SIN images mostly involve SEX!! http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=sin+images&qpvt=sin+images&FORM=IGRE Why might THAT be??!! God Invented Sex -- But Did God Make a Mistake?? Was Male and Female Human-Physicality a Rebellious Genetic-Experiment?? Would Hermaphrodite Human-Physicality be Better?? Would Hermaphrodite Reptilian-Physicality be Better Still?? It seems as if Humanity has a HUGE Sin Problem. What are YOU going to Say and Do on Judgment-Day??!! If all of us are Innocent-Victims of Original-Sin -- Do We Have an Excuse for Sinning?? If Jesus Christ got it right -- never EVER sinned (not even once) -- and was brutally-murdered on our behalf -- does this mean that if we truly believe -- eat his flesh and drink his blood -- this gets us off the hook with a Mean and Nasty God??? BTW -- when I made those Abortion Posts -- my computer began acting very strangely!! Did I raise a red-flag or two?? Did I get placed on yet another list?? Somewhat unrelatedly, here is a new independent apocalyptic movie (but this is not an endorsement). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEI9qBdVt5I Sometimes I think I got dropped-off on Planet Earth in 1947 -- just to make everyone really, really angry!!! Sometimes I think that soon I'll get picked-up by the same UFO that dropped me off!! What Would KRLLL Say?? http://krlll.com/ Mission Accomplished?? Anyway, consider SIN:

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)

A Sistine Chapel fresco depicts the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden for their sin of eating from the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Abrahamic contexts, sin is the act of violating God's will.[1][2][3][4] Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God.[5]

Some crimes are regarded as sins and some sins are regarded as greater than others. In this nuanced concept of sin, sins fall in a spectrum from minor errors to deadly misdeeds. Catholicism regards the least corrupt sins as venial sins—which are part of human living and carry little divine consequence. Conversely, sins of great evil are mortal sins—which bring the dire consequence of going to Hell if unrepented for.

Sins of careless living are considered destructive and lead to greater sins according to the Seven Deadly Sins. Another concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and therefore its excessive savoring is considered a sin.[6]

History of the term

The word derives from “Old English syn(n), for original *sunjō,... The stem may be related to that of Latin sons, sont-is guilty. In Old English there are examples of the original general sense, ‘offence, wrong-doing, misdeed'”.[7] The Biblical terms that have been translated from Greek and Hebrew literally refer to missing a target, i.e. error.[8][citation needed]

Bahá'í views on sin

In the Bahá'í Faith, humans are considered naturally good (perfect), fundamentally spiritual beings. Human beings were created because of God's immeasurable love. However, the Bahá'í teachings compare the human heart to a mirror, which, if turned away from the light of the sun (i.e. God), is incapable of receiving God's love.

Buddhism

Buddhism does not recognize the idea behind sin, but believes in the principle of karma, whereby suffering is the inevitable consequence of greed, anger, and delusion (known as the Three poisons).[9] While there is no direct Buddhist equivalent of the Abrahamic concept of sin, wrongdoing is recognized in Buddhism. The concept of Buddhist ethics is consequentialist in nature and is not based upon duty towards any deity.

Biblical law in Christianity

In Western Christianity, sin is believed to alienate the sinner from God. It has damaged, and completely severed, the relationship of humanity to God. That relationship can only be restored through acceptance of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice for mankind's sin.

In Eastern Christianity, sin is viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and between people and God. Sin is seen as the refusal to follow God's plan, and the desire to be "like God" (Genesis 3:5) and thus in direct opposition to God's will (see the account of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis).

Original sin is a Western concept which states that sin entered the human world through Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden, and that human beings have since lived with the consequences of this first sin.[10]

One concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth, but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and therefore its excessive savoring is considered a sin.[11] The unforgivable sin (or eternal sin) is a sin that can never be forgiven.

In Catholic Christianity sins are classified into grave sins called mortal sins and pardonable sins called venial sin. Grave sins cause one to lose heaven unless the sinner repents and pardonable sins require some sort of penance either on Earth or in Purgatory.[12]

Hinduism

In Hinduism, the term sin (pāpa in Sanskrit) is often used to describe actions that create negative karma by violating moral and ethical codes, which automatically brings negative consequences. This is different from Abrahamic sin in the sense that pāpa is not a crime against the will of God, but against (1) Dharma, or moral order, and (2) one's own self, but another term apradha is used for grieve offenses.

Islam

Muslims see sin (dhanb, thanb ذنب) as anything that goes against the commands of God (Allah). Islam teaches that sin is an act and not a state of being. The Qur'an teaches that "the soul is certainly prone to evil, unless the Lord does bestow His Mercy" and that even the prophets do not absolve themselves of the blame.[Quran 12] It is believed that Iblis (Satan) has a significant role in tempting humankind towards sin.

In Islam, there are several gradations of sin:
sayyia, khatia: mistakes (Suras 7:168; 17:31; 40:45; 47:19 48:2)
itada, junah, dhanb: immorality (Suras 2:190,229; 17:17 33:55)
haraam: transgressions (Suras 5:4; 6:146)
ithm, dhulam, fujur, su, fasad, fisk, kufr: wickedness and depravity (Suras 2:99, 205; 4:50, 112, 123, 136; 12:79; 38:62; 82:14)
shirk: ascribing a partner to God; idolatry and polytheism (Sura 4:48)

One may sincerely repent to God for the wrongs committed and seek forgiveness, as stated in the Quran, "Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, remove from us our iniquities, and take to Yourself our souls in the company of the righteous." (Al-Imran.193/ 3.193).

"Say Oh my slaves who have transgressed against their own souls despair not of the mercy of God, verily He forgives all sins, verily He is the oft-forgiving, most merciful" (Al-Zumar)

Judaism

Judaism regards the violation of any of the 613 commandments as a sin. Judaism teaches that sin is an act, but one has an inclination to do evil "from his youth".(Genesis 8:21) Sin furthermore has many classifications and degrees. Some sins are punishable with death by the court, others with death by heaven, others with lashes, and others without such punishment, but not without consequence. Sins can also be by error and negligence or with willful intent. When the Temple yet stood in Jerusalem, people would offer sacrifices for their misdeeds. With some exceptions, sin offerings were brought for a sin punishable by death when done with willful intent, but committed by mistake. All sin has a consequence. The righteous suffer their sins in this world and receive their reward in the world to come. The wicked cannot correct their sins in this world and hence do not suffer them here, but in gehinom (hell). If they have not become completely corrupted, they repent in hell and thereafter join the righteous. The very evil do not repent even at the gates of hell. Such people prosper in this world to receive their reward for any good deed, but cannot be cleansed by and hence leave gehinom, because they don't or can't repent. This world can therefore seem unjust where the righteous suffer, while the wicked prosper. Many great thinkers have contemplated this, but God's justice is long, precise and just.

Shinto

Evil deeds fall into two categories in Shinto: amatsu tsumi, "the most pernicious crimes of all", and kunitsu tsumi, "more commonly called misdemeanors".[13]

See also

Asceticism
Fall of Man
Hamartia
Hedonism
Internal sin
Morality
Religious law
Sin-offering
Taboo
Total depravity
Total Sanguine

Catholic Terms
Actual sin
Mortal sin
Original sin
Venial sin

Notes and references

1.^ Action and Person: Conscience in Late Scholasticism and the Young Luther Michael G. Baylor - 1977, "defined sin, in an objective sense, as contempt of god" page 27
2.^ The Theology of the Oral Torah: Revealing the Justice of God Jacob Neusner - 1999, Page 523
3.^ The fall to violence: original sin in relational theology Marjorie Suchocki - 1994 Page 29
4.^ Five Views on Sanctification - Page 188, Melvin Easterday Dieter, Stanley N. Gundry - 1996 "The other is 'deliberate violation of God's known will"
5.^ Augustine eventually (after the Pelagian controversy) defined sin as a hardened heart, a loss of love for God, a disposition of the heart to depart from God because of inordinate self-love (see Augustine On Grace and Free Will in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, trans. P.Holmes, vol.5, 30-31 [14-15]).
6.^ Hanegraaff, Hank. "The Bible Answer Book" pg. 18-21. ISBN 0-8499-9544-2
7.^ http://oed.com/view/Entry/180030?isAdvanced=false&result=1&rskey=9Bb3P3&
8.^ 10 Words Whose Etymology You Don't Know Robin Bloor; retrieved 21st June, 2012.
9.^ Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism, Soka Gakkai, "Three Poisons": "Greed, anger, and foolishness. The fundamental evils inherent in life that give rise to human suffering."
10.^ Catholic Encyclopedia, "Original sin", http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
11.^ Hanegraaff, Hank. "The Bible Answer Book" pg. 18-21. ISBN 0-8499-9544-2
12.^ Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1472. The Vatican http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1472.htm.
13.^ The Essence of Shinto: The Spiritual Heart of Japan by Motohisa Yamakage

Bibliography
Fredriksen, Paula. Sin: The Early History of an Idea. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-691-12890-0.
Hein, David. "Regrets Only: A Theology of Remorse." The Anglican 33, no. 4 (October 2004): 5–6.
Pieper, Josef. The Concept of Sin. Edward T. Oakes SJ (translation from German). South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press, 2001. ISBN 1-890318-08-6
Schumacher, Meinolf. Sündenschmutz und Herzensreinheit: Studien zur Metaphorik der Sünde in lateinischer und deutscher Literatur des Mittelalters. Munich: Fink, 1996.
Consider Walter Martin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Ralston_Martin I used to attend his Sunday-School Class -- and I sometimes spoke to him privately at the end of his class. I often disagreed with Walter Martin's views and style -- yet he knew a helluva lot -- and was a master-debater. I think we should try to learn a little-bit from everyone -- including those who we don't like or agree with. I continue to shoot myself in the foot (and other places) on this thread -- by stepping on everyone's toes (including my own). I die daily. I discredit myself daily. I wonder if this was some sort of a plan for my life (which I'm not even aware of)?? I'm just going to keep walking on the wild-side -- and doing everything wrong -- on a road less traveled. It's a nasty task -- but someone has to do it. I believe that just about everyone who becomes a Respectable "Name" eventually has to start telling lies, in order to stay in the limelight. It's all about Money, Power, and Appearances. Right??!! I'm just a Completely Ignorant Fool -- and I'm OK with that -- sort of. I might be confused to the bone (as Beren has suggested several times) -- but I mean well. We might be surprised at who might be missing when the role is called up yonder. We might be surprised about a lot of things. Don't be frightened. I mean no harm. I am of peace. Always.

Walter Ralston Martin (September 10, 1928 – June 26, 1989), was an American Evangelical minister, author, and Christian apologist who founded the Christian Research Institute in 1960 as a para-church ministry specializing as a clearing-house of information in both general Christian apologetics and in countercult apologetics.[1][2]

Birth and early years

Martin was born in Brooklyn, New York to George Washington Martin II (1876–1948) and Maud Ainsworth (1892–1966). His father was a prominent figure in the legal profession who served as an assistant District attorney, before working as a criminal trial lawyer. In 1920 George Martin became a county court judge and presided over cases involving some of the notorious Murder Inc criminals.[3]

Martin's mother, Maud Ainsworth, was born in Chicago to Joseph Ainsworth and Annie Young. She was one of several children born of that marriage, but was put up for adoption. She was adopted by her uncle and aunt James McIntyre (theatrical actor) (1857–1937) a vaudevillian (one partner of the black-face duo: Thomas Heath and Jim McIntyre), and Emma Maude Young (1862–1935), a dancer and balladeer (known on stage as Maude Clifford and Maud Clifton).[4]

Martin was raised in the Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn, and was the youngest of six children. In his earliest years the family lived on Macdonough Street, and then from 1930 onwards on Bainbridge Street, Brooklyn.[5] In the mid-1940s he attended The Stony Brook School where he obtained his high school diploma.[6]

Continuing education

Walter Martin graduated with a Master of Arts Degree in Philosophy from New York University, where he was a student alongside television evangelist D. James Kennedy. Kennedy confirmed the fact that Martin had completed all of the coursework for his doctorate, with the exception of his dissertation (Jill Martin Rische, www.waltermartin.com). He subsequently obtained a Ph.D. in 1976 from California Coastal University, which was not accredited at the time the degree was awarded.

Early career

Martin's career as an apologist began at the age of fifteen after receiving Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior in Hegemen Chapel at The Stony Brook School (Stony Brook, NY). While in college and graduate school, he often skipped eating during his lunch hours to answer a variety of tough questions about the Bible and the Christian faith while standing on the corner of Wall Street and Broadway, in New York City. Martin has indicated in various book dedications and in audio recorded lectures how he was mentored by Frank Gaebelein (Headmaster, The Stony Brook School),[7] Wilbur Smith (1894–1976) (author of the apologetic text Therefore Stand), and the Presbyterian Bible teacher Donald Grey Barnhouse (1895–1960).[8][9]

Martin's relationship with Barnhouse as his mentor grew over the years, and he was appointed as a regular columnist to Eternity magazine (1955–60). Barnhouse's support for Martin's research and teaching abilities resulted in the reassessment of Seventh Day Adventist theology, raising the profile of his early ministry in the Evangelical movement.[10] He also worked for a time as a research associate for the National Association of Evangelicals.[11]

Martin was ordained as a minister of the Regular Baptists in 1951, but this was revoked in 1953 owing to his remarriage. However, Martin met with the key pastor involved in this revocation and a restoration agreement was apparently reached, as Martin began marrying couples on television and continuing in public pastoral roles with the full knowledge of the Baptist denomination.[12] His status as a minister has been the subject of much controversy but his daughter, Jill Martin Rische, has made more information available that puts much of the controversy to rest. Walter Martin served as a pastor in various churches in New York and New Jersey in the 1950s and 1960s. He also became a regular teacher of Bible study classes at Barnhouse's Church in New York City. In later years Martin would serve as a preacher and Bible teacher at Melodyland Christian Center [13][14] and then at Newport Mesa Christian Center in California.

Evangelical-Adventist controversy

Questions on Doctrine

Perhaps the greatest public controversy of his early career arose from his studies of Seventh-day Adventist theology. From its earliest days until the 1950s, the Seventh-day Adventist Church was regarded by Evangelical Christians and mainstream Protestants as either an extreme sect or heretical cult.[15] Martin had initially accepted the prevailing Protestant opinion about the heretical status of the Seventh-day Adventists. He indicated his opposition to Adventist teachings in a brief paragraph in the inaugural edition of his book The Rise of the Cults, published in 1955.[16]

However, he reversed his views after a series of interviews with various leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and on reading Adventist literature. Martin reported his initial findings to Barnhouse, and between 1955-56 a series of small conferences were held, with Barnhouse and Martin meeting Adventist leaders like T. E. Unruh and LeRoy Froom.[17][18][19] Barnhouse and Martin then published some of their findings in a series of articles that appeared in Eternity Magazine between September and November 1956.[20][21][22][23] The standpoint taken by Barnhouse and Martin was that Adventists were largely orthodox on central doctrines, but heterodox on lesser doctrines, and so could be classified as belonging in the Evangelical camp. Martin later expanded his position in his 1960 book-length treatment, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.[24] Martin's book carried an explanatory foreword by Barnhouse and a statement from H. W. Lowe who was the chairman of the Biblical Study and Research Group of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.[25] While Lowe did not agree with Martin's criticism of the church's distinctive doctrines he nonetheless commended the book for providing a "fair and accurate statement of Adventist teachings." [26] A committee of Adventist leaders themselves wrote and published a companion book, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine[1], in 1957. While many Adventists welcomed the overtures of Barnhouse and Martin, there were other Adventists who questioned the position taken by church leaders in the volume Questions on Doctrine.[27]

In the late 1950s and early 1960s Evangelical opinions were divided over the Martin-Barnhouse stance on the Adventists. Some, like E. Schuyler English,[28] supported Martin, some such as John Gerstner urged a sober and fair hearing,[29] while others, such as Louis Talbot,[30] J. K. van Baalen,[31] Harold Lindsell[32][33] and Anthony Hoekema,[34] opposed his view. As the controversy ensued among Evangelicals Martin found it was necessary to restate and defend his position and to reply to his critics. To that end Martin reproduced much of the text of his 1960 book, together with critical replies in an appendix "The Puzzle of Seventh-day Adventism" in his 1965 textbook The Kingdom of the Cults.[35] Martin later updated the appendix in the 1985 edition of Kingdom of the Cults, and since his death the editors of the posthumous editions of 1997 and 2003 have continued to update it.[36]

Early writings

Between 1955-65 Martin enjoyed a relationship with Zondervan publishers where he was appointed as director of cult apologetics publications. During this period Zondervan released several publications about cults under his direction, with at least eight books and four booklets written by Martin. His earliest countercult books included Jehovah of the Watchtower, The Christian Science Myth, The Christian and the Cults and The Maze of Mormonism.[37]

In his first handbook, The Rise of the Cults, he wrote about Jehovah's Witnesses, the Theosophical Society, Mormonism, Christian Science, the Unity School of Christianity, and Father Divine, with an exhortation to the church to treat the cults as an important mission-field. Most of the contents of his earliest books reappeared in his major textbook The Kingdom of the Cults, which was first released in 1965, and has reputedly sold more than 1,000,000 copies worldwide.

Martin's primary approach to assessing cults was to focus on doctrinal issues, particularly those concerning the person, nature and work of Christ. Martin emphasized research and quoted directly from the teachings of the cults, challenging their claims to Christianity by pointing out the biblical errors in their theology. For many evangelicals, he standardize the dominant style of counter-cult apologetics by refuting these claims using primary source material and historically valid biblical texts. (Jill Martin Rische, eldest daughter of Dr. Walter Martin, www.waltermartin.com).

Martin built a reputation as an authority figure on cults based upon integrity. His role as a columnist in Eternity magazine allowed him the freedom to address other topics such as basic Christian doctrines, the theology of Karl Barth, the problem of alcoholism, and reviewing books. His basic approach in apologetics was that of an evidentialist.

Throughout his writing career Martin had articles published in other periodicals including Christianity Today, United Evangelical Action, The Christian Librarian, Christian Life, Christian Research Newsletter, Logos Journal, Moody Monthly, and Our Hope.

Christian Research Institute

In 1960 Martin established the Christian Research Institute in New Jersey, and then in 1974 relocated it to Southern California. In its earliest years Martin's colleagues who were associated with Christian Research Institute included Walter Bjorck, James Bjornstad, Floyd Hamilton,[38] and Shildes Johnson, many of whom went on to publish countercult books.[39]

Through this para-church organisation Martin built up a reference library of primary source material, and sought to train Christians in the art of apologetics and evangelism. He developed a bureau of speakers, and from the early 1960s conceived of the need for a computerized data base of apologetic information.[40] Martin's prescient advocacy of using computer technology for apologetic purposes led to a major conference, the All-Europe Conference on Computer Technique for Theological Research held in Austria in September 1968. This became the subject of the book Computers, Cultural Change and the Christ, which was written by Martin's friend and colleague John Warwick Montgomery.[41][42]

In 1978 he established a ministry periodical known as Forward, which was redesigned in 1987 as Christian Research Journal. Martin mentored several figures who have become prominent apologists in the Christian countercult movement including Craig Hawkins, Bob and Gretchen Passantino, Elliot Miller, John Weldon, Ron Rhodes, Rich Poll, Ron Carlson, Paul Carden, and Robert M Bowman Jr. Many of the people who have established ministries in the Christian countercult movement regard Martin as the father of the Christian Counter-cult Movement.[43] One indicator of the high esteem in which he was held is that at least twelve books have been dedicated to him. Scores of ministries on cults and apologetics have also began as a result of Dr. Martin and his ministry.

Broadcaster, debater and lecturer

Martin was also a radio broadcaster who began this side of his ministry on Barnhouse's program. In the mid-1960s Martin regularly appeared as a guest panelist on The Long John Nebel Show, and then founded his own program known as "The Bible Answer Man." Between the mid-1960s until his death in 1989 Martin debated in public various non-Christians such as atheist author/activist Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Hugh Schonfield, theologians of Liberal Christianity like Thomas J. J. Altizer and Bishop John Shelby Spong, and new religious commentators like Roy Masters. He appeared many times on the John Ankerberg television show debating advocates of Freemasonry, the Bahá'í Faith, and other groups.

In the earliest years of his ministry Martin traveled frequently with Billy Graham and World Vision Founder Bob Pierce, addressing thousands in open air church meetings about the theological problems posed by the cults. Martin always emphasized the importance of analysis and primary source materials in determining the true beliefs of groups like Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Mormonism, Spiritualists, Father Divine, Unity School of Christianity and Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God. In 1958 he spoke throughout East Asia and in Ghana, and in 1961 in Northern and Western Europe.[44]

The popularity of Martin's ministry coincided with the Jesus People movement of the early 1970s and the rise of the countercultural interest in East Asian religions and esoteric pathways. As occult interests surfaced in the counterculture, and also as other religious movements and groups like the Hare Krishna, Unification Church, and Children of God emerged, Martin became a much sought after speaker for curious and fearful Christians.[45]

Martin utilised the new technology of cassette tapes, and disseminated many of his public lectures about apologetics questions and cultic groups to thousands worldwide. Several albums were released on The World of the Cults, The World of the Occult, The New Cults, How To Witness to Jehovah's Witnesses, and How to Witness to Mormons. Other albums tackled general apologetics To Every Man An Answer, and topical problems such as abortion, homosexuality and women's liberation (Martin Speaks Out). He later appeared in a series of six films produced by Vision House called Martin Speaks Out on the Cults.

During the 1980s Martin spoke in churches and para-church conferences in Australia and around the world,[46] Brazil, Kenya and New Zealand. His final book dealt with New Age spirituality.[47]

Martin maintained a part-time role as a lecturer in various liberal arts and bible colleges including The King's College, Melodyland School of Theology in Anaheim, California, and was for many years a board member of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. In 1980 he joined John Warwick Montgomery in promoting apologetics through the Master of Arts program at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law.[48]

Controversies

In the 1980s, Martin was involved in critical debates over the positive confession success theology (also called Word of Faith) of Christian charismatic teachers such as Kenneth Copeland and Kenneth Hagin.[49] While Martin was critical of these teachers' claims concerning their views of Christ, healing, faith, and prosperity, he believed in the perpetuity of charismatic spiritual gifts in the Church. To that end, Martin presented his positive appraisal of spiritual gifts in several audio lectures (waltermartin.com), and by editing with chapter end-notes, a fresh reprint edition of 19th century evangelist Dwight L. Moody's book Secret Power.

False Claims of Doctorate

Early texts of Martin's falsely carried the title of "Dr." Walter Martin, using the unaccredited degree obtained from California Western University to bolster his claims (see earlier section). Many editions of his texts, including "The Maze Of Mormonism" and "Jehovah's Witnesses At Your Door" were published with his name presented as "Dr." Walter Martin. Later editions have since seen the title removed.[50]

False Claims of lineage to Brigham Young

In lectures, Martin occasionally claimed to be a descendant of Brigham Young. This apparently was done in an attempt to gain credibility with his audiences, many of whom were skeptical of Mormonism. In "The Maze Of Mormonism", Martin dedicates the book "to the memory of my mother, Maud Ainsworth Martin, descendant of Brigham Young...". This lineage has been proven to be false, and Martin himself eventually abandoned such claims.

Works

Martin, Walter Ralston, and Norman H. Klann, Jehovah of the Watchtower (Biblical Truth Publishing, Paterson, New Jersey, 1953).This was revised and republished by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1956; revised again and republished by Moody Press, Chicago, 1974; and final revision published by Bethany House, Minneapolis, 1981. ISBN 0-87123-267-7
_____________________, and Norman H. Klann, The Christian Science Myth (Biblical Truth Publishing, Paterson, New Jersey, 1954). This was revised and republished by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1955.
Martin, Walter R., The Rise of the Cults (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1955). This text was revised and published by Zondervan, 1957, then revised and published by Vision House in 1977 and 1980; and finally completely revised and reissued under a new title Martin Speaks Out on the Cults (Vision House, Santa Ana, 1983). ISBN 0-88449-103-X
The Christian and the Cults (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1956).
Christian Science. Modern Cult Library Booklet Series. (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1957).
Jehovah's Witnesses. Modern Cult Library Booklet Series. (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1957).
Mormonism. Modern Cult Library Booklet Series. (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1957).
Unity. Modern Cult Library Booklet Series. (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1957).
The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1960).
"Seventh-day Adventism" in The Challenge of the Cults, Harold Lindsell & Others (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1960), pp. 36–44.
Essential Christianity: A Handbook of Basic Christian Doctrines (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1962). This was republished by Vision House, Santa Ana, 1975, and reissed with minor additions by Vision House, 1980. ISBN 0-88449-043-2
The Maze of Mormonism (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1962). This was substantially expanded in a new revised edition published by Vision House, Santa Ana, 1978. ISBN 0-88449-017-3
The Kingdom of the Cults (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1965). This text was revised and republished by Bethany Fellowship, Minneapolis, 1968. Further revised editions were published by Bethany in 1977 and 1985. Two very different posthumous editions have been published by Bethany, one under the editorship of Hank Hanegraaff, 1997, and then one under the editorship of Ravi Zacharias, 2003. The 2003 edition is approved of by Martin's family. ISBN 0-7642-2821-8
(ed). UFO: Friend Foe or Fantasy (Christian Research Institute, Wayne, New Jersey, 1968).
Screwtape Writes Again (Vision House, Santa Ana, 1975). ISBN 0-88449-022-X
Abortion: Is It Always Murder? (Vision House, Santa Ana, 1977). ISBN 0-88449-066-1
The Riddle of Reincarnation (Vision House, Santa Ana, 1977). ISBN 0-88449-065-3
(ed). The New Cults (Vision House, Santa Ana, 1980). ISBN 0-88449-016-5
(ed). Walter Martin's Cults Reference Bible (Vision House, Santa Ana, 1981). ISBN 0-88449-075-0
The New Age Cult (Bethany House, Minneapolis, 1989). ISBN 1-55661-077-7
"Ye Shall Be as Gods" in The Agony of Deceit, edited by Michael S. Horton (Moody Press, Chicago, 1990), pp. 89–105. ISBN 0-8024-8776-9
and Jill Martin-Rische, Through the Windows of Heaven (Broadman & Holman, Nashville, 1999). ISBN 0-8054-2031-2
and Jill Martin Rische & Kurt Van Gorden, The Kingdom of the Occult (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 2008). ISBN 1-4185-1644-4
Moody, Dwight L. Secret Power, Introduced and edited by Walter R. Martin (Regal Books, Ventura, 1987). ISBN 0-8307-1219-4
Montgomery, John Warwick, Computers, Cultural Change and the Christ (Christian Research Institute, Wayne, New Jersey, 1969).

Articles

"Father Divine ... King of Cultists", Eternity (August 1955), pp. 8–9 and 42-44.
"The Layman and the Cults", Eternity (August 1956), pp. 22–23 and 38.
"Are Seventh-day Adventists Evangelicals?", Christian Life (October 1956), pp. 58–60.
"Seventh-Day Adventism Today", Our Hope, 63/5 (November 1956), pp. 273–284.
"The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism: Its Historical Development from Christian Roots", Eternity (October 1956), pp. 6–7 and 38-39.
"What Seventh-day Adventists Really Believe", Eternity (November 1956), pp. 20–21, and 38-43.
"Adventist Theology vs. Historic Orthodoxy", Eternity (January 1957), pp. 12–13 and 38-40.
"Jehovah's Witnesses and the Gospel of Confusion", Eternity (September 1957), pp. 22–23 and 36-37.
"The Christian and the Law," Eternity, June 1958, pp. 19 & 36.
"More About Karl Barth", Eternity (November 1959), pp. 21–23, 38 and 49.
"Reversing his Field" (Book review of Edgar Goodspeed, Matthew Apostle and Evangelist) Eternity, December 1959, p. 40.
"What Can We Do about the Terrifying Trend of Alcoholism?", Eternity (August 1960), pp. 18–20, and 33-34.
"Cult Study" [Book review of John Gerstner, The Theology of the Major Sects], Christianity Today, 21 November 1960, pp. 38–39.
"Seventh-Day Adventism," Christianity Today, 19 December 1960, pp. 13–15.
"Grackles and Bluebirds" (Tribute to Donald Grey Barnhouse) Eternity (March 1961), p. 12.
"An Answer to the Hippies" [Book review of Lit-Sen Chang, Zen-Existentialism], Christianity Today, 5 December 1969, pp. 17–18.
"SENT/EAST: Electronic Answering Search Technology", The Christian Librarian, 14/1 (October 1970), pp. 3–6.
"Christian Research Institute", The Christian Librarian, 14/1 (October 1970), pp. 15–18.
"Personal Responsibility", The Christian Librarian, 14/2 (December 1970), pp. 10–12.
"Cults The Spirits of Error", Christian Life (April 1978), pp. 22–25 and 63-65.
"John Todd: The Illuminati", Logos Journal, 9 (March 1979), pp. 67–69.
"Charismatics and the Cult of Mary" (Part 1), Forward, 3/1 (Spring 1980), pp. 6–7.
"Charismatics and the Cult of Mary" (Part 2), Forward, 3/2 (Fall 1980), pp. 3 & 7.
"Meditation as God Intended", Moody Monthly (December 1986), pp. 34–35.
"The PTL Scandal and Biblical Repentance," Christian Research Journal, Summer 1987, p. 31.
"Satanism on the Rise," Christian Research Newsletter, 2/5 (1989), p. 5.

See also

Opposition to cults and new religious movements
Christian countercult movement

References

1.^ Contemporary Authors Volume 129, Detroit: Gale Research, 1990, p. 287.
2.^ Douglas Groothuis, "Walter R. Martin" in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, ed. A. Scott Moreau, Grand Rapids: Baker Books,2000, p.601.
3.^ "G.W.Martin Dies; Ex-County Judge" New York Times, 23 November 1948, p. 30.
4.^ "James McIntyre, Stage Star, Dies," New York Times, 19 August 1937, p. 19.
5.^ The family is identified as living at these residences in the 1920 US Federal Census and 1930 US Federal Census. See: 1920 US Federal Census, Brooklyn District 5, Kings County, New York, Roll T625_1152, p. 3A, Enumeration District 292; and, 1930 US Federal Census, Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, Roll 1502, p.11A, Enumeration District 274. Both documents accessible to subscribers at http://www.ancestry.com
6.^ "Dr. Walter R. Martin", The Christian Librarian, Volume 13, number 4, April 1970, p. 3. Also see Walter R. Martin, Essential Christianity, Rev. Ed., (Santa Ana, California: Vision House, 1975, pp.11-12. Robert L. Brown & Rosemary Brown, They Lie in Wait To Deceive, Volume 3, Mesa, Arizona: Brownsworth Publishing, 1986, pp. 5-6.
7.^ Martin, Essential Christianity, p. 12
8.^ Walter R. Martin "Dedication" in Walter Martin's Cults Reference Bible, Santa Ana: Vision House, 1981.
9.^ Walter R. Martin, The Rise of the Cults, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1955, p. 8. Jill Martin Rische, Walter Martin Ministries, www.waltermartin.com
10.^ Margaret N. Barnhouse, That Man Barnhouse, Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1983, p. 223.
11.^ "Dr.Walter R. Martin" The Christian Librarian, Volume 13, Number 4, April 1970, p. 3.
12.^ Martin Rische, Questions on Walter Martin's Ordination, www.waltermartin.com
13.^ Robert Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978, p. 66.
14.^ Anson Shupe, Six Perspectives on New Religions, Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1981, p. 71.
15.^ Malcolm Bull & Keith Lockhart, Seeking A Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989, pp. 28-29.
16.^ Martin, The Rise of the Cults, p.15.
17.^ T. E. Unruh, "The Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956," Adventist Heritage, Volume 4, Number 2, Winter 1977, pp.35-46.
18.^ "Peace with the Adventists," Time Magazine, 31 December 1956, pp. 40-41.
19.^ Kenneth R. Samples, "From Controversy to Crisis: An Updated Assessment of Seventh-day Adventism," Christian Research Journal, Volume 11, Number 1, Summer 1988, p. 9.
20.^ Donald Grey Barnhouse, "Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians? A New Look at Seventh-Day Adventism" Eternity, September 1956, pp. 6-7 & 43-45.
21.^ Walter R. Martin, "The Truth About Seventh-Day Adventism: Its Historical Development from Christian Roots," Eternity, October 1956, pp. 6-7 & 38-39.
22.^ Walter R. Martin, "The Truth About Seventh-Day Adventism: What Seventh-Day Adventists Really Believe," Eternity, November 1956, pp. 20-21 & 38-43.
23.^ "Are Seventh-day Adventists Evangelicals?" Christian Life, October 1956, pp. 58-60.
24.^ Walter R. Martin, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960.
25.^ The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism, pp. 7-8 and 15.
26.^ The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism, p.15.
27.^ see the historical accounts of Keld J. Reynolds, "The Church Under Stress 1931-1960" in Adventism in America, ed. Gary Land, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1986, pp. 185-188; Geoffrey J. Paxton, The Shaking of Adventism,Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978, pp.87-96.
28.^ E. Schuyler English, "To Rectify a Wrong" Our Hope, Volume 52, Number 8, February 1956, pp. 457-459.
29.^ John H. Gerstner, The Theology of the Major Sects, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960, p. 19.
30.^ Louis Talbot, "Why Seventh-day Adventism Is Not Evangelical", The King's Business, April 1957, pp. 23-30.
31.^ J. K. van Baalen, The Chaos of Cults, rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962, pp. 228-256.
32.^ Harold Lindsell, "What of Seventh-day Adventism?" Part 1, Christianity Today, 31 March 1958 pp. 6-8.
33.^ Harold Lindsell, "What of Seventh-day Adventism?" Part 2, Christianity Today, 14 April 1958, pp. 13-15.
34.^ Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, Exeter: Paternoster, 1969, pp. 388-403.
35.^ Walter R. Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965, pp. 359-422.
36.^ Kingdom of the Cults, Rev. Ed, Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985, pp. 407-500; rev.ed., ed. Hank Hanegraaff, Minneapolis: Bethany, 1997, pp.517-608; rev.ed., ed. Ravi Zacharias, Bloomington: Bethany, 2003, pp. 535-627.
37.^ "Memorial Service for Dr. Walter Martin" Christian Research Newsletter, Volume 2, number 4 1989.
38.^ Floyd E. Hamilton, The Basis of Christian Faith, 4th Rev. Ed., New York: Harper & Row, 1964)
39.^ For example, James Bjornstad, Twentieth Century Prophecy: Jeane Dixon, Edgar Cayce, Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1969; James Bjornstad, Counterfeits at Your Door, Glendale, California: Regal Books, 1979; James Bjornstad and Shildes Johnson, Stars, Signs and Salvation in the Age of Aquarius, Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1971.
40.^ Walter R. Martin, "Christian Research Institute," The Christian Librarian, Volume 14, number 1 October 1970, pp. 15-18.
41.^ John Warwick Montgomery, Computers, Cultural Change and the Christ, Wayne, New Jersey: Christian Research Institute, 1969.
42.^ Walter R. Martin, "SENT/EAST: Electronic Answering Search Technology," The Christian Librarian, Volume 14, number 1 October 1970, pp. 3-6.
43.^ Tim Stafford, "The Kingdom of the Cult Watchers," Christianity Today, 7 October 1991, p. 21.
44.^ Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, 1965 ed., p. 324.
45.^ Quebedeaux, Worldly Evangelicals, p. 67.
46.^ W. A. van Leen, "Author in Australia", Take A Closer Look, Volume 5, number 4, June–July 1984, p.5.
47.^ Walter R. Martin, The New Age Cult, Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1989.
48.^ John Warwick Montgomery, "Foreword" in Engaging the Closed Mind, Dan Story, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999, p. 5
49.^ Walter R. Martin, "Ye Shall Be As Gods" in The Agony of Deceit, ed. Michael Horton, Chicago: Moody Press, 1990, pp. 89-105.
50.^ Brown, Robert L. & Rosemary (1993). They Lie In Wait To Deceive, Vol. II. Mesa, AZ 85204: Brownsworth Publishing. pp. 90–108.

Further reading

"CRI Founder Walter Martin Dies," Charisma & Christian Life 14 (13) (1989), p. 28.
"Cult Authority Martin Dies," Bookstore Journal, (August 1989), p. 93.
"Memorial," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 33 (1990), p. 143.
"Memorial Service for Dr Walter Martin," Christian Research Newsletter, 2 (4) (1989). Available from [2]
"Dr Walter Martin," The Christian Librarian, 13 (4) (1970), pp. 3–4.
Barnhouse, Margaret N., That Man Barnhouse (Tyndale House, Wheaton, 1983), pp. 223–225 & 252-254.
Biggs, Charles R., "Walter Martin: Patron Saint of Evangelical Apologists". A word document available from "A Place For Truth" [3]
Groothuis, Douglas, "Walter R. Martin" in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, edited by A. Scott Moreau (Baker, Grand Rapids, 2000), p. 601.
Quebedeaux, Richard, The Worldly Evangelicals (Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 66–67.
Stafford, Tim, "The Kingdom of the Cult Watchers," Christianity Today, October 7, 1991, p. 21.

Critical assessments of writings

Cowan, Douglas E. Bearing False Witness? An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Praeger Publishing, Westport, Connecticut & London, 2003). ISBN 0-275-97459-6
Johnsen, Thomas C., "Historical Consensus and Christian Science: The Career of a Manuscript Controversy," The New England Quarterly 53 (1980), pp. 3–22.
Saliba, John A. Understanding New Religious Movements 2nd edition (Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, Lanham, New York & Oxford, 2003). ISBN 0-7591-0356-9
Shupe, Anson D. Six Perspectives on New Religions: A Case Study Approach. Studies in Religion and Society Volume One. (Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, New York & Queenston, Ontario, 1981), pp. 61–84. ISBN 0-88946-983-0

Believe it or not, I just watched ET for the first time! I thought it was really cool! I also just watched Paul -- and I liked it even more (even though there was a lot of bad-language). Think of the "Big-Guy" as being the "Queen of Heaven"!! Think of Paul as being the "God of This World"!! Notice the movie being shown in the theater was Duel (with David Mann)! It might take a bit of effort and imagination to get what I mean!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVZ2CgLYKgc Are we being conditioned to accept Evil-Aliens?? Are we being conditioned to accept Who We Were Before We Were Human?? Or, are people just seeking fame, fortune, and power by making sensational movies?? I'm still trying to be neutral -- and to keep science-fiction as science-fiction -- rather than considering it to be a back-door education by the powers that be. But I just can't resist trying to create a unified theory of spirituality, physicality, theology, and cosmology. I'm going to try to be more serious today by watching The Exorcist one more time -- even though I suspect that this sort of activity attracts evil and nefarious entities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iS59iV2Ffs They show The Exorcist each Halloween at Georgetown University. I wonder why?? What Would Malachi Martin Say?? I'm almost to the point of NOT wishing to wake anyone up. What if people end-up being more religious by NOT cramming religion down their throats?? I continue to like the idea of offering services (or at least music) seven days a week at some of the larger churches -- but without insisting that people keep a certain day holy by NOT doing any work or having any fun -- from sundown to sundown. This brings back 'fond' memories of Arguing in Sabbath-School Class, Enduring Boring-Sermons, Overeating at Church-Potlucks, and Listening to Del Delker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymBQbIESUe4 while Praying for the Sun to Go Down Faster. Seriously, I am NOT rebellious toward the Sabbath-Principle, yet I remain wary of the Decalogue in the Context of Deuteronomy. What were the Teachings of Archangel Michael in the Garden of Eden?? Can anyone answer me THAT?? Tonight, I might watch What's Up Doc one more time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06_WFtZplyY I sometimes think of Barbara Streisand as being the "Queen of Heaven" and Ryan O'Neil as being the "God of This World"!! Just kidding! Or am I? Someday, someone might go through this thread -- and be amazed by what might've been learned and revealed. I might even be surprised!! Note one version of the "Queen of Heaven" and the "God of This World" shown below. Might that be Michael on the right?? Gabriel, Lucifer, and Michael?? If so, is it any wonder that the world is SO screwed-up???

I guess that 'Gray's Anatomy' would describe and illustrate that which is 'Human'. I guess that 'Grey's Anatomy' would describe that which is 'Reptilian/Grey'. But just in case...here is the Wikipedia version...which I somewhat disagree with. I think we were created and/or evolved somewhere (and somewhen?) else...and were brought to Earth...as fully Human Beings. I don't think the Annunaki created us. They may have 'detuned' us...but who knows?

Human
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See Homo sapiens (disambiguation).
This article is about modern humans. For other human species, see Homo (genus). For other uses, see Human (disambiguation).
Human[1]
Fossil range: 0.2–0 Ma PreЄЄOSDCPTJKPgN↓Pleistocene - Recent

Human male and female
Conservation status

Least Concern (IUCN 3.1)
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

Trinomial name
Homo sapiens sapiens
Linnaeus, 1758
Humans are bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in Hominidae, the great ape family.[2][3] They are the only surviving member of the genus Homo. Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the arms for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Mitochondrial DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago.[4] Humans now inhabit every continent and low Earth orbit, with a total population of 6.8 billion as of November 2009.[5]

Like most higher primates, humans are social by nature. However, humans are uniquely adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families to nations. Social interactions between humans have established an extremely wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which together form the basis of human society. Humans have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

Humans are noted for their desire to understand and influence their environment, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills, which are passed down culturally; humans are the only extant species known to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies.

Thank-you for sharing the message firefly. Who knows what the source was? I'm wary of automatic writing...as I'm wary of nearly all supernatural occurrences...but the author seemed to be benevolent. I'm beginning to think that the universe is populated by very imperfect beings...and that some of these beings play god. I'm thinking that the one or ones who were instrumental in our creation are not the one or ones we are dealing with in this Solar System...historically and presently.

I think we're going to make it...but that our future may be quite difficult. I really think we live on a haunted planet...as the message suggests. I think that demons and deceptions are everywhere. Even though I no longer believe a lot of Christian (or other) theology...I don't want to venture too far from the Teachings of Jesus...or from the Living Christ (as separate and distinct from the Historical Jesus who Albert Schweitzer came to profoundly question).

Thanks again for sharing. The message sounded like it contained a lot of truth...regardless of the source. But I'd like to see even the demons relocated and rehabilitated...if that's even possible. And I'd like to know the full and honest truth about the demons...and why they seemingly hate us so much. What if they have a legitimate grievance...but have allowed it to drive them completely mad? What if the demons are mercenaries who do the bidding of malevolent human beings? These are not rhetorical questions (some of my questions are rhetorical). I just want everything to begin making sense...even if I don't like the reality of the predicament which we may be in.

There is no single right way to heal ourselves and become enlightened. If you are doing something which works for you...well keep doing it...by all means! The CD experience was interesting. Music is probably a huge part of healing and enlightenment. On the other hand...the more spiritual one becomes...the more harsh everyday reality seems to be. We probably need the beautiful experiences which come to us during meditation AND we also need to face all manner of harsh realities. This is a delicate balance...and so far I have not been able to achieve it. I'm sort of like the teenager learning to drive. Hard on the gas! Hard on the brakes! Hit the trashcans! The Dracs probably even laugh!

Is Nibiru a huge Draconian Mothership which travels throughout the galaxy creating Draconian Theocracies? http://www.nibiruancouncil.com/html/flagshipnibiru.html# Is this the real winged serpent in the Garden of Eden? Is Eve representative of the Human God of This World who becomes perfectly possessed by a Draconian Interdimensional Reptilian (eats the apple) and leads Adam (Humanity)...under the direction of the Dracs (One Nation Under Satan)? Is Nibiru the Galactic Vatican of a Universal Church? Is Nibiru owned and operated by Human Beings...or did Human Beings obtain it's services at Rent-A-Rep? I just had to ask. Please forgive the repetition of these videos. I felt that they would help to illustrate the text of this post. What do you think about Amen Ra? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun I know very little about this Egyptian god. I don't have a negative knee-jerk reaction against ancient gods...but I think that we are not dealing with the Creator God of the Universe...in antiquity or modernity. Why this is...I do not know. I sincerely wish we were dealing with this Ultimate Deity. I really don't know what the hell is going on...but something is very, very wrong. I think the gods of this world are Humans who were or are perfectly possessed by Draconian Interdimensional Reptilians. I can't prove this. I'm not a scholar. I just think that our safest course presently is to submit to Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom...regardless of whether any deities are good or evil. Power to the People. All the People. Perhaps Nibiru can join the United States of the Solar System...and provide security services for the Solar System outside the orbit of Pluto. http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15878 Why wouldn't this work? I'm still naive enough to think that where there's life...there's hope. Nibiruans should revolt against their theocratic or tyrannical leaders...and embrace Responsible Freedom. Come on guys...Do It!

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3A6_blpqpU
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z7O7UZxipM
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b365_qJEpDg&NR=1&feature=fvwpYouTube- Stargate SG1 - Goa'ulds - Awesome Gods?

Regardless of whether you agree with me or not...or whether you like me or not...psychology/ethics/politics/religion (in the context of the subjects which surface in Camelot and Avalon) are central to solving our delemma. The City States and Secret Governments need to be profoundly purified and reformed. This will probably involve some type of benevolent off-world assistance. I envision a perfected Humanity living in a perfected Solar System. Physicality is not a bad thing...as long as it is highly ethical and spiritual...and we should appreciate it. This Solar System is prime real estate...which should be properly cared for...and we should appreciate it.

There are several major factions which go way, way back in Earth history...and further back than that...which should be identified and traced. I've made a feeble attempt to look at this...but I don't have the resources to properly do it. This is key to understanding where we came from...what the hell we are doing right now (or should be doing)...and where we are going (or could go). Controversy, turmoil, pain, suffering, and confusion are part of the deal. There is no way to neatly and cleanly figure out what's going on...and resolve our problems. Consider everything from all angles...all the time. This takes a lot of work. Beware of easy answers, simple solutions, and smooth saviors.

I suspect that we are just scratching the surface. Consider this thread to be a motivator...more than anything.

Thank-you Initiate. I'm just trying to face reality. My insecurity propels me forward...and then I discover things which make me even more insecure! My insecurity and emotional trauma make it difficult for me to properly research these important topics. There are so many agendas and lies! This world is a very troubled and dangerous place! There is so much pain and confusion!

That link you provided (nibiruancouncil.com) is fascinating! Thank-you! I really need to stop blabbing on the internet...and actually read for an extended period of time. Unfortunately...when I read...my mind wanders and I tend to go to sleep!

Speaking of reading...there is a book which was published in the late 1800's titled 'The Great Controversy (Between Christ and Satan in the Conflict of the Ages)' by Ellen White. It is very interesting regarding the subject of this thread. I don't agree with a lot of things in it...but so many principles and concepts in this book are highly profound. The Jesuits know about this book...to say the least! There was one report...if I remember correctly...where unseen hands tore this book in two...the hard way! I shared this book with an ivy-league educated theologian...who was usually rather cynical and skeptical...and he spoke positively about the book...which shocked me at the time.

OK...I went within (way within)...and this is what I came up with:

Did God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit require the sanctuary service? Or was it Satan who required the sanctuary service? The sanctuary service involved sacrifice(killing) and ultimately human sacrifice. When we hear about heathens sacrificing their children, we cringe in horror(I do). But isn’t traditional Christianity centered in God the Father sacrificing his child? Is there a problem here? Does the sanctuary service involve a sort of appeasement of ‘the gods’?

It seems to me that Satan had more to do with the sanctuary service than God. Jesus did away with the sanctuary service. It further seems that Satan claimed ownership of the human race, and required worship, and that Jesus had to literally strike a deal with the Devil to liberate us. Jesus waged spiritual warfare with all the forces of hell and won, thus opening the door for our liberation. The death of Christ on the cross was symbolic of a victory which had already occurred. The spike that was driven through Christ’s heel continued through the serpent’s head. Unfortunately the serpent is still writhing and will continue to do so until human beings win a spriritual warfare with the forces of hell in a manner similar to that of Christ. Jesus showed the way, but he has had few true followers for nearly 2,000 years now. So this thing keeps dragging on and on. A concerted spiritual warfare might well culminate in what is refered to as Armageddon. Satan and his cohorts will not give this earth up without a huge fight.

The substitutionary atonement was not to satisfy a bloodthirsty God…but rather to silence the demons infesting this earth. The crucifixion of Christ was the first payment, and when a critical mass of human beings do what Jesus said to do, the 2nd and final payment will be made. Might this be the final application of the atonement? Does Satan, rather than God, require the so called Pre-Advent Judgment? Isn’t Satan the ultimate legalist?

I guess I see the Sanctuary Service, the Substitutionary Atonement, and the Pre-Advent Judgment as being required to silence Satan and to kick him(or her) out of our world...permanently(God/Jesus dealing with Satan). But a harmonious relationship with Christ and His Teachings is required to bring about, and participate in, the Kingdom of God...and to obtain the benefits of the Atonement.

The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: ‘A priest must not make himself ceremonially unclean for any of his people who die, except for a close relative, such as his mother or father, his son or daughter, his brother, or an unmarried sister who is dependent on him since she has no husband–for her he may make himself unclean. He must not make himself unclean for people related to him by marriage, and so defile himself. “‘Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies. They must be holy to their God and must not profane the name of their God. Because they present the offerings made to the Lord by fire, the food of their God, they are to be holy. “‘They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God. Regard them as holy, because they offer up the food of your God. Consider them holy, because I the Lord am holy–I who make you holy. “‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. “‘The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become unkempt or tear his clothes. He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother, nor leave the sanctuary of his God or desecrate it, because he has been dedicated by the anointing oil of his God. I am the Lord. “‘The woman he marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the Lord, who makes him holy.’” The Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the Lord by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’” So Moses told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.—Leviticus 21:1-24 (New International Version)

“When the loud cry, ‘It is finished!’ came from the lips of Christ, the priests were officiating in the temple. It was the hour of the evening sacrifice. The lamb representing Christ had been brought to be slain. Clothed in his significant and beautiful dress, the priest stood with lifted knife, as did Abraham when he was about to slay his son. With intense intrest the people were looking on. But the earth trembles and quakes; for the Lord Himself draws near. With a rending noise the inner veil of the temple is torn from top to bottom by an unseen hand, throwing open to the gaze of the multitude a place once filled with the presence of God. In this place the Shekinah had dwelt. Here God had manifested His glory above the mercy seat. No one but the hight priest ever lifted the veil separating this apartment from the rest of the temple. He entered in once a year to make an atonement for the sins of the people. But lo, this veil is rent in twain. The most holy place of the earthly sanctuary is no longer sacred. All is terror and confusion. The priest is about to slay the victim; but the knife drops from his nerveless hand, and the lamb escapes. Type has met antitype inthe death of God’s Son. The great sacrifice has been made. The way into the holiest is laid open. A new and living way is prepared for all. No longer need sinful, sorrowing humanity await the coming of the high priest. Henceforth the Saviour was to officiate a priest and advocate in the heaven of heavens. It was as if a living voice had spoken to the worshipers: There is now an end to all sacrifices and offerings for sin. The Son of God is come according to His word, ‘Behold, I have come-in the volume of the Book it is written of Me,-to do Your will, O God.’ ‘With His own blood’ He entered in ‘the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.’ Heb. 10:7; 9:12.”—Desire of Ages (Ellen White) p. 807-808(Home Library Edition)

‘”When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another.” Thus Christ on the Mount of Olives pictured to His disciples the scene of the great judgment day. And He represented its decision as turning upon one point. When the nations are gathered before Him, there will be but two classes, and their eternal destiny will be determined by what they have done or have neglected to do for Him in the person of the poor and the suffering. In that day Christ does not present before men the great work He has done for them in giving His life for their redemption. He presents the faithful work they have done for Him. To those whom He sets upon His right hand He will say, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.” But those whom Christ commends know not that they have been ministering unto Him. To their perplexed inquiries He answers, “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. How surprised and gladdened will be the lowly among the nations, and among the heathen, to hear from the lips of the Saviour, “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.” How glad will be the heart of Infinite Love as His followers look up with surprise and joy at His words of approval!’—Desire of Ages (Elllen White) pgs. 685 & 686 (Home Library Edition)

Forensic-only justification is legalistic. It is simplistic legalism offered as the solution to complex legalism. Responsibility is the real solution....being responsible caretakers of our world, ourselves, and each other...by exercising personal responsibility. Being right with God and others...by being right with God and others...not simply being declared to be right. But perfection is not required...because God is not a legalist. We can always do better...but we should not have a nervous breakdown trying to be 'perfect'. There should be Kaizen(continual improvement)...without ever 'arriving'. We don't have to be 'perfect' to be 'good enough' for God.

Furthermore, does Revelation teach a 'Final Solution' which involves killing all 'undesirables'? In other words, human beings being killed by a God of Love for rejecting a God of Love. I have stated this very bluntly...but is this a misrepresentation?

For those who choose to follow Satan...would it be ethical and appropriate to allow them to follow and worship their leader on a distant 'Devil's Island' planet for all eternity...rather than being tortured or killed by God?

The Great Commission: "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."---Matthew 28:18-20(NIV).

Have Christians been busy doing this for 2,000 years...or doing everything but this? Is this the Great Omission? I'm guilty too. I'm no poster child. By the way, why does Jesus say 'all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me?' Given to him by whom, and when? Did he win this authority away from Satan during his earthly ministry? Is this the first part of the deal with the Devil(Holy Place phase)? Is doing what Jesus told us to do the second and final part of this deal(Most Holy Place phase)? Is this where the Pre-Advent Judgment comes in?

I have a problem with a Pre-Advent Judgment as being something which God needs or requires(the Lord knows them that are his). But if it is something which Satan requires as a part of a legalistic, lawyer-like, celestial courtroom, universal power struggle, legal wrangling regarding the souls of men and the fate of the human race at the end of this present darkness...then I am all ears. It can help to explain why 2,000 years after Jesus paid it all, and saved the human race...things are worse than ever. What went wrong? We can't say everything is fine when it obviously is not. 'Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then shall the Lord come to claim them as His own.'--Christ's Object Lessons (Ellen White), pg 69. Try taking the Teachings of Jesus seriously, and start talking about them and implementing them at the local church level...and see how much trouble you get into. How about the Fundamental Teachings of Jesus Christ? How about Teachings of Jesus Seminars? This applies to all Christian churches. Christianity is a religion about Jesus...not the religion of the teachings of Jesus. Who needs the Anti-Christ?

I think I believe in a sort of ‘harvest eschatology’. To me, the U.S. Constitution and the Red Letter Teachings of Jesus are much more important than Fundamentalist Christianity. I’m probably more on the wavelength of the following:

“Not many people of moderate persuasion have much sway in the church any more. I was reminded why recently when the Episcopal Church did two important things: It elected a woman bishop to head the denomination, and it backtracked on appointing gay bishops. The first move seems Christian. Women deserve to hold church office as much as political office (one diocese, however, was so incensed that it voted to leave the church, and worldwide there are still Anglican movements that do not permit women to be bishops or ordained priests). The second move was an act of cowardice because it did not reflect the ideals of love in Christianity and was motivated by reactionaries in the Episcopal denomination. Countering a long tradition of laissez-faire tolerance, the reactionaries have gotten tough and threatened to form their own church if gays are promoted in the priesthood. The worldwide Anglicans are more intolerant, upholding that homosexuality is forbidden, unnatural, wrong or an outright sin, depending on who is doing the disapproving. You'd think that someone would stand up and ask a simple question: Who are we to condemn gays if Christ didn't? In fact, who are we to condemn any sinner, since Christ didn't? Christianity is about forgiveness, and for the past two decades, as fundamentalism swept through every Protestant denomination, moderates and liberals have been driven out, and were roundly condemned as they left. Along with them went tolerance and forgiveness, not to mention love. Did Christ teach love or is that just a liberal bias? In the current climate, it's hard to remember, but one thing is certain: Once a tight cabal of fundamentalists takes over any denomination, Christ's teachings go out the window. The reversal of Christianity from a religion of love to a religion of hate is the greatest religious tragedy of our time. Those of us who haven't been swept up in worldwide fundamentalism, which has corrupted Islam, Hinduism and Judaism as well, have been caught in a double bind. We can't join any sect that preaches intolerance, yet we can't fight it, either, because by definition fighting is a form of intolerance. To escape this double bind, moderates have stayed silent and stayed home. But that tactic failed. As healthy as it is to nourish your own devotion and faith, it's disastrous to allow extremists to take over the church, because the statehouse, the board of education, the Congress, and eventually the presidency are next. Perhaps civil society will solve the problem of religious extremism. So far it hasn't. America finds itself in the sad plight of being the world's most prominent secular society hijacked by sectarians. One can only hope that the church comes to its senses and regains its moral center. If that doesn't occur, the core teachings of Christ will be lost, for all intents and purposes, to this generation.” --- Deepak Chopra

I have decided to follow Jesus. Though none go with me...still I will follow. No turning back.

Thank-you Initiate. I'm basically crazy...but I pull myself together long enough to produce semi-rational posts. It almost seems as though one has to go to hell to get at the truth. The theory is that the unseen bad-guys fight you every inch of the way when you start getting close to the truth. THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE EXPOSED. The truth will set us free...but it might make us very miserable along the way. Jesus said that he had many things to tell us...but we couldn't take it. I think we are learning about a lot of those things in Camelot and Avalon (including all the links)...especially if we read between the lines. I sincerely hope that we can take it. I think things will mellow out once we gain (regain) our freedom...but I also think we will always face huge problems of various kinds.

You have obviously done your homework Initiate...and I'm learning a lot from all of your posts. I sometimes think we have academics who post here...who wouldn't dare talk about Camelot and Avalon topics in the classroom. Who knows...we may even have some off-world posters. This forum may be a model for a future United Nations which includes the entire Solar System.

Consider rewatching (or watching for the first time) all of the Stargate episodes (including the movie)...with theology in mind...in each and every episode. Also consider rewatching (or watching for the first time) all of the 'V' episodes (1984 and 2009)...with theology in mind...in each and every episode. Theology may be stranger than Science Fiction.

Could many Human Beings, Supercomputers, and Androids be possessed by Draconian Interdimensional Reptilians aka Demons? Could two main factions really be Zionist Theocratic (Pleiadian) and Teutonic Zionist Luciferian (Aldebaran)? Is there a third Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom faction (Andromedan?) which seeks an end to this madness through peaceful means? I tend to think (without inside info) that the first two factions (whoever they really are) are not in control of the situation (if they ever were). I think they have both been deceived. Perhaps this would be a good time for all three factions to cooperate with each other...and call upon benevolent extraterrestrials...to perform a Solar System Exorcism. I don't know what the root issues are with the Dracs...but I think they should go now. We can address various grievances in a constructive and appropriate manner...at a later date. I continue to support the idea of amnesty for full disclosure, full cooperation, and reasonable restitution...applying to all factions. Who knows...the Dracs might eventually turn out to be model citizens!

Here is the most heretical post yet. It is merely speculation. Here goes.

What if God (of this world), Jesus, Satan, Lucifer, (and other deities?) are all the same being? What if this single being has multiple personalities? Jesus said 'I and my Father are one' and 'If you have seen me...you have seen the Father'. Satan is strangely absent in the Old Testament. Are Satan and the Old Testament God the same being? Could Josephus be the same being? I have speculated that there is always some level of insanity connected with absolute power. I suspect that the leader of this world...going way, way back is a Human/Reptilian God from the Pleiades/Aldebaran/Sirius who is a mixture of good and evil...sanity and insanity...male and female (androgynous)...black and white...human and reptilian. Did this being bring us all here (in Nibiru?) a long, long time ago? I don't know. I'm simply considering possibilities.

If this is true...what would it take for this hypothetical being to snap out of it...and come to their senses? Would a Solar System based upon Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom rather than a Theocracy...really be the solution? If this being retired...could they recover over time? I think so. How about it God/Jesus/Satan/Lucifer/Etc? Are all of the above really Amen Ra? I mean no disrespect. Should 'Thou Shalt Have No Gods' be the first and last commandment? If this theory is true...I think there can be a happy ending...for everyone...including God/Jesus/Satan/Lucifer/Amen Ra/Etc.

I'm simply trying to stimulate thoughts and solutions. This universe may be stranger than we think. It may be stranger than we can think. What do you think? Do you think? Come on! Think!

Some people think Formula One drivers are gods. They might be right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSJb-dBtJ7Y&feature=related

Thank-you Murcuriel. The Urantia Book gets at the heart of the problem...doesn't it? Here are the links (with the material in the previous post...in context):

I just wish to state one more time that I feel very dissatisfied and unhappy with how things are going within this thread -- and with my life. The ringing in the ears, the internal debilitating pressure and discomfort, a perpetual-chill, legion amoeba-like seemingly-living spirits or organisms in my visual-field, certain medical and dental conditions, etc, etc -- which seem to get worse as I try to make things better. This is much more explaining than it is complaining. I mention this to indicate the presence of some sort of a war (perhaps on levels I can't even imagine) related to who I think I might be reincarnationally (or on a soul-basis) -- and what I'm doing (namely exposing the way I think things might be within this solar system). I'm probably exposing myself -- which is why I think I might be allowed to keep doing what I'm doing. I've known this from the beginning -- and I don't really give a damn. I simply wish to do that which is right and honest -- regardless of what I might've or might not have done as O.H. KRLLL, an Interdimensional-Reptilian, a Drac, a Grey, an Anunnaki, a Warrior, Michael, Cleopatra, Hitler, Pius, Horus, Anna, Michelangelo, Tesla, Pinky, the Brain, Schauberger, King David, Some Artists, Some Scientists, Some Writers, Some Musicians, Some Pharaohs, and/or some Ancient Egyptian Deities. I have NO idea -- but it has been both fun and terrifying to think about history through the eyes of various historical figures -- which has led to personal speculation regarding what my historical reality MIGHT be (with very little inside information). All I know is that I seem to be in CHAINS in this incarnation -- and that I am NOT free (in any way, shape, or form). Something is VERY wrong. There seems to be the most nefarious and sinister observation and interference occurring in my life 24/7. I do NOT underestimate the technological and supernatural capabilities of the REAL PTB in this solar system. I do NOT underestimate what they know about me -- or what they can observe in real-time -- or what they can do to me -- without a trace. I believe that I can be made to appear to be irresponsible and rebellious -- by making me more miserable and debilitated than most of you can imagine. But as I've said before -- I MIGHT'VE agreed to this state of affairs prior to my present incarnation (as a part of some type of Galactic Sting -- or some damn thing). I'm NOT as naive as I often seem to be. My silence and unfriendliness is seemingly NOT my choice. It SEEMS to be something which is IMPOSED upon me. This is just my attempt to give some possible factors as to why I'm a Completely Ignorant Fool who seems to be S.O.L. Perhaps it's time to go back to wherever I came from -- wherever the hell that might be. I don't seem to belong here. I feel as if it might be high-time for me to move-on and/or move-out -- perhaps WAY out...

Consider a Royal-Model Religious-System, a Royal-Model Political-System, and a Royal-Model Legal-System -- as a Single Solar System!! What would such a system look like and feel like?? Should we seek order or confusion -- or a little bit of both?? I think I've tried to approximate all of the above with my conceptualizations of a United States of the Solar System. Unfortunately, "they" continue to keep me in the dark about everything important. I continue to fly-blind. Of those three systems -- which should be in the driver's seat?? I would say that the Legal-System should be at the center of things. Ethics, Law, and Order should probably be at the top of the list. I continue to be haunted by being told that an attempted theocracy would be followed by an extermination. I wish I were making this up. I continue to get the overwhelming impression that there is a significant portion of this universe which is dead set against the existence of the Human Race and Responsible Freedom. This seems to be heresy in an Ancient and Traditional Other-Than-Human Universe. What continues to REALLY bother me is that no one will really openly and honestly talk to me about any of this madness -- in any detail -- for any length of time. Why??

I watched The Exorcist today -- and I thought it was good in one way -- and bad in another way. None of these types of movies or series go into much theological detail. They go WAY out of their way to be sensational and revolting -- but they are VERY light on philosophical and theological conversation. Why?? I remember watching a film on Demon Possession (in high-school with a group of students -- including one who looked a bit like St. Germain). There was a lot of joking and laughing during the film (and this was at a Christian school). When the film ended "St. Germain" said 'Was that supposed to be scary??' Then a middle-aged male guest at the back of the room spoke-up with great authority, stating "You might think that was funny -- but it's not funny at all. It is VERY real. I KNOW -- because it happened to me." Needless to say, the class was absolutely silent and still -- and I think all of us learned an important lesson from that experience. I HIGHLY caution everyone to not experiment with the supernatural (or whatever anyone wishes to call it). Studying the subject is one thing -- but dabbling is something which I consider to be extremely dangerous. Do you feel special?? Do you feel lucky?? Go ahead!! You just might make the Devil's Day!!

I discussed Demon Possession and Human Sacrifice with the Ancient Egyptian Deity -- but I don't want to talk about it. On one occasion, the AED demonstrated psychokinesis. A very long time ago, I witnessed a physical object being invisibly manipulated with significant force. There have been other obvious examples of supernatural-activity which I have witnessed. I continue to think that we live on a Haunted Planet -- and that we are all in a helluva lot of trouble. When a little boy's sister was vomiting -- he called her the Exorsister!! I'm continuing to try a wide variety of approaches to solar system governance. In a sense, I'm stuck in a rut -- but in another sense, I'm all over the place. This thread might go in directions I don't even anticipate. I'm obviously not trying to win friends and influence people. I feel as if I'm fighting some sort of a spiritual war -- which might already be over. I often feel as if I have really screwed-up and lost a very important battle. My efforts might be too little and too late. It really feels like that. I have no idea who I might be angering -- or how mad they might really be. I think I'm in HUGE trouble. I really do. Here's some information on The Exorcist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exorcist_(film)

The Exorcist is a 1973 horror film directed by William Friedkin, adapted by William Peter Blatty from his 1971 novel of the same name. The book, inspired by the 1949 exorcism case of Roland Doe,[3][4] deals with the demonic possession of a young girl and her mother's desperate attempts to win back her daughter through an exorcism conducted by two priests.

The film features Ellen Burstyn, Max von Sydow, Jason Miller, Lee J. Cobb, Linda Blair, and (in voice only) Mercedes McCambridge. It is one of a cycle of "demonic child" films produced from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s, including Rosemary's Baby and The Omen.

The Exorcist was released theatrically in the United States by Warner Bros. on December 26, 1973. The film earned ten Academy Award nominations, winning two (Best Sound Mixing and Best Adapted Screenplay), and losing Best Picture to The Sting. It became one of the highest-grossing films of all time, grossing over $441 million worldwide. It is also the first horror film to be nominated for Best Picture.

The film has had a significant influence on popular culture.[5][6] It was named the scariest film of all time by Entertainment Weekly[7] and Movies.com[8] and by viewers of AMC in 2006, and was No. 3 on Bravo's The 100 Scariest Movie Moments.[9] In 2010, the Library of Congress selected the film to be preserved as part of its National Film Registry.[10][11] In 2003, it was placed 2nd in Channel 4's The 100 Greatest Scary Moments in the United Kingdom.

Plot

In northern Iraq, the Reverend Father Lankester Merrin (Max von Sydow), a Roman Catholic priest, is leading an archaeological dig when he discovers a small stone amulet. He discovers that it resembles the statue of Pazuzu, a monstrous creature in the form of a human, bird of prey, scorpion and serpent. Already suffering from a serious, and potentially deadly, heart condition for which he regularly takes nitroglycerin-based medication, Merrin then realises that Pazuzu, whom he had defeated years ago, has returned for revenge—and that their rematch will be a fight to his death.

In Georgetown, Washington, D.C., another priest, named Damien Karras (Jason Miller), apparently loses faith in God after his mother dies alone in a tenement block apartment. Elsewhere, movie actress Christine "Chris" McNeill (Ellen Burstyn), who is on location in Georgetown, notices that her daughter Regan (Linda Blair) is acting strangely since having played with a ouija board. The symptoms include her using bad language, abnormally high strength, and causing her bed to shake. She is given a few painful tests and x-rays, but they prove negative. Unbeknownst to both Chris and Dr. Klein (Barton Heyman), Regan is now possessed by Pazuzu, whom Regan had called "Captain Howdy."

Burke Dennings (Jack McGowran), the director of Chris's film Crash Course, whom she has a crush on, is killed by Regan, and his death is investigated by Detective Lieutenant William F. Kinderman (Lee J. Cobb). He quizzes both Karras (whilst attempting to persuade the priest to go the movies with him)and Chris before telling the latter he will see Regan once she is well. Following Klein's advice, Chris gets Karras to see Regan, whose physical condition and appearance is rapidly deteriorating; her face is now distorted by self-inflicted gashes which have now turned septic, and her body is producing foul substances with which she attacks Karras during their first meeting.

At first Karras believes that Regan's symptoms are psychological, but after hearing the demon's voice talking in reverse and "Help Me" appearing on Regan's skin in her own writing, he formerly applies to the Catholic authorities for permission to conduct an exorcism. Karras's faith, though, is still at a low ebb, and he admits to the bishop who is interviewing him, that he doesn't really believe that the possession is genuine. Consequently, he is denied permission to perform the exorcism, but will be allowed to assist whichever exorcist is chosen to intervene in Regan's situation. The priest who is selected is, of course, Lankester Merrin.

Both men try to exorcise the demon but to no avail in the first attempt. After taking a break, Karras is told to leave Regan's room by Merrin after he is unfit to continue. Karras returns, though, and finds Merrin dead. He then wrestles Pazuzu, defying the demon to leave Regan and take him over. The demon possesses him, and tries to destroy Regan again, but Karras, recovering himself long enough to prevent this, instead kills himself by jumping out the window (similar to Dennings's death) and Chris and Regan are reunited.

Days later Chris and Regan leave Washington to return home to Los Angeles, saying goodbye en route to Father Dyer (William O'Malley), an old friend of Karras. (Regan appears to have no memory of either her ordeal or any of the various evil experiences to which it subjected her.) Kinderman returns to the house, but upon learning that the MacNeils have left he begins to strike up a friendship with Father Dyer, which begins with an offer to see a movie with the priest, just as Kinderman wanted to do with Karras, earlier in the movie.(In Blatty's sequel, Legion, the relationship between Kinderman and Dyer has become a profound, ongoing friendship.)

Cast

Ellen Burstyn as Christine "Chris" MacNeil, a famous actress temporarily living in Washington, D.C., with her daughter. She is an atheist, has a quick temper, but is also a loving mother. When Regan displays strange behavior, Chris experiences an emotional breakdown and tries to find help for her daughter, consulting neurosurgeons, psychiatrists, and finally a Catholic exorcist.
Jason Miller as Father Damien Karras, a troubled priest, vocational counselor and psychiatrist. He suffers deeply when his mother dies, and confesses to have (apparently) lost his faith in God. Jack Nicholson was the original choice for the role, but Miller was cast after Friedkin saw his play, That Championship Season, and meeting the playwright/actor after the performance.
Max von Sydow as Father Lankester Merrin, an elderly priest and archeologist. A quiet and patient man with great faith, he has prior experience in performing exorcisms and is aware of the risks of facing evil. These risks ultimately prove deadly to him.
Linda Blair as Regan Teresa McNeil, Chris's friendly and loving, faithful and sweet 12 year-old daughter. She displays strange and aggressive behaviors after playing with a Ouija board, which are later revealed as early symptoms of demonic possession.
Lee J. Cobb as Lieutenant William F. Kinderman, a police detective investigating Burke Dennings's death. Assertive and cunning, he thinks Regan was involved in Dennings's death, which may be related to the recent desecration of a nearby church.
Mercedes McCambridge provided the voice of the demon, Pazuzu.
Kitty Winn as Sharon Spencer, Chris' friend and personal assistant who acts as Regan's tutor.
Jack MacGowran as Burke Dennings, an eccentric film director and close friend of Chris; his unexplained death while looking after Regan elicits a police homicide investigation.
Father William O'Malley as Father Joseph Dyer, a close friend of Karras who tries to help him deal with his mother's death.
Robert Symonds as Dr. Taney.
Barton Heyman as Dr. Samuel Klein, a doctor who suggests that Regan needs "special" help.
Arthur Storch as the psychiatrist.
Titos Vandis as Karras's uncle.
Eileen Dietz as a face associated with the demon, seen only in visions and flash cuts.

William Peter Blatty himself has a small speaking role during the scene where Chris is filming in front of Healy Hall. His character engages in a minor technical dispute with director Burke Dennings.

Factual basis for the film

Aspects of the novel were inspired by an exorcism performed on a young boy from Cottage City, Maryland, in 1949 by the Jesuit priest, Fr. William S. Bowdern, who formerly taught at both St. Louis University and St. Louis University High School. Hunkeler's Catholic family was convinced the child's aggressive behavior was attributable to demonic possession, and called upon the services of Father Walter Halloran to perform the rite of exorcism.[12] Father Halloran maintained until his death in 2005 that he never witnessed the boy display any of the supernatural behavior portrayed in the film; no foreign languages, changes in tone of voice, aversion to holy objects, unusual strength, vomiting or urinating, or unusual markings on the boy's body.[citation needed]

Casting

Although the agency representing Blair did not send her for the role, Blair's mother brought her to meet with Warner Brothers's casting department and then with Friedkin. Pamelyn Ferdin, a veteran of science fiction and supernatural drama, was a candidate for the role of Regan, but the producers, source-novel author/screenwriter/producer William Peter Blatty, executive producer Noel Marshall, and associate producer David Salven, were believed to have felt that she was too well-known. April Winchell was considered, until she developed Pyelonephritis, which caused her to be hospitalized and ultimately taken out of consideration.Denise Nickerson, who played Violet Beauregarde in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, was considered, but the material troubled her parents too much, and they pulled her out of consideration. Anissa Jones, known for her role as Buffy in Family Affair, auditioned for the role, but she too was rejected, and for much the same reason as Ferdin. The part went instead to Blair, a relative unknown except for a role in The Way We Live Now.

The studio wanted Marlon Brando for the role of Father Lankester Merrin.[citation needed] Friedkin immediately vetoed this by stating it would become a "Brando movie." Jack Nicholson was up for the part of Karras before Stacy Keach was hired by Blatty. Friedkin then spotted Miller following a performance of Miller's play That Championship Season in New York. Even though Miller had never acted in a film, Keach's contract was bought out by Warner Brothers, and Miller was signed.

Jane Fonda and Shirley MacLaine were each approached to play Chris, but both refused to do the film. Audrey Hepburn was approached, but said she would only agree if the film were to be shot in Rome. Anne Bancroft was another choice, but she was in her first month of pregnancy. Burstyn then received the role.

Friedkin originally intended to use Blair's voice, electronically deepened and roughened, for the demon's dialogue. Although Friedkin felt this worked fine in some places, he felt scenes with the demon confronting the two priests lacked the dramatic power required and selected legendary radio actress Mercedes McCambridge, an experienced voice actress, to provide the demon's voice. After filming, Warner Brothers attempted to conceal McCambridge's participation, an ill-advised decision which led to a lawsuit from McCambridge and opened a grudge between her and Friedkin that was never healed before she died.[citation needed]

Direction

Warner had approached Arthur Penn (who was teaching at Yale), Peter Bogdanovich (who wanted to pursue other projects, subsequently regretting the decision), and Mike Nichols (who did not want to shoot a film so dependent on a child's performance) and John Boorman—who would direct the second film—said he did not want to direct it because it was "cruel towards children". Originally Mark Rydell was hired to direct, but William Peter Blatty insisted on Friedkin instead, because he wanted his film to have the same energy as Friedkin's previous film, The French Connection. After a standoff with the studio, which initially refused to budge over Rydell, Blatty eventually got his way. Stanley Kubrick was offered the film (and later on its first sequel) but declined.

Production of The Exorcist began on August 14, 1972, and though it was only supposed to last 85 days, it lasted for 224.

Friedkin went to some extraordinary lengths, reminiscent of D.W. Griffith's manipulation of the actors, to get the genuine reactions he wanted. Yanked violently around in harnesses, both Blair and Burstyn suffered back injuries and their painful screams went right into the film. Burstyn injured her back after landing on her coccyx when a stuntman jerked her via cable during the scene when Regan slaps her mother. According to the documentary Fear of God: The Making of the Exorcist, however, the injury did not cause permanent damage, although Burstyn was upset the shot of her screaming in pain was used in the film. After asking Reverend William O'Malley if he trusted him and being told yes, Friedkin slapped him hard across the face before a take to generate a deeply solemn reaction that was used in the film, as a very emotional Father Dyer read last rites to Father Karras; this offended the many Catholic crew members on the set.[citation needed] He also fired a gun without warning on the set to elicit shock from Jason Miller for a take, and only told Miller that pea soup would hit him in the chest rather than the face concerning the projectile-vomiting scene, resulting in his disgusted reaction. Lastly, he had Regan's bedroom set built inside a freezer so that the actors' breath could be visible on camera, which required the crew to wear parkas and other cold-weather gear.

Music

Lalo Schifrin's working score was rejected by Friedkin. Schifrin had written six minutes of music for the initial film trailer but audiences were reportedly too scared by its combination of sights and sounds. Warner Bros. executives told Friedkin to instruct Schifrin to tone it down with softer music, but Friedkin did not relay the message.

In the soundtrack liner notes for his 1977 film, Sorcerer, Friedkin said had he heard the music of Tangerine Dream earlier, he would have had them score The Exorcist. Instead, he used modern classical compositions, including portions of the 1971 Cello Concerto by Polish composer Krzysztof Penderecki, Five Pieces for Orchestra by Austrian composer Anton Webern as well as some original music by Jack Nitzsche. But the music was heard only during scene transitions. The 2000 "Version You've Never Seen" features new original music by Steve Boddacker, as well as brief source music by Les Baxter.

The original soundtrack LP has only been released once on CD, as an expensive and rare Japanese import. It is noteworthy for being the only soundtrack to include the main theme Tubular Bells by Mike Oldfield, which became very popular after the film's release, and the movement Night of the Electric Insects from George Crumb's string quartet Black Angels.

The Greek song playing on the radio when Father Karras leaves his mother's house is called "Paramythaki mou" (My Tale) and is sung by Giannis Kalatzis. Lyric writer Lefteris Papadopoulos has admitted that a few years later when he was in financial difficulties he asked for some compensation for the intellectual rights of the song.

Filming locations

The film's opening sequence was filmed in the Iraqi town of Sinjar, near the Syrian border. The people of Sinjar are mostly Kurdish members of the ancient Yezidi sect, which reveres Melek Taus. Outsiders often equate Melek Taus with the Devil,[13] though this benevolent being has little in common with the Islamic and Christian Satan.[14] The archaeological dig site seen at the film's beginning is the actual site of ancient Hatra in Nineveh Province.

The "Exorcist steps", stone steps at the end of M Street in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. were padded with 1/2"-thick rubber to film the death of Karras. The stuntman tumbled down the stairs twice. Georgetown University students charged people around $5 each to watch the stunt from the rooftops.

The MacNeil residence interiors were filmed at CECO Studios in Manhattan. The bedroom set had to be refrigerated to capture the authentic icy breath of the actors in the exorcizing scenes, while the bedroom scenes along with many other scenes were filmed in the basement of Fordham University in New York. The temperature was brought so low that a thin layer of snow fell onto the set one morning. Blair, who was only in a thin nightgown, says to this day she cannot stand being cold.[15] Exteriors of the MacNeill house were filmed at 36th and Prospect in Washington, using a family home and a false wall to convey the home's thrust toward the steps. In fact, both then and now, a garden sits atop the embankment between the steps and the home.

The interior of Karras' room at Georgetown was a meticulous reconstruction of Theology professor Father Thomas M. King, S.J.'s "corridor Jesuit" room in New North Hall. Fr. King's room was photographed by production staff after a visit by Blatty, a Georgetown graduate, and Friedkin. Upon returning to New York, every element of King's room, including posters and books, was recreated for the set, including a poster of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., a paleontologist on whom the character of Fr. Merrin was loosely based. Georgetown was paid $1,000 per day of filming, which included both exteriors, such as Burstyn's first scene, shot on the steps of the Flemish Romanesque Healy Hall, and interiors, such as the defilement of the statue of the Virgin Mary in Dahlgren Chapel, or the Archbishop's office, which is actually the office of the president of the university. One scene was filmed in The Tombs, a student hangout across from the steps that was founded by a Blatty classmate. The motion picture St. Elmo's Fire includes scenes filmed at The Tombs.

Urban legends and on-set incidents

Many of the film's participants claimed the film was cursed. Blatty stated on video[16] that there were some strange occurrences during the filming. Lead actress Burstyn indicated some rumors were true in her 2006 autobiography, Lessons in Becoming Myself. Because of a studio fire, the interior sets of the MacNeil residence (with the exception of Regan's bedroom) had to be rebuilt and caused a setback in pre-production. Friedkin claimed that a priest was brought in numerous times to bless the set. After difficulties encountered in the New York production, Blatty asked Fr. King (see reference above) to bless the Washington crew on its first day of filming at the foot of Lauinger Library's steps to 37th Street. The incident was recounted in Fr. King's The Washington Post obituary in 2009. While filming the crucifix masturbation scene, Ellen Burstyn was injured when the crew pulled her harness too hard after Blair's character struck her across the face and sent her onto the floor, sending Burstyn to a chiropractor. While filming the scene where Regan is being thrashed by the demon on her bed, Blair's metal harness came loose and injured her back as well. Irish actor Jack MacGowran died from influenza shortly after he filmed his role as director Burke Dennings.

Alternate and uncut versions

Several versions of The Exorcist have been released: the 1979 theatrical re-issue was reconverted to 70mm, with its 1.75:1 ratio[17] cropped to 2.20:1 to use all the available screen width that 70mm offers. This was also the first time the sound was remixed to six-channel Dolby Stereo sound. Almost all video versions feature this soundtrack.

In both the TV-PG and TV-14 rated network versions, the image of the obscenely defiled statue of the Virgin Mary stays intact. It stays on screen several seconds longer for the TV-14 version. On original TV airings, the shot was replaced with one where the statue's face is smashed in but without other defilement.

The DVD released for the 25th Anniversary retains the original theatrical ending, and includes the extended ending with Dyer and Kinderman as a special feature (as opposed the "Version You've Never Seen" ending, which features Dyer and Kinderman but omits the Casablanca reference). The Special Edition DVD also includes a 75-minute documentary titled The Fear of God on the making of The Exorcist (although PAL releases feature an edited, 52 minute version). The documentary includes screen tests and additional deleted scenes. The Exorcist: The Complete Anthology (box set) was released in October 2006. This DVD collection includes the original theatrical release version The Exorcist; the extended version, The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen; the sequel with Linda Blair, Exorcist II: The Heretic; the supposed end of the trilogy, The Exorcist III; and two different prequels: Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist. Morgan Creek, current owner of the franchise, is now negotiating a cable television mini-series of Blatty's novel, which is the basis for the original film.

The spider-walk scene

Contortionist Linda R. Hager performed the infamous spider-walk scene on April 11, 1973. Director Friedkin deleted this scene just prior to the December 26, 1973 premiere because it was technically ineffective due to the visible wires suspending Hager in a backward-arched position as she descends the stairs. According to Friedkin, "I cut it when the film was first released because this was one of those effects that did not work as well as others, and I was only able to save it for the re-release with the help of computer graphic imagery."[18] Additionally, Friedkin considered that the spider-walk scene appeared too early in the film's plot and removed it despite screenplay writer William Peter Blatty's request that the scene remain. In the book, the spider-walk is very quiet, and consists of Regan following Sharon around and occasionally licking her ankle.

In 1998, Warner re-released the digitally remastered DVD of The Exorcist: 25th Anniversary Special Edition. The DVD includes the BBC documentary, The Fear of God: The Making of The Exorcist,[19] highlighting the never-before-seen original non-bloody variant of the spider-walk scene.

To appease the screenwriter and some fans of The Exorcist, Friedkin worked with CGI artists to digitally remove the wires holding Hager. The director reinstated the bloody variant of the spider-walk scene for the 2000 theatrically re-released version of The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen.

In October 2010, Warner released The Exorcist (Extended Director's Cut & Original Theatrical Edition) on Blu-ray, including the behind-the-scenes filming of the spider-walk scene.

Sequels and related films

After the film's success, rip-off films and The Exorcist franchise sequels appeared. John Boorman's Exorcist II: The Heretic was released in 1977, and revisited Regan four years after her initial ordeal. The plot dealt with an investigation into the legitimacy of Merrin's exorcism of Regan in the first film. In flashback sequences, we see Regan giving Merrin his fatal heart attack, as well as scenes from the exorcism of a young boy named Kokumo in Africa many years earlier. The film was so sharply criticized that director John Boorman reedited the film for a secondary release immediately after its premiere. Both versions have now been released on video; the cut version on VHS and the original uncut version now on DVD.

The Exorcist III appeared in 1990, written and directed by Blatty himself from his own 1983 novel Legion. Jumping past the events of Exorcist II, this book and film presented a continuation of Karras' story. Following the precedent set in The Ninth Configuration, Blatty turned a minor character from the first film—in this case, Kinderman—into the chief protagonist. Though the characters of Karras and Kinderman were acquainted during the murder investigation in The Exorcist and Kinderman expressed fondness for Karras, in Exorcist III Blatty has Kinderman remembering Karras as his "best friend".

A prequel film attracted attention and controversy even before its release in 2004; it went through a number of directorial and script changes, such that two versions were ultimately released. John Frankenheimer was originally hired as director for the project, but withdrew before filming started due to health concerns. He died a month later. Paul Schrader replaced him. Upon completion the studio rejected Schrader's version as being too slow. Renny Harlin was then hired as director. Harlin reused some of Schrader's footage but shot mostly new material to create a more conventional horror film. Harlin's new version Exorcist: The Beginning was released, but was not well received. Nine months later Schrader's original version, retitled Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist, was given a small theatrical release. It received better, but still mostly negative, critical responses. Both films are now available on DVD. Like Exorcist III, both films made significant changes from the original storyline. The plot of these films centered on an exorcism that Father Merrin had performed as a young priest in Africa, many years prior to the events in The Exorcist. This exorcism was first referenced in The Exorcist, and in the first sequel Exorcist II: The Heretic, flashback scenes were shown of Merrin exorcising the demon Pazuzu from an African boy named Kokumo. Although the plot for both prequels Beginning and Dominion centered around Merrin's exorcism in Africa, they both took a significant departure from the original storyline, making no effort to be faithful to original details. For example: the African boy, though he appeared in the film was not named Kokomu, and eventually discovered not to actually be the possessed character.

In November 2009, it was announced that Blatty planned to direct a mini-series of The Exorcist.[20][21]

A made-for-television film, Possessed (based on the book of the same name by Thomas B. Allen), was broadcast on Showtime on October 22, 2000, directed by Steven E. de Souza and written by de Souza and Michael Lazarou. The film claimed to follow the true accounts that inspired Blatty to write The Exorcist and starred Timothy Dalton, Henry Czerny, and Christopher Plummer.

Blatty directed The Ninth Configuration, a post-Vietnam War drama set in a mental institution. Released in 1980, it was based on Blatty's novel of the same name. Though it contrasts sharply with the tone of The Exorcist, Blatty regards Configuration as its true sequel[citation needed]. The lead character is the astronaut from Chris' party, Lt. Cutshaw.

Other films

The success of The Exorcist inspired a string of possession-related films worldwide. The first was Beyond the Door, a 1974 Italian film with Juliet Mills as a woman possessed by the devil. It appeared in the U.S. one year later. Also in 1974, a Turkish film, Şeytan (Turkish for Satan; the original film was also shown with the same name), is an almost scene-for-scene remake of the original. The same year in Germany, the exorcism-themed film Magdalena, vom Teufel besessen was released. In 1976, Britain released The Devil Within Her (also called I Don't Want to Be Born) with Joan Collins as an exotic dancer who gives birth to a demon-possessed child.

Similarly, a blaxploitation film was released in 1974 titled Abby. While the films Şeytan and Magdalena, vom Teufel besessen were protected from prosecution by the laws of their countries of origin, Abby's producers (filming in Louisiana) were sued by Warner. The film was pulled from theaters, but not before making $4 million at the box office.

A parody, Repossessed, was released the same year as The Exorcist III, with Blair lampooning the role she had played in the original.

Other references

A meta-reference to the film was made in an episode of Supernatural- a show where demons possessing humans is a common plot element; demons in the series are human souls corrupted by their time in Hell, lacking physical bodies of their own to interact with Earth-, where Linda Blair appeared as a police detective, with protagonist Dean Winchester finding her character familiar and expressing a strange desire for pea soup at the episode's conclusion.

In Angel: Earthly Possessions, a spin-off comic story based on the TV series Angel, protagonist Angel finds himself dealing with a priest who performs exorcisms, but comes to realise that the priest is summoning the demons for him to exorcise in the first place. He also makes a note of The Exorcist film, noting that the vision it created of possession actually made things easier for possession demons by making it harder for humans to know what to expect from a possession.

Home media

A limited edition box set was released in 1998; it was limited to 50,000 copies, with available copies circulating around the Internet. There are two versions; a special edition VHS and a special edition DVD. The only difference between the two copies is the recording format.
DVD features The original film with restored film and digitally remastered audio, with a 1.85:1 widescreen aspect ratio.
An introduction by director Friedkin
The 1998 BBC documentary The Fear of God: The Making of "The Exorcist"
2 audio commentaries
Interviews with the director and writer
Theatrical trailers and TV spots
Box features A commemorative 52-page tribute book, covering highlights of the film's preparation, production, and release; features previously unreleased historical data and archival photographs
Limited edition soundtrack CD of the film's score, including the original (unused) soundtrack ("Tubular Bells" and "Night of the Electric Insects" omitted)
8 lobby card reprints
Exclusive senitype film frame (magnification included)
Blu-ray
In an interview with DVD Review, Friedkin mentioned that he was scheduled to begin work on a 'The Exorcist' Blu-ray on December 2, 2008.[22] This edition features a new restoration, including both the 1973 theatrical version and the 2000 "Version You've Never Seen".[23] It was released on October 5, 2010.[24][25]

Reception

Upon its December 26, 1973, release, the film received mixed reviews from critics, "ranging from 'classic' to 'claptrap'."[26] Stanley Kauffmann, in The New Republic, wrote, "This is the scariest film I've seen in years—the only scary film I've seen in years ... If you want to be shaken—and I found out, while the picture was going, that that's what I wanted—then The Exorcist will scare the hell out of you."[27] Variety noted that it was "an expert telling of a supernatural horror story ... The climactic sequences assault the senses and the intellect with pure cinematic terror."[28] In Castle of Frankenstein, Joe Dante called it "an amazing film, and one destined to become at the very least a horror classic. Director Friedkin's film will be profoundly disturbing to all audiences, especially the more sensitive and those who tend to 'live' the movies they see ... Suffice it to say, there has never been anything like this on the screen before."[29]

However, Vincent Canby, writing in The New York Times, dismissed The Exorcist as "a chunk of elegant occultist claptrap ... a practically impossible film to sit through ... It establishes a new low for grotesque special effects ..."[30] Andrew Sarris complained that "Friedkin's biggest weakness is his inability to provide enough visual information about his characters ... whole passages of the movie's exposition were one long buzz of small talk and name droppings ... The Exorcist succeeds on one level as an effectively excruciating entertainment, but on another, deeper level it is a thoroughly evil film."[31] Writing in Rolling Stone, Jon Landau felt the film was "nothing more than a religious porn film, the gaudiest piece of shlock this side of Cecil B. DeMille (minus that gentleman's wit and ability to tell a story) ... "[32] Writing in 2012, author James K. Morrow disliked the film on similar grounds:

"From the first frame to the last, The Exorcist serves up a feckless Manichean attack on the Enlightenment, rigging the discourse at every turn. On one side we have the forces of darkness: clueless physicians in lab coats, blinded by their materialism, blithely torturing a demonically possessed child with their diagnostic instruments... What I find most exasperating about this movie and the novel before it is Blatty and Friedkin's stupefyingly unimaginative notion of radical evil. You know, Radical Evil, that phenomenon we secular humanists are continually told we fail to appreciate. In the world of The Exorcist, the Devil's agenda comes down to one thing and one thing only: the sex act. For Friedkin and Blatty, human reproductive organs are the sine qua non of chaos, depravity, and filth.... Not one of the 'obscene' utterances spewed forth by Pazuzu touches on historical or social evils. Pazuzu files no briefs on behalf of war, slavery, misogyny, anti-Semitism, homophobia, or pedophilia. Can it be a coincidence that, at certain points in its ragged history, the Catholic Church has acquiesced to all six of those institutions?... The wife of the police inspector, played by Lee J. Cobb, no longer enjoys watching movies with him—get it? When The Exorcist isn't busy wagging its index finger at secular reason, it gives its middle digit to anyone who would presume to find redemption in the erotic."[33]

Over the years, The Exorcist's critical reputation has grown considerably. The film currently has an 87% "Certified Fresh" approval rating on the Rotten Tomatoes website, based on 47 reviews the website collected.[34] Some critics regard it as being one of the best and most effective horror films of all time. Chicago Tribune film critic Gene Siskel placed it in the top five films released that year.[35] However, the film has its detractors as well, including Kim Newman who has criticized it for messy plot construction, conventionality and overblown pretentiousness, among other perceived defects. Writer James Baldwin provides an extended negative critique in his book length essay The Devil Finds Work.[citation needed] Director Martin Scorsese placed The Exorcist on his list of the 11 scariest horror films of all time.[36] In 2008, the film was selected by Empire Magazine as one of The 500 Greatest Movies Ever Made.[37] It was also placed on a similar list of 1000 films by The New York Times.[38]

Box office

The film earned $66.3 million in distributors' domestic (US/CAN) rentals during its theatrical release in 1974, becoming the second most popular film of that year (trailing The Sting).[39] After several reissues, the film eventually grossed $232,671,011 in North America,[40] which if adjusted for inflation, would be the ninth highest-grossing film of all time and the top-grossing R-rated film of all time.[41] To date, it has a total gross of $441,071,011 worldwide.[40]

U.K. reception

In the United Kingdom, the film was included in the "video nasty" phenomenon of the early 1980s. Although it had been released uncut for home video in 1981, this was prior to the implementation of the Video Recording Act 1984. When the Act came into force, Warner Bros. decided against submitting it to the BBFC for a rating following the 'Video Nasties' scare. It is a widely reported myth that the BBFC banned the film, but it was never rejected by them, nor did it appear on the official "Video Nasties" list.

Following a successful re-release in cinemas in 1998, the film was submitted for home video release for the first time in February 1999 [42] and was passed uncut with an 18 certificate, signifying a relaxation of the censorship rules with relation to home video in the UK. The film was shown on terrestrial television in the U.K. for the first time in 2001, on Channel 4.[43]

Special effects and audience reception

The Exorcist contained a number of special effects, engineered by makeup artist Dick Smith. Roger Ebert, while praising the film, believed the effects to be so unusually graphic he wrote, "That it received an R rating and not the X is stupefying."[44]

Theaters provided "Exorcist barf bags".[45]

Because of death threats against Blair, Warner hired bodyguards to protect her for six months after the film's release.[15]

Alleged subliminal imagery

The Exorcist was also at the center of controversy due to its alleged use of subliminal imagery. Wilson Bryan Key wrote a whole chapter on the film in his book Media Sexploitation alleging multiple uses of subliminal and semi-subliminal imagery and sound effects. Key observed the use of the Pazuzu face (in which Key mistakenly assumed it was Jason Miller made up in a death mask makeup) and claimed that the safety padding on the bedposts were shaped to cast phallic shadows on the wall and that a skull face is superimposed into one of Father Merrin's breath clouds. Key also wrote much about the sound design, identifying the use of pig squeals, for instance, and elaborating on his opinion of the subliminal intent of it all. A detailed article in the July/August 1991 issue of Video Watchdog examined the phenomenon, providing still frames identifying several usages of subliminal "flashing" throughout the film.[46] In an interview from the same issue, Friedkin explained, "I saw subliminal cuts in a number of films before I ever put them in The Exorcist, and I thought it was a very effective storytelling device... The subliminal editing in The Exorcist was done for dramatic effect—to create, achieve, and sustain a kind of dreamlike state."[47] However, these quick, scary flashes have been labeled "[not] truly subliminal".[48] and "quasi-" or "semi-subliminal".[49] True subliminal imagery must be, by definition, below the threshold of awareness.[50][51][52][53] In an interview in a 1999 book about the film, The Exorcist author Blatty addressed the controversy by explaining that, "There are no subliminal images. If you can see it, it's not subliminal."[54]

Academy Awards

The Exorcist was nominated for ten total Academy Awards in 1973, winning two. It is the first horror film to be nominated for Best Picture.[55] At the 46th Annual Academy Awards ceremony, the film won two statuettes (highlighted in bold).[56]

The film was nominated for:
Academy Award for Best Picture – William Peter Blatty and Noel Marshall
Academy Award for Best Actress – Ellen Burstyn
Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor – Jason Miller
Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress – Linda Blair
Academy Award for Best Director – William Friedkin
Academy Award for Writing Adapted Screenplay – William Peter Blatty
Academy Award for Best Cinematography – Owen Roizman
Academy Award for Best Film Editing – Norman Gay
Academy Award for Best Production Design – Bill Malley and Jerry Wunderlich
Academy Award for Best Sound Mixing – Robert Knudson, Chris Newman

Golden Globe Awards

The Exorcist was nominated for seven total Golden Globes in 1973. At the 31st Golden Globes ceremony that year, the film won four awards.
Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama
Golden Globe Award for Best Director – William Friedkin
Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture – Linda Blair
Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay – William Peter Blatty

The film was nominated for
Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama – Ellen Burstyn
Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture – Max von Sydow
Golden Globe Award for New Star of the Year – Actress – Linda Blair

Library of Congress
2010 National Film Registry

American Film Institute Lists
AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies – Nominated[57]
AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills – #3
AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains: Regan MacNeil – #9 Villain

AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes: "What an excellent day for an exorcism." – Nominated[58]

AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) – Nominated[59]

References

This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (November 2011)

1.^ "Box Office Information for The Exorcist". The Numbers. Retrieved December 28, 2011.
2.^ "Box Office Information for The Exorcist". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved December 28, 2011.
3.^ Cinema of the occult: new age, satanism, Wicca, and spiritualism in film. Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corp. December 31, 2008. ISBN 978-0-934223-95-9. Retrieved April 4, 2010. "Blatty's novel was loosely based on an actual exorcism, and the producers of Possessed claim the film is closer to the "real" story."
4.^ Dimension Desconocida. Ediciones Robinbook. 2009-04. ISBN 978-84-9917-001-5. Retrieved April 4, 2010. "La inspiración del exorcista La historia de Robbie Mannheim es un caso típico de posesión, y es la que dio vida a la película El Exorcista."
5.^ Layton, Julia (2005-09-08). "Science.howstuffworks.com". Science.howstuffworks.com. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
6.^ "Allmovie.com". Allmovie.com. 2005-09-09. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
7.^ Ascher, Rebecca (1999-07-23). "Entertainment Weekly, "The 25 Scariest Movies of All Time"". Ew.com. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
8.^ "Movies.com, "Get Repossessed With the Exorcist Movies"". Movies.com. 2010-08-27. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
9.^ AMC Poll: The Exorcist Scariest Movie. Multichannel News. October 23, 2006. Retrieved November 30, 2008.
10.^ "'Empire Strikes Back' among 25 film registry picks". Retrieved December 28, 2010.
11.^ Barnes, Mike (December 28, 2010). "'Empire Strikes Back,' 'Airplane!' Among 25 Movies Named to National Film Registry". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved December 28, 2010.
12.^ [1] Strangemag
13.^ TNR.com[dead link]
14.^ "Scholarisland.org". Scholarisland.org. 1963-12-20. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
15.^ a b "Friedkin's – The Exorcist". Thefleshfarm.com. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
16.^ Youtube.com[dead link]
17.^ http://www.bbfc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Exorcist-Final.pdf
18.^ USA Today. January 19, 2001 http://www.usatoday.com/community/chat/1011friedkin.htm.
19.^ "The Exorcist 25th Anniversary Special Edition". Timewarner.com. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
20.^ "'The Exorcist' Miniseries Reteams Original Writer/Director?".
21.^ "Cemetery Dance #62: The William Peter Blatty special issue shipping now!". Cemeterydance.com. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
22.^ "Blu-ray.com". Blu-ray.com. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
23.^ "The Exorcist Announced on Blu-ray". Blu-ray.com. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
24.^ "Full Blu-ray Details to Make Your Head Spin – The Exorcist". DreadCentral.
25.^ "The Exorcist releasing on Blu-ray in October 2010". Morehorror.com. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
26.^ Travers, Peter and Rieff, Stephanie. The Story Behind 'The Exorcist', Pg. 149, Signet Books, 1974. ISBN 978-0-451-06207-9
27.^ Kauffmann, Stanley. New Republic review reprinted in The Story Behind 'The Exorcist', written by Peter Travers and Stephanie Rieff, pgs. 152–154, Signet Books, 1974. ISBN 978-0-451-06207-9
28.^ "The Exorcist". Variety. January 1, 1973. Retrieved November 3, 2007.
29.^ Dante, Joe. Castle of Frankenstein, Vol 6, No. 2 (Whole Issue #22), pgs. 32–33. Review of The Exorcist
30.^ Canby, Vincent. The New York Times review reprinted in The Story Behind 'The Exorcist', written by Peter Travers and Stephanie Rieff, pgs. 150–152, Signet Books, 1974. ISBN 978-0-451-06207-9
31.^ Sarris, Andrew. The Village Voice review reprinted in The Story Behind 'The Exorcist', written by Peter Travers and Stephanie Rieff, pgs. 154–158, Signet Books, 1974. ISBN 978-0-451-06207-9
32.^ Landau, Jon. Rolling Stone review reprinted in The Story Behind 'The Exorcist', written by Peter Travers and Stephanie Rieff, pgs. 158–162, Signet Books, 1974. ISBN 978-0-451-06207-9
33.^ Morrow, James (January, 2012). "The Exorcist: In Three Parts". The New York Review of Science Fiction (Pleasantville, N.Y.: Dragon Press) 24 (281): 15. ISSN 1052-9438.More than one of |number= and |issue= specified (help)
34.^ "The Exorcist" (1973)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved November 3, 2007.
35.^ "The Official Site of Gene Siskel". Cmgww.com. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
36.^ Scorsese, Martin (October 28, 2009). "11 Scariest Horror Movies of All Time". The Daily Beast. Retrieved November 15, 2009.
37.^ "Empireonline.com". Empireonline.com. 2006-12-05. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
38.^ "The Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made". The New York Times. April 29, 2003. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
39.^ Gebert, Michael. The Encyclopedia of Movie Awards (listings of 'Box Office (Domestic Rentals)' for 1974, taken from Variety magazine), pg. 314, St. Martin's Paperbacks, 1996. ISBN 0-668-05308-9. "Rentals" refers to the distributor/studio's share of the box office gross, which, according to Gebert, is normally roughly half of the money generated by ticket sales.
40.^ a b "The Exorcist". Box Office Mojo. Internet Movie Database. Retrieved May 19, 2011.
41.^ "All Time Box Office Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation". Box Office Mojo. Internet Movie Database. Retrieved May 19, 2011.
42.^ "Original BBFC.co.uk entry". Bbfc.co.uk. 1999-02-25. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
43.^ "TV premiere for The Exorcist". BBC News. March 4, 2001. Retrieved May 15, 2009.
44.^ ":: rogerebert.com :: Reviews :: The Exorcist (xhtml)". Rogerebert.suntimes.com. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
45.^ "Screen shockers | Independent, The (London) | Find Articles at BNET.com". Findarticles.com. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
46.^ Lucas, Tim and Kermode, Mark. Video Watchdog Magazine, issue No. 6 (July/August 1991), pgs. 20–31, "The Exorcist: From the Subliminal to the Ridiculous"
47.^ Friedkin, William. Interviewed in Video Watchdog Magazine, issue No. 6 (July/August 1991), pg. 23, "The Exorcist: From the Subliminal to the Ridiculous"
48.^ "Dark Romance – Book of Days – The 'subliminal' demon of The Exorcist". darkromance.com. Retrieved April 7, 2008.
49.^ "Films that flicker: the origins of subliminal advertising myths and practices.". subliminalworld.org. Retrieved April 7, 2008.
50.^ "subliminal - Definitions from Dictionary.com".
51.^ "Subliminal Messages".
52.^ "Subliminal Perception".
53.^ "Subliminal Advertising".)
54.^ McCabe, Bob (1999). The Exorcist. London: Omnibus. p. 138. ISBN 0-7119-7509-4.
55.^ "The 46th Academy Awards (1974) Nominees and Winners". oscars.org. Retrieved August 28, 2011.
56.^ "NY Times: The Exorcist". NY Times. Retrieved December 29, 2008.
57.^ "AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies Nominees" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-08-02.
58.^ "AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes Nominees" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-08-02.
59.^ "AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) Ballot" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-08-02.

Once upon a time, as I worked in a church office, I answered a call from someone requesting an exorcism. It was quite unsettling. On another occasion, I spoke with a pastor, who's wife had seemingly been possessed (or severely harrassed). I believe that I am harrassed by unseen entities 24/7 -- even though I have never delved into the occult (other than passively studying the topics within this thread) -- or joined any secret societies (even though I've been invited to join). I believe that the more one tries to do the right thing -- and tries to understand what's really going on in the universe -- the more they become a target of supernatural attacks. I still think that who I might be reincarnationally might have something to do with the hell I experience each and every day. I try to sensitize and desensitize within this thread. It's a conditioning process. I'm trying to prepare myself and a few others for a possibly horrific future -- as if the present isn't bad enough. I've joked about imagining myself as being a Renegade French Jesuit Organist (among other things) -- but what might it be like to be such a fictional character -- living close to Georgetown University -- and researching everything within this thread -- in and around Georgetown and Washington D.C.??!! You know -- not being employed by the church -- yet having contacts within the church. Here's some information on the general subject of "exorcism". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism

Exorcism (from Greek ἐξορκισμός, exorkismos - binding by oath) is the religious practice of evicting demons or other spiritual entities (the satanics) from a person or an area which they are believed to have possessed.[1] Depending on the spiritual beliefs of the exorcist, this may be done by causing the entity to swear an oath, performing an elaborate ritual, or simply by commanding it to depart in the name of a higher power. The practice is ancient and part of the belief system of many cultures and religions.

Requested and performed exorcisms had begun to decline in the Western world by the 18th century due to advancements in medical understanding, and occurred rarely until the latter half of the 20th century when the public saw a sharp rise due to the media attention exorcisms were getting. There was “a 50% increase in the number of exorcisms performed between the early 1960s and the mid-1970s”.[2]

Exorcism in Christianity and Exorcism in the Catholic Church

In Catholic Christianity, exorcisms are performed in the name of Jesus Christ.[3] A distinction is made between a formal exorcism, which can only be conducted by a priest during a baptism or with the permission of a Bishop, and "prayers of deliverance" which can be said by anyone.

The Catholic rite for a formal exorcism, called a "Major Exorcism", is given in Section 13 of the Rituale Romanum.[4] The Ritual lists guidelines for conducting an exorcism, and for determining when a formal exorcism is required.[5] Priests are instructed to carefully determine that the nature of the affliction is not actually a psychological or physical illness before proceeding.[3]

In Catholic practice the person performing the exorcism, known as an exorcist, is often a member of the church, or an individual thought to be graced with special powers or skills. The exorcist may use prayers, and religious material, such as set formulas, gestures, symbols, icons, amulets, etc. The exorcist often invokes God, Jesus, a litany of saints, and/or several different angels and archangels to intervene with the exorcism. According to Catholic understanding, several weekly exorcisms over many years are sometimes required to expel a deeply entrenched demon.[5][6]

In general, possessed persons are not regarded as evil in themselves, nor wholly responsible for their actions.[7] Therefore, practitioners regard exorcism as more of a cure than a punishment. The mainstream rituals usually take this into account, making sure that there is no violence to the possessed, only that they be tied down if deemed necessary for their own protection and that of the practitioner.[8]

Hinduism

Beliefs and practices pertaining to the practice of exorcism are prominently connected with Hindus. Of the four Vedas (holy books of the Hindus), the Atharva Veda is said to contain the secrets related to magic and alchemy.[9][10] The basic means of exorcism are the mantra and the yajna used in both Vedic and Tantric traditions. Vaishnava traditions also employ a recitation of names of Narasimha and reading scriptures, notably the Bhagavata Purana aloud.

According to Gita Mahatmya of Padma Purana, reading the 3rd, 7th and 9th chapter of Bhagavad Gita and mentally offering the result to departed persons helps them to get released from their ghostly situation. Kirtan, continuous playing of mantras, keeping scriptures and holy pictures of the deities (Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Shakti, etc.) (especially of Narasimha) in the house, burning incense offered during a Puja, sprinkling water from holy rivers, and blowing conches used in puja are other effective practices.[citation needed]

The main puranic resource on ghost and death-related information is Garuda Purana.[citation needed]

A complete description of birth and death and also about the human soul are explained in Katō Upanishad, a part of Yajur Veda. A summary of this is also available as a separate scripture called Kāttakaṃ.

Islam

In Islam, exorcism is called ruqya. It is used to repair the damage caused by sihr or black magic. Exorcisms today are part of a wider body of contemporary Islamic alternative medicine called al-Tibb al-Nabawi (Medicine of the Prophet).[11]

Islamic exorcisms consist of the treated person lying down, while a sheikh places a hand on a patient’s head while chanting verses from the Quran.[11] The drinking of holy water may also take place.[12]

Specific verses from the Quran are recited, which glorify God (e.g. The Throne Verse (Arabic: آية الكرسي Ayatul Kursi), and invoke God's help. In some cases, the adhan/"ah-zan" (the call for daily prayers) is also read, as this has the effect of repelling non-angelic unseen beings or the jinn.

The Islamic prophet Muhammad taught his followers to read the last three suras from the Quran, Surat al-Ikhlas (The Fidelity), Surat al-Falaq (The Dawn) and Surat al-Nas (Mankind).

Judaism

Josephus reports exorcisms performed by administering poisonous root extracts and others by making sacrifices.[13] The Dead Sea Scrolls mention that exorcisms were done by the Essene branch of Judaism.

In more recent times, Rabbi Yehuda Fetaya authored the book Minchat Yahuda, which deals extensively with exorcism, his experience with possessed people, and other subjects of Jewish thought. The book is written in Hebrew and was translated into English.

Rabbi Gershon Winkler of New Mexico explains that the procedure for a Jewish exorcism is intended not only to drive away the possessing force, but to help both the possessor and the possessed in an act of healing. The Jewish exorcism ritual is performed by a rabbi who has mastered practical Kabbalah. Also present is a minyan (a group of ten adult males), who gather in a circle around the possessed person. The group recites Psalm 91 three times, and then the rabbi blows a shofar (a ram's horn).[14]

The shofar is blown in a certain way, with various notes and tones, in effect to "shatter the body" so that the possessing force will be shaken loose. After it has been shaken loose, the rabbi begins to communicate with it and ask it questions such as why it is possessing the body of the possessed. The minyan may pray for it and perform a ceremony for it in order to enable it to feel safe, and so that it can leave the person's body.[14]

Eric Sorensen's Hypothesis

This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (October 2012)

The origins of exorcism can be found in the effects of Zoroastrian and ancient Near Eastern beliefs on early Judaism and Christianity. Zoroastrianism’s dualistic beliefs and apocalypticism is a nurturing ground for ideas of exorcisms and possession. “The spirit of Ahura Mazda is said to be with the one who chooses good [Yasna 33.14], and one can assume the same of the evil spirit for those who chose evil. Mary Boyce underscores the importance of possession in Zoroastrian doctrine: ‘The concepts of divinity and of humanly possessed power seem frequently to blend, through the thought of that power proceeding from the divinity, who has himself actually entered into the person.” [15] (p. 37)

Zoroastrianism also introduces a connection between the spirit world and its human host, albeit not in the same manner that characterizes later Jewish and Christian thought. (p. 38) After person chooses between good and evil, a “mutually supportive symbiosis, takes place between the individual and the spirit of choice,” according to Eric Sorensen. (p. 38) Identifying a person with his good or evil benefactor converges with the rhetoric used by Jewish sectarians and early Christians to consecrate their fellow believers and demonize their opponents – Sorensen gathers the evidence for this from E.H. Pagels’ The Origin of Satan. (p. 39)

Evidence for quasi-exorcisms in Zoroastrianism lie in the laws of the Vendidad that provide purification rituals for physical contaminations caused by demons. (p. 39) According to James Darmesteter, the Zoroastrian understanding of “impurity or uncleanness may be described as the state of a person or thing that is possessed of a demon; and the object of purification is to expel the demon.”(p. 39) This however, is not considered an exorcism in the manner in which it is thought of today. “The closest analogy to exorcism in the early Zoroastrian literature is a reference to the followers of the Wise Lord (Ahura Mazda) as the “expeller of fury,” where “fury” is thought to be Aeshma, “the only demon mentioned by name in the Gathas, according to Boyce. (p.40)

However, this is still unlike the Christian accounts of demonic possession in which a demon invades the host’s body and must be cast out to restore the body to its natural and healthy state. (p. 40) The difference lies in the nature of choice that is associated with Zoroastrian dualism. A person who allies himself with evil is not necessarily a victim of it from whom malevolent influence must be driven out; instead, he is seen to voluntarily involve himself with evil. (p. 40) The “expulsion” of demons was more an attempt to destroy those who sided themselves with evil than remove evil influence. Yet, such “expulsions,” don’t directly translate to exorcisms. A possible influence is seen in the use of incantations for physical purifications from demons, seen in the Vendidad. (p. 41)

Despite the likely evidence, “the influence of Zoroastrianism upon Hellenism and Judaism has so far been difficult to prove,” according to Sorensen. (p. 43) It is, however, widely noted that there are, “striking affinities between Zoroastrianism and Judaism… the angelologies, demonologies, and the subjugation of evil evident in late canonical and intertestamental writings such as Tobit, Daniel, and Qumran’s Community Rule offer tantalizing suggestions of Zoroastrianism’s influence upon Jewish thought.” (p. 45) “The most explicit evidence of Zoroastrian views on early Judaism is the demon Asmodeus in Tobit (II BCE). The name Asmodeus derives from the Avestan words aēšma daēuua (“Demon of Wrath”).” (p. 45)

There is an increasing emphasis on possession, not in terms of physical ailments, but with ethical decision-making that is seen in early Jewish Pseudepigrapha; in a Sibylline Oracle, the Sibyl dictates that God will “dwell in the maiden.” (p. 62) Ethical decision-making is reminiscent of the choice one has to make in dualistic Zoroastrianism. Sven Hartman sees an example of Zoroastrian’s influence on Judaism’s apocalyptic thought in the figure of the devil, “whom he considers the Jews to have modeled after Angra Mainyu after their exposure to the Achaemenian and Parthian periods of dominance in the Near East.” (p. 45)

Exorcism finds its closest analogies in the Hebrew Bible in two specific passages: “David’s soothing of Saul in 1 Samuel and God’s rebuke of Satan in the book of Zechariah.” (p. 53) In the former passage, an evil spirit plagues, but does not explicitly possess, Saul’s body; David plays a lyre as, “an exorcistic function,” to restore Saul to a well state of being by making the evil spirit depart. (p. 53) In the latter passage, God’s rebuke of Satan contains language similar to what is found in New Testament exorcisms. (p. 54)

Other evidence is found in Tobit, the only apocryphal book in the Septuagint that supplies to the ideas of exorcism. Eric Sorensen’s linguistic research has concluded that in the stories of Moses, Daniel, and Joseph, “four of the six terms used of magical practitioners have their origins in the Mesopotamian cultures of Assyria and Babylonia. Linguistically, then, the Mesopotamian cultic and occult practices influenced how Hellenistic Judaism interpreted magic and illicit conjurations [precursors to exorcism].” (p. 57)

The practice of exorcism and demonology becomes more prominent in language and content in other Jewish intertestamental literature. Particularly in their testaments and apocalypses, the documents from the scrolls from the Judean desert and the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, offer near-contemporary views of possession and exorcism as viewed in the New Testament; this is seen as sign that Near Eastern practices and beliefs came into the same setting from which New Testament writings and other the synoptic sources were to emerge. (p. 59)

In the words of Eric Sorensen, “Although the Hebrew Bible does not offer explicit evidence of exorcism, the Hellenistic period does introduce the semantic groundwork for the demonology that would become standard to the later presentations of exorcism in the New Testament. During this time the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, and most of the apocryphal documents were composed in Greek. Though Near Eastern demonic personalities do not enter into the early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Greek Version), its derivatives are used to translate various Hebrew terms for spiritual entities. These will come to refer often and exclusively to evil spirits in the New Testament.” (p. 55)

Scientific view

Demonic possession is not a valid psychiatric or medical diagnosis recognized by either the DSM-IV or the ICD-10. Those who profess a belief in demonic possession have sometimes ascribed to possession the symptoms associated with physical or mental illnesses, such as hysteria, mania, psychosis, Tourette's syndrome, epilepsy, schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder.[16][17][18] In cases of dissociative identity disorder in which the alter personality is questioned as to its identity, 29% are reported to identify themselves as demons.[19] Additionally, there is a form of monomania called demonomania or demonopathy in which the patient believes that he or she is possessed by one or more demons.

The illusion that exorcism works on people experiencing symptoms of possession is attributed by some to placebo effect and the power of suggestion.[20] Some supposedly possessed persons are actually narcissists or are suffering from low self-esteem and act like a "demon possessed person" in order to gain attention.[16]

Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck researched exorcisms and claimed to have conducted two himself. He concluded that the Christian concept of possession was a genuine phenomenon. He derived diagnostic criteria somewhat different from those used by the Roman Catholic Church. He also claimed to see differences in exorcism procedures and progression. After his experiences, and in an effort to get his research validated, he attempted but failed to get the psychiatric community to add the definition of "Evil" to the DSM-IV.[21]

Although Peck's earlier work was met with widespread popular acceptance, his work on the topics of evil and possession generated significant debate and derision. Much was made of his association with (and admiration for) the controversial Malachi Martin, a Roman Catholic priest and a former Jesuit, despite the fact that Peck consistently called Martin a liar and manipulator.[22][23] Other criticisms leveled against Peck included claims that he had transgressed the boundaries of professional ethics by attempting to persuade his patients to accept Christianity.[22]

Notable exorcisms

See also: Louviers possessions, Aix-en-Provence possessions, and Loudun possessions
An October 2007 mākutu lifting in the Wellington, New Zealand suburb of Wainuiomata led to the death by drowning of a woman and the hospitalization of a teen. After a long trial, five family members were convicted and sentenced to non-custodial sentences.[24]
Mother Teresa allegedly underwent an exorcism late in life under the direction of the Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry D'Souza, after he noticed she seemed to be extremely agitated in her sleep and feared she "might be under the attack of the evil one."[25]
Anneliese Michel was a Catholic woman from Germany who was said to be possessed by six or more demons and subsequently underwent a secret ten-month-long voluntary exorcism in 1975. Two motion pictures, The Exorcism of Emily Rose and Requiem are loosely based on Anneliese's story. The documentary movie Exorcism of Anneliese Michel [26] (in Polish, with English subtitles) features the original audio tapes from the exorcism. The two priests and her parents were convicted of negligent manslaughter for failing to call a medical doctor to address her eating disorder as she died she weighing only 68 pounds. The case has been labelled a misidentification of mental illness, negligence, abuse, and religious hysteria.
Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, wrote an essay in 1994 about his personal experience of performing an exorcism on an intimate friend named "Susan" while in college.[27]
Michael Taylor in 1974.
A boy identified as Robbie Mannheim,[28][29] was the subject of an exorcism in 1949, which became the chief inspiration for The Exorcist, a horror novel and film written by William Peter Blatty, who heard about the case while he was a student in the class of 1950 at Georgetown University. Robbie was taken into the care of Rev. Luther Miles Schulze, the boy's Lutheran pastor, after psychiatric and medical doctors were unable to explain the disturbing events associated with the teen; the minister then referred the boy to Rev. Edward Hughes, who performed the first exorcism on the teen.[30] The subsequent exorcism was partially performed in both Cottage City, Maryland and Bel-Nor, Missouri[31] by Father William S. Bowdern, S.J., Father Raymond Bishop S.J. and a then Jesuit scholastic Fr. Walter Halloran, S.J.[32]
Salvador Dalí is reputed to have received an exorcism from Italian friar Gabriele Maria Berardi while he was in France in 1947. Dali created a sculpture of Christ on the cross that he gave the friar in thanks.[33]
Clara Germana Cele was a South African school girl who claimed to be possessed in 1906.
Johann Blumhardt performed the exorcism of Gottliebin Dittus over a two-year period in Möttlingen, Germany from 1842-1844. Pastor Blumhardt's parish subsequently experienced growth marked by confession and healing, which he attributed to the successful exorcism.[34][35]
George Lukins in 1778.

Cultural references

Exorcism has been a popular subject in fiction, especially horror.
The Dybbuk (1914 play by S. Ansky)
The Exorcist (1971 novel by William Peter Blatty; inspired by exorcism of Robbie Mannheim)
The Exorcist (1973 film, and its sequels and prequels, were inspired by the exorcism of Robbie Mannheim and the Roman Catholic ritual of exorcism; based on the novels by William Peter Blatty).
Repossessed (1990 comic movie starring Linda Blair and Leslie Nielsen)
The X-Files (1995 TV series Season 2, Episode 21)
Days of Our Lives (1995 saw the first ever excorcism performed on a daytime soap opera)
Marley Davidson (1995 comic book series debut of Marley Davidson, an exorcist in a fictionalized South Bronx)
Stigmata (1999 film starring Patricia Arquette and Gabriel Bryne)
Possessed (2000 film inspired by exorcism of Robbie Mannheim)
Exorcist: The Beginning (2004 movie) a prequel to the 1973 film The Exorcist.
Supernatural (2005 television series, has many exorcisms throughout)
Constantine (2005 movie) is based on the DC/Vertigo comic book Hellblazer.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005 movie) was inspired by the Anneliese Michel case.
Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005 movie) was an alternate prequel to The Exorcist directed by Paul Schrader.
A Haunting (2005 Discovery Channel TV series about reportedly true stories, many involving demons and exorcisms.)
Requiem (2006 German-language movie by Hans-Christian Schmid) is based on the Anneliese Michel case.
D.Gray-man (2006 Japanese animation series by Hoshino Katsura)
Apparitions (2008 BBC TV series)
Boys Do Cry (2007 Family Guy episode about the town of Quahog trying to exorcise Stewie, forcing the family to leave Rhode Island)
Penn & Teller: Bullshit! (Showtime TV series) Season 5, Episode 5 - "Exorcism", air date: April 19, 2007. Provides some skeptical commentary on the usefulness and scientific validity of exorcisms.
1920 (2008 Bollywood movie)
True Blood (2008 HBO television series)
Paranormal State (2008 A&E TV series)
The Unborn (2009 film)
Blue Exorcist (2009 Japanese manga)
The Last Exorcism (2010 American mockumentary horror film)
The Rite (2011 film)
Season of the Witch (2011 film)
6 Days on Earth (2011 film)
The Devil Inside (2012 film)
The Possession (2012 film)
American Horror Story: Asylum (2012 FX TV series)
Pazuzu (2014 film)
Natsume's Book of Friends (2005 Japanese manga and later anime series by Yuki Midorikawa)

See also

Exorcist
Deliverance ministry
International Association of Exorcists
Kecak
List of exorcists
Yoruba religion
Gay exorcism

References

1.^ Jacobs, Louis (1999). "Exorcism". Oxford Reference Online (Oxford University Press). Retrieved 24 Jan. 2011.
2.^ Martin, M (1992). Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco. p. 120.
3.^ a b Libreria Editrice Vaticana; Pope John Paul II, eds. (April 28, 2000), Article 1: Sacramentals, "Part II: The Celebration of The Christian Mystery, Section II: The Seven Sacraments of The Church, Chapter IV: Other Liturgical Celebrations", Catechism of the Catholic Church (2ND ed.) (Citta del Vaticano: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops): 928, ISBN 978-1-57455-110-5, retrieved Feb 15, 2012
4.^ THE ROMAN RITUAL Translated by PHILIP T. WELLER, S.T.D.
5.^ a b The Rite by Matt Baglio; Doubleday, New York, 2009.
6.^ An Exorcist Tells His Story by Fr. Gabriele Amorth; Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999. However, recent research by Mohr and Royal (2012) in which they surveyed nearly 200 Christian exorcists revealed stark contrasts to Catholic practices. In fact, the research revealed that Protestant Christian exorcists believed any "mature Christian" has the authority and ability to cast out demons. Further, experienced exorcists claim most exorcisms do not resemble anything on tv or in the movies. Simply invoking the authority of Jesus' name is sufficient for a Christian, and demons must obey the commands of the Christian exorcist. This is contrary to the Catholic tradition in which exorcisms are performed only be "elect" individuals, prayers are continually repeated, symbols and other artifacts are employed, and angels and other "good" spirits are asked to assist.
7.^ p.33, An Exorcist Tells His Story by Fr. Gabriele Amorth; Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999.
8.^ Malachi M. (1976) Hostage to the Devil: the possession and exorcism of five living Americans. San Francisco, Harpercollins p.462 ISBN 0-06-065337-X
9.^ Werner 1994, p. 166
10.^ Monier-Williams 1974, pp. 25–41
11.^ a b http://www.theblaze.com/stories/some-asian-muslims-giving-up-western-meds-for-islamic-exorcisms-treatments/
12.^ http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/05/14/214122.html
13.^ Josephus, "B. J." vii. 6, § 3; Sanh. 65b.
14.^ a b An interview with a Rabbi concerning the Jewish view of possession and exorcism.
15.^ Sorensen, Eric. In Possession and exorcism in the New Testament and early Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.
16.^ a b How Exorcism Works
17.^ J. Goodwin, S. Hill, R. Attias "Historical and folk techniques of exorcism: applications to the treatment of dissociative disorders"
18.^ Journal of Personality Assessment (abstract)
19.^ Microsoft Word - Haraldur Erlendsson 1.6.03 Multiple Personality
20.^ Voice of Reason: Exorcisms, Fictional and Fatal
21.^ Peck M. MD (1983). People of the Lie: the Hope for Healing Human Evil. New York: Touchstone.
22.^ a b The devil you know, National Catholic Reporter, April 29, 2005, a commentary on Glimpses of the Devil by Richard Woods
23.^ The Patient Is the Exorcist, an interview with M. Scott Peck by Laura Sheahen
24.^ "Deadly curse verdict: five found guilty". The Dominion Post. 13 June 2009. Retrieved 30 September 2011.
25.^ Archbishop: Mother Teresa underwent exorcism CNN 04 September 2001
26.^ Video on YouTube
27.^ http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/bobby-jindal-exorcised-his-college-girlfriend
28.^ Powers of the mind. TV Books. 1999-05. ISBN 978-1-57500-028-2. Retrieved 2007-12-31. "The Reverend Luther Miles Schulze, was called in to help and took Mannheim to his home where he could study the phenomenon at close range;"
29.^ Paranormal Experiences. Unicorn Books. 2009-06-08. ISBN 978-81-7806-166-5. Retrieved 2007-12-31. "A thirteen-year-old American boy named, Robert Mannheim, started using an...The Reverend Luther Miles Schulze, who was called to look into the matter,..."
30.^ A Faraway Ancient Country. Lulu. 2007. ISBN 978-0-615-15801-3. Retrieved 2010-03-27.
31.^ St. Louis - News - Hell of a House
32.^ Part I - The Haunted Boy: the Inspiration for the Exorcist
33.^ Dali's gift to exorcist uncovered Catholic News 14 October 2005
34.^ "Blumhardt's Battle: A Conflict With Satan". Thomas E. Lowe, LTD. Retrieved 2009–09–23.
35.^ Friedrich Zuendel. "The Awakening: One Man's Battle With Darkness". The Plough. Retrieved 2009–09–23.

Further reading

Mohr, M. D., & Royal, K. D. (2012). "Investigating the Practice of Christian Exorcism and the Methods Used to Cast out Demons", Journal of Christian Ministry, 4, p. 35. Available at: http://journalofchristianministry.org/article/view/10287/7073.
William Baldwin, D.D.S., Ph.D., "Spirit Releasement Therapy". ISBN 1-882658-00-0. Practitioner & Instructor of Spirit Releasement Therapy, containing an extensive bibliography.
Shakuntala Modi, M.D., "Remarkable Healings, A Psychiatrist Discovers Unsuspected Roots of Mental and Physical Illness." ISBN 1-57174-079-1 Gives cases, and statistical summaries of the kinds of maladies remedied by this therapy.
Bobby Jindal, BEATING A DEMON: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare. (New Oxford Review, December 1994)
David M. Kiely and Christina McKenna, The Dark Sacrament : True Stories of Modern-Day Demon Possession and Exorcism. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2007. ISBN 0-06-123816-3. Ten detailed accounts from the casebooks of two exorcists, one Roman Catholic, the other Anglican. The cases are very recent.
Malachi Martin, Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Living Americans. ISBN 0-06-065337-X.
M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil : A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption. ISBN
Max Heindel, The Web of Destiny (Chapter I - Part III: "The Dweller on the Threshold" Earth-Bound Spirits, Part IV: The "Sin Body"—Possession by Self-Made Daemons—Elementals, Part V: Obsession of Man and of Animals), ISBN 0-911274-17-0
Frederick M Smith, The Self Possessed: Deity and Spirit Possession in South Asian Literature and Civilization. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006. ISBN 0-231-13748-6
Gabriele Amorth, An Exorcist Tells His Story. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999. Vatican's chief exorcist tells about Roman Catholic practice of exorcism with numerous anecdotes from his own experience.
G. Paxia, The Devil's Scourge - Exorcism during the Italian Renaissance, Ed. WeiserBooks 2002.
J McCarthy The Exorcists Handbook - Approaches the subject of exorcism in a clear non-religious manner. Golem Media Publishers Berkeley CA ISBN 978-1-933993-91-1
Piero Cantoni, Demonologia e prassi dell’esorcismo e delle preghiere di liberazione, en Fides Catholica 1 (2006,. [1].
Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 391-395; 407.409.414.
Don Gino Oliosi, Il demonio come essere personale. Una verità di fede, Fede & Cultura, 2008.

Consider The Exorcism of Emily Rose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exorcism_of_Emily_Rose

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is a 2005 American courtroom drama horror film directed by Scott Derrickson and starring Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson. The film is loosely based on the story of Anneliese Michel and follows a self-proclaimed agnostic defense lawyer (Linney) representing a parish priest (Wilkinson) who is accused by the state of negligent homicide after he performed an exorcism. The film, which largely takes place in a courtroom, depicts the events leading up to and including the exorcism through flashbacks.

Plot

Lawyer Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) defends a priest, Father Richard Moore (Tom Wilkinson), who is charged in connection with an exorcism that led to the death of Emily Rose. The trial begins with the calling of several medical experts by the prosecutor, Ethan Thomas. One expert testifies that Emily was suffering from both epilepsy and psychosis. The defense contests that she may have actually been possessed, though Bruner is careful never to say that in so many words. Indeed, Bruner explains that Emily was suffering from something that neither medicine nor psychology could explain, and that Moore as well as her family realized this and tried to help in another way. Several flashbacks show how this began.

In a series of flashback, Emily's ordeal is shown. Alone in her dorm room one night, at 3:00 AM, Emily notices a strange burning smell coming from the hallway. When she checks on it, she sees the door open and shut by itself several times. When she goes back to her room, she sees a jar of pencils and pens move by itself. Additionally, her bedclothes roll themselves down and a great weight seems to press down on her, a force which also proceeds to choke her. Through these episodes, she wonders if they are really happening or if they are just hallucinations. She suffers more visions, is hospitalized, and diagnosed with epilepsy. She is given anti-seizure medications, which she claims do not work. Her visions continue, as do her severe bodily contortions.

She leaves school and returns to live with her parents. She and her parents become convinced she is neither epileptic nor mentally ill, but is possessed by demons. They ask for their local parish priest to be called in to perform an exorcism, and the Church agrees. The prosecution argues that all this could be explained by a combination of epilepsy (the contortions) and psychosis (the visions).

As the trial proceeds, Bruner begins to experience strange occurrences in her apartment at 3:00 AM, including strange smells and sounds. Moore warns her that she may be targeted by demons for possibly exposing them. Later in the film, he explains that 3:00 AM is the "devil's hour," which evil spirits use to mock the Holy Trinity. Significantly, it is the opposite of 3:00 PM, traditionally taken to be the hour at which Jesus died.

Seeing that the prosecution is putting up a seemingly solid medical case, Bruner decides to try to show that Emily may have actually been possessed. She calls in Dr. Sadira Adani, a professor of anthropology and psychiatry, to testify about various cultures' religious and spiritual beliefs regarding spiritual possession. Adani quotes Carlos Castaneda's A Separate Reality as means to understand the subject, and suggests that Emily was hypersensitive, thus making her an easy mark for possession. Thomas objects, and dismisses the testimony as pseudoscience.

Dr. Cartwright, a medical doctor present during the exorcism, reluctantly comes forward to reveal an audio recording made during the rite. Moore is then called to the stand to testify. The recording is played, and the film then flashes back to the exorcism. It is performed on Halloween night, because Moore believes "All Saints' Eve might be easier to draw out the demons on that night. Emily breaks her ties and jumps out a window, running into a barn. They follow her, and inside the barn, they are subjected to such phenomena as unnatural gusts of wind and demonic screams and voices. The demon inside Emily refuses to name itself after repeated demands from the presiding Father, but finally reveals contemptuously that there are not one but six demons. They go on to identify themselves in dramatic fashion, naming themselves one after another in dual voices from Emily. They identify themselves as the demons who possessed Cain, Nero, and Judas Iscariot, as well as the demons Legion, Belial, and Lucifer himself. Each manifests himself in corresponding native language: Hebrew ("I am the one who dwelt within Cain), Latin (I am the one who inhabited Nero), ancient Greek (I dwelt before within Judas), German (And I was with Legion) and Aramaic ( I am Belial) consecutively. Emily then finally utters in English "And I am Lucifer, devil in the flesh".

Bruner intends to call Dr. Cartwright to testify before the court to corroborate Moore's testimony, but at the time when he is to testify, he does not appear in court. Bruner finds him standing outside the back of the courthouse, where he apologizes for backing out of testifying. He then starts to flee, but is hit and killed by a car.

With their key eyewitness and expert now dead, Bruner calls Moore back to the stand the next day. He reads a letter that Emily wrote before she died. In the letter, Emily describes another vision she had the morning after the exorcism. She walks out of the house and experiences a Marian apparition, in which she is told that although the demons will not leave her, she can leave her body and end her suffering. However, the apparition goes on to say that, if Emily returns to her body, she will help to prove to the world that God and the devil are real. Emily chooses to return, concluding the letter by saying: "People say that God is dead. But how can they think that if I show them the devil?" She then receives stigmata, which Moore believes is a sign of God's love for her. Thomas counters that she could have incurred the wounds by self-injury.

Father Moore is ultimately found guilty; however, on a recommendation from the jury, the judge agrees to a sentence of time served. Bruner is offered a partnership at her firm, but she refuses and instead, she resigns. She goes with Moore to Emily's grave, where he has put a quote (which Emily recited to him the night before she died) from the second chapter twelfth verse of Philippians on her grave: "Work out your own salvation, with fear and trembling."

Cast

Laura Linney as Erin Christine Bruner
Tom Wilkinson as Father Richard Moore
Campbell Scott as Ethan Thomas
Jennifer Carpenter as Emily Rose
Colm Feore as Karl Gunderson
Mary Beth Hurt as Judge Brewster
Henry Czerny as Dr. Briggs
Shohreh Aghdashloo as Dr. Sadira Adani
Joshua Close as Jason
Kenneth Welsh as Dr. Mueller
Duncan Fraser as Dr. Cartwright
J. R. Bourne as Ray

Production

The screenplay was written by director Scott Derrickson and Paul Harris Boardman; in honor of the contributions of Boardman and other collaborators on the film, Derrickson chose to forgo the traditional "film by" credit. According to Derrickson's DVD commentary, he chose Boardman as his co-writer because Derrickson sees himself as a believer and Boardman as a skeptic, and believed the pairing would provide the screenplay with two different perspectives, thus providing the film some ambiguity as to whether it supports a religious/ supernatural interpretation of the events depicted, or a more secular/ medical interpretation.

The character of Emily Rose was inspired by the true story of Anneliese Michel, a young German Catholic woman who died in 1976 after unsuccessful attempts to perform an exorcism upon her with psychotropic drugs. The court accepted the version according to which she was epileptic, refusing to accept the idea of supernatural involvement in this case. Two priests involved in the exorcism, as well as her parents, were found guilty of manslaughter resulting from negligence and received prison time (which was suspended), generating controversy. Michel's grave has become a place of pilgrimage for many Catholics who believe she atoned for wayward priests and sinful youth, and honor her as an unofficial saint.[1]

German director Hans-Christian Schmid launched his own treatment of Anneliese Michel's story, Requiem, around the same time in late 2006.

Reception

As of April 2012, The Exorcism of Emily Rose had made $1800,216,468 worldwide.[2] In 2006, the Chicago Film Critics Association listed the film in their Top 100 Scariest Films Ever Made at #86.[3] Jennifer Carpenter, whose "demonic" bodily contortions were often achieved without the aid of visual effects, won "Best Frightened Performance" at the MTV Movie Awards in 2006;[4] however, according to review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, critical reception to the film was overall mixed.[5] As emphasized by Roger Ebert, who described The Exorcism of Emily Rose as "intriguing and perplexing", the film "asks a secular institution, the court, to decide a question that hinges on matters the court cannot have an opinion on".[6] Ebert noted that "the screenplay is intelligent and open to occasional refreshing wit".[6] Paul Arendt from BBC outlined that "the flashback story... is high-octane schlock that occasionally works your nerves, thanks to a committed performance from Jennifer Carpenter".[7]

The general consensus between 150 critics was that "[the film] mixes compelling courtroom drama with generally gore-free scares in a ho-hum take on demonic cinema." It holds a 44% 'rotten' approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 150 reviews. On Metacritic it has an overall score of 46 out of 100, based on 32 reviews.[8]

[edit] See also
Exorcism: The Possession of Gail Bowers
Requiem
Possessed
Exorcism of Roland Doe
Anneliese Michel

References

1.^ What in God's Name?!
2.^ The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
3.^ http://www.filmspotting.net/top100.htm
4.^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1358539/awards
5.^ http://au.rottentomatoes.com/m/exorcism_of_emily_rose/
6.^ a b Roger Ebert. "The Exorcism of Emily Rose". Rogerebert.suntimes.com. Retrieved 2010-12-20.
7.^ Paul Arendt. "The Exorcism Of Emily Rose (2005)". BBC. Retrieved 2010-12-20.
8.^ http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/exorcismofemilyrose

I think the approach which I've modeled within this thread has potential -- even though it has made a mess of me. On the other hand, I might've been predestined, in some way, for a life of misery and mediocrity. Anyway, perhaps Positive-Reinforcement is a reasonable approach to Life, the Universe, and Everything. I prefer the term 'Positive-Reinforcement' rather than 'Positive-Thinking and Self-Esteem' (especially of the Pompous and Supercilious variety).

Perhaps I should chuck my idealism -- and get real -- real fast. Why should I tell good people to be even better -- when those who are running the show have NO intention of playing nice and fair?? But really, if I were in their shoes, I might might be just like them. In fact, I might be even worse. If one wishes to be rich, famous, and powerful -- it seems as if one must bow-down and worship the God of This World -- keep up appearances -- and do exactly as instructed -- while remaining morally-ambiguous. Perhaps this is the way things have to be -- as reprehensible as this seems to me. If one is ordered to assist in bringing down skyscrapers in Lower Manhattan -- one just follows orders. Is this an extreme view -- or is this the way things really work?? BTW -- did 9/11 keep certain reforms from being implemented?? Will another "event" keep certain reforms from being implemented?? Did 9/11 prevent an even worse "event" from happening?? Was "god" trying to get our attention?? Did the perpetrators "do it for 'god'"?? I've joked about being near the center of things -- yet perhaps I wouldn't like the view from the Top of the Pyramid. Perhaps my place in the great scheme of things is to be a Dreamer of Dreams as a Completely Ignorant Fool. I wish I were joking. The following quotation is from Windswept House (1996) -- Pages 310-311 -- by Malachi Martin. It is fiction, and doesn't prove anything -- yet it made me think -- and sent chills up and down my spine.

"All I want," Cessi had reminded her financial advisor, "is enough coaching so that I won't sound too stupid when we walk into the Vatican Bank."

Roche made sure Cessi understood that the Vatican Bank was a real bank. The portfolio of the Institute for Religious Agencies, he told her, was right up there with the mijor financial institutions the world over. There was hardly any sector of human life in which the IRA hadn't invested Vatican funds.

Of course, Roche hastened to add, the fact that his bank was a real bank did not mean that the Pontiff was a real banker who micromanaged the financial affairs of the Vaticaan and the Holy See. Glenn had provided a fair rundown of key IRA personnel and the impressive scope of their operations, with detailed emphasis on the two men Cessi would be visiting, Dr. Pier Giorgio Maldonado and canny old Cardinal Amedeo Sanstefano, who, as head of the Prefecture of Economic Affairs, answered directly to the Holy Father for all economic and financial dealings of the Vatican, including those of the IRA.

Nonetheless, Glenn observed, the Pontiff had more control over the Institute of Religious Agencies than over most of the other Vatican ministries. The IRA, it seemed, had a special charter that couldn't be tampered with by anybody except the Pope. And that fact was basic to his independence of action, was the essential underpinning of his freedom from in-house constraints and external pressures.

All of that was simple enough for Cessi to grasp. But Glenn had insisted she see just what a major financial portfolio looked like these days. And that had required an excursion to a bleak building in midtown Manhaattan where they had been excorted by a trio of guards through a warren of locked rooms monitored at every turn by television scanners.

Finally, they had found themselves standing amid the components of a massive computer. "This is the brain that organizes and makes possible the globalized financial dealings of our brave new world." Roche bowed in mock politeness.

"This electronic doodad?" Glenn explained that something approaching a trillion dollars passed through this unthinking brain each day, a sum that was more than the entire money supply of the United States.

"Remember your shares in the Racol-Guardata Corporation, Cessi? Well, that's the outfit that makes this electronic doodad. These black boxes you see here and a pair of Unisys A-15J mainframe computers manage coded orders that come in through one hundred and thirty-four dedicated telephone lines from everybody who is anybody in the financial world, including the Gladstones."

"Including the Church of God?"

"Including the Pope's bank," Roche confirmed as he signaled the guards they were ready to leave.

Glenn's little crash course in world finance wasn't finished yet. Once back in his office at Glen Roche Securities, he pulled a thin volume from the bookshelves behind his desk and flicked its pages until he came to the passage he wanted to read aloud to Cessi. "'Since I entered politics'" -- Glenn settled into his chair as he read--"'I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.'"

Roche snapped the little book shut. "Woodrow Wilson wrote those words in 1913."

Cessi got the point. Those black boxes and the Unisys A-15J were exactly what she had said. Electronic doodads. Somebody engineered them, programmed them, manipulated them. "So." She spoke softly as if to herself, or perhaps to her guardian angel. "The Devil is wired to the world at last."

Does Satan have an office at Goldman Sachs?? Is Satan the CEO of Solar Systems Unlimited?? Is Satan (in the preferred form) a nine-foot tall Draconian-Reptilian?? I don't write any of this to be mean. I write it because things might be a helluva lot different than what they taught us in Sabbath-School and Sunday-School. I just think we're going to find out about a helluva lot of upsetting information over the next decade or two. I'm trying to hint at what I think might be going on -- in a somewhat humorous and irreverent manner -- but most of the tripe I write is simply speculation. The Boys from Georgetown know a helluva lot more than I do.

I have NO idea what's really going on with this old Leo Zagami rant -- yet does it reveal at least some forbidden knowledge?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z7O7UZxipM As you must know by now -- I just take in a lot of the madness which is 'out there' -- and then I speculate and model -- in a very neutral and low-key manner. I have promised to keep this Tempest in a Teapot mostly within this website. I fully intend to keep this promise. I know too little -- the stakes are too high -- and I suspect the way things really are is worse than even I can imagine. I am very sluggish and debilitated -- even though I seem to be able to deal with the most upsetting and abstract information rather well. I can't seem to carry on a simple conversation -- even if my eternal life depended on it -- yet I can comprehend hidden aspects and concepts in the most scholarly books and lectures. This is all very strange. I seem to be able to write rather well -- yet preparing me for a press-conference would be nearly impossible. A teleprompter, drugs, rituals, perfect-possession, and a chip-implanted brain wouldn't even save me from Making a Completely Ignorant Fool Out of Myself on Live Network Television. I wish I were joking.

If God were made flesh, and dwelt among us -- would he and/or she feel comfortable with a United States of the Solar System?? If so, what role should they play in such a solar system?? Should they be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- in Perpetuity?? I have NO idea -- but I think I might take a closer look at the Supreme Court -- in light of this, and other, questions and issues. Remember, this thread is HIGHLY experimental and tentative. This is a Test. This is Only a Test. I simply wish for things to improve. I am quite positive regarding this thread -- yet I am VERY negative regarding myself. Look closely at the thread -- but don't even bother to look at me -- and I'm being extremely serious.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases.[1] The Court, which meets in the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment.[2][3]

History

The Supreme Court was organized on February 2, 1790.[4]

Marshall Court

Under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court heard few cases; its first decision was West v. Barnes (1791), a case involving a procedural issue.[5] The Court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige,[6] a situation not helped by the highest-profile case of the era, Chisholm v. Georgia, which was immediately repudiated by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Court's power and prestige waxed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835).[7] Under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison)[8][9] and made several important constitutional rulings giving shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and the states (prominently, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden).[10][11][12][13]

The Marshall Court also ended the practice of each justice issuing his opinion seriatim,[14] a remnant of British tradition,[15] and instead issuing a single majority opinion.[14] Also during Marshall's tenure, although beyond the Court's control, the impeachment and acquittal of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804–1805 helped cement the principle of judicial independence.[16][17]

From Taney to Taft

The Taney Court (1836–1864) made several important rulings, such as Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to prevent them from hearing cases dealing with certain subjects.[18] Nevertheless, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[19] which may have helped precipitate the Civil War.[20] In the Reconstruction era, the Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution[13] and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York;[21] Adair v. United States).[22]

Under the White and Taft Courts (1910–1930), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment had incorporated some guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the states (Gitlow v. New York),[23] grappled with the new antitrust statutes (Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States), upheld the constitutionality of military conscription (Selective Draft Law Cases)[24] and brought the substantive due process doctrine to its first apogee (Adkins v. Children's Hospital).[25]

The New Deal era

During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–1953), the Court gained its own accommodation in 1935[26] and changed its interpretation of the Constitution, giving a broader reading to the powers of the federal government to facilitate President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (most prominently West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Wickard v. Filburn, United States v. Darby and United States v. Butler).[27] [28][29] During World War II, the Court continued to favor government power, upholding the internment of Japanese citizens (Korematsu v. United States) and the mandatory pledge of allegiance (Minersville School District v. Gobitis). Nevertheless, Gobitis was soon repudiated (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette), and the Steel Seizure Case restricted the pro-government trend.

Warren and Burger

The Warren Court (1953–1969) dramatically expanded the force of Constitutional civil liberties.[30] It held that segregation in public schools violates equal protection (Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe and Green v. County School Bd.)[31] and that traditional legislative district boundaries violated the right to vote (Reynolds v. Sims). It created a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut),[32] limited the role of religion in public school (most prominently Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp),[33][34] incorporated most guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the States—prominently Mapp v. Ohio (the exclusionary rule) and Gideon v. Wainwright (right to appointed counsel),[35][36]—and required that criminal suspects be apprised of all these rights by police (Miranda v. Arizona);[37] At the same time, however, the Court limited defamation suits by public figures (New York Times v. Sullivan) and supplied the government with an unbroken run of antitrust victories.[38]

The Burger Court (1969–1986) expanded Griswold's right to privacy to strike down abortion laws (Roe v. Wade),[39] but divided deeply on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke)[40] and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo),[41] and dithered on the death penalty, ruling first that most applications were defective (Furman v. Georgia),[42] then that the death penalty itself was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).[42][43][44]

Rehnquist and Roberts

The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism,[45] emphasizing the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez) and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores).[46][47][48][49][50] It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas),[51] and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).[52] The Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, was controversial.[53][54]

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more conservative than the Rehnquist Court.[55][56] Some of its major rulings have concerned federal preemption (Wyeth v. Levine), civil procedure (Twombly-Iqbal), abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart),[57] and the Bill of Rights, prominently Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (First Amendment),[58] Heller-McDonald (Second Amendment),[59] and Baze v. Rees (Eighth Amendment).[60][61]

Composition

Article III of the United States Constitution leaves it to Congress to fix the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.

In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[62] where it has since remained.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to pack the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt's New Deal.[63] The plan, usually called the "Court-packing Plan", failed in Congress.[64] Nevertheless, the Court's balance began to shift within months when Justice van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[65]

Appointment and confirmation

The President of the United States appoints justices "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."[66] Most presidents nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a justice's decisions may end up being contrary to a president's expectations. Because the Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, a president may nominate anyone to serve, subject to Senate confirmation.

In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from the press and advocacy groups, which lobby senators to confirm or to reject a nominee depending on whether their track record aligns with the group's views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings and votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report. The committee's practice of personally interviewing nominees is relatively recent. The first nominee to appear before the committee was Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925, who sought to quell concerns about his links to Wall Street, and the modern practice of questioning began with John Marshall Harlan II in 1955.[67] Once the committee reports out the nomination, the full Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees, most recently Robert Bork in 1987.

Nevertheless, not every nominee has received a floor vote in the Senate. Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a nomination, a nominee may be filibustered once debate has begun in the full Senate. No nomination for associate justice has ever been filibustered, but President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. A president may also withdraw a nominee's name before the actual confirmation vote occurs, typically because it is clear that the Senate will reject them, most recently Harriet Miers in 2006.

Once the Senate confirms a nomination, the president must prepare and sign a commission, to which the Seal of the Department of Justice must be affixed, before the new justice can take office.[68] The seniority of an associate justice is based on the commissioning date, not the confirmation or swearing-in date.[69]

Before 1981, the approval process of justices was usually rapid. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. Some believe this is because Congress sees justices as playing a more political role than in the past.[70]

Recess appointments

When the Senate is in recess, a president may make temporary appointments to fill vacancies. Recess appointees hold office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). The Senate must confirm the nominee for them to continue serving; of the two chief justices and six associate justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed.

No president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Court, and the practice has become rare and controversial even in lower federal courts.[71] In 1960, after Eisenhower had made three such appointments, the Senate passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution that recess appointments to the Court should only be made in "unusual circumstances."[72] Such resolutions are not legally binding but are an expression of Congress's views in the hope of guiding executive action.[72][73]

Tenure

The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign or retire.[74] Only one justice has been impeached by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was acquitted in the Senate (March 1805).[75] Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, once in 1953 and again in 1970), but they did not reach a vote in the House. No mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, both unable to resign and unable to resume service.[76]

Because justices have indefinite tenure, timing of vacancies can be unpredictable. Sometimes vacancies arise in quick succession, as in the early 1970s when Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. and William Rehnquist were nominated to replace Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II, who retired within a week of each other. Sometimes a great length of time passes between nominations such as the eleven years between Stephen Breyer's nomination in 1994 and the nomination of John Roberts in 2005 to fill the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor (though Roberts' nomination was withdrawn and resubmitted for the role of Chief Justice after Rehnquist died).

Despite the variability, all but four presidents have been able to appoint at least one justice. William Henry Harrison died a month after taking office, though his successor (John Tyler) made an appointment during that presidential term. Zachary Taylor likewise died early in his term, although his successor (Millard Fillmore) also made a Supreme Court nomination before the end of that term. Andrew Johnson, who succeeded to the presidency after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was denied the opportunity to appoint a justice by a contraction in the size of the Court. Jimmy Carter is the only president who completed at least one full term in office without making a nomination to the Court during his presidency.

Three presidents have appointed justices who collectively served more than 100 years: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.[77]

Current justices

John Roberts (Chief Justice) -- Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2003–2005); Private practice (1993–2003); Professor, Georgetown University Law Center (1992–2005); Principal Deputy Solicitor General (1989–1993); Private practice (1986–1989); Associate Counsel to the President (1982–1986); Special Assistant to the Attorney General (1981–1982)

Antonin Scalia -- Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1982–1986); Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1977–1982); Assistant Attorney General (1974–1977); Professor, University of Virginia School of Law (1967–1974); Private practice (1961–1967)

Anthony Kennedy -- Formerly Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1975–1988); Professor, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific (1965–1988); Private practice (1963–1975)

Clarence Thomas -- Formerly Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1990–1991); Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1982–1990); legislative assistant for Missouri Senator John Danforth (1979–1981); employed by Monsanto Company Inc. (1977–1979); Assistant Attorney General in Missouri under State Attorney General John Danforth (1974–1977)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- Formerly Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1980–1993); General Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union (1973–1980); Professor, Columbia Law School (1972–1980); Professor, Rutgers University School of Law (1963–1972)

Stephen Breyer -- Formerly Chief Judge, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (1990–1994); Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (1980–1990); Professor, Harvard Law School (1967–1980)

Samuel Alito -- Formerly Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1990–2006); Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law (1999–2004); U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (1987–1990); Deputy Assistant Attorney General (1985–1987); Assistant to the Solicitor General (1981–1985); Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (1977–1981)

Sonia Sotomayor -- Formerly Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1998–2009); District Judge, District Court for the Southern District of New York (1992–1998); Private practice (1984–1991); Assistant District Attorney, New York County, New York (1979–1984)

Elena Kagan -- Formerly Solicitor General of the United States (2009–2010); Dean of Harvard Law School (2003–2009); Professor, Harvard Law School (2001–2003); Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School (1999–2001); Associate White House Counsel (1995–1999); Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1995–1999); Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1995); Associate Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1991–1995)

Court demographics

The Court currently has six male and three female justices. One justice is African American, one is Latino, and two are Italian-Americans; six justices are Roman Catholics, and three are Jewish. The average age is 67 years, 4 months, and every current justice has an Ivy League background.[78] Four justices are from the state of New York, two from New Jersey, two from California, and one from Georgia.

In the 19th century, every justice was a male of European descent, and concerns about diversity focused on geography, to represent all regions of the country, rather than ethnic, religious, or gender diversity.[79] Thurgood Marshall became the first African American Justice in 1967, and Sandra Day O'Connor became the first female Justice in 1981. O'Connor, whose appointment fulfilled Ronald Reagan's campaign promise to place a woman on the Court, was later joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Marshall was succeeded by Clarence Thomas in 1991, who is the second African American to serve on the Supreme Court. After O'Connor had in 2006 been succeeded by Samuel Alito, Ginsburg was in 2009 joined by Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latino justice, and in 2010 by Elena Kagan, so that there were three female justices.

Most justices have been Protestants, including thirty-five Episcopalians, nineteen Presbyterians, ten Unitarians, five Methodists, and three Baptists.[80][81] The first Catholic justice was Roger Taney in 1836, and 1916 saw the appointment of the first Jewish justice, Louis Brandeis. In recent years this situation has reversed: after the retirement of Justice Stevens in June 2010, the Court is without a Protestant for the first time in its history.[82]

Retired justices

There are currently three living retired justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, and David Souter. As retired justices, they no longer participate in the work of the Supreme Court, but may be designated for temporary assignments to sit on lower federal courts, usually the United States Courts of Appeals. Such assignments are formally made by the Chief Justice, on request of the Chief Judge of the lower court and with the consent of the retired Justice. In recent years, Justice O'Connor has sat with several Courts of Appeals around the country, and Justice Souter has frequently sat on the First Circuit, the court of which he was briefly a member before joining the Supreme Court.

The status of a retired Justice is analogous to that of a Circuit or District Judge who has taken senior status, and eligibility of a Supreme Court Justice to assume retired status (rather than simply resign from the bench) is governed by the same age and service criteria.

Justices sometimes strategically plan their decisions to leave the bench, with personal, institutional, and partisan factors playing a role.[83][84] The fear of mental decline and death often motivates justices to step down. The desire to maximize the Court's strength and legitimacy through one retirement at a time, when the Court is in recess, and during non-presidential election years suggests a concern for institutional health. Finally, especially in recent decades, many justices have timed their departure to coincide with a compatible president holding office to ensure that a like-minded successor would be appointed.[85][86]

Seniority and seating

Many of the internal operations of the Court are organized by the seniority of the justices; the Chief Justice is considered the most senior member of the Court, regardless of the length of his or her service. The Associate Justices are then ranked by the length of their service.

During Court sessions, the justices sit according to seniority, with the Chief Justice in the center, and the Associate Justices on alternating sides, with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief Justice's immediate right, and the most junior Associate Justice seated on the left farthest away from the Chief Justice. Therefore, the current court sits as follows from left to right when looking at the bench from the perspective of a lawyer arguing before the Court: Sotomayor, Breyer, Thomas, Scalia (most senior Associate Justice), Roberts (Chief Justice), Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, and Kagan. In the official yearly Court photograph, justices are arranged similarly, with the five most senior members sitting in the front row in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions (Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg), and the four most junior justices standing behind them, again in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions (Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito, Kagan).

In the justices' private conferences, the current practice is for them to speak and vote in order of seniority from the Chief Justice first to the most junior Associate Justice last. The most junior Associate Justice in these conferences is tasked with any menial labor the justices may require as they convene alone, such as answering the door of their conference room, serving coffee, and transmitting the orders of the Court to the court's clerk.[87] Justice Joseph Story served the longest as the junior justice, from February 3, 1812, to September 1, 1823, for a total of 4,228 days. Justice Stephen Breyer follows close behind, with 4,199 days when Samuel Alito joined the court on January 31, 2006.[88]

Salary

Main article: Federal judge salaries in the United States

For the years 2009 and 2010, associate justices were paid $213,900 and the chief justice $223,500.[89] Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from reducing the pay for incumbent justices. Once a justice meets age and service requirements, the justice may retire. Judicial pensions are based on the normal formula for federal employees, but a justice's pension will never be less than their salary at time of retirement. (The same procedure applies to judges of other federal courts.)

Judicial leanings

While justices do not represent or receive official endorsements from political parties, as is accepted practice in the legislative and executive branches, jurists are informally categorized in legal and political circles as being judicial conservatives, moderates, or liberals. Such leanings, however, generally refer to legal outlook rather than a political or legislative one.

As of the October 2012 term, the Court consists of five justices appointed by Republican presidents and four appointed by Democratic presidents. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito (appointed by Republican presidents) comprise the Court's conservative wing. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan (appointed by Democratic presidents) comprise the Court's liberal wing. Justice Kennedy (appointed by President Reagan) is generally considered "a conservative who has occasionally voted with liberals",[90] and is often the swing vote that determines the outcome of close cases.[91][92][93]

Tom Goldstein argued in an article in SCOTUSblog in 2010, that the popular view of the Supreme Court as sharply divided along ideological lines and each side pushing an agenda at every turn is "in significant part a caricature designed to fit certain preconceptions." [94] He points out that in the 2009 term, almost half the cases were decided unanimously, and only about 20% were decided by a 5-to-4 vote. Barely one in ten cases involved the narrow liberal/conservative divide (fewer if the cases where Sotomayor recused herself are not included). He also pointed to several cases that defy the popular conception of the ideological lines of the Court.[95] Goldstein further argued that the large number of pro-criminal-defendant summary dismissals (usually cases where the justices decide that the lower courts significantly misapplied precedent and reverse the case without briefing or argument) are an illustration that the conservative justices have not been aggressively ideological. Likewise, Goldstein stated that the critique that the liberal justices are more likely to invalidate acts of Congress, show inadequate deference to the political process, and be disrespectful of precedent, also lacks merit: Thomas has most often called for overruling prior precedent (even if long standing) that he views as having been wrongly decided, and during the 2009 term Scalia and Thomas voted most often to invalidate legislation.

According to statistics compiled by SCOTUSblog, in the twelve terms from 2000 to 2011, an average of 19 of the opinions on major issues (22%) were decided by a 5–4 vote, with an average of 70% of those split opinions decided by a Court divided along the traditionally perceived ideological lines (about 15% of all opinions issued). Over that period, the conservative bloc has been in the majority about 62% of the time that the Court has divided along ideological lines, which represents about 44% of all the 5–4 decisions.[96]

In the October 2010 term, the Court decided 86 cases, including 75 signed opinions and 5 summary reversals (where the Court reverses a lower court without arguments and without issuing an opinion on the case).[97][98] Four were decided with unsigned opinions, two cases affirmed by an equally divided Court, and two cases were dismissed as improvidently granted. Justice Kagan recused herself from 26 of the cases due to her prior role as United States Solicitor General. Of the 80 cases, 38 (about 48%, the highest percentage since the October 2005 term) were decided unanimously (9–0 or 8–0), and 16 decisions were made by a 5–4 vote (about 20%, compared to 18% in the October 2009 term, and 29% in the October 2008 term).[99] However, in fourteen of the sixteen 5–4 decisions, the Court divided along the traditional ideological lines (with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan on the liberal side, and Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito on the conservative, and Kennedy providing the "swing vote"). This represents 87% of those 16 cases, the highest rate in the past 10 years. The conservative bloc, joined by Kennedy, formed the majority in 63% of the 5–4 decisions, the highest cohesion rate of that bloc in the Roberts court.[97][100][101][102][103]

In the October 2011 term, the Court decided 75 cases. Of these, 33 (about 44%) were decided unanimously, and 15 (about 20%, the same percentage as in the previous term) were decided by a vote of 5–4. Of the latter 15, the Court divided along the perceived ideological lines 10 times, with Justice Kennedy siding with the conservative justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) five times, and with the liberal justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) five times.[96][104][105]

Politicization of the Court

Clerks hired by each of the justices of the Supreme Court are often given considerable leeway in the opinions they draft. "Supreme Court clerkship appeared to be a nonpartisan institution from the 1940s into the 1980s", according to a study published in 2009 by the law review of Vanderbilt University Law School.[106][107] "As law has moved closer to mere politics, political affiliations have naturally and predictably become proxies for the different political agendas that have been pressed in and through the courts", former federal court of appeals judge J. Michael Luttig said.[106] David J. Garrow, professor of history at the University of Cambridge, stated that the Court had thus begun to mirror the political branches of government. "We are getting a composition of the clerk workforce that is getting to be like the House of Representatives", Professor Garrow said. "Each side is putting forward only ideological purists."[106]

According to the Vanderbilt Law Review study, this politicized hiring trend reinforces the impression that the Supreme Court is "a superlegislature responding to ideological arguments rather than a legal institution responding to concerns grounded in the rule of law."[106]

A poll conducted in June 2012 by The New York Times and CBS News showed that just 44 percent of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing. Three-quarters said the justices' decisions are sometimes influenced by their political or personal views.[108]

Facilities

The Supreme Court first met on February 1, 1790, at the Merchants' Exchange Building in New York City. When Philadelphia became the capital, the Court met briefly in Independence Hall before settling in Old City Hall from 1791 until 1800. After the government moved to Washington, D.C., the Court occupied various spaces in the United States Capitol building until 1935, when it moved into its own purpose-built home. The four-story building was designed by Cass Gilbert in a classical style sympathetic to the surrounding buildings of the Capitol and Library of Congress, and is clad in marble. The building includes the courtroom, justices' chambers, an extensive law library, various meeting spaces, and auxiliary services including a gymnasium. The Supreme Court building is within the ambit of the Architect of the Capitol, but maintains its own police force separate from the Capitol Police.[109]

Located across the street from the United States Capitol at One First Street NE and Maryland Avenue,[110][111] the building is open to the public from 9 am to 4:30 pm weekdays but closed on weekends and holidays.[110] Visitors may not tour the actual courtroom unaccompanied. There is a cafeteria, a gift shop, exhibits, and a half-hour informational film.[109] When the Court is not in session, lectures about the courtroom are held hourly from 9:30 am to 3:30 pm and reservations are not necessary.[109] When the Court is in session the public may attend oral arguments, which are held twice each morning (and sometimes afternoons) on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays in two-week intervals from October through late April, with breaks during December and February. Visitors are seated on a first-come first-served basis. One estimate is there are about 250 seats available.[112] The number of open seats varies from case to case; for important cases, some visitors arrive the day before and wait through the night. From mid-May until the end of June, the court releases orders and opinions beginning at 10 am, and these 15 to 30-minute sessions are open to the public on a similar basis.[109] Supreme Court Police are available to answer questions.[110]

Jurisdiction

Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States

Section 2 of Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The jurisdiction of the federal courts was further limited by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbade federal courts from hearing cases "commenced or prosecuted against [a State] by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." However, states may waive this immunity, and Congress may abrogate the states' immunity in certain circumstances (see Sovereign immunity). In addition to constitutional constraints, Congress is authorized by Article III to regulate the court's appellate jurisdiction: for example, the federal courts may hear cases only if one or more of the following conditions are met:

1.If there is diversity of citizenship (meaning, the parties are citizens of different states or countries, including foreign states[113]), and the amount of damages exceeds $75,000.[114]
2.If the case presents a federal question, meaning that it involves a claim or issue "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States".[115]
3.If the United States federal government (including the Post Office[116]) is a party in the case.[117][118]

Exercise of this power can become controversial (see jurisdiction stripping). For example, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(1), as amended by the Detainee Treatment Act, provides that "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the Court has only appellate jurisdiction. It considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states.

The power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts, rather than just federal courts, was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and upheld early in the Court's history, by its rulings in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The Supreme Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over direct appeals from state court decisions, although there are several devices that permit so-called "collateral review" of state cases.

Since Article Three of the United States Constitution stipulates that federal courts may only entertain "cases" or "controversies", the Supreme Court avoids deciding cases that are moot and does not render advisory opinions, as the supreme courts of some states may do. For example, in DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), the Court dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a law school affirmative action policy because the plaintiff student had graduated since he began the lawsuit, and a decision from the Court on his claim would not be able to redress any injury he had suffered. The mootness exception is not absolute. If an issue is "capable of repetition yet evading review", the Court will address it even though the party before the Court would not himself be made whole by a favorable result. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and other abortion cases, the Court addresses the merits of claims pressed by pregnant women seeking abortions even if they are no longer pregnant because it takes longer than the typical human gestation period to appeal a case through the lower courts to the Supreme Court.

Justices as Circuit Justices

The United States is divided into thirteen circuit courts of appeals, each of which is assigned a "Circuit Justice" from the Supreme Court. Although this concept has been in continuous existence throughout the history of the republic, its meaning has changed through time.

Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, each Justice was required to "ride circuit", or to travel within the assigned circuit and consider cases alongside local judges. This practice encountered opposition from many Justices, who cited the difficulty of travel. Moreover, several individuals opposed it because a Justice could not be expected to be impartial in an appeal if he had previously decided the same case while riding circuit. Circuit riding was abolished in 1891.

Today, the Circuit Justice for each circuit is responsible for dealing with certain types of applications that, under the Court's rules, may be addressed by a single Justice. These include applications for emergency stays (including stays of execution in death-penalty cases) and injunctions pursuant to the All Writs Act arising from cases within that circuit, as well as routine requests such as requests for extensions of time. In the past, Circuit Justices also sometimes ruled on motions for bail in criminal cases, writs of habeas corpus, and applications for writs of error granting permission to appeal. Ordinarily, a Justice will resolve such an application by simply endorsing it "Granted" or "Denied" or entering a standard form of order. However, the Justice may elect to write an opinion—referred to as an in-chambers opinion—in such matters if he or she wishes.

A Circuit Justice may sit as a judge on the Court of Appeals of that circuit, but over the past hundred years, this has rarely occurred. A Circuit Justice sitting with the Court of Appeals has seniority over the Chief Judge of the circuit.

The Chief Justice has traditionally been assigned to the District of Columbia Circuit, the Fourth Circuit (which includes Maryland and Virginia, the states surrounding the District of Columbia), and since it was established, the Federal Circuit. Each Associate Justice is assigned to one or two judicial circuits.

As of September 28, 2010, the allotment of the justices among the circuits is:[119]

District of Columbia Circuit -- Chief Justice Roberts

First Circuit -- Justice Breyer

Second Circuit -- Justice Ginsburg

Third Circuit -- Justice Alito

Fourth Circuit -- Chief Justice Roberts

Fifth Circuit -- Justice Scalia

Sixth Circuit -- Justice Kagan

Seventh Circuit -- Justice Kagan

Eighth Circuit -- Justice Alito

Ninth Circuit -- Justice Kennedy

Tenth Circuit -- Justice Sotomayor

Eleventh Circuit -- Justice Thomas

Federal Circuit -- Chief Justice Roberts

Four of the current Justices are assigned to circuits on which they previously sat as circuit judges: Chief Justice Roberts (D.C. Circuit), Justice Breyer (First Circuit), Justice Alito (Third Circuit), and Justice Kennedy (Ninth Circuit).

Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States

A term of the Supreme Court commences on the first Monday of each October, and continues until June or early July of the following year. Each term consists of alternating periods of approximately two weeks known as "sittings" and "recesses." Justices hear cases and deliver rulings during sittings; they discuss cases and write opinions during recesses.

Case selection

Nearly all cases come before the court by way of petitions for writs of certiorari, commonly referred to as "cert". The Court may review any case in the federal courts of appeals "by writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case".[120] The Court may only review "final judgments rendered by the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had" if those judgments involve a question of federal statutory or constitutional law.[121] The party that lost in the lower court is the petitioner and the party that prevailed is the respondent. All case names before the Court are styled petitioner v. respondent, regardless of which party initiated the lawsuit in the trial court. For example, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the state and against an individual, as in State of Arizona v. Ernesto Miranda. If the defendant is convicted, and his conviction then is affirmed on appeal in the state supreme court, when he petitions for cert the name of the case becomes Miranda v. Arizona.

There are situations where the Court has original jurisdiction, such as when two states have a dispute against each other, or when there is a dispute between the United States and a state. In such instances, a case is filed with the Supreme Court directly. Examples of such cases include United States v. Texas, a case to determine whether a parcel of land belonged to the United States or to Texas, and Virginia v. Tennessee, a case turning on whether an incorrectly drawn boundary between two states can be changed by a state court, and whether the setting of the correct boundary requires Congressional approval. Although it has not happened since 1794 in the case of Georgia v. Brailsford,[122] parties in an action at law in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction may request that a jury determine issues of fact.[123] Two other original jurisdiction cases involve colonial era borders and rights under navigable waters in New Jersey v. Delaware, and water rights between riparian states upstream of navigable waters in Kansas v. Colorado.

The common shorthand name for cases is typically the first party (the petitioner). For example, Brown v. Board of Education is referred to simply as Brown, and Roe v. Wade as Roe. The exception to this rule is when the name of a state, or the United States, or some government entity, is the first listed party. In that instance, the name of the second party is the shorthand name. For example, Iowa v. Tovar is referred to simply as Tovar, and Gonzales v. Raich is referred to simply as Raich, because the first party, Alberto Gonzales, was sued in his official capacity as the United States Attorney General.

A cert petition is voted on at a session of the court called a conference. A conference is a private meeting of the nine Justices by themselves; the public and the Justices' clerks are excluded. If four Justices vote to grant the petition, the case proceeds to the briefing stage; otherwise, the case ends. Except in death penalty cases and other cases in which the Court orders briefing from the respondent, the respondent may, but is not required to, file a response to the cert petition.

The court grants a petition for cert only for "compelling reasons", spelled out in the court's Rule 10. Such reasons include:
Resolving a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal Constitution
Correcting an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
Resolving an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court.

When a conflict of interpretations arises from differing interpretations of the same law or constitutional provision issued by different federal circuit courts of appeals, lawyers call this situation a "circuit split". If the court votes to deny a cert petition, as it does in the vast majority of such petitions that come before it, it does so typically without comment. A denial of a cert petition is not a judgment on the merits of a case, and the decision of the lower court stands as the final ruling in the case.

To manage the high volume of cert petitions received by the Court each year (of the more than 7,000 petitions the Court receives each year, it will usually request briefing and hear oral argument in 100 or fewer), the Court employs an internal case management tool known as the "cert pool." Currently, all justices except for Justice Alito participate in the cert pool.[124][125][126]

Oral argument

When the Court grants a cert petition, the case is set for oral argument. Both parties will file briefs on the merits of the case, as distinct from the reasons they may have argued for granting or denying the cert petition. With the consent of the parties or approval of the Court, amici curiae, or "friends of the court", may also file briefs. The Court holds two-week oral argument sessions each month from October through April. Each side has thirty minutes to present its argument (the Court may choose to give more time, though this is rare[127] ), and during that time, the Justices may interrupt the advocate and ask questions. The petitioner gives the first presentation, and may reserve some time to rebut the respondent's arguments after the respondent has concluded. Amici curiae may also present oral argument on behalf of one party if that party agrees. The Court advises counsel to assume that the Justices are familiar with and have read the briefs filed in a case.

The Supreme Court Bar

In order to plead before the court, an attorney must first be admitted to the court's bar. Approximately 4,000 lawyers join the bar each year. The bar contains an estimated 230,000 members. In reality, pleading is limited to several hundred attorneys. The rest join for a one-time fee of $200, earning the court about $750,000 annually. The lawyers mostly apply for the trophy of a certificate for their office, an addition for their resume, and access to better seating if they wish to attend an oral argument.[128]

Decision

At the conclusion of oral argument, the case is submitted for decision. Cases are decided by majority vote of the Justices. It is the Court's practice to issue decisions in all cases argued in a particular Term by the end of that Term. Within that Term, however, the Court is under no obligation to release a decision within any set time after oral argument. At the conclusion of oral argument, the Justices retire to another conference at which the preliminary votes are tallied, and the most senior Justice in the majority assigns the initial draft of the Court's opinion to a Justice on his or her side. Drafts of the Court's opinion, as well as any concurring or dissenting opinions,[129] circulate among the Justices until the Court is prepared to announce the judgment in a particular case.

It is possible that, through recusals or vacancies, the Court divides evenly on a case. If that occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but does not establish binding precedent. In effect, it results in a return to the status quo ante. For a case to be heard, there must be a quorum of at least six justices.[130] If a quorum is not available to hear a case and a majority of qualified justices believes that the case cannot be heard and determined in the next term, then the judgment of the court below is affirmed as if the Court had been evenly divided. For cases brought directly to the Supreme Court by direct appeal from a United States District Court, the Chief Justice may order the case remanded to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals for a final decision there.[131] This has only occurred once in U.S. history, in the case of United States v. Alcoa.[132]

Published opinions

The Court's opinions are published in three stages. First, a slip opinion is made available on the Court's web site and through other outlets. Next, several opinions are bound together in paperback form, called a preliminary print of United States Reports, the official series of books in which the final version of the Court's opinions appears. About a year after the preliminary prints are issued, a final bound volume of U.S. Reports is issued. The individual volumes of U.S. Reports are numbered so that users may cite this set of reports—or a competing version published by another commercial legal publisher—to allow those who read their pleadings and other briefs to find the cases quickly and easily.

As of March 2012, there are 566 volumes of U.S. Reports. Lawyers use an abbreviated format to cite cases, in the form vvv U.S. ppp (yyyy). The number before the "U.S." refers to the volume number, and the number after the U.S. refers to the page within that volume. The number in parentheses is the year in which the case was decided. For instance, the citation for Roe v. Wade is 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and it means the case was decided in 1973 and appears on page 113 of volume 410 of U.S. Reports. For hot-from-the-press judgments, the volume and page numbers are replaced with "___". As of March 2012, the U.S. Reports have published a total of 30,161 Supreme Court opinions, covering the decisions handed down from February 1790 to March 2012. This figure does not reflect the number of cases the Court has taken up, as several cases can be addressed by a single opinion (see, for example, Parents v. Seattle, where Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education was also decided in the same opinion). A more unusual example is The Telephone Cases, which comprise a single opinion that takes up the entire 126th volume of the U.S. Reports.

Opinions are also collected and published in two unofficial, parallel reporters: Supreme Court Reporter, published by West (now a part of Thomson Reuters), and United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers' Edition (simply known as Lawyers' Edition), published by LexisNexis. In court documents, legal periodicals, and other legal media, case citations generally contain the cites from each of the three reporters; for example, the citation to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is presented as Citizens United v. Federal Election Com'n, 585 U.S. 50, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010), with "S. Ct." representing the Supreme Court Reporter, and "L. Ed." representing the Lawyers' Edition.[133][134]

Institutional powers and constraints

The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of this Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: "A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the system of checks and balances. This power allows judges to have the last word on allocation of authority among the three branches of the federal government, which grants them the ability to set bounds to their own authority, as well as to their immunity from outside checks and balances.

The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments. One notable instance of nonacquiescence came in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson, who sided with the Georgia courts, is supposed to have remarked, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!";[135] however, this alleged quotation has been disputed. Some state governments in the South also resisted the desegregation of public schools after the 1954 judgment Brown v. Board of Education. More recently, many feared that President Nixon would refuse to comply with the Court's order in United States v. Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes. Nixon, however, ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling.

Some argue that the Supreme Court is "the most separated and least checked of all branches of government."[136] Justices are not required to stand for election by virtue of their tenure "during good behavior", and their pay may "not be diminished" while they hold their position (Section 1 of Article Three). Though subject to the process of impeachment, only one Justice has ever been impeached and no Supreme Court Justice has been removed from office. Supreme Court decisions have been purposefully overridden by constitutional amendment in only four instances: the Eleventh Amendment overturned Chisholm v. Georgia (1793); the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments in effect overturned Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857); the Sixteenth Amendment reversed Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895); and the Twenty-sixth Amendment overturned some portions of Oregon v. Mitchell (1970). However, when the Court rules on matters involving the interpretation of laws rather than of the Constitution, simple legislative action can reverse the decisions (for example, in 2009 Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter act, superseding the limitations given in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in 2007). Also, the Supreme Court is not immune from political and institutional restraints: lower federal courts and state courts sometimes resist doctrinal innovations, as do law enforcement officials.[137]

In addition, the other two branches can restrain the Court through other mechanisms. Congress can increase the number of justices, giving the President power to influence future decisions by appointments (as in Roosevelt's Court Packing Plan discussed above). Congress can pass legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain topics and cases: this is suggested by language in Section 2 of Article Three, where the appellate jurisdiction is granted "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The Court sanctioned such congressional action in the Reconstruction case ex parte McCardle (1869), though it rejected Congress' power to dictate how particular cases must be decided in United States v. Klein (1871).

On the other hand, through its power of judicial review, the Supreme Court has defined the scope and nature of the powers and separation between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government; for example, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), and notably in Goldwater v. Carter (1979), (where it effectively gave the Presidency the power to terminate ratified treaties without the consent of Congress or the Senate). The Court's decisions can also impose limitations on the scope of Executive authority, as in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), the Steel Seizure Case (1952), and United States v. Nixon (1974).

Seriously consider the implications and ramifications of the Hypothetical Theocratic Aspects of the United States of the Solar System -- Existing Mostly Within the Supreme Court. You might scoff at my god-talk -- but what if a god -- or the gods -- have ruled this world for thousands of years?? Am I suggesting a better god -- or better gods -- in a more open and honest setting?? I do NOT want One Nation Under Satan -- yet I also do NOT want a Godless Democracy. Where is a happy-medium in all of this madness?? What if the Supreme Court served somewhat as a Security Council?? I have NO idea what I'm talking about here -- yet I think the Boys from Georgetown know EXACTLY what I'm hinting at.

The sad thing in all of this madness is the thought that a completely reformed solar system might have to retain at least 90% of the way things work presently. I am fundamentally idealistic -- yet what is the reality?? I keep thinking that Archangel Michael was SO idealistic that most of the angels rejected this approach -- sided with Gabriel and/or Lucifer -- and essentially sent Michael and a few loyal followers into exile. This is just a theory -- mind you. I think the Bible should be studied for clues -- and not unquestioningly accepted or irrationally rejected. I'm more interested in seeing people wrestling with the scriptures than I am concerned about their interpretations and conclusions. When I have suggested a Liturgically-Conservative and Theologically-Liberal approach to religion (at least in the Catholic, Anglican, Episcopal, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc. traditions) -- I have desired a mysterious blend of unity and diversity -- without "peace at any price". I frankly and personally prefer reading religious materials at sacred classical music concerts -- rather than attending church services of any kind. Doing nothing but singing hymns is highly appealing to me. I keep speaking of the Latin Mass because of its history, royalty, solemnity, meditativeness, privateness -- but not necessarily because of the traditional interpretations. I have tried to find a middle-way by conceptually combining the Latin Mass with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. But this approach might make EVERYONE angry. It doesn't pay to play with how people pray. I am NOT opposed to Happy-Clappy Churchianity. There is a time and a place for everything. However, I think it is important to at least conceptually reform Mother Church. I think we need this mental, spiritual, and ecumenical exercise.

If you were asked "What Should We Do??" by the PTB -- what would you tell them?? I might initially tell them to keep doing what they're doing -- except for War and Terrorism. No more War and Terrorism. That would be just for starters -- but wouldn't that be a significant step in the right direction??? Over-correction can be worse than no-correction. I keep getting the sinking sensation that the Galactic Powers That Be do NOT wish for us to "Save the World". I keep sensing that Human-Physicality and Responsible-Freedom are on the chopping-block. What were we before we were human?? What will we be when we are no longer human?? The answers might frighten us. Once again, I am modeling a contrarian theological perspective which I don't necessarily believe in -- even though there seems to be significant and mounting evidence that a lot of my speculation MIGHT be at least somewhat correct. I'd like to think that I could calmly and politely converse with Nazis, Masons, Jesuits, Mormons, Dracs, and Greys on the Dark-Side of the Moon. Can't we just all get along??

The Supreme Court continued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Some criticisms leveled at the Supreme Court are:

Judicial activism: The Supreme Court has been criticized for not keeping within Constitutional bounds by engaging in judicial activism, rather than merely interpreting law and exercising judicial restraint. Claims of judicial activism are not confined to any particular ideology.[138] An often cited example of conservative judicial activism is the 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York, which has been criticized by many prominent thinkers, including Robert Bork, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts.[138][139] An often cited example of liberal judicial activism is Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion in part on the basis of the "right to privacy" expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment, a reasoning that some critics argued was circuitous.[138] Legal scholars,[140][141] justices,[142] and presidential candidates[143] have criticized the Roe decision. The progressive Brown v. Board of Education decision has been criticized by conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan[144] and former presidential contender Barry Goldwater.[145] Lincoln warned, referring to the Dred Scott decision, that if government policy became "irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."[146] Former justice Thurgood Marshall justified judicial activism with these words: "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."[147] During different historical periods, the Court has leaned in different directions.[148][149] Critics from both sides complain that activist-judges abandon the Constitution and substitute their own views instead.[150][151][152] Critics include writers such as Andrew Napolitano,[153] Phyllis Schlafly,[154] Mark R. Levin,[155] Mark I. Sutherland,[156] and James MacGregor Burns.[157][158] Past presidents from both parties have attacked judicial activism, including Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan.[159][160] Failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork wrote: "What judges have wrought is a coup d'état, – slow-moving and genteel, but a coup d'état nonetheless."[161] Senator Al Franken quipped that when politicians talk about judicial activism, "their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than [the politician] would like."[162] It has been argued that the Supreme Court is in some respects "certainly a legislative body."[163]

Federal versus state power: There has been debate throughout American history about the boundary between federal and state power. While Framers such as James Madison[164] and Alexander Hamilton[165] argued in the Federalist Papers that their then-proposed Constitution would not infringe on the power of state governments,[166][167][168][169] others argue that expansive federal power is good and consistent with the Framers' wishes.[170] The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly grants "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Supreme Court has been criticized for giving the federal government too much power to interfere with state authority. One criticism is that it has allowed the federal government to misuse the Commerce Clause by upholding regulations and legislation which have little to do with interstate commerce, but that were enacted under the guise of regulating interstate commerce; and by voiding state legislation for allegedly interfering with interstate commerce. For example, the Commerce Clause was used by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the Endangered Species Act, thus protecting six endemic species of insect near Austin, Texas, despite the fact that the insects had no commercial value and did not travel across state lines; the Supreme Court let that ruling stand without comment in 2005.[171] Chief Justice John Marshall asserted Congress's power over interstate commerce was "complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution."[172] Justice Alito said congressional authority under the Commerce Clause is "quite broad."[173] Modern day theorist Robert B. Reich suggests debate over the Commerce Clause continues today.[172] Advocates of states' rights such as constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman have also criticized the Court, saying it has misused the Fourteenth Amendment to undermine state authority. Justice Brandeis, in arguing for allowing the states to operate without federal interference, suggested that states should be "laboratories" of democracy.[174] One critic wrote "the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law."[175] However, others see the Fourteenth Amendment as a positive force that extends "protection of those rights and guarantees to the state level."[176]

Judicial interference in political disputes: Some Court decisions have been criticized for injecting the Court into the political arena, and deciding questions that are the purview of the other two branches of government. The Bush v. Gore decision, in which the Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 presidential election and effectively chose George W. Bush over Al Gore, has been criticized extensively, particularly by liberals.[177][178][179][180][181][182] Another example are Court decisions on apportionment and re-districting: in Baker v. Carr, the court decided it could rule on apportionment questions; Justice Frankfurter in a "scathing dissent" argued against the court wading into so-called "political questions."[183]

Failing to protect individual rights: Court decisions have been criticized for failing to protect individual rights: the Dred Scott (1857) decision upheld slavery;[184] Plessy v Ferguson (1896) upheld segregation under the doctrine of separate but equal;[185] Kelo v. City of New London (2005) was criticized by prominent politicians, including New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, as undermining property rights.[186][187] A student criticized a 1988 ruling that allowed school officials "to block publication of a student article in the high school newspaper."[188] Some critics suggest the 2009 bench with a conservative majority has "become increasingly hostile to voters" by siding with Indiana's voter identification laws which tend to "disenfranchise large numbers of people without driver's licenses, especially poor and minority voters", according to one report.[189] Senator Al Franken criticized the Court for "eroding individual rights."[162] However, others argue that the Court is too protective of some individual rights, particularly those of people accused of crimes or in detention. For example, Chief Justice Warren Burger was an outspoken critic of the exclusionary rule, and Justice Scalia criticized the Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush for being too protective of the rights of Guantanamo detainees, on the grounds that habeas corpus was "limited" to sovereign territory.[190]

Supreme Court has too much power: This criticism is related to complaints about judicial activism. George Will wrote that the Court has an "increasingly central role in American governance."[191] It was criticized for intervening in bankruptcy proceedings regarding ailing carmaker Chrysler Corporation in 2009.[192] A reporter wrote that "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's intervention in the Chrysler bankruptcy" left open the "possibility of further judicial review" but argued overall that the intervention was a proper use of Supreme Court power to check the executive branch.[192] Warren E. Burger, before becoming Chief Justice, argued that since the Supreme Court has such "unreviewable power" it is likely to "self-indulge itself" and unlikely to "engage in dispassionate analysis".[193] Larry Sabato wrote "excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court."[194]

Courts are poor check on executive power: British constitutional scholar Adam Tomkins sees flaws in the American system of having courts (and specifically the Supreme Court) act as checks on the Executive and Legislative branches; he argues that because the courts must wait, sometimes for years, for cases to wend their way through the system, their ability to restrain the other two branches is severely weakened.[195][196]

Not choosing enough cases to review: Senator Arlen Specter said the Court should "decide more cases".[162] On the other hand, although Justice Scalia acknowledged in a 2009 interview that the number of cases that the Court hears now is smaller today than when he first joined the Supreme Court, he also stated that he has not changed his standards for deciding whether to review a case, nor does he believe his colleagues have changed their standards. He attributed the high volume of cases in the late 1980s, at least in part, to an earlier flurry of new federal legislation that was making its way through the courts.[197]

Secretive proceedings: The Court has been criticized for keeping its deliberations hidden from public view.[198] Its inner workings are difficult for reporters to cover, like a closed "cartel", only revealing itself through "public events and printed releases, with nothing about its inner workings", according to a review of Jeffrey Toobin's expose The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court.[181] The reviewer writes: "few (reporters) dig deeply into court affairs. It all works very neatly; the only ones hurt are the American people, who know little about nine individuals with enormous power over their lives."[181] Larry Sabato complains about the Court's "insularity."[194] A Fairleigh Dickinson University poll conducted in 2010 found that 61% of American voters agreed that televising Court hearings would "be good for democracy", and 50% of voters stated they would watch Court proceedings if they were televised.[199][200] In recent years, many justices have appeared on television, written books, and made public statements to journalists.[197][201] In a 2009 interview on C-SPAN, journalists Joan Biskupic (of USA Today) and Lyle Denniston (of SCOTUSblog) argued that the Court is a "very open" institution, with only the justices' private conferences being inaccessible to others.[197] In October 2010, the Court began the practice of posting on its website recordings and transcripts of oral arguments on the Friday after they take place.

Creating a culture of legal intimidation: Critic Philip K. Howard in The Death of Common Sense and Life Without Lawyers criticized the Court for promoting a culture in which "law is wielded as a weapon of intimidation rather than as an instrument of protection."[202] It leads to "a nation paralyzed by fear, unwilling to assume responsibility, both overly reliant on authority and distrustful of it."[202] Howard deplores a legal culture in which the "rights" of "whoever might disagree" have trumped common sense.[203] Specifically, Howard criticized the Earl Warren court for too much "sympathy for the little man."[204] He criticized the Conley v. Gibson decision for opening "the floodgates to abusive litigation."[205]

Lifetime tenure: Critic Larry Sabato wrote: "The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day."[194] Sanford Levinson has been critical of justices who stayed in office despite medical deterioration based on longevity.[206] James MacGregor Burns stated lifelong tenure has "produced a critical time lag, with the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the times."[157] Proposals to solve these problems include term limits for justices, as proposed by Levinson[207] and Sabato[194][208] as well as a mandatory retirement age proposed by Richard Epstein.[209] However, others suggest lifetime tenure brings substantial benefits, such as impartiality and freedom from political pressure. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 wrote "nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office."[210]

What if one conceptually combined Georgetown University, the Washington National Cathedral, Washington D.C., the United Nations, the United States of the Solar System, and the University of Solar System Studies and Governance?? It might be interesting to study this potential integration full-time and on-site. I truly need to study this thread, instead of mostly adding to it. Redoing and reposting old posts is helping me do this -- but I need to do more -- a lot more.

The Supreme Court continued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Notes

1.^ "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. Retrieved 2009-12-31.
2.^ "U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1". Retrieved 2007-09-21.
3.^ See, in dicta Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 59 (1982); United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 16 (1955).
4.^ http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/briefoverview.aspx
5.^ Ashmore, Anne (August 2006). "Dates of Supreme Court decisions and arguments, United States Reports volumes 2–107 (1791–1882)" (PDF). Library, Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 2009-04-26.
6.^ Scott Douglas Gerber (editor) (1998). "Seriatim: The Supreme Court Before John Marshall". New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-3114-7. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "(page 3) Finally, many scholars cite the absence of a separate Supreme Court building as evidence that the early Court lacked prestige."
7.^ Garrett Epps (October 24, 2004). "Don't Do It, Justices". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The court's prestige has been hard-won. In the early 1800s, Chief Justice John Marshall made the court respected"
8.^ Jeffrey Rosen (book review of "Packing the Court" by James MacGregor Burns) (July 5, 2009). "Black Robe Politics". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "From the beginning, Burns continues, the Court has established its "supremacy" over the president and Congress because of Chief Justice John Marshall's "brilliant political coup" in Marbury v. Madison (1803): asserting a power to strike down unconstitutional laws."
9.^ "The People's Vote: 100 Documents that Shaped America -- Marbury v. Madison (1803)". US News & World Report. 1803. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of "checks and balances" created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful...A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void."
10.^ Cliff Sloan and David McKean (February 21, 2009). "Why Marbury V. Madison Still Matters". Newsweek. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "More than 200 years after the high court ruled, the decision in that landmark case continues to resonate."
11.^ "The Constitution In Law: Its Phases Construed by the Federal Supreme Court" (PDF). New York Times. February 27, 1893. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The decision ... in Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee is the authority on which lawyers and Judges have rested the doctrine that where there is in question, in the highest court of a State, and decided adversely to the validity of a State statute... such claim is reviewable by the Supreme Court ..."
12.^ Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter Breyer (December 13, 2000). "Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court ... The Virginia court refused to obey this Court's Fairfax's Devisee mandate to enter judgment for the British subject's successor in interest. That refusal led to the Court's pathmarking decision in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 (1816)."
13.^ a b "Decisions of the Supreme Court -- Historic Decrees Issued in One Hundred an Eleven Years" (PDF). New York Times. February 3, 1901. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Very important also was the decision in Martin vs. Hunter's lessee, in which the court asserted its authority to overrule, within certain limits, the decisions of the highest State courts."
14.^ a b "The Supreme Quiz". Washington Post. October 2, 2000. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "According to the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Marshall's most important innovation was to persuade the other justices to stop seriatim opinions -- each issuing one -- so that the court could speak in a single voice. Since the mid-1940s, however, there's been a significant increase in individual "concurring" and "dissenting" opinions."
15.^ Dan Slater (April 18, 2008). "Justice Stevens on the Death Penalty: A Promise of Fairness Unfulfilled". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The first Chief Justice, John Marshall set out to do away with seriatim opinions–a practice originating in England in which each appellate judge writes an opinion in ruling on a single case. (You may have read old tort cases in law school with such opinions). Marshall sought to do away with this practice to help build the Court into a coequal branch."
16.^ Claire Suddath (Dec. 19, 2008). "A Brief History Of Impeachment". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Congress tried the process again in 1804, when it voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase on charges of bad conduct. As a judge, Chase was overzealous and notoriously unfair ... But Chase never committed a crime — he was just incredibly bad at his job. The Senate acquitted him on every count."
17.^ Linda Greenhouse (April 10, 1996). "Rehnquist Joins Fray on Rulings, Defending Judicial Independence". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "the 1805 Senate trial of Justice Samuel Chase, who had been impeached by the House of Representatives ... This decision by the Senate was enormously important in securing the kind of judicial independence contemplated by Article III" of the Constitution, Chief Justice Rehnquist said"
18.^ Edward Keynes, with Randall K. Miller (1989). "The Court vs. Congress: Prayer, Busing, and Abortion". Duke University Press. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "(page 115)... Grier maintained that Congress has plenary power to limit the federal courts' jurisdiction."
19.^ Sherrilyn A. Ifill (May 27, 2009). "Sotomayor's Great Legal Mind Long Ago Defeated Race, Gender Nonsense". US News & World Report. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "But his decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford doomed thousands of black slaves and freedmen to a stateless existence within the United States until the passage of the 14th Amendment. Justice Taney's coldly self-fulfilling statement in Dred Scott, that blacks had "no rights which the white man [was] bound to respect", has ensured his place in history—not as a brilliant jurist, but as among the most insensitive"
20.^ Irons, Peter; Howard Zinn (wrote foreword) (2006). A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution. United States: Penguin Books. pp. 176, 177. ISBN 0-14-303738-2. "The rhetorical battle that followed the Dred Scott decision, as we know, later erupted into the gunfire and bloodshed of the Civil War (p.176)... his opinion (Taney's) touched off an explosive reaction on both sides of the slavery issue... (p.177)"
21.^ "Liberty of Contract?". Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. October 31, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The term "substantive due process" is often used to describe the approach first used in Lochner--the finding of liberties not explicitly protected by the text of the Constitution to be impliedly protected by the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the 1960s, long after the Court repudiated its Lochner line of cases, substantive due process became the basis for protecting personal rights such as the right of privacy, the right to maintain intimate family relationships."
22.^ "Adair v. United States 208 U.S. 161". Cornell University Law School. 1908. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "No. 293 Argued: October 29, 30, 1907 --- Decided: January 27, 1908"
23.^ Bodenhamer, David J.; James W. Ely (1993). The Bill of Rights in modern America. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 245. ISBN 978-0-253-35159-3. "... of what eventually became the 'incorporation doctrine,' by which various federal Bill of Rights guarantees were held to be implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection."
24.^ Edward Douglass White. "Opinion for the Court, Arver v. U.S. 245 U.S. 366". "Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."
25.^ Bernard H. Siegan (1987). The Supreme Court's Constitution. Transaction Publishers. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-88738-671-8. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "In the 1923 case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital, the court invalidated a classification based on gender as inconsistent with the substantive due process requirements of the fifth amendment. At issue was congressional legislation providing for the fixing of minimum wages for women and minors in the District of Columbia. (p.146)"
26.^ Joan Biskupic (March 29, 2005). "Supreme Court gets makeover". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The building is getting its first renovation since its completion in 1935."
27.^ Justice Roberts (September 21, 2005). "Responses of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Written Questions of Senator Joseph R. Biden". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "I agree that West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish correctly overruled Adkins. Lochner era cases – Adkins in particular – evince an expansive view of the judicial role inconsistent with what I believe to be the appropriately more limited vision of the Framers."[dead link]
28.^ Seth lipsky (October 22, 2009). "All the News That's Fit to Subsidize". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "He was a farmer in Ohio ... during the 1930s, when subsidies were brought in for farmers. With subsidies came restrictions on how much wheat one could grow—even, Filburn learned in a landmark Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn (1942), wheat grown on his modest farm."[dead link]
29.^ Adam Cohen (December 14, 2004). "What's New in the Legal World? A Growing Campaign to Undo the New Deal". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Some prominent states' rights conservatives were asking the court to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, a landmark ruling that laid out an expansive view of Congress's power to legislate in the public interest. Supporters of states' rights have always blamed Wickard ... for paving the way for strong federal action..."
30.^ United Press International (September 25, 1971). "Justice Black Dies at 85; Served on Court 34 Years". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Justice Black developed his controversial theory, first stated in a lengthy, scholarly dissent in 1947, that the due process clause applied the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights to the states."
31.^ "100 Documents that Shaped America Brown v. Board of Education (1954)". US News & World Report. May 17, 1954. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. This historic decision marked the end of the "separate but equal" ... and served as a catalyst for the expanding civil rights movement..."
32.^ "Essay: In defense of privacy". Time. July 15, 1966. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The biggest legal milestone in this field was last year's Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which overthrew the state's law against the use of contraceptives as an invasion of marital privacy, and for the first time declared the "right of privacy" to be derived from the Constitution itself."
33.^ Nancy Gibbs (Dec. 9, 1991). "America's Holy War". Time. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "In the landmark 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the high court threw out a brief nondenominational prayer composed by state officials that was recommended for use in New York State schools. "It is no part of the business of government", ruled the court, "to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite.""
34.^ William R. Mattox Jr., Katrina Trinko (August 17, 2009). "Teach the Bible? Of course.". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Public schools need not proselytize — indeed, must not — in teaching students about the Good Book ... In Abington School District v. Schempp, decided in 1963, the Supreme Court stated that "study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education", was permissible under the First Amendment."
35.^ "The Law: The Retroactivity Riddle". Time Magazine. June 18, 1965. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Last week, in a 7 to 2 decision, the court refused for the first time to give retroactive effect to a great Bill of Rights decision—Mapp v. Ohio (1961)."
36.^ "The Supreme Court: Now Comes the Sixth Amendment". Time. April 16, 1965. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Sixth Amendment's right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963). ... the court said flatly in 1904: 'The Sixth Amendment does not apply to proceedings in state criminal courts." But in the light of Gideon ... ruled Black, statements 'generally declaring that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to states can no longer be regarded as law.'"
37.^ "Guilt and Mr. Meese". New York Times. January 31, 1987. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision. That's the famous decision that made confessions inadmissible as evidence unless an accused person has been warned by police of the right to silence and to a lawyer, and waived it."
38.^ http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20090107_GragliaEngage93.pdf
39.^ Karen O'Connor (January 22, 2009). "Roe v. Wade: On Anniversary, Abortion Is out of the Spotlight". US News & World Report. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The shocker, however, came in 1973, when the Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, relied on Griswold's basic underpinnings to rule that a Texas law prohibiting abortions in most situations was unconstitutional, invalidating the laws of most states. Relying on a woman's right to privacy..."
40.^ "Bakke Wins, Quotas Lose". Time. July 10, 1978. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Split almost exactly down the middle, the Supreme Court last week offered a Solomonic compromise. It said that rigid quotas based solely on race were forbidden, but it also said that race might legitimately be an element in judging students for admission to universities. It thus approved the principle of 'affirmative action'..."
41.^ "Time to Rethink Buckley v. Valeo". New York Times. November 12, 1998. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "...Buckley v. Valeo. The nation's political system has suffered ever since from that decision, which held that mandatory limits on campaign spending unconstitutionally limit free speech. The decision did much to promote the explosive growth of campaign contributions from special interests and to enhance the advantage incumbents enjoy over underfunded challengers."
42.^ a b Staff writer (June 29, 1972). "Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist's Key Decisions". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Furman v. Georgia ... Rehnquist dissents from the Supreme Court conclusion that many state laws on capital punishment are capricious and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional."
43.^ History of the Court, in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek (eds) The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-19-505835-6
44.^ "A Supreme Revelation". Wall Street Journal. April 19, 2008. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Thirty-two years ago, Justice John Paul Stevens sided with the majority in a famous "never mind" ruling by the Supreme Court. Gregg v. Georgia, in 1976, overturned Furman v. Georgia, which had declared the death penalty unconstitutional only four years earlier."
45.^ Linda Greenhouse (January 8, 2009). "The Chief Justice on the Spot". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The federalism issue at the core of the new case grows out of a series of cases from 1997 to 2003 in which the Rehnquist court applied a new level of scrutiny to Congressional action enforcing the guarantees of the Reconstruction amendments."
46.^ Linda Greenhouse (September 4, 2005). "William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Is Dead at 80". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "United States v. Lopez in 1995 raised the stakes in the debate over federal authority even higher. The decision declared unconstitutional a Federal law, the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, that made it a federal crime to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school."
47.^ Linda Greenhouse (June 12, 2005). "The Rehnquist Court and Its Imperiled States' Rights Legacy". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Intrastate activity that was not essentially economic was beyond Congress's reach under the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the 5-to-4 majority in United States v. Morrison."
48.^ Linda Greenhouse (March 22, 2005). "Inmates Who Follow Satanism and Wicca Find Unlikely Ally". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "His (Rehnquist's) reference was to a landmark 1997 decision, City of Boerne v. Flores, in which the court ruled that the predecessor to the current law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, exceeded Congress's authority and was unconstitutional as applied to the states."
49.^ Vikram David Amar (July 27, 2005). "Casing John Roberts". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "SEMINOLE TRIBE v. FLORIDA (1996) In this seemingly technical 11th Amendment dispute about whether states can be sued in federal courts, Justice O'Connor joined four others to override Congress's will and protect state prerogatives, even though the text of the Constitution contradicts this result."
50.^ Linda Greenhouse (April 1, 1999). "Justices Seem Ready to Tilt More Toward States in Federalism". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The argument in this case, Alden v. Maine, No. 98-436, proceeded on several levels simultaneously. On the surface ... On a deeper level, the argument was a continuation of the Court's struggle over an even more basic issue: the Government's substantive authority over the states."
51.^ Michael A. Lindenberger (Michael A. Lindenberger). "The Court's Gay Rights Legacy". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The decision in the Lawrence v. Texas case overturned convictions against two Houston men, whom police had arrested after busting into their home and finding them engaged in sex. And for the first time in their lives, thousands of gay men and women who lived in states where sodomy had been illegal were free to be gay without being criminals."
52.^ Justice Sotomayor (July 16, 2009). "Retire the 'Ginsburg rule' -- The 'Roe' recital". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the court holding of Roe. That is the precedent of the court and settled, in terms of the holding of the court."
53.^ Gary Kamiya (July 4, 2001). "Against the Law". Salon.com. Retrieved 2012-11-21. "...the remedy was far more harmful than the problem. By stopping the recount, the high court clearly denied many thousands of voters who cast legal votes, as defined by established Florida law, their constitutional right to have their votes counted. ... It cannot be a legitimate use of law to disenfranchise legal voters when recourse is available. ..."
54.^ Charles Krauthammer (Dec. 18, 2000). "The Winner in Bush v. Gore?". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Re-enter the Rehnquist court. Amid the chaos, somebody had to play Daddy. ... the Supreme Court eschewed subtlety this time and bluntly stopped the Florida Supreme Court in its tracks—and stayed its willfulness. By , mind you, ..."
55.^ Charles Babington and Peter Baker (September 30, 2005). "Roberts Confirmed as 17th Chief Justice". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "John Glover Roberts Jr. was sworn in yesterday as the 17th chief justice of the United States, enabling President Bush to put his stamp on the Supreme Court for decades to come, even as he prepares to name a second nominee to the nine-member court."
56.^ Linda Greenhouse (July 1, 2007). "In Steps Big and Small, Supreme Court Moved Right". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "It was the Supreme Court that conservatives had long yearned for and that liberals feared ... This was a more conservative court, sometimes muscularly so, sometimes more tentatively, its majority sometimes differing on methodology but agreeing on the outcome in cases big and small."
57.^ Charlie Savage (July 14, 2009). "Respecting Precedent, or Settled Law, Unless It's Not Settled". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "Gonzales v. Carhart — in which the Supreme Court narrowly upheld a federal ban on the late-term abortion procedure opponents call "partial birth abortion" — to be settled law."
58.^ "A Bad Day for Democracy". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 22, 2010.
59.^ Robert Barnes (October 1, 2009). "Justices to Decide if State Gun Laws Violate Rights". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "The landmark 2008 decision to strike down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession was the first time the court had said the amendment grants an individual right to own a gun for self-defense. But the 5 to 4 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller..."
60.^ Linda Greenhouse (April 18, 2008). "Justice Stevens Renounces Capital Punishment". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "His renunciation of capital punishment in the lethal injection case, Baze v. Rees, was likewise low key and undramatic."
61.^ Linda Greenhouse (June 26, 2008). "Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "The death penalty is unconstitutional as a punishment for the rape of a child, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday ... The 5-to-4 decision overturned death penalty laws in Louisiana and five other states."
62.^ 16 Stat. 44
63.^ Mintz, S. (2007). "The New Deal in Decline". Digital History. University of Houston. Retrieved 2009-10-27.
64.^ Hodak, George (2007). "February 5, 1937: FDR Unveils Court Packing Plan". ABAjournal.com. American Bar Association. Retrieved 2009-01-29.
65.^ "Justices, Number of", in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek (editors), The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press 1992, ISBN 0-19-505835-6
66.^ See Article Two of the United States Constitution.
67.^ "United States Senate. "Nominations"".
68.^ See 5 U.S.C. § 2902.
69.^ 28 U.S.C. § 4. If two justices are commissioned on the same date, then the oldest one has precedence.
70.^ Balkin, Jack M. "The passionate intensity of the confirmation process". Jurist. Retrieved 2008-02-13.
71.^ See, e.g., Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004), which concerned the recess appointment of William Pryor. Concurring in denial of certiorari, Justice Stevens observed that the case involved "the first such appointment of an Article III judge in nearly a half century" 544 U.S. 942 (2005) (Stevens, J., concurring in denial of cert) (internal quotation marks deleted).
72.^ a b Fisher, Louis (September 5, 2001). "Recess Appointments of Federal Judges" (PDF). CRSN Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service (The Library of Congress). RL31112: 16–18. Retrieved 2010-08-06. "Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the making of recess appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States may not be wholly consistent with the best interests of the Supreme Court, the nominee who may be involved, the litigants before the Court, nor indeed the people of the United States, and that such appointments, therefore, should not be made except under unusual circumstances and for the purpose of preventing or ending a demonstrable breakdown in the administration of the Court's business."
73.^ The resolution passed by a vote of 48 to 37, mainly along party lines; Democrats supported the resolution 48–4, and Republicans opposed it 33–0.
74.^ "How the Federal Courts Are Organized: Can a federal judge be fired?". Federal Judicial Center. fjc.gov. Retrieved March 18, 2012.
75.^ "History of the Federal Judiciary: Impeachments of Federal Judges". Federal Judicial Center fjc.gov. Retrieved March 18, 2012.
76.^ Appel, Jacob M. (August 22, 2009). "Anticipating the Incapacitated Justice". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-08-23.
77.^ Ali, Ambreen (June 16, 2010). "How Presidents Influence the Court". Congress.org. Retrieved 2010-06-16.
78.^ Baker, Peter (August 7, 2010). "Kagan Is Sworn in as the Fourth Woman, and 112th Justice, on the Supreme Court". New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2010.
79.^ Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics (6th ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. 2003. p. 46. ISBN 0-393-93218-4.Unknown parameter |name= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
80.^ "Religion of the Supreme Court". adherents.com. January 31, 2006. Retrieved 2010-07-09.
81.^ Segal, Jeffrey A.; Spaeth, Harold J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge Univ. Press. p. 183. ISBN 0-521-78971-0.
82.^ Gibson, David (May 10, 2010). "No Protestants: A New Order in the Supreme Court". Politics Daily. Retrieved 2010-07-08.
83.^ David N. Atkinson, Leaving the Bench (University Press of Kansas 1999) ISBN 0-7006-0946-6
84.^ Greenhouse, Linda (September 9, 2010). "An Invisible Chief Justice". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-09-09. "Had [O'Connor] anticipated that the chief justice would not serve out the next Supreme Court term, she told me after his death, she would have delayed her own retirement for a year rather than burden the court with two simultaneous vacancies. [...] Her reason for leaving was that her husband, suffering from Alzheimer's disease, needed her care at home."
85.^ Ward, Artemus (2003). Deciding to Leave: The Politics of Retirement from the United States Supreme Court. SUNY Press. p. 358. ISBN 978-0-7914-5651-4. "One byproduct of the increased [retirement benefit] provisions [in 1954], however has been a dramatic rise in the number of justices engaging in succession politics by trying to time their departures to coincide with a compatible president. The most recent departures have been partisan, some more blatantly than others, and have bolstered arguments to reform the process. A second byproduct has been an increase in justices staying on the Court past their ability to adequately contribute. [1] p. 9"
86.^ Stolzenberg, Ross M.; Lindgren, James (May 2010). "Retirement and Death in Office of U.S. Supreme Court Justices". Demography 47 (2): 269–298. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0100. PMC 3000028. PMID 20608097. "If the incumbent president is of the same party as the president who nominated the justice to the Court, and if the incumbent president is in the first two years of a four-year presidential term, then the justice has odds of resignation that are about 2.6 times higher than when these two conditions are not met."
87.^ See for example Sandra Day O'Connor:How the first woman on the Supreme Court became its most influential justice, by Joan Biskupic, Harper Collins, 2005, p. 105. Also Rookie on the Bench: The Role of the Junior Justice by Clare Cushman, Journal of Supreme Court History 32 no. 3 (2008), pp. 282–296.
88.^ "Breyer Just Missed Record as Junior Justice". Retrieved 2008-01-11.
89.^ "Judicial Salaries Since 1968". United States Courts. Retrieved 2010-09-25.
90.^ Lane, Charles (31 January 2006). "Kennedy Seen as The Next Justice In Court's Middle". Washington Post. "If, as many expect, Alito forms a four-vote conservative bloc with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, that would leave Justice Anthony M. Kennedy – a conservative who has occasionally voted with liberals on gay rights, the death penalty and abortion – as the court's least predictable member."
91.^ Toobin, Jeffrey (2007). The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-51640-1.
92.^ "End-of-Term Statistical Analysis – October Term 2011". Supreme Court of the United States Blog (SCOTUSblog). 30 June 2012. "Justice Kennedy is, for the fourth consecutive Term, the Justice most likely to appear in the majority."
93.^ See also SCOTUSblog’s Stat Pack: Bhatia, Kedar (30 June 2012). "Final October Term 2011 Stat Pack and Summary Memo".
94.^ Goldstein, Tom (30 June 2010). "Evertyhing you read about the Supreme Court is wrong (except here, maybe)". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2010-07-07.
95.^ Among the examples mentioned by Goldstein for the 2009 term were: Dolan v. United States, which interpreted judges' prerogatives broadly, typically a "conservative" result. The majority consisted of the five junior Justices: Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor.
Magwood v. Patterson, which expanded habeas corpus petitions, a "liberal" result, in an opinion by Thomas, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co., which yielded a pro-plaintiff result in an opinion by Scalia joined by Roberts, Stevens, Thomas, and Sotomayor.
Goldstein notes that in the 2009 term, the justice most consistently pro-government was Alito, and not the commonly perceived "arch-conservatives" Scalia and Thomas.
96.^ a b "October 2011 Term, Five to Four Decisions" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. 30 June 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-02.
97.^ a b "Final October 2010 Stat Pack available". SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
98.^ "End of Term statistical analysis – October 2010" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. July 1, 2011. Retrieved 2011-07-02.
99.^ "Cases by Vote Split" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
100.^ "Justice agreement – Highs and Lows" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
101.^ "Justice agreement" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
102.^ "Frequency in the majority" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
103.^ "Five-to-Four cases" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
104.^ "October 2011 term, Cases by votes split" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 30, 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-02.
105.^ "October 22011 term, Strength of the Majority" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 30, 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-02.
106.^ a b c d Adam Liptak (September 7, 2010). "Polarization of Supreme Court Is Reflected in Justices' Clerks". The New York Times. Retrieved September 7, 2010.
107.^ William E. Nelson, Harvey Rishikof, I. Scott Messinger, Michael Jo (Vol. 62:6:1749). "The Liberal Tradition of the Supreme Court Clerkship: Its Rise, Fall, and Reincarnation?". Vanderbilt Law Review. Retrieved September 7, 2010.
108.^ Liptak and Kopicki, The New York Times, 7 June 2012 Approval Rating for Justices Hits Just 44% in New Poll
109.^ a b c d "Plan Your Trip (quote:) "In mid-May, after the oral argument portion of the Term has concluded, the Court takes the Bench Mondays at 10AM for the release of orders and opinions."". US Senator John McCain. October 24, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
110.^ a b c "Visiting the Court". Supreme Court of the United States. March 18, 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-19.
111.^ "Visiting-Capitol-Hill". docstoc. October 24, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
112.^ "How The Court Works". The Supreme Court Historical Society. October 24, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
113.^ "United States Code: Title 28,1330. Actions against foreign states". Retrieved October 7, 2010.
114.^ "United States Code: Title 28,1332. Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs".
115.^ "United States Code: Title 28,1331. Federal question".
116.^ "United States Code: Title 28,1339. Postal matters".
117.^ "United States Code: Title 28,1345. United States as a Plaintiff".
118.^ "United States Code: Title 28,1346. United States as a Defendant".
119.^ Allotment Order dated September 28, 2010.
120.^ 28 U.S.C. § 1254
121.^ 28 U.S.C. § 1257; see also Adequate and independent state grounds
122.^ James, Robert A. (1998). "Instructions in Supreme Court Jury Trials" (PDF). The Green Bag. 2d 1 (4): 378. Retrieved 5 February 2013.
123.^ 28 U.S.C. § 1872 See Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794), in which the Court conducted a jury trial.
124.^ Tony Mauro (October 21, 2005). "Roberts Dips Toe Into Cert Pool". Legal Times. Retrieved 2007-10-31.
125.^ Tony Mauro (July 4, 2006). "Justice Alito Joins Cert Pool Party". Legal Times. Retrieved 2007-10-31.
126.^ Adam Liptak (September 25, 2008). "A Second Justice Opts Out of a Longtime Custom: The 'Cert. Pool'". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-17.
127.^ For example, the arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act took place over three days and lasted over six hours, covering several issues; the arguments for Bush v. Gore were 90 minutes long; oral arguments in United States v. Nixon lasted three hours; and the The Pentagon papers case was given a two-hour argument. Christy, Andrew (November 15, 2011). "'Obamacare' will rank among the longest Supreme Court arguments ever". NPR. Retrieved March 31, 2011. The longest modern-day oral arguments were in the case of California v. Arizona, in which oral arguments lasted over sixteen hours over four days in 1962.Bobic, Igor (March 26, 2012). "Oral arguments on health reform longest in 45 years". Talking Points Memo. Retrieved March 31, 2012.
128.^ Gresko, Jessica (March 24, 2013). "For lawyers, the Supreme Court bar is vanity trip". Florida Today (Melbourne, Florida). pp. 2A.
129.^ See generally, Tushnet, Mark, ed. (2008) I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases, Malaysia: Beacon Press, pp. 256, ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6
130.^ 28 U.S.C. § 1
131.^ 28 U.S.C. § 2109
132.^ Pepall, Lynne; Richards, Daniel L.; Norman, George (1999). Industrial Organization: Contemporary Theory and Practice. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. pp. 11–12.
133.^ "Supreme Court Research Guide". law.georgetown.edu. Georgetown Law Library. Retrieved 22 August 2012.
134.^ "How to Cite Cases: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions". lib.guides.umd.edu. University of Maryland University Libraries. Retrieved 22 August 2012.
135.^ The American Conflict by Horace Greeley (1873), p. 106; also in The Life of Andrew Jackson (2001) by Robert Vincent Remini
136.^ Mendelson, Wallace (1992). "Separation of Powers". In Hall, Kermit L.. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press. p. 775. ISBN 0-19-505835-6.
137.^ Vile, John R. (1992). "Court curbing". In Hall, Kermit L.. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press. p. 202. ISBN 0-19-505835-6.
138.^ a b c See for example "Judicial activism" in The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, edited by Kermit Hall; article written by Gary McDowell
139.^ Damon W. Root (September 21, 2009). "Lochner and Liberty". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
140.^ Peter Steinfels (May 22, 2005). "'A Church That Can and Cannot Change': Dogma". New York Times: Books. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
141.^ David G. Savage (October 23, 2008). "Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "a lack of judicial authority to enter an inherently political question that had previously been left to the states"[dead link]
142.^ Neil A. Lewis (September 19, 2002). "Judicial Nominee Says His Views Will Not Sway Him on the Bench". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22. "he has written scathingly of Roe v. Wade"
143.^ "Election Guide 2008: The Issues: Abortion". New York Times. 2008. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
144.^ Pat Buchanan (July 6, 2005). "The judges war: an issue of power". Townhall.com. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "The Brown decision of 1954, desegregating the schools of 17 states and the District of Columbia, awakened the nation to the court's new claim to power."
145.^ Adam Clymer (May 29, 1998). "Barry Goldwater, Conservative and Individualist, Dies at 89". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
146.^ Abraham Lincoln (March 4, 1861). "First Inaugural Address". National Center. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
147.^ George F. Will (May 27, 2009). "Identity Justice: Obama's Conventional Choice". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-22. "Thurgood Marshall quote taken from the Stanford Law Review, summer 1992"
148.^ Irons, Peter. A People's History of the Supreme Court. London: Penguin, 1999. ISBN 0-670-87006-4
149.^ Adam Liptak (January 31, 2009). "To Nudge, Shift or Shove the Supreme Court Left". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "Every judge who's been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell...in 1971...has been more conservative than his or her predecessor"
150.^ Charles Babington (April 5, 2005). "Senator Links Violence to 'Political' Decisions". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
151.^ Adam Liptak (February 2, 2006). "A Court Remade in the Reagan Era's Image". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
152.^ David G. Savage (July 13, 2008). "Supreme Court finds history is a matter of opinions". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
153.^ Andrew P. Napolitano (February 17, 2005). "No Defense". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
154.^ Thomas B. Edsall and Michael A. Fletcher (September 5, 2005). "Again, Right Voices Concern About Gonzales". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
155.^ Charles Lane (March 20, 2005). "Conservative's Book on Supreme Court Is a Bestseller". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
156.^ Mark I. Sutherland; Dave Meyer, William J. Federer, Alan Keyes, Ed Meese, Phyllis Schlafly, Howard Phillips, Alan E. Sears, Ben DuPre, Rev. Rick Scarborough, David C. Gibbs III, Mathew D. Staver, Don Feder, Herbert W. Titus (2005). Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America. St. Louis, Missouri: Amerisearch Inc. p. 242. ISBN 0-9753455-6-7.
157.^ a b Michiko Kakutani (July 6, 2009). "Appointees Who Really Govern America". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-27.
158.^ By Emily Bazelon (July 6, 2009). "The Supreme Court on Trial: James MacGregor Burns takes aim at the bench.". Slate. Retrieved 2009-10-27.
159.^ Special keynote address by President Ronald Reagan, November 1988, at the second annual lawyers convention of the Federalist Society, Washington, D.C.
160.^ Stuart Taylor Jr. (October 15, 1987). "Reagan Points to a Critic, Who Points Out It Isn't So". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
161.^ Kelley Beaucar Vlahos (September 11, 2003). "Judge Bork: Judicial Activism Is Going Global". Fox News. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "What judges have wrought is a coup d’etat – slow moving and genteel, but a coup d’etat nonetheless."
162.^ a b c Naftali Bendavid (July 13, 2009). "Franken: ‘An Incredible Honor to Be Here’". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
163.^ Hazard, Geoffrey C. Jr. (1978–79). Supreme Court as a Legislature 64. Cornell L. Rev. p. 1
164.^ James Madison aka "Publius" (1789). "The Federalist Papers/No. 45 The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered". Wikisource. Retrieved 2009-10-24. "the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty"
165.^ Alexander Hamilton (aka Publius) (1789). "Federalist No. 28". Independent Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-24. "Power being almost always the rival of power; the General Government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state government; and these will have the same disposition toward the General Government."
166.^ James Madison (January 25, 1788). "The Federalist". Independent Journal (44 (quote: 8th para)). Retrieved 2009-10-27. "seems well calculated at once to secure to the States a reasonable discretion in providing for the conveniency of their imports and exports, and to the United States a reasonable check against the abuse of this discretion."
167.^ James Madison (February 16, 1788). "The Federalist No. 56 (quote: 6th para)". Independent Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-27. "In every State there have been made, and must continue to be made, regulations on this subject which will, in many cases, leave little more to be done by the federal legislature, than to review the different laws, and reduce them in one general act."
168.^ Alexander Hamilton (December 14, 1787). "The Federalist No. 22 (quote: 4th para)". New York Packet. Retrieved 2009-10-27. "The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy."
169.^ Madison (January 22, 1788). "Federalist Papers". New York Packet. Retrieved 2009-10-27. "The regulation of commerce with the Indian tribes is very properly unfettered from two limitations in the articles of Confederation, which render the provision obscure and contradictory. The power is there restrained to Indians, not members of any of the States, and is not to violate or infringe the legislative right of any State within its own limits."
170.^ Akhil Reed Amar (1998). "The Bill of Rights -- Creation and Reconstruction". New York Times: Books. Retrieved 2009-10-24. "many lawyers embrace a tradition that views state governments as the quintessential threat to individual and minority rights, and federal officials--especially federal courts--as the special guardians of those rights."
171.^ Scott Gold (June 14, 2005). "Justices Swat Down Texans' Effort to Weaken Species Protection Law". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2012-03-24. "Purcell filed a $60-million lawsuit against the U.S. government in 1999, arguing that cave bugs could not be regulated through the commerce clause because they had no commercial value and did not cross state lines. 'I'm disappointed,' Purcell said."
172.^ a b Robert B. Reich (September 13, 1987). "The Commerce Clause; The Expanding Economic Vista". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-27.
173.^ FDCH e-Media (January 10, 2006). "U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-30. "I don't think there's any question at this point in our history that Congress' power under the commerce clause is quite broad, and I think that reflects a number of things, including the way in which our economy and our society has developed and all of the foreign and interstate activity that takes place -- Samuel Alito"
174.^ Adam Cohen (December 7, 2003). "Editorial Observer; Brandeis's Views on States' Rights, and Ice-Making, Have New Relevance". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-30. "But Brandeis's dissent contains one of the most famous formulations in American law: that the states should be free to serve as laboratories of democracy"
175.^ Lino Graglia (July 19, 2005). "Altering 14th Amendment would curb court's activist tendencies". University of Texas School of Law. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
176.^ Jacob C. Hornberger (October 30, 2009). "Freedom and the Fourteenth Amendment". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved 2009-10-30. "Fourteenth Amendment. Some argue that it is detrimental to the cause of freedom because it expands the power of the federal government. Others contend that the amendment expands the ambit of individual liberty. I fall among those who believe that the Fourteenth Amendment has been a positive force for freedom."
177.^ David G. Savage (October 23, 2008). "Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu described the decision as 'utterly lacking in any legal principle" and added that the court was "remarkably unashamed to say so explicitly.'"[dead link]
178.^ reporter from the Baltimore Sun (September 5, 2005). "Here are eight people who could be considered the fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist -- Michael McConnell (biography)". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2009-10-22. "criticized the Supreme Court for its decision in Bush v. Gore"
179.^ CQ Transcriptions (Senator Kohl) (July 14, 2009). "Key Excerpt: Sotomayor on Bush v. Gore". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "Many critics saw the Bush v. Gore decision as an example of the judiciary improperly injecting itself into a political dispute""
180.^ Adam Cohen (Opinion section) (March 21, 2004). "Justice Rehnquist Writes on Hayes vs. Tilden, With His Mind on Bush v. Gore". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "The Bush v. Gore majority, made up of Mr. Rehnquist and his fellow conservatives, interpreted the equal protection clause in a sweeping way they had not before, and have not since. And they stated that the interpretation was 'limited to the present circumstances,' words that suggest a raw exercise of power, not legal analysis."[dead link]
181.^ a b c Kevin McNamara (letter to the editor) (June 3, 2009). "Letters -- Supreme Court Activism?". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
182.^ David Margolick (September 23, 2007). "Meet the Supremes". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "Beat reporters and academics initially denounced the court's involvement in that case, its hastiness to enter the political thicket and the half-baked and strained decision that resulted."
183.^ CQ Transcriptions (January 13, 2006). "U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-28. "...Baker v. Carr, the reapportionment case. We heard Justice Frankfurter who delivered a scathing dissent in that..."
184.^ William Safire (April 24, 2005). "Dog Whistle". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
185.^ David G. Savage (October 23, 2008). "Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23.[dead link]
186.^ Laura Mansnerus (October 16, 2005). "Diminished Eminence In a Changed Domain". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
187.^ Ronald Smothers (October 16, 2005). "In Long Branch, No Olive Branches". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
188.^ David Templeton (March 12, 2006). "Reporter fights to air her story -- Article on choking game pulled from student newspaper". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
189.^ Adam Cohen (January 15, 2008). "Editorial Observer -- A Supreme Court Reversal: Abandoning the Rights of Voters". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
190.^ David G. Savage (July 13, 2008). "Supreme Court finds history is a matter of opinions". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-10-30. "This suggests that the right of habeas corpus was not limited to English subjects ... protects people who are captured ... at Guantanamo ... Wrong, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent. He said English history showed that the writ of habeas corpus was limited to sovereign English territory"
191.^ George F. Will (May 27, 2009). "Identity Justice: Obama's Conventional Choice". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
192.^ a b James Taranto (June 9, 2009). "Speaking Ruth to Power". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
193.^ Woodward, Bob; Scott Armstrong (1979). The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. United States of America: Simon & Schuster. p. 541. ISBN 978-0-7432-7402-9. "A court which is final and unreviewable needs more careful scrutiny than any other"
194.^ a b c d Larry Sabato (September 26, 2007). "It's Time to Reshape the Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
195.^ Christopher Moore (November 1, 2008). "Our Canadian Republic -- Do we display too much deference to authority ... or not enough?". Literary Review of Canada. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
196.^ Tomkins, Adam (2002). "In Defence of the Political Constitution". United Kingdom: 22 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 157. "Bush v. Gore"
197.^ a b c "C-SPAN Supreme Court Week". CSPAN. October 4, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-25.
198.^ James Vicini (April 24, 2008). "Justice Scalia defends Bush v. Gore ruling". Reuters. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "The nine-member Supreme Court conducts its deliberations in secret and the justices traditionally won't discuss pending cases in public"
199.^ "Public Says Televising Court Is Good for Democracy". PublicMind.fdu.edu. March 9, 2010. Retrieved 2010-12-14.
200.^ Mauro, Tony (March 9, 2010). "Poll Shows Public Support for Cameras at the High Court". National Law Journal. Retrieved 2010-12-18.
201.^ James Vicini (April 24, 2008). "Justice Scalia defends Bush v. Gore ruling". Reuters. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "Scalia was interviewed for the CBS News show "60 Minutes"
202.^ a b Alex Altman (book reviewer) (Jan. 27, 2009). "Life Without Lawyers: Liberating Americans From Too Much Law By Philip K. Howard". Time. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
203.^ Philip K. Howard (January 26, 2009). "How Modern Law Makes Us Powerless". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-28. "The idea of freedom as personal power got pushed aside in recent decades by a new idea of freedom -- where the focus is on the rights of whoever might disagree."
204.^ Peter Friedman (March 26, 2009). "Taking care of people and keeping standards high". Geniocity.com. Retrieved 2009-10-30. "Nor does Howard dig deep enough to explain the excesses of American tort law and the eagerness to seek vast damages for civil injuries. He blames the overreaching of Earl Warren's Supreme Court in its sympathy for the little man, and the mood of antipathy to large institutions starting in the 1960s."
205.^ "Philip K. Howard, New York Sun". Common Good. June 4, 2007. Retrieved 2009-10-30. "Common Good Chair Philip K. Howard discusses the Supreme Court's recent repudiation of Conley v. Gibson, a 1957 case which opened the floodgates to abusive litigation, and argues that the Court should take responsibility for a shift in judicial approach towards affirmative assertion of values of reasonableness"
206.^ Linda Greenhouse (September 10, 2007). "New Focus on the Effects of Life Tenure". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
207.^ Sanford Levinson (February 9, 2009). "Supreme court prognosis -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg's surgery for pancreatic cancer highlights why US supreme court justices shouldn't serve life terms". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 2009-10-10.
208.^ See also Arthur D. Hellman, "Reining in the Supreme Court: Are Term Limits the Answer?", in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds., Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices (Carolina Academic Press, 2006), p. 291.
209.^ Richard Epstein, "Mandatory Retirement for Supreme Court Justices", in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds., Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices (Carolina Academic Press, 2006), p. 415.
210.^ Alexander Hamilton (June 14, 1788). "The Federalist No. 78". Independent Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-28. "and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security."

References

Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States, 5 vols., Detroit [etc.] : Macmillan Reference USA, 2008
The Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2005 ed.) (PDF).
Biskupic, Joan and Elder Witt. (1997). Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. ISBN 1-56802-130-5
Hall, Kermit L., ed. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-505835-6.
Harvard Law Review Assn., (2000). The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, 17th ed. [18th ed., 2005. 13-ISBN 978-600-01-4329-9]
Irons, Peter. (1999). A People's History of the Supreme Court. New York: Viking Press. ISBN 0-670-87006-4.
Rehnquist, William. (1987). The Supreme Court. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-375-40943-2.
Skifos, Catherine Hetos. (1976)."The Supreme Court Gets a Home", Supreme Court Historical Society 1976 Yearbook. [in 1990, renamed The Journal of Supreme Court History (ISSN 1059-4329)]
Warren, Charles. (1924). The Supreme Court in United States History. (3 volumes). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Woodward, Bob and Armstrong, Scott. The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court (1979). ISBN 978-0-7432-7402-9.
Supreme Court Historical Society. "The Court Building" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-13.

Further reading

Abraham, Henry J. (1992). Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-506557-3.
Beard, Charles A. (1912). The Supreme Court and the Constitution. New York: Macmillan Company. Reprinted Dover Publications, 2006. ISBN 0-486-44779-0.
Cushman, Barry. (1998). Rethinking the New Deal Court. Oxford University Press.
Cushman, Clare (2001). The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1995 (2nd ed.). (Supreme Court Historical Society, Congressional Quarterly Books). ISBN 978-1-56802-126-3.
Frank, John P. (1995). In Friedman, Leon; Israel, Fred L. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions. Chelsea House Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56802-126-3.
Garner, Bryan A. (2004). Black's Law Dictionary. Deluxe 8th ed. Thomson West. ISBN 0-314-15199-0.
Greenburg, Jan Crawford, Jan. (2007). Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control for the United States Supreme Court. New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-101-1.
Martin, Fenton S.; Goehlert, Robert U. (1990). The U.S. Supreme Court: A Bibliography. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Books. ISBN 0-87187-554-3.
McCloskey, Robert G. (2005). The American Supreme Court. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-55682-4.
O'Brien, David M. (2008). Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics (8th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-93218-4.
Spaeth, Harold J. (1979). Supreme Court Policy Making: Explanation and Prediction (3rd ed.). New York: W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7167-1012-7.
Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. Doubleday, 2007. ISBN 0-385-51640-1.
Urofsky, Melvin and Finkelman, Paul. (2001). A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512637-8 & ISBN 0-19-512635-1.
Urofsky, Melvin I. (1994). The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary. New York: Garland Publishing. p. 590. ISBN 0-8153-1176-1.
Supreme Court Historical Society. "The Court Building" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-13.

If you haven't already seen it, please watch (or rewatch) 'The Pelican Brief'. Sometimes I wonder if someday this thread will be known as 'The Reptilian Brief'?! Just kidding! But really, watching the movie while thinking thus, made it a helluva lot more interesting for me! I especially like the ending. It always makes me cry. What really scares me about this thread, is that the truth is sharper than any two-edged sword -- and it can cut BOTH ways -- meaning it could decapitate me. Perhaps it already has -- and I suspect that this might be the case -- but no one has bothered to tell me. Seriously. Imagine a 'Galactic Pelican Brief'. What might that be like? Think about it. A Fool Keeps Talking. A Completely Ignorant Fool Keeps Typing. The Moving Finger Types. The Horror.

Here are some things I've said! http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1158-death-and-taxes What troubles me, at this point, is the relationship of all of this to the hypothetical factional power-struggling within the solar system -- which could conceivably extend beyond this solar system -- especially if humanity is being punished and taxed (Sin-Tax) -- in connection with original and unpardonable sins. This could be a HUGE can of worms, which should be opened VERY carefully (if at all). I obviously wish for things to improve in this solar system, but I wish to play this game in the most intelligent and tactful manner imaginable. This could be a MOST dangerous game. Proceed with caution. A cancer is growing on the solar system. ("solar system" is an interesting word-combination, isn't it? What Would Ra Say (WWRS)?) How does Love relate to Law, regarding God and God's Law? Are the Ten Commandments really God's Law? I started a thread on the Ten Commandments a while back, and there has been ZERO INTEREST, which didn't surprise me one little bit. http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t3575-the-ten-commandments-revisited While I continue to desire a Harmonization of the Sovereignty of God with Human Responsible Freedom -- I really wonder if Divinity and Humanity are ready for this sort of thing to become a reality? I wonder if I'm ready for it? All I see are problems and trouble connected with ALL options. Despite my sometimes seemingly flippant attitude, I am VERY worried and VERY unhappy. I keep speaking of stopping this thread -- because I fear that I might be doing the wrong thing -- especially if I don't know the whole story. I also fear that my words are being misused and abused -- and that my good intentions might be paving the road from Purgatory to Hell -- rather than creating Heaven on Earth. I guess I'll try to do some Religious and Political Science-Fiction Writing -- based on a lot of the material contained within this thread. I doubt that I'll follow-through. I never do. But I'll try a bit harder than I usually do. I think I'll also try to market some popular love songs. Then, I'll try to find a City of London trader to create a fortune for me! Just kidding! Or am I? What Would Nathan Say (WWNS)?

I doubt there are any truly happy answers or solutions. If a church claims to be the 'one true church' with the 'truth' -- they are obviously (and often pompously) exclusive. People and organizations (especially regarding politics and religion) wish to be right. They like to win. If a church were to admit that they were 'just another church' and that they were merely 'searching for the truth' -- this opens a can of worms. The Episcopal Church seems to honestly be trying to take this second approach -- while the Roman Catholic Church seems to continue to take the first approach. I grew-up attending a church that was probably in the middle of these two extremes (the Seventh-day Adventist Church) -- although they probably leaned toward exclusivity. I eventually left, in part, because I wished to be ecumenical, and in part, because I simply lost my faith. I've been attempting to 'Put Humpty-Dumpty Back Together Again' on 'The United States of the Solar System' thread -- where I am confronted by the 'Exclusivity Demon'. I almost feel as if I have joined the 'Kumbaya Branch of Megalomaniacs Anonymous'. I feel as if I have wandered onto the battlefield of a Spiritual Galactic War -- and I have even delusionally felt as if I might be threatening the Security and Stability of the Universe with my Idealistic Tripe. So, once again, I am trying very, very hard to stop posting. I have come to better understand some of the problems, and I am quite frankly devastated by them. I truly do not see a happy ending or a light at the end of the tunnel. Not at this point. One might very well exist, but I'm just not seeing it right now. 'Disclosure' and 'Auditing the Fed' are another couple of cans of worms. One thing leads to another to another to another. It never ends. I doubt that there will ever be true resolution and closure. There will simply be more and more problems. I'm going to finish reading 'The Keys of This Blood', 'Rise of the Fourth Reich', 'SS Brotherhood of the Bell', 'A Foreign Policy of Freedom', and my 'Battlestar Galactica' novels -- not to try to be happy -- but just because I have a pathological need to know, and to think about things which are hard to think about -- even though it continues to ruin my life. We all have our crosses to bear. What Would Jesus Say (WWJS)? In 'The Last Temptation of Christ' Jesus seems to know how hopeless and desperate His situation, and Humanity's situation, really is. I continue to think of Jesus as being a Disenfranchised Black Sacrificial-Lamb of the hypothetical Reincarnating Osiris-Isis-Horus-Set Royal Family -- as an Idealistic but Powerless Rebel Against the Galactic Powers That Be -- on behalf of a Race Without a Clue or a Prayer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_(film)

I guess the trouble with a lot of the material I am attempting to deal with is that it takes a huge amount of time and effort to focus on something which might be of absolutely no value. I still think that those who are paid to monitor 'potential problems' are the only ones (and perhaps a few 'regressives') who really dig into what I've posted! I once spoke with someone who claimed to be 'Angry and Jealous'! They claimed to be an Ancient Egyptian Deity! They also claimed that I was somehow related to them! The Saturday and Sunday thing leaves me VERY conflicted. I grew up strictly observing the Seventh Day Sabbath (Saturday) from Sundown Friday to Sundown Saturday. Then I tried to become Ecumenical, and I finally 'lost' my faith -- but I never stopped agonizing over politics, religion, and theology -- even though it seemed to make me progressively (regressively?) more miserable. My 'United States of the Solar System' thread is the sad conclusion to my agonizing misery. I would have no problem observing the Sabbath, the Old Testament health laws, and a Decalogue-Based Ethical-System -- especially in an isolated and unified situation (such as the Israelites experienced). Unfortunately, the modern world and the ancient world don't exactly harmonize, to say the least! Also, there is a helluva lot of highly questionable ethical material in the Old Testament. To me, it's a real mixed-bag. I tried the 'Robert H. Schuller' version of religion for a while -- where he 'accentuated the positive' and mostly avoided everything problematic. It was truly a 'New Religion' in the context of the 'Old Time Religion'. At that time, I attended church on BOTH Saturday and Sunday. I had my bases covered (just in case)! Saturday v Sunday seems to be a battle between lower-case 'd' deities. A lot of things in the Bible point to lower-case 'd' deities. But if one were a lower-case 'd' deity -- they might wish to represent themselves as being upper-case 'D' Deities -- for whatever reasons (benevolent or malevolent). I'm too burned-out on this subject to continue. I said yesterday that I was going to stop posting. Let's just say that I'd like to see every day be considered to be a 'Sabbath Day' -- with ALL of life being considered Sacred -- and with Religious Services being offered Every Day of the Year. The Liturgical Year bothers me, as does Christmas and Easter. I am currently reading and re-reading the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer' as a Devotional Book -- straight through -- over and over -- without regard to particular 'special' or 'sacred' days. I recently joked about 'God' racing Formula One cars on Saturday and Sunday (instead of attending church) -- and then going to church Monday through Friday! I don't think anyone was laughing in 'Heaven'. This Sabbath matter might be very ancient and VERY serious. Unfortunately, the real facts of the matter remain a deep, dark secret. I once heard a Senior Catholic Priest tell his parishioners that Saturday was the Sabbath (in a somewhat roundabout and tactful manner)! He said it clearly and repeatedly. The Roman Catholic catechisms admit that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday by the Authority of the Church. I keep wondering about my hypothetical Orion-Sirius-Egyptian-Roman Empire -- hypothetically administered in this solar system by a hypothetical Osiris-Isis-Horus-Set Reincarnating Royal Family. I suspect a Family Feud. Once again, it hurts too much to keep typing. I need to stop.

orthodoxymoron wrote:I just wonder if a Completely Open and Honest Nice-Guy and/or Nice-Gal God and/or Goddess would work in this Solar System? Do we require Covert Bad@$$-Regressive Rule? Think about it. I have tried to incorporate the first option in my Model Solar System Government -- but what about 'God' at the top of the pyramid? Think about it. What if 'God' were like Tom Hulse in 'Amadeus'? What if 'God' wore Birkenstocks and Blue-Jeans? Would Law and Order prevail throughout the Solar System? Would All Hell Break Loose as the Same Old Factions Battled for Power in a Perceived Power Vacuum? Think about it. What if 'God' were extremely low-key, kept track of the solar system with a laptop computer, and raced Vintage Formula One Ferraris (with SOVREN?) on the weekends (instead of attending church)? God in the Paddock? What Would Clive Staples Lewis Say (WWCSLS)? Think about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_MWx2-bD90&feature=related Now this doesn't mean that 'God' wouldn't attend church. If every day of the year were a 'Sabbath-Day' -- 'God' might attend church Monday thru Friday! Fooled you, didn't I?! I wonder if they have a mag-lev train between Modena and Vatican City??? Hmmmmmmmmm.....

Go With God!!!

orthodoxymoron wrote:Has anyone (even a casual observer) taken a look at the following? I am VERY concerned regarding how this plan might affect the Government of God throughout the Universe. I keep getting the sinking feeling that this is some sort of a rigid life or death struggle, with no prisoners taken. Is there a rational way to deal with all of this madness, rather than with unchangeable historical universal rules, regulations, and covenants? I keep getting the sinking feeling that this is not about present-day ethics, but that it is all about Ancient Conflicts and Decisions which are very Dark and Deep. I continue to be DEEPLY disturbed that no one will properly talk to me about any of this. This whole thing feels like a set-up or a sick-trap of some kind. How can I properly think about all of this, without having all of the facts? Why do I have to feel sick and attacked 24/7? Is this really fair? But really, who's talking about 'Fair' in this 'Most Dangerous Game'?

**************************************************GOD**************************************************

*************THE KING AND QUEEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM*************

THE UNITED STATES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM****THE SOLAR SYSTEM COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
*******U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights*******************1928 Book of Common Prayer*******
*************The Federalist Papers********************************The Desire of Ages*************
************J.S. Bach and G.F. Handel**************************J.S. Bach and G.F. Handel**********
**************Cathedral Context************************************Cathedral Context**************

What is the meaning of this? What are the implications and ramifications? What would the United Nations say? What would the Secret Government say? What would the President say? What would Hillary Clinton say? (BTW -- is she 'the choice'?) What would the Rockefellers and Rothschilds say? What would the Bilderberg Group say? What would the Queen say? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxuYJ1Udm5E&feature=related What would the Pope say? What would China say? What would Russia say? What would Africa say? What would Australia say? What would India say? What would Canterbury say? What would Joel Osteen say? What would Kenneth Copeland say? What would Benny Hinn say? What would TBN say? What would Monseigneur Bowe say? What would the Dracs say? What would the Greys say? What would the Hybrids say? What would the Queen of Heaven say? What would the God of This World say? What would the Galactic Powers That Be say? What would the Creator God of the Universe say? I'm really not dogmatic about this, and I would really appreciate some help in mentally modeling this concept. Is anybody out there? Anybody? I'd like to model this idea with a See-More-Greys Supercomputer! (get it?!) No? Oh Come On!! Would the successful implementation of this governance-theory precipitate Tower of Babel II and Noah's Flood II? How would the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast (ala Revelation 13) fit into all of this? What about Rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem? Would this Monstrosity of Human Wisdom be the final nail in the coffin of the 'Late, Great Planet Earth'? What would Hal Lindsey say? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-EE-9aX1z4 I'm frankly attempting to circumvent a lot of Negative Bible-Prophecy -- while retaining the Best Biblical Principles and Concepts. Is that heresy? It is? So burn me! What am I saying???

orthodoxymoron wrote:Take a close look at Colonel Philip Corso's activities in England and Italy, especially in the 40's and 50's. Is there a Secret Government and/or Gizeh Intelligence connection? I'm not necessarily opposed to all aspects of that which is hidden within this solar system, but I lean toward a more open and less corrupt 'secret' government. There may be many aspects of all of this madness which might be too much for the general public to handle all at once, but I think we need to refine and reform solar system governance, with all deliberate speed. What would Paola Harris say? What would Philip Corso Jr. say?

What if the hypothetical United States of the Solar System and the hypothetical Anglo-Catholic Church were both based upon an uncorrupted and properly adapted version of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? Would they war with each other, or would they keep each other in line? Would an elected non-bloodline King and Queen serve as the ceremonial heads of the United States of the Solar System and the Anglo-Catholic Church? Would this be the beginning of the end of this solar system? I am very, very fearful that no matter what we do, things are going to be very, very bad. The best of intentions can quickly pave the road to hell. But please remember that this thread is a study-guide, to make you face yourselves, and think. It's better to examine as many possibilities as possible, sooner rather than later. I've been joking about possibly being an insider at some later date, but I think that everyone is going to be an insider, because of the exponential increase in information and communication in a Brave New Universe. If I became even a token-insider, I'd probably become very, very unhappy. Wait a minute, I'm very, very unhappy right now -- so what would change? Oh yeah, I'd have a badge and a title. But don't get me wrong, I aspire to be a Highly Ethical, Highly Pragmatic, Genius City-State and Moon-Base Insider -- even if I just keep this tempest in a teapot brewing in my messy little house.

I think there needs to be a critical mass of outsiders, who calmly think like insiders, instead of shouting insults at the NWO-PTB. I'm frankly going to try to think like a composite of Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Set. Oh, I know, Set is supposedly Lucifer, and Lucifer is the Devil, right? Well, I continue to think that ALL of these four reincarnational lower-case deities are a mixture of good and evil, competence and incompetence, genius and insanity. I just think that looking at the past and present through their eyes is extremely interesting. I'm also trying to think of being some sort of a Solar System Administrator in a Sirius-Egyptian-Roman Empire, even though I don't really know the nature of this empire, or whether it even exists. I simply think that more people should create their own ongoing science-fiction shows, so as to consider all of the possibilities before coming to any conclusions relative to life, the universe, and everything. Look at me, saying all of this, while simultaneously talking about an Anglo-Catholic Book of Common Prayer in Parallel Columns of English and Latin, Based Upon the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, Complete With an Introduction by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope of Rome, so as to Facilitate Ecumenism and Protestant-Catholic Reunification, Possibly in Conjunction with a Responsibility-Based United States of the Solar System, Centered in the City of London! Would the King and Queen of the United States of the Solar System be the head of the Anglo-Catholic Church? How's that for playing with burning magnesium???!!! Would this be an Anti-Christ Scenario? In a way, I like the general concept, but I fear that it would quickly become corrupted, just like everything else. BTW, consider reading 'The Jesuits' by Malachi Martin. It's really quite good, regardless of whether you love or hate the Jesuits. I'm somewhat undecided and conflicted about the Jesuits, but I love the writing style of Malachi Martin. One thing that stuck in my mind, while reading this volume, is that the period following Vatican II has involved the secularization of the Roman Catholic Church. While I support the refining and reformation of the RCC, and the proper relationship of 'sacred' and 'secular', I do not support the breaking-down of ethics and spirituality - anywhere in society -- 'sacred' or 'secular'.

I will continue to conceptualize idealistic theories of church and state. A core solar system church and state situation would not negate religious or political freedom. The goal would be to make the solar system safe for a wide variety of expressions of church and state. I'm just trying to look at the existing superpowers of church and state, and to idealize them in innovative ways. I would be game for clean sheet of paper approaches, but I don't think they would be likely to succeed. Plus, I think that there needs to be a link between the present and the past. In other words, I don't wish to create a vacuum, which then gets filled with vastly inferior flatulents. I suspect that there would have to be daily contact with the galactic powers that be, regardless of whether they are friend or foe, benevolent or malevolent, progressive or regressive, human or otherwise. I'm presently thinking of this solar system as being a Human Island in a Draconian Reptilian Universe, but I have no way of knowing whether this is actually the case, or not. I wouldn't have a problem interacting with the galactic powers that be on a daily basis, as sort of an ambassador. But once again, this is just fantasy-land. I'm a nobody with a very dull and stupid life, so I'm simply trying to liven things up a bit. What would Mr. Hadden say? Was he the modern equivalent of Osiris? Was Rachel Constantine the modern equivalent of Isis? Was Michael Kitz, her assistant, the modern equivalent of Set? Was Palmer Joss the modern equivalent of Horus? What would a composite of these characters be like? I'm working on it, and as I ride off into the sunset, I plan to be a Moon and City-State Watcher, in a mostly non-conspiratorial manner. I fear that things are going to be extremely difficult for the human race, regardless of who is in charge, and regardless of what form of governance and religion is dominant. Here is yet another 'uplifting' video to enlighten your quest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU6C9Ecyoic&feature=related This thread of mine would be downright dangerous if anyone actually studied it in a careful and prayerful manner. But no worries -- that would require too much work and discipline. I'd like to meet those who have been monitoring me! You guys and gals are probably the only ones who actually pay much attention to any of this! Our tax-dollars at work! I'd actually like to meet the Draconian Reptilians and Tall, Long-Nosed Greys who have been watching my every move! At this point, I feel as though I am not well thought of by the Dracs, Greys, or Humans -- even though I wish for things to work out well for all concerned. I just want the pain, suffering, corruption, destruction, insanity, slavery, murder, and bullshit to stop now. Right Now. Is that too much to ask???

It's the economy stupid! He who has the gold RULES! I will be especially interested in the City of London, with the other locations being viewed with peripheral vision. Should people be limited to a net-worth of one million dollars (USD)? Should any additional wealth be used for worthy charitable purposes? At what point does wealth become anti-competitive? At what point does accumulated wealth become non-compassionate? At what point does power corrupt absolutely? At what point do leaders stop listening? At what point do geniuses become insane? At what point do team-players go rogue? Look VERY closely at the richest one-percent and the poorest one-percent. What's wrong with this picture?! I'd still like to see how the City-State Creme de la Creme might apply the 'Federalist Papers' (including the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights), the 'Desire of Ages' (in principle and concept), the '1928 Book of Common Prayer' (ceremonially and conceptually), and Sacred Classical Music (ceremonially and inspirationally) to Solar System Governance. I am an admitted Bull in a China Closet, and I've simply been brainstorming and imagining. I completely understand the limitations and liabilities of engaging in this sort of thing. I've never felt smaller or more humbled than I feel presently. It still feels as though we are facing an unprecedented enslavement and/or extermination -- rather than an evolutionary reformation and refinement of that which presently exists within this solar system. Are we really facing a Galactic Game Over? Is this Experiment in Human Physicality and Responsible Freedom really over? I was recently told 'It's Over Rover'. Now I'm going to try to cheer myself up by watching Hal Lindsey. Do we really live on the Great, Late Planet Earth? Whatever Happened to the Human Race? What would Francis Schaeffer say? Do the Galactic Powers That Be Have a Plan?

Once again, I am very, very sorry if I have hurt anyone (benevolent or malevolent, progressive or regressive, human or otherwise) by my brainstorming and questioning internet activities. I am in the process of toning the whole thing down, or not posting anything at all. Raven was absolutely right, when she called me a 'completely ignorant fool'. I was, and still am. However, I still believe that anyone who carefully and prayerfully studies this thread will be in a much better position to deal with the Brave New Universe all of us are facing. I have intended it as a Galactic Boot Camp, so there is a certain amount of pain and suffering involved in this thread. I have conceptually ended up in the City of London. I think there are thousands of very, very smart people (and other than people) connected with the Moon and the City-States. I don't question the level of competence within this network. However, I still seek refinement and reformation, even though I am a certified completely ignorant fool. I simply wish for the hard-core evil to cease and desist within this solar system. I think I'm now ready to explore Egyptology, but I will keep coming back to this thread as a sort of 'City of Refuge'. I'm going to make a detailed study of the original 'Project Avalon' and 'The Mists of Avalon'. Forgive my seeming disregard for the work of others. I never disregarded any of it, but my never-ending questioning and brainstorming made it seem as if I did. Now, I will examine all of it, especially the work of Anchor, Carol, Brook, Lionhawk, Mercuriel, Barry (the Watcher), TRANCOSO, abraxasinas, Bill, Kerry, Karen, Raven, the eXchanger, and Richard (just kidding!). There are many, many others...but I can't think of their names just now. I continue to think that I know very, very little...and that this is just the beginning...rather than being the end. Much love to everyone. This has been fun! We'll have to do it again sometime!

Oh God! Now what are we gonna do??!! What Would Loki Do? (WWLD?) Beware of Completely-Ignorant Male Musicians with Blond Wives (with brown roots) and Two Children (a boy and a girl) -- Who Work in Grocery Stores -- Talk to a Human-Looking God -- Seem to be Stupid and Insane -- and Drive AMC Pacers with California Plates (in Burbank and Glendale) -- with water inside! What are the odds? What would God say? In Dogma 'God' was a female hidden in a male-body, who didn't talk much, and was funny (in more ways than one). In Oh, God! God drives a Taxi. Now that just doesn't seem right, now does it? 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tTU00m5MB0 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNUUFVLkYII 3. https://www.youtube.com/movie?v=GX8GGhp_2pA&feature=mv_sr What if God really is one of us? Now isn't this a rather strange way to 'do' theology? What would Bultmann say? Who is related to Anna? Consider the Ring of Power. Consider the Rose and Cross. What would Bartleby and Rufus say? Jesus Swept? Some say the author of most of the Psalms seems a bit unbalanced, but how does this relate to all of the above? Was King David a Crazy-Faker?? Is orthodoxymoron a Crazy-Faker and/or a Crazy-Maker?? What Would Dorothy Sayers Say?? "Maker of All Things -- Maker of Ill Things??" Pacers on the Highway to Heaven! Just blame Inigo Loyola (or someone like him)!! Justin case you still don't get it, you will, sooner than you think. Are you easily confused? What would Walter say? Both of them. Frankly, this is driving me crazier than I already was, and I was half an inch from the edge. One more thing, don't overlook the Burbank Connection. What would Jordan Maxwell say? Didn't they sell Pacers at Modern Motors in Glendale? Or was it a couple of blocks down Brand? What kind of a crazy puzzle is this? All I want is a perfected humanity in a perfected solar system based upon responsibility. I keep feeling nothing but pressure, scorn, and condemnation. I feel like I'm getting it wrong 24/7. I feel like I'm fiddling while Rome burns. All is NOT well with my soul. This has been a very creepy year, and I really can't take much more of this. I feel like the Last Scion in Dogma. I really need professional help. No, wait. The shrinks are nuttier than we are. Maybe I need an exorcist. My house is probably 'spook central' in more ways than one. The excrementals are quadruple teaming me. "Get thee hence into the bottomless toilet, thou fecal-demons!" One more thing. What is that big building in the distance, shown below? Could this be where the trouble started? "I knew that guy was going to be trouble". What would the 'King of the Girls' say? What would 'Test Tube' say? Enough of This Madness!? Also, notice the car parked behind the Pacer. Is that a 1972 Cadillac?? If I lose my house, maybe I should move to Vegas, go to school, and get a ticket on that special plane to Groom Lake! What would TREEE say? One TREEE. Many Branches. OK, I've gone far enough out on this limb, and I know better than to take the bait, and eat the fruit. One more thing. You would not believe the number of parallels between the John Denver character and me. There's a George Burns parallel, and a 'Dogma' connection as well. There's more. A lot more. I kid you not. Read this paragraph very carefully. This is all sort of spooky, and I suspect that things are going to get a lot worse. This post brings me HUGE Pain and Suffering -- even though it might not seem like it. You have NO idea. I often wonder why I bother with all of this madness -- especially when most of what I post seems to be either ignored or ridiculed. I guess hope springs eternal. Namaste and Godspeed!

Has the Human Race Been Sleeping with the Devil for Thousands of Years? Exterminatus Interruptus? Oh Geronimo!? 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcLazPauA1c 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oFYAmHKLTg&feature=related Don't be frightened. I mean no harm. Try listening to a Bach B-Minor Mass or to a Latin Mass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enWiFcsBqIE while watching '2001: A Space Odyssey' (from 00:20:00 to 02:10:00 -- with the sound off). Then, while doing this, read from 'The Federalist Papers', the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer', and 'The Desire of Ages'. Try it. You'll like it. Remember, this thread is only the beginning. It merely scratches the surface of some very deep subjects. I'm prepared to start over, each and every day. I think things might get really crazy, so be prepared for just about anything. This has been fun. Let's do it again sometime. I am of peace. Always.

"LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! WE CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!!"


Serendipity Lacks Definition Because She's a Muse, Stupid!

orthodoxymoron wrote:Notice very carefully, the strong-women in motion-pictures and television, wearing red, and also wearing gloves (especially the kind which cover just the fingers). BTW -- I require a helluva lot more than a limp and simplistic 'oh yes!' https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=PlQ8hVqcIAs&NR=1 (She really gave me something to think about!) Think about this in a prophetic-biblical sense, and in connection with 'Stargate', 'East of Eden', 'Dogma', 'V', etc, etc, etc. I wish to make it abundantly clear that I have no problem with powerful women (even goddesses) or palaces. What I have a problem with, is the mess this world has been in for a very long time, for whatever reasons. As much as I hate to keep saying it, I feel as though I am in conflict with myself, divinity, and humanity -- but in a somewhat idealistic (and even sanctimonious) manner. It seems that just about everyone and everything is problematic -- but in very different ways. I say a lot on this thread -- but there's a helluva lot that I don't (and won't) talk about. Let's just say that I don't see any easy ways out of this mess. I continue to think that we need a critical mass of researchers throughout the world, who learn a helluva lot, but who use their knowledge in ways which benefit ALL of humanity. Once again, research everything you can find by:

1. Bill Cooper.
2. Alex Collier.
3. Alex Jones.
4. Jordan Maxwell.
5. Leo Zagami.
6. Sherri Shriner.
7. Branton.
8. Commander X.
9. Ellen White.
10. A. Graham Maxwell.
11. Eric Jon Phelps.
12. Malachi Martin.
13. Ralph Ellis.
14. Robert H. Schuller.
15. William Bramley.
16. Joseph Farrell.
17. Desmond Ford.
18. Ron Paul.
19. Robert Morningsky.
20. Jim Marrs.
21. Richard Hoagland.
22. David Icke.
23. Everyone in Project Avalon, Project Camelot, and the Mists of Avalon.
24. orthodoxymoron. (I just couldn't resist placing myself on the 'Read-List'!)

I'm NOT endorsing any of these people, and this is NOT a complete list. I am merely suggesting that you ride this mental and spiritual treadmill for a while. I have no idea how much of what they say is true, or partially true. They simply force me to think about things that I would not otherwise be aware of. And please, read between the lines, and connect the dots. I think things might get a lot crazier than what these people point toward. This is really just a boot-camp of sorts. Just take all of this material as being science-fiction. Don't take it too seriously, and if it's too much for you to handle. STOP. Do something else for a while. Remember Mithridates? He died old. In this crazy world -- is that a good thing or a bad thing?

"Is It I?" Anti-Christ = In Place of Christ. Does humanity require 'Regressive-Rulership'? Seriously. Do bad-people require bad-leaders? Is Jesus
too good to preside over humanity? If Jesus were placed in charge of this solar system, would things quickly worsen? At this late date, will
things quickly worsen, regardless of who runs the show? 'Knowledge Increases. Men Run To and Fro'? Is this really 'The End'? Is It Over, Rover?
Think about it.

I need to point out that I have HUGE problems with just about everyone and everything -- including Myself, the Bible, and the Writings of Ellen White -- and I am not singling-out Roman Catholics, and the Roman Catholic Church. I have had nothing but good-luck with Roman Catholics (parishioners, musicians, and clergy) -- and I am not trying to get anyone to leave any church -- including the Roman Catholic Church. I continue to conceptualize the possibility of the historical and contemporary existence of an Orion-Sirius-Egyptian-Roman Empire, administered in this solar system by a hypothetical Reincarnating Osiris-Isis-Horus-Set Royal Family -- wherein the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church would be a highly important and relevant piece of this puzzle. I can't prove this -- and I don't even have a lot of evidence -- but it is part of my ongoing science-fiction series, which I am sharing with the very few of you who bother to read my tripe. I continue to think that Theology is a HUGE part of Politics -- regardless of any problems with texts, history, personalities, ethics, whoever, and whatever. It's still important. My Goal is a New Reformation of the City-States, which retains the best and discards the worst. Once again, I do not wish to start from scratch, or to reinvent the wheel. God and the way God runs the Universe, is a HUGE part of properly understanding Solar System Governance -- especially regarding whether the United States of the Solar System has more than a snowball's chance in hell of being established, and of surviving for more than a generation. I've been told that 'in 20 years, you'll be working for us' and that, in essence, my bad-side would manifest itself. I don't wish to elaborate. The Mind, Character, Personality, Nature, and Government of God are HUGE ISSUES. We should take off our shoes -- because the ground upon which we are standing is HOLY GROUND. Please listen to this previously posted link, for a very balanced theological conversation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBjkZ5WzBfc Note especially the material in the second hour. I don't trust anyone or anything, at this point. I endorse a careful and prayerful multidisciplinary study of life, the universe, and everything. I have been somewhat speculatively-intuitive on this web-site -- but I have merely defined areas of study -- and suggested possibilities. I attended A. Graham Maxwell's classes (along with a very famous Hollwood director's stepmother). I wish I had the brains and discipline of Dr. Maxwell. The subjects of 'The Nature of God', 'The Law of God', 'The Government of God', 'The Sovereignty of God', and 'Human Responsible Freedom' are highly important -- as are the general topics of Psychology and Ethics.

I keep trying to imagine a peaceful and happy solar system, with highly ethical and competent leadership, and without a lot of negative drama. Solar System Governance should be somewhat boring and uneventful. I envision continuing doing what I'm doing right now, but in a much more sophisticated and refined manner. I'm really not joking when I speak of a 600 square-foot office-apartment, a Cray, and a Fisk! I am joking when I speak of a Personal Sport-Model Bad@$$teroid and Six Goddesses! One more time, the 'God' portion of the hypothetical New Solar System is VERY important. Perhaps Male and Female Human Physicality -- combined with Responsible Freedom -- are a Rebellious-Invention in a Theocratic Hermaphrodite-Reptilian Universe. I don't know that this is the case, and I am VERY, VERY, VERY sorry for any disrespect or irreverence, especially if this hypothesis is completely in error. However, if this theory is even partially correct, it is VERY important to determine how we might bring that which exists in this solar system -- into harmony with the rest of the universe -- or how to conduct business in a manner which does not cause the rest of the universe to seek to exterminate ALL of us. When I say that I feel as if I am in conflict with Myself, Divinity, and Humanity -- I do not imply hostility or hatred -- but rather a fundamental idealistic struggle -- which seeks to overcome all obstacles to the achievement of a Genuinely Heavenly Universe. A New Solar System must be considered in harmony with a Brave New Universe. The way things have been run throughout the universe, for billions and trillions of years, may not change anytime soon, and perhaps for good-reason -- but where does that leave the Human Race, in this little solar system? Was our punishment and extermination decided upon Hundreds of Thousands of Years Ago? "We can change!!" might be irrelevant. "The decision is made"? I would encourage all of you to study the Bible, even if you don't believe a word in it, and even if you don't believe in God (with an upper or lower case 'g'). We need the mental and spiritual discipline and exercise connected with serious Bible-study. I have made some study suggestions below, and I didn't pull them out of an anatomical black-hole. Something is VERY wrong with me, on a physical, mental, and spiritual level, but I still have enough sense to point you in productive areas of research. I feel VERY attacked, and I might not get better anytime soon. However, I don't think I'll get worse anytime soon. I think I'm pretty much stuck in the muck, right where I am. I am not leadership-material in the real-world, but I am a serious force to deal with in the theoretical-world. I mean absolutely no harm, and I completely agree with the Hippocratic Oath "First, Do No Harm". Don't stop thinking about the Idealistic Integration of Theoretical-Theology, Theoretical-Governance, and Science-Fiction. Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate SG-1, and "V" are only the beginning. Alex Collier is absolutely right when he says that Hollywood is really "clued-in" regarding all of the esoteric stuff. I simply have a HUGE problem with the regressive-influences in Hollywood. I don't even want to begin to think about how nasty the closed-door meetings get in Hollywood, New-York, Washington, DC, London, and Rome. Some of you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The horror. When there are no organizational constraints, we the people are often quite fickle, and we sometimes swing from one extreme to another. I have been attempting an integration of the orthodox and the unorthodox -- as an orthodoxymoron -- for better or for worse. I have recently been taking a bit of a closer look at the City-States, which includes the Vatican -- in light of a lot of the new (for a lot of us) and controversial information. I like the concepts of Evolutionary Change and Minimalist Traditionalism, as sort of a mysterious blend. Try focusing on the following:

1. The Psalms in the King James Version of the Holy Bible.
2. The Gospel According to Matthew in the KJV.
3. The Epistle to the Hebrews in the KJV.
4. The 1928 'Book of Common Prayer'.
5. 'The Desire of Ages' by E.G. White.
6. 'Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs' by Ralph Ellis.
7. 'The Federalist Papers'.
8. 'Believe in the God Who Believes in You' by Robert H. Schuller.
9. 'The Jesuits' by Malachi Martin.
10. The Music of G.F. Handel.
11. The Music of J.S. Bach.
12. Physical Exercise in Nature.

Try all of the above for an extended period of time, and then see what you think regarding Theological and Liturgical Reform. This is merely one physical, mental, and spiritual treadmill among dozens of others. However, there is a coherent rationale to this formula, which you may or may not wish to experience. After all, this is all about what YOU think, and not about what I think. I will not force my views on anyone or be a pain in the hindquarters. Take a look at the cover article on the 'King James Bible' in the December 2011 issue of 'National Geographic'. I encourage reverent yet honest theological research, which is neither blind-conservatism or brash-liberalism. I encourage the highest achievements of ethical spirituality and practical living. Many like the Latin Mass, but many like the Novus Ordo Mass. I wonder what type of religious service the Anglican and Catholic Cathedral Organists and Choirmasters would desire? They might be the people to talk to. Is 'Evangelical Anglo-Catholic' a useful term? Might a 1928 'Book of Common Prayer' in parallel columns of Latin and English facilitate such a hypothetical phenomenon? Has anyone considered the Latin Mass in the context of Ancient Egypt? I hope you all appreciate how difficult and dangerous all of this is. We live in times which are way too interesting. How do we properly define 'God'? What if the following Stargate 'Continuum' scene approximates 'God' in this solar system? Would this necessarily be a bad thing, if the beings in the spaceship were actually highly-ethical, supremely-compassionate, and hyper-competent, rather than being the sinister and ruthless god, goddess, and system lords they were in Stargate 'Continuum'? What if the beings were various types of reptilians? What if God ISN'T One of Us? What would Joan Osborne say? I guess I'll continue to try to make my peace with a non-corrupt and somewhat-sane version of the 'way things are'. I keep thinking about my example, in a previous post, regarding 100 gods and goddesses meeting in San Chapelle de Paris. What if they really met within these sacred walls, and what if they were debating my New Solar System aka the United States of the Solar System? There is something about having a select group conducting a discussion on a very high level, that I frankly find seductively attractive, yet it also scares me, especially if the gods and goddesses were more demonic than angelic. What if this sort of arrangement were instituted instead of the hypothetical United States of the Solar System? What are some other alternatives? The silence is deafening. I wish to help you -- but few seem to wish to help me. I keep seeking conversation -- and I keep talking to myself. If you decide to study this thread, please study it as a whole, including all links and referenced materials. Don't just do a hatchet-job on bits and pieces of this thread, or say that I'm insane. That would be lame, wouldn't you say? I think I'm going to take a closer look at the parallels between the Church of England and the Monarchy -- compared with the Episcopal Church and the Presidency -- just for kicks!! I'm in political and religious limbo -- and I don't have a research-team or a think-tank feeding me talking-points. Besides, I'm not running for anything. In fact, I feel as if I might be running from something. What is the foundation of Universal Civilization? Freedom? Obedience? Responsibility? Absolute-Obedience in Harmony with Responsible-Freedom? Consider the following:

1. Original and Unpardonable Sin.
2. Ritual Human Sacrifice and Cannibalism.
3. The Substitutionary Atonement and Righteousness by Ritual.
4. The Concept of 'Salvation' Relative to the Survival and Condition of the Soul.
5. Male and Female Human-Physicality and Responsible-Freedom.
6. Hermaphrodite Reptilian-Physicality and Absolute-Obedience?
7. Perpetual Punishment of Humanity by Divinity?
8. Perpetual Payment by Humanity to Divinity?
9. Earth-Humanity in a Reptilian-Universe?
10. The Orion-Sirius-Egyptian-Roman Empire?
11. The Osiris-Isis-Horus-Set Reincarnating Royal Family?
12. How Shall We Be Governed?
13. How Shall We Then Live?
14. Who is God?
15. Where is God?
16. What is the Nature of God?
17. Do We Live in an Ethical and Peaceful Universe?
18. Why Are Things So Chaotic and Violent on Earth?
19. Why Are There So Many Creepy Secrets?
20. Is Humanity on the Brink of Extinction?
21. Does the Existence of Humanity Threaten the Stability of the Universe?
22. What is REALLY the 'Biggest Secret'?
23. Would Complete 'Disclosure' of 'Everything' be a 'Good-Thing' or might it be the 'Beginning of the End'?
24. Game-Playing and Sexual-Experimentation.
25. Artistic-Creativity and Artistic-License.
26. Imagination and Invention.
27. Theology and Mythology.
28. Fact and Fiction.
29. Ethical-Deception and White-Lies.
30. Situation-Ethics and Absolute-Truth.
31. The Quest for the Historical-Horus and the Mythical-Messiah.
32. The Games Gods and Goddesses Play with the Kardashians, and with Righteous-Shapeshifting Nazi-Mason-Jesuit Alphabet-Agents.

Don't look now, but your Cray is on fire, and smoke is pouring out of your ears! We're in a flat-spin, and we're going down fast! Whoop! Whoop! Pull-Up! Slam on the Air-Brakes! Jesus wants to go to Venus! Is it because 'The New York Times' said 'God is Dead'? But the 'Dead Know Not Anything' -- and neither do most of the living. Shave and a Haircut: Six-Pence and None the Richer. What Would Machiavelli and the Prince of Sirius Say? World Without End. Amen Ra.

I wonder if anyone is researching what happens to people who research web-sites such as this one? Can you imagine a doctoral dissertation carefully examining the lives of esoteric and fringe researchers?! Who are these people? WHO DO THEY WORK FOR???!!! WHO DO YOU WORK FOR???!!! Perhaps I should stop philosophizing, and start dancing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY There seems to be very little interest in my ideas and speculation -- and I really can compose popular music and sing! All I need to do is learn to dance, write down my musical ideas, and get something going around here! I am attempting to focus on principles and concepts, facts and figures -- rather than making things personal. On the other hand, I have gotten a bit personal regarding Lucifer, Amen Ra, Kali, Isis, Hathor, Osiris, Horus, Set, the God of This World, and the Queen of Heaven. But really, even with these beings (actual and/or mythical) I have attempted to remain somewhat detached and neutral. I think I might've even met one or two of them (or a least one or two of their minions)! Could someone elaborate on "DRAGON HYBRID EXTERTERRESTRIAL" and "INTERDIMENSIONAL FEDERATION OF FREE WORLDS"? Are dragons real? Are they good, bad, or both good and bad? When someone says 'interdimensional' do they mean 'interdimensional reptilian'? Is this the true nature of the soul for most, if not all, humanoid beings? I'm seeing more and more ET, UFO, Supernatural, and Archeological material in the mainstream news. It's beginning to become 'mainstream'. I just hope that this sort of thing will be accurately revealed to the general public. There has been so much misinformation throughout the years. I will be very interested to see how 'Joe the Plumber' responds to this sort of thing! I just started reading 'Family of Secrets' by Russ Baker, about the Bush's. I started reading it a long time ago, but I got sidetracked and disillusioned. I can only take so much, and then my imagination takes over, and I have to stop. The seemingly Rogue Secret Government stuff really worries me. I understand secrecy and behind the scenes staging and managing, to a certain extent, but when it gets out of control -- it's like cancer. "There's a cancer growing on the Presidency". I presently feel as if the Secret Solar System Government needs to be reformed -- but I have absolutely no idea about the particulars or the various factions, which undoubtedly exist. I'm probably too idealistic, naive, and simple -- to properly understand and deal with what REALLY goes on behind the scenes, throughout the solar system -- which includes Washington D.C. I just watched an episode of 'Nikita', and rewatched Battlestar Galactica 'The Plan' to try to toughen myself up a bit! Unfortunately, I didn't learn a frack'n thing!

I get the impression that leading religious and political figures are trained, groomed, and manipulated from the shadows -- in ways which MIGHT involve drugs, sorcery, perfect possession, blackmail, sick-rituals, etc, etc, etc. I could be more specific, but I'd rather not. Some have even pointed toward 'soul-scalping', 'cloning', 'chip-implantation', 'MK-Ultra type programming', etc, etc, etc. I get the impression that leading religious and political figures work for the 'Secret Solar System Government' -- but I also get the impression that there are several factions of this hypothetical government -- which fight with each other -- yet ultimately work for a 'Common Boss'. Just speculation. The Spiritual, Mental, and Technological Manipulation might be Extremely Sophisticated. This sort of thing Scares the Hell Out of Me. I personally witnessed something in the 1980's which might point to at least some of the phenomenon just mentioned, but I'd rather not elaborate. There is a video-clip of Bill Clinton, right before a press-conference or speech, where he has the most blank and spooky look on his face. They're putting the makeup on, and he's just sitting there, looking like he's in another world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-pzqMUTyfI Obama is so very skilled at public speaking, but he always seems to be somewhat robotic (to me anyway). I don't follow politics much (I concentrate on theoretical-politcs, theoretical-religion, and science-fiction), so I don't get used to seeing the various public figures. But when I do, they scare the hell out of me. Now I'm going to go for a long walk in the snow with my dog (to try to get my head together). Then I'm going to re-watch 'The Pelican Brief'. I truly do not wish to be too judgmental or sanctimonious -- but I think we might need to reign-in some of the creepy-stuff which goes on in secret, and which might negatively affect all of us. I worry about 'Demonic Minion Manipulation'(DMM). What Would Magog Do?(WWMD?) Check this out! http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t3942-white-house-insider-you-dont-ever-wanna-do-the-things-ive-done#65862 Watch this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4IA8TKAbsA&feature=related

Is the human race joining together, in love, light, peace, and harmony -- or are we coming apart at the seams? Was there a legitimate reason for God to seek to destroy the human race with a flood? Was there a legitimate reason for God to foil the Tower of Babel One World Order? Is there a legitimate reason for God to oppose a United, Peaceful, and Happy Humanity? Once again, what was the Original Sin? What is the Unpardonable Sin? Is Armageddon a Predestined and Foregone Conclusion to the Human Race and Responsible Freedom? I hate this fishing-expedition. I really do. I have to work very hard, and traumatize myself, to pose these questions -- possibly at great risk to my Mortal and Eternal Life -- AND NO ONE SEEMS TO GIVE A DAMN! I'm seeing very little disciplined political or theological thought. Once again, I don't expect people (and other than people) to agree with me -- but they don't seem to wish to (or to be capable of) intelligently conversing with me about what used to be somewhat mainstream subject matter. Perhaps we need the Old School Nuns to teach children the basics (although I would like to see different 'basics' than what a lot of children were 'indoctrinated' with). What if children learned Biblical-Studies, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin -- in Public Schools -- as simply being a non theologically-biased mental and spiritual discipline??? But wouldn't that just pi$$ everyone off???!!! I have been a bit critical of Canon-Law (without knowing a lot about it), and I have suggested that the Teachings of Jesus should be foundational. However, there is probably a mental and spiritual workout which Canon-Lawyers benefit from. Do you see what I mean? There is a benefit to disciplined grappling. Learning Bach, Widor, Handel, Vierne, et al -- is similarly beneficial -- as is a Disciplined and Refined Liturgical Service (regardless of the symbolism). I desire modernization, but I also desire continuity, order, and discipline. This is a very delicate process, which can spiral out of control. I hope that the "infowar" is not spiralling out of control -- but I fear that it is. This is why I am attempting to combine the orthodox with the unorthodox -- although this might be analogous to placing new wine in old wineskins. Perhaps this isn't the time or place for this -- but I have never been able to indentify with the negativity shown toward Bill and Kerry. They're not perfect, but I think they've done a helluva lot to inform people with a helluva lot of forbidden-knowledge -- for better or worse -- I know not. Does the Human Race require and/or deserve the sort of treatment shown at the very end of the next post? I wonder as I wander.

orthodoxymoron wrote:One more time -- or one last time -- I think there might be enough interesting material in this thread, to create some sort of a book. I don't really want to go this route, but I sort of need the money. I need to pay my bills (including taxes), fix my house (and then possibly sell it), get new teeth, get medical attention, get psychiatric treatment, hire an exorcist, get an old Porsche Turbo, and buy an old missile-silo to hide out in (so I won't have to hide under the rocks -- like Raven said I'd be doing). I need some help doing this from certain individuals who could answer the questions I've posed. I also need help regarding copyright and editing issues. Plus, I have no idea which aspects of this thread are too hot to handle, and I don't know which portions are absolute-truth or complete-bullshit. The wild-card in all of this is who I might've been in previous lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVrNV_5LhNE&feature=related I have no idea about any of this. I had a chance to join the Masons, and hobnob with the Creme de la Creme of the Underworld -- but I chose not to do this -- for a variety of reasons. So, I continue to fly blind. My immediate plans (other than kissing my @$$ goodbye) are to mostly research this thread, and try to internalize the best aspects of it. I've even thought about attending a Latin Mass (although I wouldn't be taking communion). I'd just like to try thinking about the madness in a historical setting. Anyway, I will do some writing and editing, based on this thread, but I really don't know how to proceed, and I don't even know if I should proceed. I'm really not rigid and dogmatic. Not yet, anyway. If a book materializes, I have pledged half of the profits to worthy charities (such as A.D.R.A.). So far, there has been absolutely no interest, but hope springs eternal. One more thing. How would you feel if you were alone with a mysterious individual at midnight, in a room with dozens of large, sharp knives -- where they have just told you that they liked 'The Passion of the Christ', the Latin Mass, and the Taste of Blood (as they suck blood from a flesh-wound) -- and now they are laughing about someone committing suicide by stabbing themselves in the back 39 times? BTW -- they had previously told me that I was lucky to be alive, that they were tired of keeping me alive, and that women and children deserved to be eaten-alive by wild-animals in the Coliseum. I could say more. A lot more. But I'd rather not. Not tonight dear. Namaste and Have a Nice Day. It's a great, big, beautiful tomorrow! My computer was just attacked. Sorry if I stepped over the line. I thought my comment was general enough, and that enough time had passed, but perhaps I was wrong. However, I will leave it 'as is' for the record, but I will refrain from further 'revelations' and 'requests'. I remain largely good-natured and benevolently-neutral. Perhaps this is because I know so little, even at this late date. I continue to try to think the best of everyone, but perhaps this is a mistake. As I mentioned, I'm seriously attempting to go into 'review and rewrite' mode, without 'crusading' any deeper into 'enemy' territory. One more thing (two maybe), I'd still like to get an old (or entry-level) Cray someday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray Also, the 'Fisk-Idea' is just a 'Pipe-Dream'. I'll probably just have to settle for the errection of my own organ (or perhaps an electronic 'Artificial-Organ', such as Rogers or Allen). However, the 'Organ Clearing House' is a terrific resource for 'real-deals'. Is this link significant in light of that which I have previously posted regarding St. Mary and G. Donald Harrison? http://www.organclearinghouse.net/instr/detail.php?instr=2226 Good luck figuring THAT one out!!! Just a reminder to be reasonable and rational regarding this thread. BTW -- I'm a big fan of G. Donald Harrison -- but I'm still not sure about St. Mary!!! Perhaps C.B. Fisk could do both projects, with duplicate '1875' instruments! Just a thought! I REALLY need to stop! I just keep getting the sinking-feeling that the future is NOT going to be a happy one for me, no matter what I do, but I so hope that I'm wrong. I hope that things work out well for all concerned, but I'll never forget. Ever.

"Just What Do You Think You're Doing, Dave? Dave, I Really Think I'm Entitled To An Answer To That Question. Stop, Dave. I'm Afraid, Dave."

I'm sorry for all of the dead-links throughout this thread. I'm trying to clean this mess up -- but I HATE removing and redoing dead-links. In the previous post -- at least half of the links were dead -- and my laptop battery is just about dead, as well. I just saw a silver Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet drive by my clandestine perch!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbOpeBfyFlY I was green with envy -- and then I became red with anger!! Why should I waste my time on solar system governance when I could be working toward getting a primo Porsche?? Those bastards probably live in some waterfront mansion - and have great-sex two or three times a day -- while I sit in the corner of my messy house -- posting forbidden information on the internet with one hand -- and doing you know what with the other. Hint: 'Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing' and 'whatever thy hand findeth to do -- do it with all thy might'!! BTW -- is that wall of water still a possibility?? I certainly hope not. I want to clean this mess up -- but not with War, Terrorism, Crashed-Economies, Red-Lists, or "Acts of God". BTW -- I owned a Pacer (actually, two of them, both with water inside) -- but I could've had more -- a lot more (Pacers, that is). Wouldn't it be cool to shuttle between Georgetown University, Washington National Cathedral, Washington D.C., Fordham University, the United Nations, the City of London, the Vatican, the United States Air Force Academy, Area 51, and the Dark-Side of the Moon -- in a Porsche (Turbo) and a Fizu (Sport-Model)??!! Some of you know what I'm talking about. I might require a really-sexy secret-government psychiatrist-assistant 24/7 -- to help me through those long, hard disclosure-nights -- as I am exposed to the absolute truth about life, the universe, and everything -- on a bear-rug in front of a Russian Fireplace!! Get the picture??!! Danger!! Danger!! Red-Alert!! This Situation is Out of Control!! Whoop!! Whoop!! Pull-Up!! Whoop!! Whoop!! Pull-Up!! "Fire!! Fire!! My Pants are On Fire!! My Heart is Filled with Burning Desire!! Fire! Fire!! My Pants are On Fire!! The Temperature Can't Get Much Higher!!" BTW -- I have a love-song idea with those words -- which I'm sure would be a hit!! I sang it to 'Rufus' (Dogma)!! Ask him about it!! I speak the truth (sometimes). When I get hot -- I just take off my pants and jacket!!

Is there a good-side and a bad-side to the Jesuits?? I think so. Take a very close look at the Jesuit Order -- from ALL perspectives. I've looked at the Jesuits previously -- but here is another look at them. I mostly point you in various directions -- even when I know very little about the subjects I am attempting to deal with. It's up to you to discover the truth. I still think of Agent Ronald Sandoval (in Earth: Final Conflict) as being a Georgetown-Law educated Jesuit FBI Agent -- working for an Alien Queen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESVeWAR3wsU Think about it. Please don't get mad or go mad as you inform yourselves. Just study as if your eternal-life depended upon it -- and then mostly don't do anything. Just know the truth. The truth will only set us free if we don't run in the streets. Once again, I am NOT Anti-Catholic. I simply think that the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church are at the center of the Great Controversy and the War in Heaven and Earth. I think the details are beyond belief and comprehension. Prepare yourselves for a VERY wild ride. Pay close attention to Gabriel, Lucifer, and Michael. I suspect Gabriel and Lucifer on the inside (historically) -- and Michael on the outside. I think this involves a very ancient and bitter conflict. I am not particularly negative -- even though I deal with a lot of negative topics. I'm actually quite neutral. I think it might be very cool to hang-out at Georgetown. We need to be able to deal with difficult and upsetting subjects -- without going nuts. Please remember that I am NOT endorsing the material I post within this thread. Please remember that this thread is intended for a very select and limited audience. I suspect that most of those who view this thread know a lot more about Forbidden-Topics than I do. I think that some of you who study this thread carefully will emerge with a much better understanding of this madness than I have.

I seem to be severely mentally, physically, and spiritually challenged. I feel as if I am losing a Spiritual-War BIG-TIME. Don't follow me into the ditch. I might go down VERY Hard. Perhaps that's why I tear myself down each and every day -- so that I'll NEVER get built-up and set-up for a fall. When I suggested to the Ancient Egyptian Deity that they might be setting me up for something bad -- they retorted "I could snap my fingers -- and you'd be dead!!" True story. I do NOT wish to be a Fall-Guy. I just want things to get better for all-concerned. Remember to study this thread as a whole -- keeping everything in context. Don't remake me into someone who I'm not. I don't wish to get people to join the church -- or to leave the church -- even though I wish to improve the church -- even if the church does not wish to be improved upon!! I still sometimes think of myself as being a Renegade French Jesuit Organist!! Also, remember that this thread is mostly Political and Theological Science-Fiction. Some of you need to take this thread seriously -- but not too many of you!! I'm too burned-out and tramatized to properly express what I think about this subject. A lot of it is visualized in flashes of insight -- which are very difficult to properly relate to others. This is why I keep asking some of you to get completely immersed in this thread -- so that you too might experience some of these flashes of insight. I'm not expecting a world takeover. I think that happened thousands of years ago. I truly believe that the Jesuits are very close to how this solar system really works. I consider them to be a huge part of the problem -- and a huge part of the solution. I simply think that 99% of us are very naive regarding how things really work in the church, the world, the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe. We're not as smart as we often think we are -- and that includes me. I continue to think that EVERYONE should be a student of Roman Catholic history and theology. This is VERY tricky territory. Behold the Jesuits. Here are some videos to get you started.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxG-o_-y1Zk 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qemRWhtmJe4 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dQ0KWvnla8 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XssC-4r_yQ 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w55QI0o7CsE 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLrv28Ny920 7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t-FOjDMUgI 8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXWwbXGAWaQ 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MquyJEKa_qU 10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YsFkDWa_XY 11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6l9jU5_7Mw 12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx8PdvOELvY 13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9GCQktscMk 14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrAZac5SdBI 15. http://www.pacinst.com/terrorists/preamble.html
Consider the Jesuit Fordham University in New York City. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5pujVmYLZQ 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_MHfh6n88o 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordham_University

Fordham University is a private, nonprofit, coeducational research university[5] based in New York City, United States. It was founded by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York in 1841 as St. John's College, placed in the care of the Society of Jesus shortly thereafter, and has since become an independent institution under a lay board of trustees, which describes the University as "in the Jesuit tradition."[6]

Fordham is composed of ten constituent colleges, four of which are for undergraduates and six of which are for postgraduates. It enrolls approximately 15,000 students across three campuses in New York State: Rose Hill in the Bronx, Lincoln Center in Manhattan, and Westchester in West Harrison. In addition to these campuses, the University maintains a study abroad center in the United Kingdom and field offices in Spain and South Africa. Fordham awards the Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, and Bachelor of Fine Arts degrees, as well as various master's and doctoral degrees.[3]

U.S. News and World Report lists Fordham as a top-tier, "more selective" national university and ranks it 58th in this category.[7] In addition, the University has been described as one of New York City's preeminent institutions of higher education.[8] In a 1962 article entitled "The Best Catholic Colleges," Time Magazine included Fordham as a member of the "Catholic Ivy League."[9]

Fordham Preparatory School, a four-year, all-male college preparatory school, was once integrated with the University and shares its founding. It became legally independent in 1972 and moved to its own facilities on the northwest corner of the Rose Hill campus; however, the school remains connected to the University in many ways.[10]

History

1841–1900

Fordham was founded as St. John's College in 1841 by the Irish-born coadjutor bishop (later archbishop) of the Diocese of New York, the Most Reverend John J. Hughes. The college was the first Catholic institution of higher education in the northeastern United States. In September 1840, Hughes purchased most of Rose Hill Manor in Fordham, New York, for slightly less than $30,000 with the intent of establishing St. Joseph's Seminary. "Rose Hill" was the name originally given to the site in 1787 by its owner, Robert Watts, a wealthy New York merchant, in honor of his family's ancestral home in Scotland. The seminary was paired with St. John's College, which opened at Rose Hill with a student body of six on June 21, 1841. The Reverend John McCloskey (later archbishop of New York and eventually the first American cardinal) was the school's first president, and the faculty were secular priests and lay instructors. The college presidency went through a succession of four diocesan priests in five years, including the Rev. James Roosevelt Bayley, a distant cousin of Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt and a nephew of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. In 1845, the seminary church, Our Lady of Mercy, was built. The same year, Bishop Hughes convinced several Jesuit priests from the St. Mary's Colleges in Maryland and Kentucky to staff St. John's.[11]

In 1846, the college received its charter from the New York state legislature, and roughly three months later, the first Jesuits began to arrive. Bishop Hughes deeded the college over but retained title to the seminary property, about nine acres. In 1847, Fordham's first school in Manhattan opened. The school became the independently chartered College of St. Francis Xavier in 1861. It was also in 1847 that the American poet Edgar Allan Poe arrived in the village of Fordham and began a friendship with the college Jesuits that would last throughout his life. In 1849, he published his famed work "The Bells." Some traditions credit the college's church bells as the inspiration for this poem.[11]

St. John's curriculum consisted of a junior division (i.e. the preparatory school), requiring four years of study in Latin, Greek, grammar, literature, history, geography, mathematics, and religion; and a senior division (i.e. the college), requiring three years study in "poetry" (humanities), rhetoric, and philosophy. Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, famed commander of the all-black 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry American Civil War regiment, attended the junior division. An Artium Baccalaureus degree was earned for completion of both curricula, and an additional year of philosophy would earn a Magister Artium degree. There was also a "commercial" track similar to a modern business school, offered as an alternative to the Classical curriculum and resulting in a certificate instead of a degree. In 1855, the first student stage production, Henry IV, was presented. The seminary was closed in 1859, and the property was sold to the Jesuits in 1860 for $40,000.[11]

A Congressional act creating instruction in military science and tactics at the college level resulted in St. John's bringing a cadet corps to campus. From 1885 to 1890, a veteran of the 7th U.S. Cavalry, Lt. Herbert C. Squires, built a cadet battalion to a strength of 200, which would provide the foundation for the modern ROTC unit at Fordham. The college built a science building in 1886, lending more legitimacy to science in the curriculum. In addition, a three-year Bachelor of Science degree was created. In 1897, academic regalia for students at Commencement was first adopted.[11]

1901–1950

With the addition of law and medical schools in 1905, St. John's College became Fordham University in 1907. The name Fordham refers to the village of Fordham, in which the original Rose Hill campus is located. The village, in turn, drew its name from its location near a shallow crossing of the Bronx River ("hamlet by the ford"). When Fordham and several other Westchester County towns were consolidated into the Bronx at the turn of the twentieth century, the village became the borough's Fordham neighborhood. Still in existence today, it is located just to the west of the Rose Hill campus.[11]

In 1908, Fordham University Press was established.[11] In 1912, the University opened the College of Pharmacy, which offered a three-year program in pharmacy. Not requiring its students to obtain bachelor's degrees until the late 1930s, the college had a mainly Jewish student body, and in recognition of that, the students were exempted from the then-required course in Catholic theology. The school's longtime dean, Jacob Diner, was also Jewish.[11]

The College of St. Francis Xavier was closed in 1913, and various Fordham colleges were opened at the Woolworth Building in Manhattan to fill the void. They were later moved to 302 Broadway.[11]

The University closed its medical school in 1919, citing a lack of endowment and reduced University funds overall due to the First World War.[11]

The Gabelli School of Business began in 1920 in Manhattan as the School of Accounting.[11]

In 1944, the School of Professional and Continuing Studies was established.[11]

1951–2000

In 1961, the Lincoln Center campus opened as part of the Lincoln Square Renewal Project. It originally housed only the School of Law, but the academic programs at 302 Broadway were moved to the campus in 1969. At Rose Hill, the all-female Thomas More College began instruction in 1964.[11]

In the late 1960s, Fordham became a major center of political activism and Countercultural activity. During this period, students routinely organized protests and class boycotts and used psychoactive drugs on campus open spaces.[11] In response to internal demands for a more “liberalized” curriculum, the University created Bensalem College in 1967. An experimental college with no set requirements and no grades, it was studied by a wide array of educators and reported on by such large-circulation publications of the day as Look, Esquire, and the Saturday Review. The school closed in 1974. In 1969, students organized a sit-in on the main road leading to Rose Hill in response to an announcement that President Richard Nixon would be speaking on campus.[11] As a result of the sit-in, Nixon was forced to cancel his plans to speak.[11] A year later, students stormed the main administration building, occupying it for several weeks, and set fire to the Rose Hill faculty lounge.[11] It was during this period of activism that the University’s African and African American Studies Department, one of the first black studies departments in the nation, as well as The Paper, the leftist student newspaper on campus, were founded.[11] While political activism has diminished considerably at the Rose Hill campus, it remains strong at the Lincoln Center campus, where students frequently organize protests and events in support of various political causes.[11]

In 1969, the board of trustees was reorganized to include a majority of nonclerical members, which officially made the University an independent institution. The College of Pharmacy closed due to declining enrollment in 1972. Fordham College at Rose Hill merged with Thomas More College in 1974, becoming coeducational.[11]

In 1993, a twenty-story residence hall was added to the Lincoln Center campus to house 850 students. In 1996, the campus's undergraduate college changed its name to "Fordham College at Lincoln Center," having been called "The Liberal Arts College" and later "The College at Lincoln Center" since its creation in 1968.[11]

2001–present

Marymount College, an independent women's college founded by the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary in 1907, was consolidated into Fordham in July 2002. The school had been steeped in financial hardship since the 1970s. Located 25 miles (40 km) north of Manhattan in Tarrytown, New York, the college remained open, and its campus received a branch of the School of Professional and Continuing Studies as well as extensions of the Graduate Schools of Education, Social Service, and Business Administration.

In 2005, Fordham announced that Marymount College would be phased out; it awarded degrees to its final undergraduate class in May 2007. University administrators indicated that the campus would remain open for Fordham graduate programs in several disciplines.

In the autumn of 2007, however, the University announced its intention to seek buyers for the Marymount campus. Administrators stated that the expenses required to support the programs at the campus far exceeded their demand. University officials estimated that the revenue gained from the proposed sale would not be greater than the expenses incurred maintaining and improving the campus since the merger with Marymount. President McShane nonetheless stated that the University's decision was a "painful" one. Fordham then indicated its intention to move the remaining programs from the Marymount campus to a new location in Harrison, New York by the autumn of 2008. On February 17, 2008, the University announced the sale of the campus for $27 million to EF Schools, a chain of private language instruction schools.[12]

In 2003, Fordham unveiled the Toward 2016 Integrated Strategic Plan, to be implemented by the University's sesquicentennial in 2016. The $500-million plan aims to enhance the University's profile, increase research among faculty members, make capital improvements to both the Rose Hill and Lincoln Center campuses, increase the competitiveness of varsity athletic programs, and enlarge the University's endowment, among other things.[13] As of November 2010, Fordham is expected to meet almost all of the plan's objectives on time.[13]

Academics

Fordham's academic ideals are drawn from its Jesuit influences. The University promotes the Jesuit principles of cura personalis, which fosters a faculty and administrative respect for the individual student and all of his or her gifts and abilities; magis, which encourages students to challenge themselves and strive for excellence in their lives; and homines pro aliis, which intends to inspire service among members of the Fordham community.[6]

Core curriculum

All undergraduates at Fordham are required to complete the Core Curriculum, a distribution of 17 courses in nine disciplines: English, mathematics, social science, philosophy and ethics, history, fine arts, religious studies, natural science, and modern or Classical languages. Based on the curriculum established by the Society of Jesus in the sixteenth century, the Core is shared by Jesuit schools all over the world and is intended to provide a sound liberal arts education.[14]

Students are expected to fulfill most of the Core requirements prior to the completion of their sophomore year; a wide variety of courses can be applied to this endeavor.[15] Those students pursuing a Bachelor of Science degree complete a modified version of the Core.[16]

Upon the completion of the Core Curriculum, students choose from approximately 50 major courses of study, in which they will receive their degree.[3] One option is the personalized interdisciplinary major, which allows students to create their own course of study across various disciplines.[17]

Colleges and schools

The University is composed of four undergraduate and six graduate schools,[18] which are as follows:

Undergraduate schools

Fordham College at Rose Hill (also known simply as Fordham College), 1841
Gabelli School of Business, 1920
School of Professional and Continuing Studies, 1944
Fordham College at Lincoln Center, 1968

Through its undergraduate schools, Fordham offers a number of special academic programs for undergraduates, a selection of which are below:

Pre-Medical and Health Professions Program[19]
Pre-professional programs in law, architecture, and criminal justice[20][21][22]
3-2 Engineering Program, in conjunction with Columbia and Case Western Reserve Universities[23]
Five-Year Teacher Certification Program[24]
Applied Public Accountancy (CPA certification) program[25]
BFA program in dance, in conjunction with the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater[26]
Cross registration opportunities with the Juilliard School for advanced music students[27]

Graduate schools

School of Law, 1905
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, 1916
Graduate School of Education, 1916
Graduate School of Social Service, 1916
Joseph M. Martino Graduate School of Business Administration, 1969
Graduate School of Religion and Religious Education, 1969

Fordham participates in the Inter-University Doctoral Consortium, which allows its doctoral students to take classes at a number of schools in the New York metropolitan area.[28]

Medical education

With the closure of its medical school in 1919 and its College of Pharmacy in 1972, Fordham ceased direct medical instruction on its campuses. Nevertheless, the University continues its tradition of medical education through a collaboration with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University. The partnership allows Fordham undergraduate and graduate science students to take classes, conduct research, and pursue early admission to select programs at Einstein. In addition, it involves a physician mentoring program, which permits students to shadow an attending physician at Einstein's Montefiore Medical Center.[29]

In 2009, Fordham began negotiations with New York Medical College regarding the possible merger of the two institutions.[30] While the merger ultimately did not occur, the two schools maintain a close academic relationship in such ways as the provision of joint courses.[31] This relationship is expected to grow in the coming years.[32]

Libraries and museums

The Fordham University Library System contains approximately two and a half million volumes, subscribes to over 65,000 periodicals and electronic journals, and is a depository for United States Government documents.[33] In addition, the University's Interlibrary Loan office provides students and faculty with virtually unlimited access to the over 20 million volumes of the New York Public Library System as well as to media from the libraries of Columbia University, New York University, the City University of New York, and other libraries around the world.[34] Fordham's libraries include the William D. Walsh Family Library, ranked in 2004 as the fifth best collegiate library in the country,[35] and the Science Library at the Rose Hill campus, the Gerald M. Quinn Library and the Leo T. Kissam Memorial Law Library at the Lincoln Center campus, and the Media Center at the Westchester campus. In addition to the University's formal libraries, several academic departments, research institutes, and student organizations maintain their own literary collections.[36] The Rose Hill campus's Duane Library, despite its name, is no longer a library, though it still contains reading and study space for students.[37]

Fordham maintains several special collections that are housed in various museums and galleries on campus. The Fordham Museum of Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Art is located at the Rose Hill campus and contains more than 200 artifacts from Classical antiquity. A gift from alumnus William D. Walsh, it is the largest collection of its kind in the New York metropolitan area.[38] In addition, the University maintains an extensive art collection, which is housed in exhibition spaces at the Rose Hill and Lincoln Center campuses and in galleries around New York City.[39] The collection will eventually be on permanent display at the Fordham University Art Gallery, which is currently under construction at the Lincoln Center campus.[40] Finally, the University possesses a sizable collection of rare books, manuscripts, and other print media, which is housed in the O'Hare Special Collections Room at the Walsh Library.[41]

Research

Because of its Jesuit heritage, the University has placed a greater emphasis on teaching than research throughout most of its history.[11] In recent years[weasel words], however, it has increased its commitment of financial and human resources to research endeavors.[citation needed] The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching currently classifies Fordham as a doctoral university with high research activity (RU/H).[5]

A significant amount[weasel words] of the University's research is conducted in the natural sciences.[citation needed] Facilities on campus[which?] for this type of research include the Louis Calder Center, a biological field station and the middle site along a 81-mile (130 km) urban-forest transect known as the Urban-Rural Gradient Experiment; the William Spain Seismic Observatory, a data collection unit for the US Geological Survey; and other facilities.[42][43] In addition, Fordham performs substantive[weasel words] research off campus in cooperation with other organizations.[citation needed] It is a member of the Bronx Scientific Research Consortium, which also includes the New York Botanical Garden, the Bronx Zoo, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University, and Montefiore Medical Center.[44] Furthermore, Fordham faculty have conducted research with such institutions as the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and other organizations around the world.[45]

Despite its commitment to scientific research, the majority[weasel words] of the University's research endeavors involve the humanities and social sciences.[clarification needed] As a result, Fordham University Press, the University's official publishing house and an affiliate of Oxford University Press, publishes primarily in these subjects.[46]

Fordham is particularly well known[weasel words] for its promotion of undergraduate research.[citation needed] It hosts an Undergraduate Research Symposium every year during the spring semester and publishes an Undergraduate Research Journal in conjunction with the symposium.[47][48] In addition, it facilitates research opportunities for undergraduates with such organizations as the National Science Foundation, The Cloisters, and the American Museum of Natural History.[49][50]

Honor societies and programs

Fordham's undergraduate schools all offer honors programs for their students.[51] The programs' curricula are modified versions of the Core Curriculum; for example, the Fordham College Honors Program has a Great Books curriculum with seminar-style classes. Most honors students are inducted into the programs upon admission to the University, though some are invited at the end of their first year. Each program has a designated study space for its members, examples including Alpha House for the Fordham College Honors Program and the honors wing of Hughes Hall for the Global Business Honors Program. Upon graduating from the University, honors students receive the designation of in cursu honorum on their diploma and transcripts.[52]

In addition to its honors programs, Fordham has chapters of several honor societies on campus, including but not limited to the following:

Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Kappa Phi
Alpha Sigma Nu (Jesuit)
Beta Gamma Sigma (business)
Sigma Xi (scientific research)
Psi Chi (psychology)
Sigma Delta Pi (Spanish)
Omicron Delta Epsilon (economics)
Lambda Pi Eta (communications)
Alpha Sigma Lambda (non-traditional students)

The Campion Institute is the University's office for academic fellowships and scholarships. Its function is to raise awareness of fellowship opportunities among students, counsel interested students about their eligibility for various programs, and advise fellowship candidates during the application process.[53] The work of the Campion Institute helped make Fordham one of the top producers of U.S. Fulbright students of 2012.[54]

The Matteo Ricci Society is an honor society for Fordham students who are likely candidates for academic fellowships. Students are invited to join based on academic success and other factors. The society assists its members in preparing applications for fellowships, coordinating internships, and obtaining funding for research endeavors.[55] The Rev. William E. Boyle, S.J. Society is a parallel organization for business students.[56]

Study abroad

Through its International and Study Abroad Programs (ISAP) Office, Fordham provides its students with over 130 study abroad opportunities, one of the most extensive foreign study networks of any American university. The programs range in duration from six weeks to a full academic year and vary in focus from cultural and language immersion to internship and service learning. Some of the programs are organized by Fordham itself, such as those in London, United Kingdom; Granada, Spain; and Pretoria, South Africa; while others are operated by partner institutions like Georgetown University, the University of Oxford, and the Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE).[57] In addition to the ISAP programs, the University's constituent schools offer a range of study abroad programs that cater to their specific areas of study.[58]

Rankings

Fordham placed as follows in the most recent university rankings:[59]

US undergraduate rankings
58, America's Best Colleges: National Universities, U.S. News & World Report, 2013. A drop of five spots from 2012 due to a change in the ranking methodology.[7]
2, A+ Schools for B Students: National Universities, U.S. News & World Report, 2013.[60] This ranking has generated controversy among Fordham students.[61]
61, Best Values in Colleges and Universities: Private Universities, Kiplinger, 2012.[62]
88, College Guide: National Universities, The Washington Monthly, 2012. A drop of 51 spots from 2011.[63]
49, Best Undergraduate Business Schools, Bloomberg Businessweek, 2012. A gain of three spots from 2011.[64]
203, America's Best Colleges, Forbes, 2010.[65]
Included in The Best 377 Colleges, The Princeton Review, 2013.[66]
Included in The 25 Hottest Schools in America, Kaplan/Newsweek, 2008.[67]

Fordham participates in the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities' University and College Accountability Network, which was created to counter the emergence of formal college rankings.[68]

US graduate rankings

14, America's Best Business Schools: Finance, 2013.[69]
29, America's Best Law Schools, U.S. News & World Report, 2013.[70]
5, America's Best Law Schools: Part-Time, U.S. News & World Report, 2013.[70]
89, America's Best Business Schools, U.S. News & World Report, 2013.[70]
67, America's Best Education Schools, U.S. News & World Report, 2013.[70]
11, America's Best Social Work Programs, U.S. News & World Report, 2013.[70]
58, Best Full-Time MBA Programs, Bloomberg Businessweek, 2013.[71]
39, Best Executive MBA Programs, Bloomberg Businessweek, 2013.[71]
63, Best English Programs, U.S. News & World Report, 2013. An increase of eleven spots from the 2012 rankings. [70]

World rankings

Fordham does not participate in the Shanghai, QS, or THE global university rankings.[72] It does, however, provide information for the Paris School of Mines' listing, which reviews over 3,000 educational institutions around the world, selects some 1,000 schools and ranks them according to their ability to place their graduates in leading professional positions. The University appeared 23rd on the list in 2012.[73]

Campuses

Fordham has three main campuses, which are located in and around New York City: Rose Hill in the Bronx, Lincoln Center in Manhattan, and Westchester in West Harrison. In addition, it maintains and utilizes various academic, extracurricular, and residential facilities throughout New York City and New York State and around the world.[3]

Rose Hill

The Rose Hill campus, established in 1841, is home to Fordham College at Rose Hill, the Gabelli School of Business, and a division of the School of Professional and Continuing Studies, as well as the Graduate Schools of Arts and Sciences and Religion and Religious Education. Situated on 85 acres (34.4 ha) in the North Bronx, it is among the largest privately owned green spaces in New York City.[3] At one time spanning over 300 acres, the University sold most of the campus to the New York City government so that the latter could create the New York Botanical Garden (NYBG).[11] The NYBG is now an independent organization; however, Fordham students and staff have virtually unlimited access to the garden during its normal operating hours.[74] Rose Hill is located just to the north of the Belmont neighborhood of the Bronx, also known as the "Real Little Italy of New York."[75] Its Collegiate Gothic architecture, expansive lawns, ivy-covered buildings, and cobblestone streets were featured in MSNBC's 2008 edition of "America's Prettiest College Campuses".[76]

Rose Hill is home to several structures on the National Register of Historic Places.[77] One such building is the University Church, which was built in 1845 as a seminary chapel and parish church for the surrounding community. It contains the altar from the Old St. Patrick's Cathedral, as well as stained glass windows given to the University by King Louis Philippe I of France. The windows are particularly notable for their connection to a workshop in Sevres, France, where the earliest stages of the Gothic Revival took place.[78] There are eleven residence halls on campus, including a residential college and nine Integrated Learning Communities that each cater to a particular year (freshman, sophomore, etc.) or area of study (science, leadership, etc.).[79] In addition, the campus contains two residences, a retirement home, and an infirmary for Jesuit priests.[80]

Rose Hill is served by the Fordham station of the Metro-North Railroad, which ends at Grand Central Terminal. Public transit buses stop adjacent to campus exits, and two New York City Subway stations are within walking distance. The University also provides a shuttle service between its three main campuses (the "Ram Van"), which is headquartered at Rose Hill. About 7,000 undergraduates and graduates are enrolled at the campus.[3]

Facilities improvements

As part of the Toward 2016 Strategic Plan and other initiatives, the Rose Hill campus is experiencing numerous facilities improvements, including the following:[13]

Two new undergraduate residence halls (completed in 2010)
Renovation of the main business school building (completed in 2011)
New exercise facility (completed in October 2012)
Reorganization of dining facilities (to be completed in July 2013)
Renovation of various residential and science facilities (completion date to be determined)
New faculty and administrative offices (completion date to be determined)
New student union and athletic facility (fundraising in progress)
New science facility (under development)
Renovation of Collins Auditorium, a performing arts venue (under development)

Lincoln Center

The Lincoln Center campus is home to Fordham College at Lincoln Center and a division of the School of Professional and Continuing Studies, as well as the School of Law, the Graduate Schools of Education and Social Service, and the Martino Graduate School of Business Administration. The 8-acre (32,000 m2) campus occupies the area from West 60th Street to West 62nd Street between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues, placing it in the cultural heart of Manhattan.[3] It is served by public transit buses; the A,B,C,D, and 1 Subway trains, which are accessed at the 59th Street/Columbus Circle station; and the University's Ram Van shuttle. Approximately 8,000 undergraduate and graduate students are enrolled at Lincoln Center, of which about 1,000 reside in University housing.[3] The campus currently consists of the Leon Lowenstein Building, McMahon Hall, the Gerald M. Quinn Library, and the Doyle Building and has two outdoor basketball and tennis courts.

Lincoln Center has two grassy plazas, built one level up from the street atop the Quinn Library. The larger expanse was once a barren cement landscape known as "Robert Moses Plaza;" the smaller is known as "St. Peter's Garden" and contains a memorial to the Fordham students and alumni who perished in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The Toward 2016 Strategic Plan prescribes a complete reconfiguration of the Lincoln Center campus, to be completed by 2032. The first phase of the project, which includes renovations of the Lowenstein Building as well as a new Law School building and residence hall designed by the decorated architectural firm Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, is underway and is slated for completion in 2016.[40]

Westchester

The Westchester campus is home to divisions of the School of Professional and Continuing Studies, the Martino Graduate School of Business Administration, and the Graduate Schools of Education and Social Service. It consists of a three-story, 62,500-square-foot (5,810 m2) building on 32 acres (12.9 ha) landscaped with a stream and pond. Fordham signed a 20-year lease for the facility, which includes 26 "smart" classrooms, faculty and administrative offices, a media center, a food service facility, and indoor and outdoor meeting areas. In 2008, the University spent over $8 million renovating the building in order to increase its sustainability.[81]

The campus is served by the Ram Van as well as the White Plains station of the Metro-North Railroad, approximately 4 miles (6 km) away in White Plains, New York. The train station and the campus are connected by the Westchester County Bus System ("The Bee Line").

Other facilities

Fordham operates the Louis Calder Center, a biological field station 30 miles (50 km) north of New York City in Armonk, New York. It consists of 114 acres (0.46 km2) forested with a 10-acre (40,000 m2) lake and 19 buildings. The structures house laboratories and classrooms, offices for faculty and administrators, a library, and residences.[42]

Outside the US, the University maintains a small campus at Heythrop College, the Jesuit philosophy and theology school of the University of London. The campus is home to several undergraduate business and liberal arts programs as well as Fordham College at Lincoln Center's London Dramatic Academy.[82] In addition, Fordham operates field offices in Granada, Spain, and Pretoria, South Africa; which house undergraduate study abroad programs.[57] Finally, the University provides faculty for the Beijing International MBA Program at Peking University in China. The program has been ranked #1 in China by Fortune and Forbes Magazines since its creation by Fordham in 1998.[83]

Town and gown relationships

Relations between Fordham and its surrounding neighborhoods vary according to campus. At Rose Hill, the University actively recruits Bronx students from disadvantaged backgrounds through the Higher Education Opportunity Program.[84] In addition, about 80% of students participate in local community service.[85]

The relationship between the Lincoln Center campus and the Upper West Side, however, is significantly cooler. Recently, the New York State Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit against Fordham brought by the Alfred Condominium Complex. The suit was filed in response to the University’s expansion plans at Lincoln Center and their expected visual and auditory impact on the surrounding community.[86] Fordham does, however, have a lively connection to the artistic scene of the Upper West Side through its dance and theater productions and visual art exhibitions.[87]

Student activities

Fordham sponsors over 200 clubs and organizations for its undergraduate and graduate students, of which about 100 are based at the Rose Hill campus and the rest are based at the Lincoln Center and Westchester campuses. Some of these organizations are described below:[88]

Athletics

The University supports 23 men's and women's varsity athletic teams, as well as various club and intramural sports. The Fordham mascot is the ram, and its colors are maroon and white. In most varsity sports, the Rams compete in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and are a member of the Atlantic 10 Conference. The football team, however, plays in NCAA Division I AA and is an associate member of the Patriot League, the most academically selective NCAA conference after the Ivy League.[3][89]

The Rams football program boasts a national championship title (1929), two bowl game appearances (1941 and 1942), two Patriot League championships (2002 and 2007) and corresponding NCAA Division I Football Championship appearances, and the 15th most wins of any college football program.[4] It is best known, however, for the "Seven Blocks of Granite," a name given to the team's 1928 and 1936 offensive lines. The 1936 team was coached by "Sleepy" Jim Crowley, one of the University of Notre Dame's famed "Four Horsemen," and included Vince Lombardi, the legendary professional football coach. Furthermore, it is credited with inspiring the term "Ivy League" after New York Herald Tribune sportswriter Caswell Adams compared it to the squads of Princeton and Yale, two powerhouses of the day. Adams remarked disparagingly of the latter two, saying that they were "only Ivy League." There are currently four Rams in the National Football League. Moreover, the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise was named in honor of Fordham's football heritage.[4][90]

The University's men's basketball program also has an impressive heritage, boasting four NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship and 16 National Invitational Tournament appearances. During the 1971 season, the program enjoyed its best campaign ever, compiling a 26-3 record and earning a #9 national ranking. That team included Digger Phelps, the renowned University of Notre Dame men's basketball coach, and Peter "PJ" Carlesimo, the head coach of the Brooklyn Nets NBA franchise. Fordham basketball plays in the Rose Hill Gymnasium (also known as "The Prairie"), the oldest on-campus venue currently in use by an NCAA Division I basketball team.[4]

The Rams baseball program is among the oldest in the nation and was the first college baseball team to play the game according to modern rules. The program has launched the careers of dozens of Major League Baseball players, including National Baseball Hall of Fame inductee Frankie Frisch (also known as the "Fordham Flash"). In April 2010, a Fordham baserunner made national headlines when he leaped over an opposing team's catcher to score a run during a game. The incident was dubbed the "Fordham Flip."[4][91]

The University's most recently successful programs include track and field, which claims world record holder and Olympic gold medalist Tom Courtney as an alumnus; sailing, which is headquartered at the Morris Yacht and Beach Club in City Island, Bronx; crew, which rows out of the Peter Jay Sharp boathouse on the Harlem River and regularly attends such prestigious regattas as the Henley Royal Regatta in the United Kingdom; and golf, which is affiliated with the Winged Foot Golf Club in Mamaroneck, New York.[4]

The Toward 2016 Integrated Strategic Plan allocates increased funding for sports scholarships, coaching, and other initiatives to enhance the competitiveness of Fordham's athletic programs.[13] These initiatives have already made a significant impact on such programs as football and men's basketball.[4]

Publications

The university has a number of publications, including The Ram, the primary newspaper for the Rose Hill campus; The Observer, the primary newspaper for the Lincoln Center campus, Fordham Law Review, the twelfth-most cited law review in the country;[citation needed]; and Fordham Political Review, a journal of foreign and domestic affairs.

WFUV Radio

WFUV is Fordham's 50,000-watt radio station, broadcasting on 90.7 FM. Founded in 1947, the station serves approximately 350,000 listeners weekly in the New York metropolitan area. It is a National Public Radio affiliate and has an adult alternative format on weekdays and a variety format on weekends.[92] In 2012, The Princeton Review ranked WFUV the 10th most popular college radio station in the US.[93]

Performing arts

The university has a number of bands, choirs, theater troupes, and other performing arts groups.

Speech and debate

The Fordham Debate Society (FDS) is based at the Rose Hill campus and is the oldest existing club at the University, having been founded in 1854. The club competes in the American Parliamentary Debate Association, which was founded at the University's annual debate tournament in 1982. FDS regularly places among the top teams in the country, and it ranks well in the World Universities Debating Championship standings. It hosts several debate competitions throughout the year, including the Fordham Fandango tournament and a competition for novice debaters in New York City. The club holds practice debates and chamber discussions on Monday and Thursday nights, in which anyone at Fordham can participate.[94]

Campus ministry and social activism

The purpose of Campus Ministry at Fordham is to provide "opportunities and resources for spiritual growth to members of [the University] community." It offers programming for more than 15 faith traditions in such areas as worship, music ministry, and social ministry. One of its most popular initiatives is its retreats, which are held at the University's McGrath House of Prayer in Goshen, New York, and other retreat houses in the New York metropolitan area.[95][96]

The Dorothy Day Center for Service and Justice is responsible for overseeing Fordham's various community service and humanitarian initiatives. Grounded in the Jesuit principle of homines pro aliis ("men and women for others"), the center organizes projects in such areas as poverty, hunger, education, and disaster relief.[97] As a result of Dorothy Day's efforts, the University performed approximately 1 million hours of service in 2011, ranking it sixth in the country in terms of community outreach.[98] A popular volunteer location among students is the Society of Jesus New York Province Health Care Center at the Rose Hill campus, where those students interested in nursing can gain practical experience in the field.[99]

Global Outreach! (¡GO!) is Fordham's missionary division that organizes service and immersion trips to various locations around the country and the world. With the goal of promoting social justice and fostering a sense of individual responsibility among the student body, ¡GO! sponsors 33 annual trips during the winter, spring, and summer recesses that address such issues as HIV/AIDS, affordable housing, migrant labor, and environmental justice.[100]

Ministerial organizations

Ignatian Society, which seeks to promote Fordham's Jesuit tradition and values on campus.
St. Robert Bellarmine Society, a Catholic lecture organization.
Respect for Life, which aims to foster a greater appreciation for the early and advanced stages of human life.[101]
United Christian Fellowship, the Protestant Christian division of Campus Ministry.[102]
Jewish Student Organization, the support organization for Fordham's Jewish student population. The JSO worships at the Riverdale Temple in the Bronx.[103]
Muslim Student Association, the support organization for Muslim students at the University. The MSA worships in the Muslim Prayer Room at the Rose Hill campus and the Prayer Corner of the Blessed Rupert Mayer, SJ Chapel at the Lincoln Center campus.[104]

Military education

The Fordham Military Science program is available to all undergraduate and graduate students, regardless of their chosen course of study. It is also available to students at over 50 other colleges and universities in the New York metropolitan area. The program consists of membership and training in the Ram Battalion of the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) and a sequence of military science classes taught on campus.[105] Participants in the program are also eligible to enroll in the Air Force ROTC program at Manhattan College and the Navy ROTC program at SUNY Maritime College.[105] In 2011, Fordham Military Science began offering a combat nursing program in conjunction with Regis University and the University of Colorado at Denver.[106]

The Military Science program has several notable alumni, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, four-star General John M. Keane, and at least four recipients of the Medal of Honor. Furthermore, it has been distinguished as being in the top fifteen percent of military science programs in the country.[105]

In addition to its ROTC program, the University contributes to military education through its Veterans Initiative, which provides full-tuition scholarships and other benefits to post-9/11 veterans of the US military. Because of the initiative, Fordham was named one of the 25 best colleges in the country for veterans in 2013 by Military History Monthly Magazine.[107]

Fraternities and sororities

Fordham does not sponsor any Greek letter fraternities or sororities. Nevertheless, a number of student "houses" exist in the Belmont neighborhood adjacent to the Rose Hill campus that fill the traditional social role of fraternal organizations.[108] Moreover, the University does support several nontraditional fraternities and sororities. Campus Ministry organizes the Christian Life Communities, faith-based social fraternities that meet weekly to discuss spirituality, build friendships, and "put the Gospel values into action."[101] In addition, councils of the Knights of Columbus, the national Catholic service fraternity for men, and its sister organization, the Columbiettes, are operated on campus.[101] Finally, Fordham sponsors a chapter of Pershing Rifles, the national military fraternity.[105]

The Fordham Club is a secret society that acts as an advisory board to the dean of Fordham College at Rose Hill. Described as the "dean's cabinet," the organization meets monthly in sequestered chambers in Keating Hall at the Rose Hill campus. Membership is by invitation only; initiates are selected from among the most involved members of the senior class in terms of extracurricular activities.[109]

Don't be frightened. I meant no harm. I just sort of 'lost-it'. Now, if you'll excuse me -- I'm going to try to get my head together by reading the Life of Christ by Fulton Sheen -- Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord by Edward Schillebeeckx -- and the Desire of Ages by Ellen White. I'm serious. These three volumes make an excellent theological study. Fordham University continued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordham_University I am of peace. Always.

Traditions and symbols

During its 172 years in existence, the University has developed many traditions. Some of them are described below:

President's Ball: The President's Ball takes place every autumn on the eve of the Homecoming football game. It is a business formal event held underneath a tent at the Rose Hill campus on Edward's Parade Ground, Fordham's largest quadrangle. It is hosted by the Office of the President, from which the name is derived.[110]

Winter Ball: The Winter Ball is a business casual event held every January by the Campus Activities Board of Fordham College at Lincoln Center. It takes place at a different location each year in New York City. Past venues have included the Rainbow Room, the Russian Tea Room, and the Mandarin Oriental Hotel.[111]

Under the Tent: The "Under the Tent" Dance is a smart casual event held the weekend before final exams. Sponsored by the University's Residence Halls Association, it takes place underneath a tent on Martyrs' Lawn, Fordham's second-largest quadrangle, and has a different theme each year. The dance is part of the Spring Weekend Festival, which also includes two concerts, a barbecue, a race around the Rose Hill campus, and a comedy show.[112][113]

The Festival of Lessons and Carols: The Fordham University Concert Choir presents a series of Nine Lessons and Carols every year during the Christmas season. An afternoon concert is performed at the University Church on the Rose Hill campus, and an evening concert is performed at the Church of Saint Paul the Apostle adjacent to the Lincoln Center campus.[114]

Midnight Breakfast: Each semester, the official beginning of the final exam period is marked by a "midnight breakfast," in which professors cook students their favorite breakfast items so as to prepare them for the long night of studying ahead of them.[115]

The Liberty Cup: The Liberty Cup is awarded annually to the winner of the football game between Fordham and Columbia Universities. The tradition began in 2002, a year after the Fordham-Columbia game was postponed due to the September 11th attacks.[116]

Encaenia: Fordham College at Rose Hill hosts an Encaenia each year in early May. Faculty, administrators, and students process in academic regalia, and candidates for degrees at the current year's Commencement receive various awards and honors. The ceremony includes a sentimental speech by the year's valedictorian as well as a generally more humorous yet equally endearing speech by the honorary Lord or Lady of the Manor.[117]

In addition to its traditions, Fordham is associated with a number of symbols, some of which are discussed below:

Maroon: The University's official color was originally magenta, one which was shared by Harvard University. Since it was confusing for the two schools to be wearing the same color during athletic competitions, the matter of which school could lay claim to magenta was to be settled through a series of baseball games. Fordham won the games, but Harvard reneged on its promise. Both schools continued to use the color until 1874, when the Fordham student government unanimously agreed to change to maroon. Maroon was chosen because it was not widely used at the time. Sometime later, Harvard stopped using magenta in favor of crimson.[51]

The Ram: The ram became the University's mascot as a result of a slightly vulgar cheer that Fordham fans sang during an 1893 football game against the United States Military Academy. The fans began cheering, "One-damn, two-damn, three-damn, Fordham!" which was an instant hit. Later, "damn" was sanitized to "ram" so that the song would conform to the University's image.[11]

The Victory Bell: Presented to Fordham by Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz ('44) of the US Navy, the Victory Bell was the ship's bell of the Japanese aircraft carrier Junyo. First rung on campus by President Harry S. Truman on May 11, 1946, it currently stands in front of the Rose Hill Gymnasium and peals following all Ram athletic victories and at the start of Commencement each year.[51]

The Great Seal: The Great Seal of Fordham University was designed to acknowledge the presence of the Society of Jesus on campus, hence the order's coat of arms in the seal's center. The coat of arms bears the Greek letters of the lapidary form of Jesus Christ (IHS), with the Cross resting on the center of the H and the three nails of the Crucifixion beneath the epigraph. These figures, dressed in gold, lay in a field framed in maroon, the color of the University, with silver fleur-de-lis at the edge. The fleur-de-lis symbolize the French Jesuits who arrived at Fordham in 1846. Immediately above the central shield rests the laurel crown, enclosing the University's pedagogical disciplines: arts, science, philosophy, medicine, and law. Below the shield is a blue scroll with the University's motto, Sapientia et Doctrina. The scroll rests on a gold field emblematic of learning (doctrina) and is surrounded by the fiery tongues of the Holy Spirit, a symbol of wisdom (sapientia). In a circular maroon field embroidered with beads is Fordham's official title, Universitas Fordhamensis; at the field's lower edge is the date of the University's founding, 1841. Finally, surrounding the entire seal is a heraldic belt, which is employed as a stylistic decoration. The University of Oxford, the only other tertiary institution in the world that uses a belt in its seal, however, maintains that without the belt, the seal is not official.[51]

The mace: The mace of Fordham is traditionally carried at Commencement by the president of the Faculty Senate, who serves as the grand marshal of the main academic procession. The device, four feet in length, bears a regal crown at the summit to denote the sole power of the University of the State of New York to grant academic degrees in its territory. Above the crown is a cross composed of four windmill sails, which signify the Catholic faith and the Dutch founders of New York City, respectively. The center of the cross displays a heraldic rose, which symbolizes Rose Hill. Immediately beneath the crown is a support, on which the University's seal is emblazoned. The upper node of the mace's staff is decorated with three heraldic roses, the Fordham seal, a ram's head, and a silhouette of the Lincoln Center campus. The titles of the University's constituent colleges are engraved above the node, and the names of the school's presidents from 1841 to 1966 are inscribed below it. The mace was a gift to the University from the Fordham University Alumni Federation.[51]

The Terrace of the Presidents: Rev. Robert Gannon, SJ, president of Fordham from 1936 to 1949, initiated the custom of engraving the granite steps leading up to Keating Hall with the names of heads of state who visit the University. Among the names engraved are George Washington, who visited the Rose Hill Manor before it was succeeded by St. John's College in 1841; Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Harry S. Truman; Richard Nixon; and the names of various other heads of state from around the world.[51]

School songs: Fordham's official school song is "Alma Mater Fordham," and its fight song is "Fordham Ram" by J. Ignatius Coveney. "The Marching Song" is typically played during parades and after athletic games (particularly after a Ram victory).[118]

Alumni and faculty

Fordham has over 160,000 alumni, many of whom are members of the University's various alumni clubs spread throughout the world. Benefits of alumni status include unlimited access to all Fordham campuses, membership opportunities at the Princeton Club of New York and the Reebok Sports Club/NY, access to various alumni excursions, and discounts on such brands as Choice Hotels, Hertz, Liberty Mutual, and Lenovo. Alumni are supported by the University's Office of Alumni Relations, which is located on Seventh Avenue in Midtown Manhattan.[119]

Notable alumni

Geraldine Ferraro, first female US vice presidential candidate from a major political party
Joseph Cao, Jerrold Nadler, Bill Pascrell, and Adam Smith; US Congressmen
Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York State, US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1997-2001)
John N. Mitchell, US Attorney General (1969-1972)
William J. Casey, US Director of Central Intelligence (1981-1987)
John O. Brennan, US Director of Central Intelligence
G. Gordon Liddy, Chief Operative, White House Plumbers
Hage Geingob, first prime minister of Namibia
Francis Spellman, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church (1946-1967)
E. Gerald Corrigan, chairman of Goldman Sachs Bank USA, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1985-1993)
Lorenzo Mendoza, CEO of Empresas Polar
Anne M. Mulcahy, chairwoman and CEO of Xerox (2001-2009), named one of the “50 Most Powerful Women in Business” in 2006
Don Valentine, founder of Sequoia Capital
Wellington Mara, owner of the New York Giants NFL franchise (1959-2005)
Steve Bellán, the first Latin American to play Major League Baseball
Peter A. Carlesimo, Executive Director of the National Invitational Tournament (1978-1988)
John Mulcahy, Olympic gold and silver medalist
John Skelton, quarterback of the Arizona Cardinals NFL franchise
Denzel Washington, two-time Oscar and three-time Golden Globe-winning actor
Alan Alda, six-time Emmy and six-time Golden Globe-winning actor
Patricia Clarkson, Emmy-winning and Oscar-nominated actress
Lana Del Rey, Brit Award-winning singer-songwriter
Amanda Hearst, socialite and heiress to the William Randolph Hearst fortune
Charles Osgood, three-time Emmy and two-time Peabody Award-winning journalist
Michael Kay, television announcer for the New York Yankees
Jim Dwyer, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
Mary Higgins Clark, bestselling novelist
Virginia O’Hanlon, whose 1897 letter to The New York Sun prompted the famous reply, “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus”
William J. McGill, president of Columbia University (1970-1980)
Timothy S. Healy, president of Georgetown University (1976-1989)
John Sexton, president of New York University
George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory (1978-2006)

Notable faculty

Joseph Abboud, fashion designer
Bruce Andrews, political scientist and poet
Hilaire Belloc (fl. 1937), writer and historian
Doron Ben-Atar, historian and playwright
Daniel Berrigan, peace activist and poet
Mary Bly, bestselling novelist, also known as "Eloisa James"
Joseph Campbell (fl. 1925-1939), Irish poet and lyricist
John M. Culkin (fl. 1964-1969), media scholar
Avery Dulles (fl. 1988-2008), Christian theologian, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church
Victor Francis Hess (fl. 1938-1958), Nobel laureate in physics
William T. Hogan (fl. 1950-2002), economist, known worldwide as the "steel priest"
Elizabeth Johnson, Christian theologian and feminist
Carl Jung (fl. 1912), psychologist
Joseph Koterski, philosopher
Paul Levinson, writer
Mark S. Massa, Christian theologian
John James Maximilian Oertel (fl. 1841-1846), German scholar and journalist
Marshall McLuhan (fl. 1967-1968); philosopher and communications scholar; coiner of the phrase, "The medium is the message"
Margaret Mead (fl. 1968-1970), cultural anthropologist
William O'Malley, Christian theologian, actor in and technical advisor for The Exorcist
Mark D. Naison, American social historian and political activist
Diana Villiers Negroponte, legal scholar
Willie Perdomo, poet and writer
Phylicia Rashad (fl. 2011-2012), Tony Award-winning actress
Asif Siddiqi, aerospace historian
Werner Stark (fl. 1963-1975), sociologist and economist
Dietrich von Hildebrand (fl. 1940-1960), philosopher and Christian theologian

In the arts

The Keating Hall First Floor Auditorium, a popular filming location at the Rose Hill campus.
Fordham's campuses have been featured in a number of films, including the following: The Adjustment Bureau, Awake, A Beautiful Mind, Center Stage, Cheerleaders Beach Party, The Exorcist, Fair Game, The Gambler, Godspell, The Iron Major, Kinsey, Love Story, Quiz Show, Solitary Man, The Verdict, and Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps. The 1993 crime drama A Bronx Tale is set in the Belmont neighborhood adjacent to the Rose Hill campus.[120]

Television programs filmed at Fordham include Shattered Vows, a 1984 television film starring Valerie Bertinelli, which portrays the true story of a young nun in the 1960s who goes to Fordham for her master's degree and falls in love with a priest; White Collar; Naked City; Saturday Night Live; Chappelle's Show; and the 2009 U2 performance on Good Morning America. The music video for the single What's Luv? by Fat Joe and Ashanti was filmed in the gymnasium at the Rose Hill campus.[120]

Fictional Fordham alumni include the title character of Michael Clayton, Ray Brocco of The Good Shepherd, Michael Patrick Flaherty of Spin City, Jacob Moore of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, Annie Norris of Life on Mars, Vinnie Terranova of Wiseguy, Nick Rice of Law Abiding Citizen, Bruno Tattaglia of The Godfather, and Dave Norris of The Adjustment Bureau.[120]

Sustainability

In order to increase its sustainability, the University has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% in 2017. In addition, it has pledged to employ low-flow faucets and shower heads, use sustainable materials like reprocessed flooring, recycle up to 90% of its debris, and seek LEED Silver certification in its construction of new facilities on campus. Finally, the Department of Grounds Maintenance at Fordham has committed to making half of its vehicle fleet electric by 2016.[121]

Affiliations

Fordham is affiliated with the following organizations:[122]

American Academy in Rome
American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education
American Council on Education
American School of Classical Studies at Athens
Association of American Law Schools
Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities
Association of Governing Boards
Association of Graduate Schools in Catholic Colleges and Universities
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
Center for Academic Integrity
College Board
Collegium
Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities
Council for Higher Education Accreditation
Council of Graduate Schools
Fulbright Association
International Association of Universities
International Federation of Catholic Universities
Lilly Fellows
Lower Hudson Valley Catholic Colleges and Universities Consortium
Marymount Schools
Northeastern Association of Graduate Schools

In addition, the University and its specific programs are accredited by the following entities:[122]

American Bar Association
American Psychological Association
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International
Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards
Council on Social Work Education
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
National Association of School Psychologists
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
University Council of Educational Administration
University of the State of New York

Notes

1.^ http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/fordham
2.^ As of June 30, 2012. {{cite web |title=Fordham Facts |work=2012 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments |publisher= Fordham University|url=http://www.fordham.edu/discover_fordham/facts_26604.asp}
3.^ a b c d e f g h i j k http://www.fordham.edu/discover_fordham/facts_26604.asp
4.^ a b c d e f g http://www.fordhamsports.com/
5.^ a b http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/view_institution.php?unit_id=191241&start_page=index.php&clq={%22ipug2005_ids%22%3A%227%22}
6.^ a b http://www.fordham.edu/discover_fordham/fordhams_jesuit_trad/
7.^ a b http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/fordham-university-2722
8.^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/arts/design/23nyu.html?pagewanted=all
9.^ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,938328,00.html
10.^ http://www.fordhamprep.org/page.cfm?p=358
11.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Schroth, SJ, Raymond. Fordham: A History and Memoir. Revised ed. New York: Fordham UP, 2008. Print.
12.^ http://chronicle.com/article/Fordham-U-Sells-Marymount/40481
13.^ a b c d Strategic Plan Review Committee. Progress Report on Integrated Strategic Plan "Toward 2016" Rep. Fordham University, 2010. Print.
14.^ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12654a.htm
15.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/fordham_college_at_r/academics/core_curriculum_19658.asp#distributive
16.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/college_of_business_/academics/academic_approach/integrated_business_core.asp
17.^ http://69.7.74.46/section12/section172/program34.html
18.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/index.asp
19.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/fordham_college_at_r/academic_advising/prehealth/
20.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/fordham_college_at_r/academics/majors_and_minors_19657.asp#plaw8
21.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/prearchitecture/index.asp
22.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/sociology__anthropol/undergraduate_degree/index.asp
23.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/engineering/32_cooperative_progr_75053.asp
24.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/fordham_college_at_r/academics/majors_and_minors_19657.asp#tchr8
25.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/college_of_business_/academics/business_areas_of_study/accounting.asp
26.^ http://www.theaileyschool.edu/BFA
27.^ http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/inside_fordham/january_17_2012/provost_issues_under/fordham_college_at_l_81365.asp
28.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/graduate__profession/arts__sciences/gsas_programs__degre/doctoral_consortium_22046.asp
29.^ http://www.einstein.yu.edu/news/releases/253/fordham-and-yeshiva-boost-science-medical-offerings-through-agreement/
30.^ http://www.vosizneias.com/29911/2009/04/05/valhalla-ny-student-group-fights-possible-touro-merger/
31.^ http://www.namss.org/Education/DegreePrograms/FordhamCollege/tabid/193/Default.aspx
32.^ http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/inside_fordham/september_24_2012/provost_issues_under/fordham_school_of_pr_89237.asp
33.^ http://www.library.fordham.edu/information/about.html
34.^ http://www.library.fordham.edu/services/illservices.html
35.^ Franek, Robert, and Princeton Review. The Best 351 Colleges. 2004 ed. Princeton Review, 2003. Print.
36.^ http://www.fordham.edu/mvst/
37.^ http://www.fordham.edu/audience/tours/rh_map/13_duane_library.shtml
38.^ Pogrebin, Robin. "Fordham Opens Its Gift: An Antiquities Museum." The New York Times 6 Dec. 2007. Print.
39.^ http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/inside_fordham/december_3_2012/news/universitys_art_coll_89661.asp
40.^ a b "Fordham University Lincoln Center Campus." Public Hearing, New York City Council, Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises. Print.
41.^ http://www.library.fordham.edu/archives/archive.html
42.^ a b http://www.fordham.edu/Academics/Office_of_Research/Research_Centers__In/The_Louis_Calder_Cen/
43.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/physics/history_73327.asp
44.^ http://www.fordham.edu/Campus_Resources/eNewsroom/topstories_2411.asp
45.^ http://www.fordham.edu/Campus_Resources/eNewsroom/topstories_2250.asp
46.^ http://www.fordham.edu/Campus_Resources/eNewsroom/topstories_1917.asp
47.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/fordham_college_at_r/research/undergraduate_resear/index.asp
48.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/fordham_college_at_r/research/the_fordham_undergra/index.asp
49.^ http://69.7.74.46/section12/section173/program51.html
50.^ http://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2012/media-turn-to-wm-physicist-for-higgs-boson-explanations123.php
51.^ a b c d e f Undergraduate Bulletin 2010-2012. Fordham University, 2009. Print.
52.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/fordham_college_at_r/academics/honors_program/
53.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/fordham_college_at_r/opportunities_for_ex/awards_fellowships_a/campion_institute_70746.asp
54.^ http://chronicle.com/article/Top-Producers-of-US/129452
55.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/fordham_college_at_r/opportunities_for_ex/awards_fellowships_a/matteo_ricci_society_70746.asp
56.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/college_of_business_/academics/honors/boyle/boyle.asp
57.^ a b http://www.fordham.edu/academics/office_of_the_provos/office_of_internatio/international__study/index.asp
58.^ http://www.bnet.fordham.edu/academics/international_programs/index.asp
59.^ The author of this section advises readers to use caution in interpreting this information. Rankings data can be misleading if superficially examined. See O'Shaughnessy, Lynn. "Rating the College Rankings." CBS MoneyWatch. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 12 Sept. 2012. Fordham officially disputes U.S. News & World Report’s A+ Schools for B Students ranking as well as The Princeton Review’s Best 377 Colleges: Worst Food sub-ranking. See Kultys, Kelly. "Rochelle Group Releases Report of Sodexo Food Services, Facilities." The Fordham Ram [Bronx] n.d. 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.
60.^ http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/a-plus
61.^ http://fordhamram.com/2013/02/14/fordham-maintains-a-status-with-a-students/
62.^ http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/privatecolleges/
63.^ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2012/national_university_rank.php
64.^ http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/ugtable_3-20.html
65.^ http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/94/best-colleges-10_Fordham-University_94151.html
66.^ http://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings.aspx
67.^ http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/archives/archive_946.asp
68.^ http://www.ucan-network.org/
69.^ http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/finance-rankings
70.^ a b c d e f http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-graduate-schools/fordham-university-191241
71.^ a b http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/rankings
72.^ http://www.fordham.edu/
73.^ http://actualites.prepa-hec.org/wp-content/classement-mondial-universites-emp.pdf
74.^ http://www.fordham.edu/student_affairs/student_leadership__/rose_hill/information_desk/services_28608.asp
75.^ http://www.arthuravenuebronx.com/
76.^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26658838/ns/travel-destination_travel/t/pretty-college-campuses/
77.^ http://www.nps.gov/nr/
78.^ http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/medny/venturi.html
79.^ http://www.fordham.edu/student_affairs/residential_life/rose_hill/
80.^ http://www.fordham.edu/jescom/news.shtml
81.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/westchester/index.asp
82.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/office_of_the_provos/office_of_internatio/london_centre/index.asp
83.^ http://en.bimba.edu.cn/
84.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/special_programs/heop/
85.^ Rose Hill Society Ambassador Handbook.
86.^ http://www.fordhamobserver.com/lincoln-center-expansion-lawsuit-dismissed/
87.^ http://atrium.lincolncenter.org/index.php/atrium-2012-ailey-fordham
88.^ http://www.fordham.edu/student_affairs/student_leadership__/index.asp
89.^ http://www.patriotleague.org/
90.^ http://www.stlouisrams.com/team/history.html
91.^ http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100421&content_id=9468692&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
92.^ "Abou". WFUV Radio. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
93.^ Waits, Jennifer. "2012 Princeton Review’s 20 “Most Popular” College Radio Stations". Princeton Review. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
94.^ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/05/nyregion/neighborhood-report-fordham-fordham-debate-team-from-patsy-to-powerhouse.html
95.^ http://www.fordham.edu/mission/mission_and_ministry/campus_ministry/index.asp
96.^ http://www.inisfada.net/
97.^ http://www.fordham.edu/mission/mission_and_ministry/dorothy_day_center_f/index.asp
98.^ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2011/national_university_rank.php
99.^ http://nysj.org/s/316/nypsj.aspx?pgid=1003&gid=1
100.^ http://www.fordham.edu/mission/mission_and_ministry/global_outreach/index.asp
101.^ a b c http://www.fordham.edu/mission/mission_and_ministry/campus_ministry/campus_ministry_at_f/religious_traditions/catholic_christian_f/index.asp
102.^ http://www.fordham.edu/mission/mission_and_ministry/campus_ministry/campus_ministry_at_f/religious_traditions/ecumenical_christian_72035.asp
103.^ http://www.fordham.edu/mission/mission_and_ministry/campus_ministry/campus_ministry_at_f/religious_traditions/jewish_faith_72037.asp
104.^ http://www.fordham.edu/mission/mission_and_ministry/campus_ministry/campus_ministry_at_f/religious_traditions/islamic_faith_72038.asp
105.^ a b c d http://www.fordham.edu/academics/special_programs/army_rotc_ram_battal/
106.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/special_programs/army_rotc_ram_battal/army_rotc_scholarshi/nursing_scholarships_29947.asp
107.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/veterans_initiative/
108.^ http://www.theramonline.com/opinions/point-counterpoint-1.1657165
109.^ http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/fordham_college_at_r/about_us/people/fordham_club_22880.asp
110.^ https://fordham.campusgroups.com/oslcd/rsvp?event_uid=331be894-e762-102b-ac69-00e04cf077a2
111.^ http://www.fordham.edu/student_affairs/student_leadership__/lincoln_center/traditions_6588.asp
112.^ http://www.theramonline.com/mobile/news/rha-executive-board-announced-1.2526090
113.^ http://www.fordhamobserver.com/spring-weekend-a-success-despite-low-expectations/
114.^ http://www.fordham.edu/Campus_Resources/eNewsroom/topstories_2001.asp
115.^ http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/inside_fordham/may_19_2007/in_brief_25907.asp#bkfst
116.^ http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/archives/archive_969.asp
117.^ http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/archives/archive_1254.asp
118.^ http://www.fordham.edu/audience/sheetmusic.shtml
119.^ http://www.fordham.edu/alumni_relations/
120.^ a b c http://www.theramonline.com/culture/fordham-is-famous-movies-filmed-right-here-on-campus-1.1931716
121.^ http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/campus_facilities/facilities_managemen/sustainability/
122.^ a b http://www.fordham.edu/discover_fordham/accreditation_26611.asp

References

Fred C. Feddeck. Hale Men of Fordham: Hail!. Trafford Publishing, 2001.
Fordham University Staff, Office of the Sesquicentennial. As I Remember Fordham: Selections from the Sesquicentennial Oral History Project. Fordham University Press, 2001.
Robert Ignatius Gannon, S.J. Up to the Present: The Story of Fordham. Doubleday, 1967.
Raymond A. Schroth, S.J. Fordham: A History and Memoir, Revised Edition. Fordham University Press, New York. September, 2008.
Thomas Gaffney Taaffe. A History of St. John's College, Fordham, N.Y. The Catholic Publication Society Co., 1891.

My very passive quest has made me quite sad -- but it has NOT made me angry. There's a silly side -- and a very serious side to this thread. It has really been a cry for help -- which has gone unanswered. I wish to make it clear that I am NOT opposed to obedience, tradition, ethics, law, and order -- but these concepts must be properly refined and implemented. Something is VERY wrong with the situation we find ourselves in -- and I have no idea who we really are or where we really came from. There are claims and theories everywhere -- but narrowing down the truth might be more difficult and heart rending than we can possibly imagine. I've been very disillusioned and fatigued my whole life. When I was 12 years old -- a girl called me 'droopy' because I seemed so sad all the time. An Episcopal Rector told me, a few years ago, that I seemed to be carrying the weight of the whole world -- and I hadn't talked to them about my various concerns and insecurities. I just think that we live in a somewhat hostile and dangerous universe -- and that various deals with the devil might've been made in antiquity and modernity -- just to keep light on the Earth -- and keep us alive. I tend to think that scientific, historical, theological, and political lies have been told to the general public -- throughout history -- simply because the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth -- would drive most of us insane. I obviously want things to be better for all concerned -- but I have no idea what might really be involved in creating a paradise within this particular solar system. Once again, I keep getting the overwhelming impression that powerful forces do NOT wish for this experiment in male and female human physicality to continue -- regardless of whether the experiment has been successful or not. Human Freedom and the Sovereignty of God seems to be another point of contention. How do these two concepts peacefully coexist?? Should insubordination be tolerated?? If freedom is granted -- where does it end?? Are we facing a Status Quo Ante Bellum scenario?? What about stolen technology?? Has that issue been properly addressed?? What about the possibility of ancient genocide?? Who owns the world?? Who owns the various planets and moons throughout the solar system?? Are the souls who animate humanity really demons in human form?? Is human nature really fallen and sinful?? I have asked a lot of these questions over and over again -- with very little response. I know that a lot of you know the answers -- yet you remain silent. Something is VERY wrong. This madness needs to somehow be resolved. Once again, I have a VERY bad feeling about Humanity and Divinity (at least regarding what I have been exposed to within this solar system). You need to think all of this through -- and talk to me about it.

Did anyone ever see the 1981 television movie Goliath Awaits? I thought it had a lot of interesting lessons. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMjrpbQ1R5c 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBCNoHhsXOA 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKq7UXwSRWY 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath_Awaits Goliath Awaits is a 1981 American television movie originally broadcast in two parts in November 1981 on various stations as a part of Operation Prime Time's syndicated programming.[1][2] It is about a luxury passenger ship sunk by a torpedo fired by a German U-boat in 1939 that is discovered in 1981 with over 300 survivors and their descendants living in an air bubble in the wreck. The luxury British ocean liner Goliath, carrying 1,860 passengers sinks while on a trans-Atlantic crossing to the United States three days after the outbreak of World War II.[1][2] Scientists aboard a research ship discover the wreck of the Goliath in 1981 lying upright in 1,000 feet (305 m) of water.[2] Divers sent down to investigate the wreck, including oceanographer Peter Cabot (Mark Harmon), hear banging and music coming from the ship,[3] and are shocked to see the face of a beautiful young woman at a porthole (Emma Samms). They discover 337 survivors and their descendants living in an air bubble in the wreck. The residents of Goliath, who have invented some technologies to help them survive, some not even known to the outside modern world, live in a superficially utopian society under the autocratic leadership of John McKenzie (Christopher Lee), a junior officer at the time of the sinking credited with saving a portion of the passengers and crew.[1] The scientists are surprised to discover that McKenzie and some of the ship's residents are not interested in being "rescued", and that there are outcasts and rebels opposed to McKenzie's seemingly beneficent leadership, which also includes brutal discipline, mandatory contraception, euthanasia, and outright murder disguised as a mysterious disease. Complicating things, the Goliath had been carrying some sensitive documents to U.S. President Roosevelt. A joint American/British military team is sent by Admiral Wiley Sloan (Eddie Albert) to retrieve and destroy the documents.[1][3] The movie was principally filmed on location aboard the RMS Queen Mary.[1][4]

Mark Harmon – Peter Cabot
Christopher Lee – John McKenzie
Eddie Albert – Admiral Wiley Sloan
John Carradine – Ronald Bentley
Alex Cord – Dr. Sam Marlowe
Robert Forster – Commander Jeff Selkirk
Frank Gorshin – Dan Wesker
Jean Marsh – Dr. Goldman
John McIntire – Senator Oliver Bartholemew
Emma Samms – Lea McKenzie
Kirk Cameron – Liam
Duncan Regehr – Paul Ryker

1.^ a b c d e "Goliath Awaits". Retrieved 2008-04-08.
2.^ a b c McLean, Robert A (1981-11-05). "High Adventure at the Bottom of the Sea". The Boston Globe. p. 1.
3.^ a b Maslin, Janet (1981-11-16). "TV: 'Goliath Awaits,' Undersea Yarn". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
4.^ Gore, Robert J (1981-05-30). "Queen Mary Is Setting for Sci-Fi Film". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-04-14.

Along the lines of the nautical theme, consider The Poseidon Adventure. Sometimes I think all of us are involved in some sort of a Poseidon Adventure. I sometimes wonder if it might be wise to spend some quality time looking at disaster movies and reading about disasters and disaster-preparedness -- without getting caught-up in a lot of the current conspiracy-theories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNvnv9uRoRs Don't misunderstand me. I think there might be a legitimate place for the right sort of conspiracy-theorizing -- but this line of thinking could potentially turn people into something which might be destructive to society. I think there might be some really nasty factional-fighting going on in this solar system -- and possibly beyond -- but consider the possibility that the most powerful factions are NOT nice. Not nice at all. The most ethical factions might be the least powerful. Think about it. I'm a nice guy (at least in this incarnation) -- but I am quite clueless and powerless. If power were somehow dumped in my lap -- I hope that I would quickly delegate this power to those who were much more capable than myself. But look at history -- have things worked out this way?? I'm a naive-dreamer -- but I suspect more of the same -- only different -- with some really nasty technology, spirituality, deception, and weaponry. This is a MOST dangerous game we are all playing -- whether we know it, or not. I simply think this game goes WAY back into antiquity -- and WAY beyond this little world.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd03qev59Jo 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcLazPauA1c 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poseidon_Adventure_(1972_film)

The Poseidon Adventure is a 1972 American action-adventure disaster film, directed by Ronald Neame, produced by Irwin Allen, and based on Paul Gallico's novel of the same name. The film features an all star cast, including Gene Hackman, Carol Lynley, Ernest Borgnine, Stella Stevens, Shelley Winters, Red Buttons, Leslie Nielsen, and in an early screen role, Pamela Sue Martin. It won a Special Achievement Academy Award for Visual Effects and an Academy Award for Best Original Song (for "The Morning After"). Shelley Winters won the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture and was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role. It also received a nomination for the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama.

The plot centers on the SS Poseidon, an aged luxury liner from the golden age of travel, on her final voyage from New York City to Athens before being sent to the scrapyard. On New Year's Eve, she is overturned by a tsunami caused by an underwater earthquake. Passengers and crew are trapped inside and a rebellious preacher attempts to lead a small group of survivors to safety.

Parts of the films were filmed aboard the RMS Queen Mary, whose encounter with a rogue wave in 1942 inspired the book upon which the film is based.

Boxoffice Magazine reported "The Poseidon Adventure" as the #1 Box Office Champ of 1973. By the end of 1974, it ranked among the six most successful features in film history, along with Gone with the Wind, The Godfather, Love Story, Airport, and The Sound of Music. It is in the vein of other all-star disaster films of the 1970s such as Airport and later ones like Earthquake and The Towering Inferno. It was remade twice, first as a television special in 2005 with the same name, and a theatrical release with the name Poseidon in 2006.

A 1979 sequel, Beyond the Poseidon Adventure, was released later with an equally star-studded cast, but was a box office and critical failure.

Plot

The SS Poseidon, an ocean liner slated for retirement and scrapping, makes her way across the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea from New York City to Athens. Despite protests from Captain Harrison (Leslie Nielsen), who fears for the ship's safety, the representative of its new owners, Mr. Linarcos (Fred Sadoff), insists that it make full speed towards its destination, preventing it from taking on additional ballast for stabilisation purposes. Although Captain Harrison is aware that the lack of ballast means the ship is top-heavy (thereby increasing the risk of capsizing in rough seas) he is forced to obey Mr Linarcos's order.

Reverend Frank Scott (Gene Hackman), a minister questioning his faith and believing God helps those who help themselves, delivers a sermon at Mass. Susan (Pamela Sue Martin) and her younger brother Robin (Eric Shea) are traveling to meet their parents. Robin is interested in how the ship works and frequently visits the engine room. Retired Jewish hardware store owner Manny Rosen (Jack Albertson) and his wife Belle (Shelley Winters) are going to Israel to meet their two-year-old grandson for the first time. Haberdasher James Martin (Red Buttons) is a love-shy, health-conscious bachelor. Mike Rogo (Ernest Borgnine) is a New York police officer travelling with his wife Linda (Stella Stevens), a former prostitute. The ship's singer, Nonnie Parry (Carol Lynley), rehearses for the New Year celebrations with her band.

That evening, New Year's Eve, passengers gather in the dining room to celebrate. Harrison is called to the bridge because of a report of an undersea earthquake. He receives word from the lookout that there is a huge wave coming from the direction of Crete at 60 mph. He issues a mayday and commands a "hard left" turn, but it is too late. The wave hits the ship and it capsizes.

In the dining room, survivors take stock of their predicament. Acres (Roddy McDowall), an injured waiter, is trapped at the galley door now high above. With information from Martin, Scott surmises that the escape route will be found "upwards", at the outer hull, now above water. Robin tells him that the hull near the propeller shaft is only one inch (2.54 cm) thick. The Rosens, the Rogos, Susan, Robin, Acres, Nonnie and Martin agree to go with Scott, using a Christmas tree as a ladder. Scott unsuccessfully tries convincing more passengers to join them. After the group climbs to the galley, there is a series of explosions. As seawater floods the room the survivors rush to the Christmas tree, but the weight of everyone climbing causes the tree to fall.

Acres and Scott find the galley, and the survivors make their way to a staircase. Scott climbs its underside, then he and Rogo use a firehose to pull the others up before leading them to an access tunnel. While climbing a ladder inside a funnel, the ship rocks from another series of explosions. Acres falls and is lost.

Climbing out of the shaft, the group meets a large band of survivors led by the ship's medic, heading towards the bow. Scott is certain they are heading for their doom, but Rogo wants to follow them and gives Scott fifteen minutes to find the engine room. Although he takes longer than allowed, Scott is successful.

The group discovers the engine room is on the other side of a flooded corridor; someone must swim through with a line to help the others. Belle, a former competitive swimmer, volunteers, but Scott refuses her and dives in. Halfway through, a panel collapses on him. The survivors notice something is wrong and Belle dives in. She frees Scott and they make it to the other side. While Scott secures the lifeline, Belle suffers a heart attack. Before dying she tells Scott to give her "Chai" pendant, representing the Hebrew sign for life, to Manny, who in turn will give it to their grandson.

Rogo swims over to make sure Belle and Scott are alright, then leads the rest over. When Rosen finds Belle's body he is unwilling to go on, but Scott gives him her Chai pendant, reminding him that he has a reason to live.

Scott leads the survivors to the propeller shaft room's watertight door, but there is another series of explosions and Linda falls to her death. An infuriated and heartbroken Rogo blames her death on Scott. More explosions rupture a pipe that releases steam, blocking their escape. Scott rants at God for the survivors' deaths. He leaps and grabs onto the burning-hot valve wheel to shut off the steam, then tells Rogo to lead the group. He loses his grip and falls to his death.

Rogo leads the survivors — Manny, Martin, Nonnie, Susan and Robin — through the watertight door and into the propeller shaft room. They hear a noise above the ship and bang on the ceiling/floor to get the rescuers' attention. The rescuers cut through the hull and help the group out of the ship. The survivors, the only six alive after the disaster, fly to safety by helicopter.

Cast

Gene Hackman as Reverend Scott
Ernest Borgnine as Detective Lieutenant Mike Rogo
Red Buttons as James Martin
Carol Lynley as Nonnie Parry
Roddy McDowall as Acres
Stella Stevens as Linda Rogo
Shelley Winters as Belle Rosen
Jack Albertson as Manny Rosen
Pamela Sue Martin as Susan Shelby
Arthur O'Connell as Chaplain John
Eric Shea as Robin Shelby
Leslie Nielsen as Captain Harrison
Fred Sadoff as Mr. Linarcos
Byron Webster as the Purser
Jan Arvan as Dr. Caravello
Sheila Allen (Billed as Sheila Mathews) as the ship's nurse
John Crawford as Chief Engineer
Erik L. Nelson as Mr. Tinkham
Ernie Orsatti as Terry

Reception

The film earned estimated rentals of $40 million in North America in 1973.[4]

The Poseidon Adventure has received largely positive reviews, with review aggregate Rotten Tomatoes reporting 79% of 24 critics gave the film a positive review, with an above average score of 6.8/10.[5]

When the film made its network television premier on October 27, 1974, it earned a 39.0 household share making it the sixth highest film to ever air on network television.[6]

In recent years, the film has garnered a strong cult-like following.[7] It has been released on Blu-Ray and DVD.

Accolades

The film won two Academy Awards,[8] a Golden Globe Award, a British Academy Film Award and a Motion Picture Sound Editors Award.[9]

Award wins

Academy Award for Best Original Song - (Al Kasha and Joel Hirschhorn) for the song "The Morning After"
Special Achievement Academy Award for Visual Effects - (L.B. Abbott and A.D. Flowers)
Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture - Shelley Winters
BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role - (Gene Hackman)
Motion Picture Sound Editors Award for Best Sound Editing

Award nominations

Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress - (Shelley Winters)
Academy Award for Best Production Design - (William J. Creber and Raphael Bretton)
Academy Award for Best Cinematography - (Harold E. Stine)
Academy Award for Best Costume Design - (Paul Zastupnevich)
Academy Award for Best Film Editing - (Harold F. Kress)
Academy Award for Best Original Dramatic Score - (John Williams)
Academy Award for Best Sound Mixing - (Theodore Soderberg and Herman Lewis)
Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama
Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score - (John Williams)
Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song - (Al Kasha and Joel Hirschhorn) for the song "The Morning After"
BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role - (Shelley Winters)
American Cinema Editors Award for Best Edited Feature Film - Harold F. Kress
Satellite Awards - Best Extras DVD

See also

The Poseidon Adventure (book)
Beyond the Poseidon Adventure (1979)
The Poseidon Adventure (2005)
Poseidon (2006)
Poseidon (fictional ship)
SS Andrea Doria
Survival film, about the film genre, with a list of related films

References

1.^ Solomon, Aubrey. Twentieth Century Fox: A Corporate and Financial History (The Scarecrow Filmmakers Series). Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 1989. ISBN 978-0-8108-4244-1. p256
2.^ "The Poseidon Adventure, Box Office Information". The Numbers. Retrieved January 21, 2012.
3.^ "The Poseidon Adventure (Stereo): Limited Edition". La-La Land Records. Retrieved October 19, 2012.
4.^ "Big Rental Films of 1973", Variety, 9 January 1974 p 19
5.^ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1016584-poseidon_adventure/, retrieved 2011-05-10
6.^ The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows 1946-Present. Ballantine Books. 2003. p. 805. ISBN 0-345-45542-8.
7.^ Vinciguerra, Thomas (2006-05-07). "Underwater, and Over the Top in 1972". The New York Times.
8.^ "The 45th Academy Awards (1973) Nominees and Winners". oscars.org. Retrieved 2011-08-28.
9.^ "NY Times: The Poseidon Adventure". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-12-28.

I really don't want to make this post. It's very upsetting for me to think about. What might have happened if the Third Reich had been completely-peaceful, non-discriminatory, and non-persecutorial?? You know -- just the 'good-side' of Hitler, the Nazis, and the Third Reich. To get the ball rolling, consider this Q&A regarding what would've happened if the Nazis had won WWII. Obviously, this does not simply look at the 'good-side' of the Nazis. Some say that the Nazis really DID Win WWII. The Ancient Egyptian Deity seemed to be particularly interested in Hitler and the Nazis. I think I might know why -- but I'm NOT going to talk about it. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_if_Germany_had_won_World_War_2 Once again, I don't necessarily refer to the most scholarly or respectable sources. I go for a cross-section. This is really a road less traveled. I'm not writing a dissertation. I'm simply trying to help all of us think about difficult and controversial subjects. I keep thinking that we should study ALL of History -- and positively reinforce the Best of EVERYTHING (even from highly tainted sources). What if the Nazis presently control the solar system?? What was and/or is the relationship between the Nazis and Gizeh Intelligence?? Did they initially help the Nazis?? Did the Nazis turn on Gizeh Intelligence?? Did Gizeh Intelligence pull the plug on the Nazis in 1941?? What Would Al Bielek Say?? Is a United States of the Solar System vulnerable to a Nazi-like scenario?? My theory is that numerous idealistic plans have been hijacked and subverted in violent and corrupt ways -- throughout history.

The Ancient Egyptian Deity told me that they had always remained one step ahead of humanity. The AED said that I was one of two humans who they considered to be friends. The AED was tired of keeping me alive. The AED said "in twenty years -- you'll be working for us". They also implied that I would somehow go out of control (or something to that effect). The AED pointed to Serqet as being significant regarding our relationship. The AED implied that I might not have a choice regarding obeying them. The AED told me that I was lucky to be alive. The AED implied that I had changed my mind about something significant. The AED questioned my intention to do that which benefitted all concerned. The AED spoke of a hidden-female. The AED said they were more powerful than the Queen (but I'm not sure which one they were referring to). The AED indicated they had an important role in the development of Las Vegas (with Bugsy). The AED called me a 'commoner' when I made a comment about 'Tall Long-Nosed Greys'. The AED seemed to imply that I had somehow been a double-crosser (but I'm not sure about that). The AED asked me if I were ready to run things (or something to that effect). I said that things were too complicated for me to do that. The AED said I should do an FoIA. I did -- but with no response. The AED seemed to feel as if even human children were guilty of something quite bad. The AED had a crucifix (which they never showed me). The AED showed me their handgun. If you see a small and very detailed model antique Mercedes -- that was a gift from me. I liked the AED in one way -- but they scared the hell out of me in another way.

The AED seemed to be genuinely concerned (and even fearful) when I spoke of the last chapter of the book Great Controversy -- as they did when I spoke of the Bottomless-Pit. The AED said that we were both 'Ancient'. The AED called me 'Michael'. The AED told me that the one responsible for sacred classical music wasn't who I thought it might be (Lucifer). When I told the AED about childhood UFO interest -- they said they knew why. The AED spoke of 'Stolen Technology'. One night as we spoke -- the AED said they were 'close to God'. The AED implied that it was 'Over Rover' for the Human Race -- but later they seemed to indicate that it wasn't over -- but that it would've been better if humanity had been terminated. The AED indicated that there had been plans to terminate humanity -- including simultaneously detonating ALL nuclear devices. The AED implied that I'd be going somewhere without sunshine. The AED asked me if I would travel in a UFO?! The AED spoke of the sun in seemingly ominous terms. The AED seemed to offer some confirmation regarding the reptilians shown in the Hungry Earth and Cold Blood episodes of Dr. Who. They seemed to indicate that Isis was beautiful. Think long and hard about THAT. When I have watched various Hollywood depictions of archangelic conversation and debate -- it seemed a lot like what I had experienced with the AED -- very low-key -- but very intense and precise. I enjoyed our conversations at local coffee-shops -- even though I was fearful, paranoid, and questioning. It sometimes felt as if I were Chad Dekker -- indirectly asking Anna questions -- with Marcus serving as a mediator -- or something like that. It sometimes seemed as if their 'Marcus' presence was overshadowed by 'Anna'. The AED often spoke of their 'Mother'.

I could say more. A lot more -- but I've said way too much already. I'm only relating this because so much time has passed since we have spoken to each other -- and because hardly anyone reads this thread. When I told the AED that I didn't plan on relating a lot of what we had discussed -- they replied 'that would be better'. I made no non-disclosure agreement with the AED -- but they didn't want me to be too revealing or too direct. I have tried to be very discreet in my 'revelations'. We seem to not be even close to 'working together'. I have been very restrained in revealing what I think was really going on between the AED and ME. Now, I'm going to rewatch Dogma. I seem to have had extensive contact with most of the characters -- as insane as that sounds. This includes 'Big Boy' and 'Loki' (a very long time ago). This whole thing is utterly insane. I think I'm somewhat insane -- but in a good way!! That sexy secret-government psychiatrist might be able to cure me -- but it might take numerous attempts over many years. The Agony and the Ecstasy!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn4i8bAfnMY

What if Germany had won World War II?

Answer:

Many people wonder 'What if...' when reflecting upon major historical events. Fortunately, there are a lot of excellent fiction writers who ponder the same things we do. In fact, there is a whole genre of fiction dedicated to just such speculation called 'Alternate History' or 'Alternative History.' Here is a list of just a few Alternate History books that deal with the topic of WW2:

In the Presence of Mine Enemies by Harry Turtledove
Fatherland by Robert Harris
Third Reich Victorious: The Alternate History of How the Germans Won the War by Peter G. Tsouras
Disaster at D-Day: The Germans Defeat the Allies, June 1944 by Peter G. Tsouras
The Hitler Options: Alternate Decisions of World War II by Kenneth MacKsey
The Moscow Option: An Alternative Second World War by David Downing
Invasion: The Alternate History of the German Invasion of England, July 1940 by Kenneth MacKsey
Rising Sun Victorious: The Alternate History of How the Japanese Won the Pacific War by Peter G. Tsouras
A Damned Fine War by William Yenne, Bill Yenne
If Britain Had Fallen by Norman Longmate

Answer:

They might have won if they didn't stop bombing the British airfields in 1940. The Japanese could never have won, because they were not aware of the mass industrial capabilities of the United States. So it's likely that Germany could have won if Hitler listened to his generals, and equipped his troops on the eastern front with winter clothings.

Answer:

Providing German troops with winter clothing would have been helpful to the comfort of the Germans that is true, but I very much doubt it would have had much difference on the outcome of war on the Eastern front. Military Strategy errors, and an opposing force with superior tanks in number and effectiveness, as well as seemingly unending man and woman power that had a fierce fighting ability that the Germans underestimated as well as the sheer size of the Soviet Union to try and conquer were major factors as well as the weather. For a near realistic view of what would have happened if Germany had won or at least forced a ceasefire without their own surrender, read Robert Harris's 'Fatherland' It is a fictionally written situation novel, but excellently written, for it so very nearly could have been. If Germany had won in Soviet Union in '41 (when the Germans had reached Moscow's gates), and Britain in '40, It could be that America and Nazi Germany may have been in a face off in a Cold War, much like the real one between the USA and USSR. If Nazi Germany had not declared war on America when Japan carried out the attacks on Pearl Harbor, there may have been no open hostilities between Nazi Germany and USA, and possibly, Japan, enraged by deceit by its ally may have declared war on Nazi Germany also. The Nazi conquered Soviet Union would have had plentiful supply of oil for Nazi Germany's war machine, Japan would find two large enemies a handful. Or maybe if Japan did not decalre war on Nazi Germany, small wars would have taken place globally, between American backed and Nazi Germany backed factions in countries around the world whilst America fought Japan. (Again as did happen in the real Cold war between USA and USSR.) It probably would depend on whether they wished to engage in such tactics, or just sit out the cold war, waiting and waiting for one side either to crumble, or offer hand of friendship and reconciliation and easing of stance, parralel to Gorbachev's ( then leader of Soviet Union)actions in the 80's, and Hitler's view of where America stood in his ideology, somewhere to be conquered, to be wary of, or a big country to make friends with.

Of course in a cold war, hot war could break out any moment, and victory in the large USSR would have even more inflated the Nazi view of undefeatable superiority but Nazi Germany would have had to assemble a huge naval and aerial fleet to even attempt an invasion of America, the build up would have takan a while to do this, but the later the cold war dragged on from early fourties onwards, the more chance both sides would have nuclear weapons and assurance of mutual destruction. USA having Atomic and nuclear ability in '45, could possibly mean that Nazi Germany would also scramble to find WMD ability if they did not have the ability already (There was a factory in occupied Norway where they were looking at the means of making a H--bomb, only an allied sabotage raid stopped it, may not have been carried out with occupation and defeat of Britain which was a nerve centre of commando raids) Hitler may have softened with age (You never know!) but if not, his succesors or overthrowers would have been key. Nazism in Germany may well have imploded the longer it existed with the advent of new youth and dissillusionment. All in all, just one scenario in a scenario in a scenario.... that may have been. We will never know, all we can do to look at such matters and look at such a situation and assess any form of possible realism in discussion is speculate on such a matter by looking at history since WW2, and try to look at the political, social and geographical consequences of any alternate history.

Answer:

please excuse my spelling, im from Germany. if Germany would not have supported japan after pearl harbor and declared war on the united states, the American people would have never brought up the motivation to mobilize such a vast production of arms and masses of volunteer military personal. Surely, the war between japan and America would have ended in victory for America simply judging by the availability of raw oil which was the trigger for pearl harbor. But the main motivation for the people of America was the propaganda machinery of the USA government against nazi Germany (which today appears rather harmless to what horror realy went on within nazi teretories) and its allies. America would not have landet on the french coast and engaded in the war of Europe but would "temporaly" have all hands full with the war on japan. u must keep in mind; the American nuclear ability that endet the war agains japan was based on the work of nazi sientists imigrating or simply being kidnaped or arested after the fall of the 3rd Reich. so the war would probably not have ended in 45 but much later. so where are we? America busy with japan,.. no allied offensive in west Europe,.. Stalingrad taken by the Nazis now on their way towards moscow (thanks to the Reich´s ability to conzentrate large amounts of units in the east,.. No sherman tanks for british troops in north Africa,.. Germany being the first world power with nuclear weapons, jet planes(volksjaeger) and medium to long range missiles (V2)............................................. It would have ben a dark....dark future

Answer:

If Germany had won WW2, several things must have happened before hand. For example, Hitler actually letting the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, Kreigsmarine and the Waffen SS run the war and not himself. All of the officers in those departments were more worried about how much power they had instead of getting the job done which needed to be done. The plan was flawed in some respects. Germany should have invaded Britain when they had the chance. Either that or wait until 1945 to start the war when they would have more resources to spare but then again, the allied forces would have done the same. When Germany invaded Russia, USSR, they were driving to Moscow and then split to Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. What they could have done was take Moscow and spend the winter there. In the mean time, the built up forces along the supply routes to take Leningrad and Stalingrad while bring up supplies to enable the troops to survive the winter. North Africa could have been the decisvie campaign if Erwin Rommel would have gotten what he needed in a timely manner and if the Italian military so incompetent. If Germany had done so, the war would have been won, and there might be a chance that Americans and the Germans sign a peace accord. but who knows what would have happened? all we can really say is what Germany did wrong in the war and that we all might be speaking German this instant or the gestapo knocking on our doors to torture us before interrogations.

Answer:

Just not happening. Even if the US hadn't been involved at all, no lend-lease, nothing. Germany probably would have lost. The first Lend lease shipments didn't reach Russia until 1942. Taking moscow wouldn't have made a huge difference. The Soviets had already moved their production facilities behind the Ural mountains. That means that they weren't planning on giving up until the war got to at least that point. Germany's Supply lines were horribly over-extended. Of course it didn't help that Hitler was a psychopath and a bigot. If he had been a rational militarist he would have treated the Russian people decently and been welcomed as a saivior, especially in the Ukraine. Moscow was as far as the Germans could push, and after that the superior population and resources of the Soviet Union would crush them. What if he had though, through some miracle? perhaps by taking Britain, and/or the Suez and the oilfields of Iraq by fully supporting the pro-axis revolution there in 1941 (going through Vichy controlled Syria)? then slowly building until the point that the Soviet Union could be crushed and all of Eurasia,Affrica, and Oceanea could be brought under Axis control... A dark future indeed. On the other hand, peace could have been the Nazi party's worst enemy, reducing the drive toward national alignment and allowing the anti-nazi forces within the government to plan a revolution. The simple fact is that if the Generals who were involved in the bomb plot against him had known as much about explosives as the average modern American 12 year old (for example knowing that an unfuses block of explosives in the same bag as a fused block of explosives will be detonated by the fused block when it explodes) Hitler wouldn't have survived it.

Answer:

All the Germans would have needed to beat England was complete control over the skys. If the Luftwaffe had been able to wipe out the RAF then a similar landing to D-Day in the form of Operation Sealion would have been a success. A possible invasion strategy would have been to drop in parachute divisions, similar to that of normany, and to secure an airfield close to shore. Fly in several divisions to attack the coast at the same time as the landings would be taking place. The only problem is that Germany never thought such landings would be possible without securing a major port, which would still be incredibly difficult even with air superiority. If they could land on a stretch of beach close to an airfeild, with the use of similar Higgins boats, used at D-Day it could have been done. With Britain under attack Churchill would have pressed the Americans however, who may have responded, unless already occupied with the war in the pacific. So the Kreigsmarine would have been busy making certain to blockade Britain from Canadian and American supplies and/or reinforcments. With Britain occupied and taken care of the Nazi's could then head east. Being sure to start Barbarossa early enough in the year, to take moscow by the fall. Also securing better supply lines, and maintaining air superiority over the soviets would ensure quick victory. Hitler allowing his generals to work would have been helpful as well, and maybe allowing tactical retreats here and there would have been smart as well. As already said, heading into Russia as liberators and not torturing the civilians would have helped get many more deserters from the Red Army, as well as have civilians disobey Stalin's scortched earth policies, allowing the German army food and shelter. As far as North Africa was concerned Hitler should have driven to take Iraqi oilfields without as much resistance from British troops, as they were already defeated. Had Hitler actually been able to secure Nuclear weapons, the Nazis would surly have used them. America would not have made peace, since Canada was still at war with Germany, and the Germans invading Canada would for sure have brought the Americans in. In the end it is impossible to say if the Nazis ever could have won, whether they were overthrown in government, or defeated by the Americans. But had they taken England the war may well have turned for the worse, and dragged on for many more years, with unimaginable lasting reprucussions.

Answer:

Hitler was a brillant leader and oritor but lacked ability in war planning. Every day Germans saw the third Reich much as we see America today: justified in the undertaking of war to protect our homeland through any means necessary. Thus, I feel a victorious thied Reich would prosper after winning ww2. That said, German victory would have led to a much more stable world order in that many middle eastern states would be nazi colonies and a similar cold war senerio would have developed betheen the us and Germany as did with the ussr. Although with the defeat of russia Germany's econimic and industrial power would be great, Hitler's successors would be more easly seen as ineffectave and much less capable of running the state as the information age comes about (successors chosen by power,corruption, and non democratic means). As Hitler's influence fades, so does his Reich!

Answer:

The only way Germany wins the war is if it ends in 1940 after the Battle of France. AT BEST, Germany gets pre WWI borders, plus Austria, Sudetenland, Schleswig Holstein and Alsace Lorraine. From that point on Germany probably goes the route of Franco's Spain. Once the United States gets the A-Bomb in 1945, its an automatic victory for the Allies. The Manhattan project had very little to do with German scientists taken after the Allied occupation of Germany, but it DID have a lot to do with the emigration of Albert Einstein who left Germany precisely due to Hitlers fanatical anti-Semitism. Make no mistake about it, Hitler was NOT a good leader, if we judge Hitler by his own Machiavellian standards, he was a miserable failure, after all if the ends truly do justify the means, in the end Germany was in ruins.

Answer:

The question here is WHAT IF Germany had won the war, not HOW Germany could have won the war. Picturing a victorious Nazi Germany cannot be an easy task. The various forces and power centers within the Nazi system suppressed during the war would have no doubt boiled to the surface. It would only be the person of Hitler who would keep the system together. Hitler was obviously ailing towards the end of the war and it is doubtful that he would have lived much past, say 1950. Massive resettlement of Germans in the east would definitely have occured, at the expense of the local population ofcourse. Poles would be pushed east to make way for the arriving Germans. A victorious Nazi party would tighten its grip, even further, on life in the Reich, but its long term prospects would be vague. There can be no doubt that as time goes by other voices would appear. The United States would for sure not be very friendly to Germany, even more so if Britain had been invaded. Open hostilities between the United States and Germany, while not totally out of the question, is not likely, especially if Germany wins the way, meaning defeating Russia before Pear Harbor. A victorious Third Reich would not last for long, perhaps to the end of the century, but after this disintegration would happen. As to how Germany could have won the war itself, that is a different matter. I am one of those who believe that the invasion of Britain, operation Sealion, was not feasible and doomed to failure if undetaken. Germany's path to victory against Britain would be by taking an indirect route, by depriving Britain of its empire and bringing it to its knees economically, following Admiral Raeder's Mediterrerean strategy. Immediately following the fall of France, as air battles rage over the British skies, Hitler should push Mussolini into cooperating for an attack on Malta, which at the time was lightly defended. At the same time begin putting pressure on Franco to reach some agreement on an attack on Gibraltar, which is an alot more difficult nut to crack, but would still fall if faced with a determined German onslaught.

An attack on Malta in, let's say, July 1940, would see the island fall in a week or so, maybe a little more. An attack on Gibraltar would take long to prepare for and longer to execute. An attack on late summer 1940, around September, could see the rock fall in a month or so. So there we have it, by October 1940 the Mediterranean has become an axis lake. Germany can now, with little diversions, build up its forces in Libya and attack Egypt, if it has not already done so. With the Mediterranean sealed to them, Britain might decide to evacuate it and not put up much of a fight for Egypt. The Suez canal would probably fall to the Germans and Italians before the end of the year. After a little regrouping the Germans can then move on into Palestine and the rich oilfields of Iraq. The Germans would also now more easily take Greece and hop over and take control of Cyprus. Turkey would now most likely read the writing on the wall and join the axis. Britain would have to give up at this point, Churchil would be kicked out, if he had not resigned by now. Germany would seem unstoppable. With plenty of oil at hand, total control over Europe, the Mediterranean basin and the Middle East, probably Iran as well (the Shah was pro-German), Britain would be unable to maintain its empire. India would be directly threatened from both Germany and Japan, which at this point would be eyeing the pacific with very greedy eyes. When Germany does invade the USSR, it will not only be a full frontal assault as it was historically, but the Germans would also push through the Caucasus and quickly grab the vital oil fields there. With such a pincer movement, Russia would crumble quickly. Japan might even take a direct interest in the Russian far east in this case.

Answer:

If Germany had won world war 2 i doubt Hitler would stop at conquering Europe. Being the man hes known to be he would attempt takin over pretty much the world. His power would grow with every country he took over. he wouldn't stop until the aryan race ruled the world.

Answer:

Finally! an intelligent answer to 'what if Germany had won ww2?' But! I don't believe that the superpower 3rd Reich would have ended up in a stalemate with the US. Japan was Hitler's ally. Without nazi scientists to make nukes and the third Reich helping Japan's effort - they would have annialated any opposition from the US. An invasion would have happened and the US would have come under axis control. The Nazi's weren't into stalemates, they were aggressors looking for your weakness. With that, the war would be over. Some people say, that if the axis had won, that it would have probably collapsed by the end of the century is difficult to say. The Nazi's weren't like us. If you rebelled, your whole family was slaughtered, your best friends, your colleagues, your dog! would be dead. Sure there would be resistance groups, but I don't think such a machine would loosen it's grip for a long, long time. Perhaps a thousand years. When Hitler died, chances are, he would chosen a successor, so no power struggle could ensue, thus keeping the empire together. It would have been rome with nukes! and rome lasted a long time, because no other force in the world had the ability to bring it down. Eventually, like rome, the 3rd Reich would have collapsed in on itself. but not till after 1000 years. It really was a fight between GOOD & EVIL. Thank God We Won!

Answer:

The Nazi doctrine was another form of society, like democracy and communism, but much more radical. The goals of the state held importance, not those of the individual. Militarism was coveted, discipline to one leader, and the most radical departure, belief in racial struggle, where the so called Aryans, or those of Germanic blood are considered the pedigreed among the races of the human species. The problem with this philosophy is it doesn't bode well for non-Germans, who make up the majority population on the planet. So Nazi Germany was programmed to fail from the start. The odds that 80-90 million Germans could impose their will on all the other peoples of the earth were very long indeed.

Answer:

The Possibility of Germany winning ww2 was a very remote chance 1. Germany's Panzer Divisions would have drained many 100,000s of gallons of Gas/oil which meant that they could have drained a whole supply in 1 push towards a objective. Which means they wasted more resources to secure the objective. 2 The allies had superior numbers compared to the axis mainly because the Chinese ( Even though the Chinese didnt do much during ww2 but defend their territories during ww2,eventually they could have signed a decleration of war on Germany if the war dragged on in the 1950's)The Russians ,and the Us. The total of soldiers would have been in the 100 millions if the war dragged on.. 3. Germany vs America's Economic and Production power wasnt even in the same level of economic and Production Power... 4. Germany was loosing more soldierrs then they can replace. (They were using 14 year old boys to reinforce some of their lines)

Answer:

I think the Third Reich would have fallen within about thirty years, even if it had signed a peace treaty with America.
1)The Nazi regime was a based on the personality cult of a psychotic. Leadership contests after Hitler had been put in a mental assylum could well have destroyed the regime. 2)The economic policies of the Nazis were largely based on huge national projects which are exhaustive (such as road building), and warfare. It is hard to invisage a successful Nazi ideology working in peacetime. 3)It is also hard to see how Nazism could translate to foreign countries during peace-time. It was based on German history (in opposition to French/British history) and the ideal of the Aryan German race. It would have been hard to avoid resistance building up in occupied countries that weren't at war. It wasn't like setting up a colony, where at first you had the advantage of guns and communications to suppress the natives. French and British governments would have to fashion their own ideology to keep the people suppressed, which would in time become so different that the Reich would split apart.
4)Nazism encouraged IMBECILES. children growing up through Nazi youth were taught to be utterly stupid. it is hard to imagine a successful generation of leaders being created by it.

Answer:

Even if Germany had won, the Axis Empire wouldn't have lasted long. Hitler was too arrogant of a leader and the empire would have been too large to maintain.

Answer:

To give the Germans any chance at winning the Second World War, we must go even further to 1914. If Germany won those crucial victories in August 1914 and humbled the Triple Entente we could well have seen a world power in 1939. Also, with the diminishment of the Kaiser's influence and the growth of in popularity of small radical parties such as the Nazis. With Hitler still at the helm with a proper navy, an army that had never faced defeat nor the chaos of 1919 he could have well have won the war - for a while at least. With this massive army the obsolete Royal Navy would have been destroyed. With better leadership in the Luftwaffe, and a larger, professional army Britain would have collapsed in 1940. Yet it would still take 1 million men to occupy the isles. Even with the British Empire in collapse and the Nazis' Panzers rolling into the Middle East, the immensely strong capitalist Russia (remember Germany won in 1914 so the revolution of 1917 never happened) , once under attack, with expert leadership (no Stalin so no massacres) with an army rivalling that of Germany's could easily have pushed the Germans to the Oder. The Third Reich, a chaotic empire with too long supply lines still faced a war on two fronts - a guerrilla war in Britain and the Russians in 1943 The Japanese, in all this chaos, invaded the German islands in the west Pacific (no Versailles remember?) and would have helped the previous British colonies get back on their feet by giving them membership in their Sphere of Asian influence. As the Russians charged into Nazi Belorussia, the Germans, holding Einstein captive, developed and dropped two nuclear bombs on Russia. This however had little impact on the Russian advance. In the middle of all this, the United States eventually (inevitably) declared war on the Nazis for sinking their shipping (and being an annoyance)and along with Scots, Irish and Brits landed in Ireland and Scotland in 1945 and with 7 months had reclaimed Britain. In 1947 D-Day was triumphant and as both Russians and Americans sped towards Berlin, Hitler kills himself. World War 2 ends, 8 years after in began. As the capitalist Russians and Americans shook hands over the corpse of Germany, war clouds gathered over Japan and so on...

Answer:

I want to start answering this fascinating question by saying giving some of my credentials: I am 24 and working toward a PhD in Political Science with an emphasis on American Politics. This is clearly a comparative government and International Relations question and I hope that my History is up to date. First, Hitler would not have stopped until all of Russia west of the Urals, North Africa, and probably the middle east for oil reserves. Native ethinic groups of these areas most likely would have been enslaved and a new era of imperialism would have began. Germany would become the new Hegemon, bust most likely the age of intense Nazism would end with his death. Germany has a tradition of democracy and most of the leaders in order of sucession Hitler had hand picked (Donitz, etc) were not hardcore Nazis in the literal sense. They were of aristocratic blood, intellectuals, internationalist, and others who had suppressed their beliefs for their own selfish career oriented causes. The empire that was to last 1000 years would only probably have lasted as long as the Soviet Union proved to last, maybe even to a lesser extent. Germans had already experienced democracy and leaders upon Hitler's death would have probably slowly began an enlightened transformation back to such. A new cold war most likely would have developed as well. Those areas left unconquered by Germany would have remained either colonies of the former European nations such as Britain and France. France would most likely would have established a puppet regime but would have been left on its own to govern. Hitler didnt think lesser of the English, French, Spanish, or any other western country. Nazi sympathizers would have risen to power briefly in countries like Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa and thus new wars would have been encouraged in their respective local areas. thus, we could probably imagine Latin America ruled by Chile, Argentina, and/or Brazil, sub Sahara Africa ruled by the Afrikanas, and India still controlled by a more nazi sympathetic Britain. The only likely independent state unmoved by serious forms of nazism would be the the United States, due mostly to its ability to easily isolate itself from international conflict. But it wouldn't end there. social mobilization is inevitable in the third world and many disenfranchised groups would likely lead resistance movements against their fascist oppressors. These groups would likely see the former allied leaders as heros and martyrs, thus embrace ideologies vastly contradicting to Fascism.

An alternate form of cold war may occur between the United States, which in no way could have ever possibly be beaten on its own soil by the Japanese or the Germans, and the fascist Europe. It would thus have been the US that supported and armed guerrillas in Latin America or in Africa against the Nazi leaning ideologists. Despite this, Germany would only have lasted as long as Hitler then most likely turned to Democratic forms gradually as not to obstruct the nazi leaning organizations. Germany would definitely however be the strongest nation in the world, even likely with oil reserves the most powerful nation on earth for a very long time unchallenged in superiority. It would have possessed the Atomic Bomb, missle technology, and a capitalist economy that would together dominate the world and surpas the United States in might. This proves most likely true, since missle technology was adopted by the US's welcoming of rocket scientists like Werner VonBraun. Jews most likely would cease to exist, or if they remained, in small numbers scattered throughout Siberia and the United States. The final solution would have been a total reality with no survivors. the plan may also have extended out to include more prominantly other ethnic and religious groups that werent western European or christain. Slovaks, Gypsies, and Poles, ofcourse would likely have been the initial targets included alongside Jews, followed maybe by Muslims, sub saharan africans, and maybe even possibly east Asian ethinic groups. Noone can predict the limits of Hitler's madness in this field. He simply hated so many groups that werent "Aryan" that anyone could have been a candidate. this is a fascinating question that only history could have answered. we can only all thank god that the simple answers to complex problems posed by Hitler didnt dominate after the war. We can for now say that we have preserved the principles of the enlightenment; the idea that each of us is equal before the law and that we are born with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property that would prove dificult for any fair government to take away.

Answer:

I believe that Hitler made many mistakes in his rulership as Dictator of Germany. One for example was letting the English and French troops escape at Calais across the English channel into the UK to come back and fight another day. Another one of Hitlers mistakes was the Invasion of the USSR. Just because Stalin was a communist, the notion of Hitler invading him was the biggest mistake ever. History tends to repeat itself even when the lesson is learned. Hitler created two fronts the day he invaded the USSR and thus had to divide his army to fight. Because of his strong alliance with Italy he had no fear for the time of getting invaded from the rear. But his West side exposed to the UK and of course the D-Day target the beaches of Normandy a place to just called for an invasion. Also the late introduction of the V1 and V2 rocket missles althoguh not very likely a turning point could have given the sneak dictator a few months to hold off the US and British attacks and try something. One of the biggest misteries is what Hitler was creating in those huge laboratories dug deep into mountains. Were all of them found were all even documented. You can look back and see Lionardo DiVinchi's drawings that were way ahead of his time, maybe a select handful of scientists were developing WMD's that surpass our greatest beliefs. I believe they created weapons and technlogies that either Stalin found and disclosed or Hitler hid so well that we still havent found them. I mean Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project with his inside spies in our State department and Pentagon resources whats to make us believe he found technology ,hid it ,and is passing it down until the time was ready.Could Hitler have been developing Cold fusion to power his war machines and is that why the Russian colleges and institues of science are soo astounded by it? Whatever the reason Hitler failed WWII because of novice mistakes and had he been more dependent and listened to his Generals and staff maybe we would all be speaking German or in some peoples case dead. And if we had decided to conquer the Pacific THeater rather than the European first what then would have happened. Could we have used the bomb on Berlin and other main German cities instead ofHiroshima and Nagasaki. Would that have scared the great USSR into backing down sooner during the Cold war or making the Mother country even more hungry for nuclear power.

Answer:

Hitler didnt 'let the British off' at Dunkirk. He stopped the Panzers because Goering assured him that the Luftwaffe could destroy the British without the Panzers help. At many points the Germans made errors. But so did the allies. If The French and Brits had attacked Germany in 1939, in the months after the invasion of Poland when the vast majority of the Wermacht were in the East the war would have been over. If the Brits and French had grouped their tanks together after the Panzer fashion instead of using them as infantry support, the Germans could have been thrown back, especially as the Germans found the Brit Matilda tanks impossible to knock out (though they would quickly become obsolete). And talking of the vetoed German jet engine, Wittle, the British RAF officer, had a viable Jet engine design in the late 1920's. If the RAF had put this into production then the Luftwaffe would have been shot out of the skies. Germany was winning in the early stages of the Battle of Britain because the RAF, outbnumbered 4 to 1 coudnt afford to lose the planes that the Germans could. This still doesnt take away from the fact that even massively outnumbered the British pilots were shooting down more planes than the Nazi airmen. Furthermore, the Nazis would have gained the A bomb years before the Manhattan Project if the Brits and Norwegians hadnt sabotaged their earlier attempts. That said the Manhatten project had little to do with Nazi scientists though its debatablt the moonlanding could have took place without them.

Answer:

At least two of the previous posts have made this false comment that the US atomic bomb was built with the help of "Nazi scientists". Not true. You are getting the Manhatten Project confused with the post-WWII rocket programs of the US and USSR, the race to develop ever bigger intercontinental ballistic missiles, the Space Race. The post-WWII rocket programs did indeed utilize a great many "Nazi scientist" - Germans who had worked for the Reich to build the V2 and V1 programs. The Manhatten Project had very few Germans - there were a number of European refugees, scientists like Teller and Fermi and Szilard, but a great deal of the work was done by American scientists and engineers. Hitler's racism drove the best and the brightest of European scientists to work for his enemies. It is hard to imagine the U.S. NOT getting involved in a war with Nazi Germany, whether Pearl Harbor occurred or not, whether Germany declared war on the U.S. or not. Roosevelt was increasingly getting the U.S. involved in supporting the British, through Lend-Lease, sending in military "observers", etc. For example, it is now known (although a secret for a long time) that when the British sank the Bismark, there was a U.S. Navy pilot helping the British to fly the American-built Lend Lease PBY seaplane that through pure luck spotted the damaged Bismark (after the British fleet had managed to lose track of it), and there was another U.S. Navy officer aboard one of the British battleships that engaged the Bismark in the final gun battle. Sooner or later, like Vietnam, these American military advisors would have gotten involved in some direct conflict against the Germans, and this would have been enough of an excuse for either the Germans or the U.S. to declare war.

Answer:

The ONLY scenario that I can think of where Germany won WW2 would have been if Germany had successfully built an atomic bomb before the Soviets did, and/or if the Germans had also built a fleet of strategic bombers, similar to the US B-29. Then, the Germans could have firebombed or atomic bombed all of the Soviet cities and heavy industry, similar to what the U.S. did later with Japan, and just wiped out the Soviets. With this capability, Germany also could have bombed Great Britain, and prevented the U.S. and British from building up the supplies and the forces for an invasion of Europe. This would also have prevented the U.S. and British from establishing the bombing campaign that crippled Germany's synthetic fuel plants, which was the final blow that wiped out Germany's ability to wage a modern, mechanized war. In such a scenariao, Germany would not be able to defeat the U.S. completely, just hold it at bay. And, so, as mentioned in some of the previous posts, in this scenario, Germany would replace the USSR in a post-WWII world as the dictatorship ruling Europe, and there would a similar nuclear standoff and Cold War with the U.S. In this same scenario, Nazi Germany would of course be able to complete the Final Solution and eliminate all traces of this genocide (I think many of the fictional accounts have this same idea). There would be no State of Israel, as there would be no surviving Jewish refugees. In fact, German troops would be in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, controlling the oil fields there. In their vaction time, the Nazi troops would take over British Palestine and do their best to eliminate the last vestiges of Jewish culture there as well. I agree with those who think that this Nazi Empire would not last beyond Hitler's lifetime. There would be too many former underlings fighting for power after Hitler's death.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_if_Germany_had_won_World_War_2#ixzz2QvrXKStl

Is it just me -- or do the absurdities just never seem to end?? Especially regarding the most important subjects?! The unimportant subjects seem to make perfect sense -- but the biggies seem to be somewhat insane. Those who try to get to the root of the most important things -- who try to solve the world's problems -- and who try to save the world -- are viewed as being dangerous and insane -- especially if they employ humour and irreverence as literary devices. Anyway, that last post sort of creeped me out -- so I'm going to change gears. I'll remain in Germany -- but I'm going to take another look at Martin Heidegger. I devoted a couple of previous posts to Heidegger -- but here is a slightly more scholarly and respectable source -- and respectability is most important -- is it not?? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

Martin Heidegger

First published Wed Oct 12, 2011

Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) was a German philosopher whose work is perhaps most readily associated with phenomenology and existentialism, although his thinking should be identified as part of such philosophical movements only with extreme care and qualification. His ideas have exerted a seminal influence on the development of contemporary European philosophy. They have also had an impact far beyond philosophy, for example in architectural theory (see e.g., Sharr 2007), literary criticism (see e.g., Ziarek 1989), theology (see e.g., Caputo 1993), psychotherapy (see e.g., Binswanger 1943/1964, Guignon 1993) and cognitive science (see e.g., Dreyfus 1992, 2008; Wheeler 2005; Kiverstein and Wheeler forthcoming).

•1. Biographical Sketch
•2. Being and Time◦2.1 The Text and its Pre-History
◦2.2 Division 1■2.2.1 The Question
■2.2.2 Modes of Encounter
■2.2.3 Being-in-the-World
■2.2.4 The Critique of Cartesianism
■2.2.5 Spatiality
■2.2.6 Being-with
■2.2.7 Care

◦2.3 Division 2■2.3.1 Death
■2.3.2 Anticipatory Resoluteness
■2.3.3 Temporality and Temporalizing
■2.3.4 Historicality and Historizing

◦2.4 Realism and Relativism in Being and Time

•3. The Later Philosophy◦3.1 The Turn and the Contributions to Philosophy
◦3.2 Appropriation, Dwelling and the Fourfold
◦3.3 Technology
◦3.4 Safeguarding
◦3.5 Only a God can Save Us

•Bibliography◦Primary Literature
◦Other Cited Words
◦Additional Reading

•Academic Tools
•Other Internet Resources
•Related Entries

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Biographical Sketch

Martin Heidegger was born in Messkirch, Germany, on September 26, 1889. Messkirch was then a quiet, conservative, religious rural town, and as such was a formative influence on Heidegger and his philosophical thought. In 1909 he spent two weeks in the Jesuit order before leaving (probably on health grounds) to study theology at the University of Freiburg. In 1911 he switched subjects, to philosophy. He began teaching at Freiburg in 1915. In 1917 he married Elfride Petri, with whom he had two sons (Jörg and Hermann) and from whom he never parted (although his affair with the philosopher Hannah Arendt, his student at Marburg in the 1920s, is well-known).

Heidegger's philosophical development began when he read Brentano and Aristotle, plus the latter's medieval scholastic interpreters. Indeed, Aristotle's demand in the Metaphysics to know what it is that unites all possible modes of Being (or ‘is-ness’) is, in many ways, the question that ignites and drives Heidegger's philosophy. From this platform he proceeded to engage deeply with Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and, perhaps most importantly of all for his subsequent thinking in the 1920s, two further figures: Dilthey (whose stress on the role of interpretation and history in the study of human activity profoundly influenced Heidegger) and Husserl (whose understanding of phenomenology as a science of essences he was destined to reject). In 1915 Husserl took up a post at Freiburg and in 1919 Heidegger became his assistant. Heidegger spent a period (of reputedly brilliant) teaching at the University of Marburg (1923–1928), but then returned to Freiburg to take up the chair vacated by Husserl on his retirement. Out of such influences, explorations, and critical engagements, Heidegger's magnum opus, Being and Time (Sein und Zeit) was born. Although Heidegger's academic and intellectual relationship with his Freiburg predecessor was complicated and occasionally strained (see Crowell 2005), Being and Time was dedicated to Husserl, “in friendship and admiration”.

Published in 1927, Being and Time is standardly hailed as one of the most significant texts in the canon of (what has come to be called) contemporary European (or Continental) Philosophy. It catapulted Heidegger to a position of international intellectual visibility and provided the philosophical impetus for a number of later programmes and ideas in the contemporary European tradition, including Sartre's existentialism, Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, and Derrida's notion of ‘deconstruction’. Moreover, although most philosophers in the Anglo-American (Analytic) tradition remain apprehensive about a work that can seem to have arrived from some distant intellectual shore, that particular climate of suspicion now seems significantly less entrenched than it once did. This shift in reception is in no small way due to the way in which Being and Time, and indeed Heidegger's philosophy in general, has been presented and engaged with by thinkers such as Dreyfus (e.g., 1990) and Rorty (e.g., 1991a, b) who work somewhere near the interface between the two traditions. A cross-section of broadly analytic reactions to Heidegger (positive and negative) may be found alongside other responses in (Murray 1978). Being and Time is discussed in section 2 of this article.

In 1933 Heidegger joined the Nazi Party and was elected Rector of Freiburg University, where, depending on whose account one believes, he either enthusiastically implemented the Nazi policy of bringing university education into line with Hitler's nauseating political programme (Pattison 2000) or he allowed that policy to be officially implemented while conducting a partially underground campaign of resistance to some of its details, especially its anti-Semitism (see Heidegger's own account in Only a God can Save Us). During the short period of his rectorship—he resigned in 1934—Heidegger gave a number of public speeches (including his inaugural rectoral address; see below) in which Nazi images plus occasional declarations of support for Hitler are integrated with the philosophical language of Being and Time. After 1934 Heidegger became increasingly distanced from Nazi politics. Although he didn't leave the Nazi party, he did attract some unwelcome attention from its enthusiasts. After the war, however, a university denazification committee at Freiburg investigated Heidegger and banned him from teaching, a right which he did not get back until 1949. One year later he was made professor Emeritus. Against this background of contrary information, one will search in vain through Heidegger's later writings for the sort of total and unambiguous repudiation of National Socialism that one might hope to find. The philosophical character of Heidegger's involvement with Nazism is discussed later in this article.

After Being and Time there is a reorienting shift in Heidegger's philosophy known as ‘the turn’ (die Kehre). Exactly when this occurs is a matter of debate, although it is probably safe to say that it is in progress by 1930 and largely established by the early 1940s. If dating the turn has its problems, saying exactly what it involves is altogether more challenging. Indeed, Heidegger himself characterized it not as a turn in his own thinking (or at least in his thinking alone) but as a turn in Being. As he later put it in a preface he wrote to Richardson's ground-breaking text on his work (Richardson 1963), the “Kehre is at work within the issue [that is named by the titles ‘Being and Time’/‘Time and Being.’]… It is not something that I did, nor does it pertain to my thinking only”. The core elements of the turn are indicated in what is now considered by many commentators to be Heidegger's second greatest work, Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), (Beitrage zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis)). This uncompromising text was written in 1936–7, but was not published in German until 1989 and not in English translation until 1999. Section 3 of this article will attempt to navigate the main currents of the turn, and thus of Heidegger's later philosophy, in the light of this increasingly discussed text.

Heidegger died in Freiburg on May 26, 1976. He was buried in Messkirch.

2. Being and Time

2.1 The Text and its Pre-History

Being and Time is a long and complex book. The reader is immediately struck by what Mulhall (2005, viii) calls the “tortured intensity of [Heidegger's] prose”, although if the text is read in its original German it is possible to hear the vast number of what appear to be neologisms as attempts to reanimate the German language. According to this latter gloss, the linguistic constructions concerned—which involve hyphenations, unusual prefixes and uncommon suffixes—reveal the hidden meanings and resonances of ordinary talk. In any case, for many readers, the initially strange and difficult language of Being and Time is fully vindicated by the realization that Heidegger is struggling to say things for which our conventional terms and linguistic constructions are ultimately inadequate. Indeed, for some thinkers who have toiled in its wake, Heidegger's language becomes the language of philosophy (although for an alternative and critical view of the language of Being and Time, see Adorno 1964/2002). Viewed from the perspective of Heidegger's own intentions, the work is incomplete. It was meant to have two parts, each of which was supposed to be divided into three divisions. What we have published under the title of Being and Time are the first two divisions of (the intended) part one. The reasons for this incompleteness will be explored later in this article.

One might reasonably depict the earliest period of Heidegger's philosophical work, in Freiburg (1915–23) and Marburg (1923–6), before he commenced the writing of Being and Time itself, as the pre-history of that seminal text (although for an alternative analysis that stresses not only a back-and-forth movement in Heidegger's earliest thought between theology and philosophy, but also the continuity between that earliest thought and the later philosophy, see van Buren 1994, 2005). Viewed in relation to Being and Time, the central philosophical theme in these early years is Heidegger's complex critical relationship with Husserl's transcendental phenomenology—what Crowell (2005, p.49) calls “a dynamic of attraction and repulsion”—as driven by Heidegger's transformative reading of Aristotle. As early as a 1919 lecture course, for example, we find Heidegger arguing that Husserl's view (developed in the Logical Investigations, Husserl 1900/1973), that philosophy should renounce theory and concentrate on the things given directly in consciousness, is flawed because such givenness is itself a theoretical construct. For the young Heidegger, then, it is already the case that phenomenological analysis starts not with Husserlian intentionality (the consciousness of objects), but rather with an interpretation of the pre-theoretical conditions for there to be such intentionality. This idea will later be central to, and elaborated within, Being and Time, by which point a number of important developments (explained in more detail later in this article) will have occurred in Heidegger's thinking: the Husserlian notion of formal ontology (the study of the a priori categories that describe objects of any sort, by means of our judgments and perceptions) will have been transformed into fundamental ontology (a neo-Aristotelian search for what it is that unites and makes possible our varied and diverse senses of what it is to be); Husserl's transcendental consciousness (the irreducible thinking ego or subject that makes possible objective inquiry) will have been transfigured into Dasein (the inherently social being who already operates with a pre-theoretical grasp of the a priori structures that make possible particular modes of Being); and Husserlian intentionality (a consciousness of objects) will have been replaced by the concept of care or Being-in-the-world (a non-intentional, or perhaps pre-intentional, openness to a world).

Each of these aspects of Heidegger's framework in Being and Time emerges out of his radical rethinking of Aristotle, a rethinking that finds its fullest and most explicit expression in a 1925–6 lecture course entitled Logik (later renamed Logik (Aristoteles) by Heidegger's student Helene Weiß, in order to distinguish this lecture course from a later one he gave also entitled Logik; see Kisiel 1993, 559, note 23). On Heidegger's interpretation (see Sheehan 1975), Aristotle holds that since every meaningful appearance of beings involves an event in which a human being takes a being as—as, say, a ship in which one can sail or as a god that one should respect—what unites all the different modes of Being is that they realize some form of presence (present-ness) to human beings. This presence-to is expressed in the ‘as’ of ‘taking-as’. Thus the unity of the different modes of Being is grounded in a capacity for taking-as (making-present-to) that Aristotle argues is the essence of human existence. Heidegger's response, in effect, is to suggest that although Aristotle is on the right track, he has misconceived the deep structure of taking-as. For Heidegger, taking-as is grounded not in multiple modes of presence, but rather in a more fundamental temporal unity (remember, it's Being and time, more on this later) that characterizes Being-in-the-world (care). This engagement with Aristotle—the Aristotle, that is, that Heidegger unearths during his early years in Freiburg and Marburg—explains why, as Sheehan (1975, 87) puts it, “Aristotle appears directly or indirectly on virtually every page” of Being and Time. (For more on Heidegger's pre-Being-and-Time period, see e.g., Kisiel 1993, Kisiel and van Buren 1994, and Heidegger's early occasional writings as reproduced in the collection Becoming Heidegger. For more on the philosophical relationship between Husserl and Heidegger, see e.g., Crowell 2001 and the review of Crowell's book by Carman 2002; Dahlstrom 1994; Dostal 1993; Overgaard 2003.)

2.2 Division 1

2.2.1 The Question

Let's back up in order to bring Heidegger's central concern into better view. (The ‘way in’ to Being and Time that I am about to present follows Gelven 1989 6–7.) Consider some philosophical problems that will be familiar from introductory metaphysics classes: Does the table that I think I see before me exist? Does God exist? Does mind, conceived as an entity distinct from body, exist? These questions have the following form: does x (where x = some particular kind of thing) exist? Questions of this form presuppose that we already know what ‘to exist’ means. We typically don't even notice this presupposition. But Heidegger does, which is why he raises the more fundamental question: what does ‘to exist’ mean? This is one way of asking what Heidegger calls the question of the meaning of Being, and Being and Time is an investigation into that question.

Many of Heidegger's translators capitalize the word ‘Being’ (Sein) to mark what, in the Basic Problems of Phenomenology, Heidegger will later call the ontological difference, the crucial distinction between Being and beings (entities). The question of the meaning of Being is concerned with what it is that makes beings intelligible as beings, and whatever that factor (Being) is, it is seemingly not itself simply another being among beings. Unfortunately the capitalization of ‘Being’ also has the disadvantage of suggesting that Being is, as Sheehan (2001) puts it, an ethereal metaphysical something that lies beyond entities, what he calls ‘Big Being’. But to think of Being in this way would be to commit the very mistake that the capitalization is supposed to help us avoid. For while Being is always the Being of some entity, Being is not itself some kind of higher-order being waiting to be discovered. As long as we remain alert to this worry, we can follow the otherwise helpful path of capitalization.

According to Heidegger, the question of the meaning of Being, and thus Being as such, has been forgotten by ‘the tradition’ (roughly, Western philosophy from Plato onwards). Heidegger means by this that the history of Western thought has failed to heed the ontological difference, and so has articulated Being precisely as a kind of ultimate being, as evidenced by a series of namings of Being, for example as idea, energeia, substance, monad or will to power. In this way Being as such has been forgotten. So Heidegger sets himself the task of recovering the question of the meaning of Being. In this context he draws two distinctions between different kinds of inquiry. The first, which is just another way of expressing the ontological difference, is between the ontical and the ontological, where the former is concerned with facts about entities and the latter is concerned with the meaning of Being, with how entities are intelligible as entities. Using this technical language, we can put the point about the forgetting of Being as such by saying that the history of Western thought is characterized by an ‘onticization’ of Being (by the practice of treating Being as a being). However, as Heidegger explains, here in the words of Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, “an ontic knowledge can never alone direct itself ‘to’ the objects, because without the ontological… it can have no possible Whereto” (translation taken from Overgaard 2002, p.76, note 7). The second distinction between different kinds of inquiry, drawn within the category of the ontological, is between regional ontology and fundamental ontology, where the former is concerned with the ontologies of particular domains, say biology or banking, and the latter is concerned with the a priori, transcendental conditions that make possible particular modes of Being (i.e., particular regional ontologies). For Heidegger, the ontical presupposes the regional-ontological, which in turn presupposes the fundamental-ontological. As he puts it:


The question of Being aims… at ascertaining the a priori conditions not only for the possibility of the sciences which examine beings as beings of such and such a type, and, in doing so, already operate with an understanding of Being, but also for the possibility of those ontologies themselves which are prior to the ontical sciences and which provide their foundations. Basically, all ontology, no matter how rich and firmly compacted a system of categories it has as its disposal, remains blind and perverted from its ownmost aim, if it has not first adequately clarified the meaning of Being, and conceived this clarification as its fundamental task. (Being and Time 3: 31) (References to Being and Time will be given in the form of ‘section: page number’, where ‘page number’ refers to the widely used Macquarrie and Robinson English translation.)

So how do we carry out fundamental ontology, and thus answer the question of the meaning of Being? It is here that Heidegger introduces the notion of Dasein (Da-sein: there-being). One proposal for how to think about the term ‘Dasein’ is that it is Heidegger's label for the distinctive mode of Being realized by human beings (for this reading, see e.g., Brandom 2002, 325). Haugeland (2005, 422) complains that this interpretation clashes unhelpfully with Heidegger's identification of care as the Being of Dasein, given Heidegger's prior stipulation that Being is always the Being of some possible entity. To keep ‘Dasein’ on the right side of the ontological difference, then, we might conceive of it as Heidegger's term for the distinctive kind of entity that human beings as such are. This fits with many of Heidegger's explicit characterizations of Dasein (see e.g., Being and Time 2: 27, 3: 32), and it probably deserves to be called the standard view in the secondary literature (see e.g., Haugeland 2005 for an explicit supporting case). That said, one needs to be careful about precisely what sort of entity we are talking about here. For Dasein is not to be understood as ‘the biological human being’. Nor is it to be understood as ‘the person’. Haugeland (2005, 423) argues that Dasein is “a way of life shared by the members of some community”. (As Haugeland notes, there is an analogy here, one that Heidegger himself draws, with the way in which we might think of a language existing as an entity, that is, as a communally shared way of speaking.) This appeal to the community will assume a distinctive philosophical shape as the argument of Being and Time progresses.

The foregoing considerations bring an important question to the fore: what, according to Heidegger, is so special about human beings as such? Here there are broadly speaking two routes that one might take through the text of Being and Time. The first unfolds as follows. If we look around at beings in general—from particles to planets, ants to apes—it is human beings alone who are able to encounter the question of what it means to be (e.g., in moments of anxiety in which the world can appear meaning-less, more on which later). More specifically, it is human beings alone who (a) operate in their everyday activities with an understanding of Being (although, as we shall see, one which is pre-ontological, in that it is implicit and vague) and (b) are able to reflect upon what it means to be. This gives us a way of understanding statements such as “Dasein is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very Being, that Being is an issue for it” (Being and Time 4: 32). Mulhall, who tends to pursue this way of characterizing Dasein, develops the idea by explaining that while inanimate objects merely persist through time and while plants and non-human animals have their lives determined entirely by the demands of survival and reproduction, human beings lead their lives (Mulhall 2005, 15). In terms of its deep ontological structure, although not typically in terms of how it presents itself to the individual in consciousness, each moment in a human life constitutes a kind of branch-point at which a person ‘chooses’ a kind of life, a possible way to be. It is crucial to emphasize that one may, in the relevant sense, ‘choose’ an existing path simply by continuing unthinkingly along it, since in principle at least, and within certain limits, one always had, and still has, the capacity to take a different path. (This gives us a sense of human freedom, one that will be unpacked more carefully below.) This can all sound terribly inward-looking, but that is not Heidegger's intention. In a way that is about to become clearer, Dasein's projects and possibilities are essentially bound up with the ways in which other entities may become intelligible. Moreover, terms such as ‘lead’ and ‘choose’ must be interpreted in the light of Heidegger's account of care as the Being of Dasein (see later), an account that blunts any temptation to hear these terms in a manner that suggests inner deliberation or planning on the part of a reflective subject. (So perhaps Mulhall's point that human beings are distinctive in that they lead their lives would be better expressed as the observation that human beings are the nuclei of lives laying themselves out.)

The second route to an understanding of Dasein, and thus of what is special about human beings as such, emphasizes the link with the taking-as structure highlighted earlier. Sheehan (2001) develops just such a line of exegesis by combining two insights. The first is that the ‘Da’ of Da-sein may be profitably translated not as ‘there’ but as ‘open’. This openness is in turn to be understood as ‘the possibility of taking-as’ and thus as a preintellectual openness to Being that is necessary for us to encounter beings as beings in particular ways (e.g., practically, theoretically, aesthetically). Whether or not the standard translation of ‘Da’ as ‘there’ is incapable of doing justice to this idea is moot—one might express the same view by saying that to be Dasein is to be there, in the midst of entities making sense a certain way. Nevertheless, the term ‘openness’ does seem to provide a nicely graphic expression of the phenomenon in question. Sheehan's second insight, driven by a comment of Heidegger's in the Zollikon seminars to the effect that the verbal emphasis in ‘Da-sein’ is to be placed on the second syllable, is that the ‘sein’ of ‘Da-sein’ should be heard as ‘having-to-be’, in contrast with ‘occasionally or contingently is’. These dual insights lead to a characterization of Dasein as the having-to-be-open. In other words, Dasein (and so human beings as such) cannot but be open: it is a necessary characteristic of human beings (an a priori structure of our existential constitution, not an exercise of our wills) that we operate with the sense-making capacity to take-other-beings-as.

The two interpretative paths that we have just walked are not necessarily in conflict: in the words of Vallega-Neu (2003, 12), “in existing, Dasein occurs… as a transcending beyond beings into the disclosure of being as such, so that in this transcending not only its own possibilities of being [our first route] but also the being of other beings [our second route] is disclosed”. And this helps us to grasp the meaning of Heidegger's otherwise opaque claim that Dasein, and indeed only Dasein, exists, where existence is understood (via etymological considerations) as ek-sistence, that is, as a standing out. Dasein stands out in two senses, each of which corresponds to one of the two dimensions of our proposed interpretation. First, Dasein can stand back or ‘out’ from its own occurrence in the world and observe itself (see e.g., Gelven 1989, 49). Second, Dasein stands out in an openness to and an opening of Being (see e.g., Vallega-Neu 2004, 11–12).

As we have seen, it is an essential characteristic of Dasein that, in its ordinary ways of engaging with other entities, it operates with a preontological understanding of Being, that is, with a distorted or buried grasp of the a priori conditions that, by underpinning the taking-as structure, make possible particular modes of Being. This suggests that a disciplined investigation of those everyday modes of engagement on the part of Dasein (what Heidegger calls an “existential analytic of Dasein”) will be a first step towards revealing a shared but hidden underlying meaning of Being. Heidegger puts it like this:


whenever an ontology takes for its theme entities whose character of Being is other than that of Dasein, it has its own foundation and motivation in Dasein's own ontical structure, in which a pre-ontological understanding of Being is comprised as a definite characteristic… Therefore fundamental ontology, from which alone all other ontologies can take their rise, must be sought in the existential analytic of Dasein. (Being and Time 3: 33–4)

It is important to stress here that, in Heidegger's eyes, this prioritizing of Dasein does not lead to (what he calls) “a vicious subjectivizing of the totality of entities” (Being and Time 4: 34). This resistance towards any unpalatable anti-realism is an issue to which we shall return.

Dasein is, then, our primary ‘object’ of study, and our point of investigative departure is Dasein's everyday encounters with entities. But what sort of philosophical method is appropriate for the ensuing examination? Famously, Heidegger's adopted method is a species of phenomenology. In the Heideggerian framework, however, phenomenology is not to be understood (as it sometimes is) as the study of how things merely appear in experience. Rather, in a recognizably Kantian staging of the idea, Heidegger follows Husserl (1913/1983) in conceiving of phenomenology as a theoretical enterprise that takes ordinary experience as its point of departure, but which, through an attentive and sensitive examination of that experience, aims to reveal the a priori, transcendental conditions that shape and structure it. In Heidegger's Being-centred project, these are the conditions “which, in every kind of Being that factical Dasein may possess, persist as determinative for the character of its Being” (Being and Time 5: 38). Presupposed by ordinary experience, these structures must in some sense be present with that experience, but they are not simply available to be read off from its surface, hence the need for disciplined and careful phenomenological analysis to reveal them as they are. So far so good. But, in a departure from the established Husserlian position, one that demonstrates the influence of Dilthey, Heidegger claims that phenomenology is not just transcendental, it is hermeneutic (for discussion, see e.g., Caputo 1984, Kisiel 2002 chapter . In other words, its goal is always to deliver an interpretation of Being, an interpretation that, on the one hand, is guided by certain historically embedded ways of thinking (ways of taking-as reflected in Dasein's preontological understanding of Being) that the philosopher as Dasein and as interpreter brings to the task, and, on the other hand, is ceaselessly open to revision, enhancement and replacement. For Heidegger, this hermeneutic structure is not a limitation on understanding, but a precondition of it, and philosophical understanding (conceived as fundamental ontology) is no exception. Thus Being and Time itself has a spiral structure in which a sequence of reinterpretations produces an ever more illuminating comprehension of Being. As Heidegger puts it later in the text:


What is decisive is not to get out of the circle but to come into it the right way… In the circle is hidden a positive possibility of the most primordial kind of knowing. To be sure, we genuinely take hold of this possibility only when, in our interpretation, we have understood that our first, last and constant task is never to allow our fore-having, fore-sight and fore-conception to be presented to us by fancies and popular conceptions, but rather to make the scientific theme secure by working out these fore-structures in terms of the things themselves. (Being and Time 32: 195)

On the face of it, the hermeneutic conception of phenomenology sits unhappily with a project that aims to uncover the a priori transcendental conditions that make possible particular modes of Being (which is arguably one way of glossing the project of “working out [the] fore-structures [of understanding] in terms of the things themselves”). And this is a tension that, it seems fair to say, is never fully resolved within the pages of Being and Time. The best we can do is note that, by the end of the text, the transcendental has itself become historically embedded. More on that below. What is also true is that there is something of a divide in certain areas of contemporary Heidegger scholarship over whether one should emphasize the transcendental dimension of Heidegger's phenomenology (e.g., Crowell 2001, Crowell and Malpas 2007) or the hermeneutic dimension (e.g., Kisiel 2002).

2.2.2 Modes of Encounter

How, then, does the existential analytic unfold? Heidegger argues that we ordinarily encounter entities as (what he calls) equipment, that is, as being for certain sorts of tasks (cooking, writing, hair-care, and so on). Indeed we achieve our most primordial (closest) relationship with equipment not by looking at the entity in question, or by some detached intellectual or theoretical study of it, but rather by skillfully manipulating it in a hitch-free manner. Entities so encountered have their own distinctive kind of Being that Heidegger famously calls readiness-to-hand. Thus:


The less we just stare at the hammer-thing, and the more we seize hold of it and use it, the more primordial does our relationship to it become, and the more unveiledly is it encountered as that which it is—as equipment. The hammering itself uncovers the specific ‘manipulability’ of the hammer. The kind of Being which equipment possesses—in which it manifests itself in its own right—we call ‘readiness-to-hand’. (Being and Time 15: 98)

Readiness-to-hand has a distinctive phenomenological signature. While engaged in hitch-free skilled activity, Dasein has no conscious experience of the items of equipment in use as independent objects (i.e., as the bearers of determinate properties that exist independently of the Dasein-centred context of action in which the equipmental entity is involved). Thus, while engaged in trouble-free hammering, the skilled carpenter has no conscious recognition of the hammer, the nails, or the work-bench, in the way that one would if one simply stood back and thought about them. Tools-in-use become phenomenologically transparent. Moreover, Heidegger claims, not only are the hammer, nails, and work-bench in this way not part of the engaged carpenter's phenomenal world, neither, in a sense, is the carpenter. The carpenter becomes absorbed in his activity in such a way that he has no awareness of himself as a subject over and against a world of objects. Crucially, it does not follow from this analysis that Dasein's behaviour in such contexts is automatic, in the sense of there being no awareness present at all, but rather that the awareness that is present (what Heidegger calls circumspection) is non-subject-object in form. Phenomenologically speaking, then, there are no subjects and no objects; there is only the experience of the ongoing task (e.g., hammering).

Heidegger, then, denies that the categories of subject and object characterize our most basic way of encountering entities. He maintains, however, that they apply to a derivative kind of encounter. When Dasein engages in, for example, the practices of natural science, when sensing takes place purely in the service of reflective or philosophical contemplation, or when philosophers claim to have identified certain context-free metaphysical building blocks of the universe (e.g., points of pure extension, monads), the entities under study are phenomenologically removed from the settings of everyday equipmental practice and are thereby revealed as fully fledged independent objects, that is, as the bearers of certain context-general determinate or measurable properties (size in metres, weight in kilos etc.). Heidegger calls this mode of Being presence-at-hand, and he sometimes refers to present-at-hand entities as ‘Things’. With this phenomenological transformation in the mode of Being of entities comes a corresponding transformation in the mode of Being of Dasein. Dasein becomes a subject, one whose project is to explain and predict the behaviour of an independent, objective universe. Encounters with the present-at-hand are thus fundamentally subject-object in structure.

The final phenomenological category identified during the first phase of the existential analytic is what Heidegger calls un-readiness-to-hand. This mode of Being of entities emerges when skilled practical activity is disturbed by broken or malfunctioning equipment, discovered-to-be-missing equipment, or in-the-way equipment. When encountered as un-ready-to-hand, entities are no longer phenomenologically transparent. However, they are not yet the fully fledged objects of the present-at-hand, since their broken, malfunctioning, missing or obstructive status is defined relative to a particular equipmental context. The combination of two key passages illuminates this point: First:


[The] presence-at-hand of something that cannot be used is still not devoid of all readiness-to-hand whatsoever; equipment which is present-at-hand in this way is still not just a Thing which occurs somewhere. The damage to the equipment is still not a mere alteration of a Thing—not a change of properties which just occurs in something present-at-hand. (Being and Time 16: 103)

And second:


When something cannot be used—when, for instance, a tool definitely refuses to work—it can be conspicuous only in and for dealings in which something is manipulated. (Being and Time 68: 406)

Thus a driver does not encounter a punctured tyre as a lump of rubber of measurable mass; she encounters it as a damaged item of equipment, that is, as the cause of a temporary interruption to her driving activity. With such disturbances to skilled activity, Dasein emerges as a practical problem solver whose context-embedded actions are directed at restoring smooth skilled activity.

Although Heidegger does not put things this way, the complex intermediate realm of the un-ready-to-hand is seemingly best thought of as a spectrum of cases characterized by different modes and degrees of engagement/disengagement. Much of the time Dasein's practical problem solving will involve recovery strategies (e.g., switching to a different mode of transport) which preserve the marks of fluid and flexible know-how that are present in ready-to-hand contexts. In the limit, however (e.g., when a mechanic uses his theoretical knowledge of how cars work to guide a repair), Dasein's problem solving activity will begin to approximate the theoretical reasoning distinctive of scientific inquiry into present-at-hand entities. But even here Dasein is not ‘just theorizing’ or ‘just looking’, so it is not yet, in Heidegger's terms, a pure disengaged subject. With this spectrum of cases in view, it is possible to glimpse a potential worry for Heidegger's account. Cappuccio and Wheeler (2010; see also Wheeler 2005, 143) argue that the situation of wholly transparent readiness-to-hand is something of an ideal state. Skilled activity is never (or very rarely) perfectly smooth. Moreover, minimal subjective activity (such as a nonconceptual awareness of certain spatially situated movements by my body) produces a background noise that never really disappears. Thus a distinction between Dasein and its environment is, to some extent, preserved, and this distinction arguably manifests the kind of minimal subject-object dichotomy that is characteristic of those cases of un-readiness-to-hand that lie closest to readiness-to-hand.

On the interpretation of Heidegger just given, Dasein's access to the world is only intermittently that of a representing subject. An alternative reading, according to which Dasein always exists as a subject relating to the world via representations, is defended by Christensen (1997, 1998). Christensen targets Dreyfus (1990) as a prominent and influential exponent of the intermittent-subject view. Among other criticisms, Christensen accuses Dreyfus of mistakenly hearing Heidegger's clear rejection of the thought that Dasein's access to the world is always theoretical (or theory-like) in character as being, at the same time, a rejection of the thought that Dasein's access to the world is always in the mode of a representing subject; but, argues Christensen, there may be non-theoretical forms of the subject-world relation, so the claim that Heidegger advocated the second rejection is not established by pointing out that he advocated the first. Let's assume that Christensen is right about this. The supporter of the intermittent-subject view might still argue that although Heidegger holds that Dasein sometimes emerges as a subject whose access to the world is non-theoretical (plausibly, in certain cases of un-readiness-to-hand), there is other textual evidence, beyond that which indicates the non-theoretical character of hitch-free skilled activity, to suggest that readiness-to-hand must remain non-subject-object in form. Whether or not there is such evidence would then need to be settled.

2.2.3 Being-in-the-World

What the existential analytic has given us so far is a phenomenological description of Dasein's within-the-world encounters with entities. The next clarification concerns the notion of world and the associated within-ness of Dasein. Famously, Heidegger writes of Dasein as Being-in-the-world. In effect, then, the notion of Being-in-the-world provides us with a reinterpretation of the activity of existing (Dreyfus 1990, 40), where existence is given the narrow reading (ek-sistence) identified earlier. Understood as a unitary phenomenon (as opposed to a contingent, additive, tripartite combination of Being, in-ness, and the world), Being-in-the-world is an essential characteristic of Dasein. As Heidegger explains:


Being-in is not a ‘property’ which Dasein sometimes has and sometimes does not have, and without which it could just be just as well as it could be with it. It is not the case that man ‘is’ and then has, by way of an extra, a relationship-of-Being towards the ‘world’—a world with which he provides himself occasionally. Dasein is never ‘proximally’ an entity which is, so to speak, free from Being-in, but which sometimes has the inclination to take up a ‘relationship’ towards the world. Taking up relationships towards the world is possible only because Dasein, as Being-in-the-world, is as it is. This state of Being does not arise just because some entity is present-at-hand outside of Dasein and meets up with it. Such an entity can ‘meet up with’ Dasein only in so far as it can, of its own accord, show itself within a world. (Being and Time 12: 84)

As this passage makes clear, the Being-in dimension of Being-in-the-world cannot be thought of as a merely spatial relation in some sense that might be determined by a GPS device, since Dasein is never just present-at-hand within the world in the way demanded by that sort of spatial in-ness. Heidegger sometimes uses the term dwelling to capture the distinctive manner in which Dasein is in the world. To dwell in a house is not merely to be inside it spatially in the sense just canvassed. Rather, it is to belong there, to have a familiar place there. It is in this sense that Dasein is (essentially) in the world. (Heidegger will later introduce an existential notion of spatiality that does help to illuminate the sense in which Dasein is in the world. More on that below.) So now, what is the world such that Dasein (essentially) dwells in it? To answer this question we need to spend some time unpacking the Heideggerian concept of an ‘involvement’ (Bewandtnis).

The German term Bewandtnis is extremely difficult to translate in a way that captures all its native nuances (for discussion, see Tugendhat 1967; thanks to a reviewer for emphasizing this point). And things are made more complicated by the fact that, during his exposition, Heidegger freely employs a number of closely related notions, including ‘assignment’, ‘indication’ and ‘reference’. Nevertheless, what is clear is that Heidegger introduces the term that Macquarrie and Robinson translate as ‘involvement’ to express the roles that equipmental entities play—the ways in which they are involved—in Dasein's everyday patterns of activity. Crucially, for Heidegger, an involvement is not a stand-alone structure, but rather a link in a network of intelligibility that he calls a totality of involvements. Take the stock Heideggerian example: the hammer is involved in an act of hammering; that hammering is involved in making something fast; and that making something fast is involved in protecting the human agent against bad weather. Such totalities of involvements are the contexts of everyday equipmental practice. As such, they define equipmental entities, so the hammer is intelligible as what it is only with respect to the shelter and, indeed, all the other items of equipment to which it meaningfully relates in Dasein's everyday practices. This relational ontology generates what Brandom (1983, 391–3) calls Heidegger's ‘strong systematicity condition’, as given voice in Heidegger's striking claim that “[t]aken strictly, there ‘is’ no such thing as an equipment” (Being and Time, 15: 97). And this radical holism spreads, because once one begins to trace a path through a network of involvements, one will inevitably traverse vast regions of involvement-space. Thus links will be traced not only from hammers to hammering to making fast to protection against the weather, but also from hammers to pulling out nails to dismantling wardrobes to moving house. This behaviour will refer back to many other behaviours (packing, van-driving) and thus to many other items of equipment (large boxes, removal vans), and so on. The result is a large-scale holistic network of interconnected relational significance. Such networks constitute worlds, in one of Heidegger's key senses of the term—an ontical sense that he describes as having a pre-ontological signification (Being and Time 14: 93).

Before a second key sense of the Heideggerian notion of world is revealed, some important detail can be added to the emerging picture. Heidegger points out that involvements are not uniform structures. Thus I am currently working with a computer (a with-which), in the practical context of my office (an in-which), in order to write this encyclopedia entry (an in-order-to), which is aimed towards presenting an introduction to Heidegger's philosophy (a towards-this), for the sake of my academic work, that is, for the sake of my being an academic (a for-the-sake-of-which). The final involvement here, the for-the-sake-of-which, is crucial, because according to Heidegger all totalities of involvements have a link of this type at their base. This forges a connection between (i) the idea that each moment in Dasein's existence constitutes a branch-point at which it chooses a way to be, and (ii) the claim that Dasein's projects and possibilities are essentially bound up with the ways in which other entities may become intelligible. This is because every for-the-sake-of-which is the base structure of an equipment-defining totality of involvements and reflects a possible way for Dasein to be (an academic, a carpenter, a parent, or whatever). Moreover, given that entities are intelligible only within contexts of activity that, so to speak, arrive with Dasein, this helps to explain Heidegger's claim (Being and Time 16: 107) that, in encounters with entities, the world is something with which Dasein is always already familiar. Finally, it puts further flesh on the phenomenological category of the un-ready-to-hand. Thus when I am absorbed in trouble-free typing, the computer and the role that it plays in my academic activity are transparent aspects of my experience. But if the computer crashes, I become aware of it as an entity with which I was working in the practical context of my office, in order to write an encyclopedia entry aimed towards presenting an introduction to Heidegger's philosophy. And I become aware of the fact that my behaviour is being organized for the sake of my being an academic. So disturbances have the effect of exposing totalities of involvements and, therefore, worlds. (For a second way in which worlds are phenomenologically ‘lit up’, see Heidegger's analysis of signs (Being and Time 17:107–114); for discussion, see Dreyfus 1990, 100–2, Cappuccio and Wheeler 2010.)

As already indicated, Heidegger sometimes uses the expression ‘world’ in a different key sense, to designate what he calls the “ontologico-existential concept of worldhood” (Being and Time 14: 93). At this point in the existential analytic, worldhood is usefully identified as the abstract network mode of organizational configuration that is shared by all concrete totalities of involvements. We shall see, however, that as the hermeneutic spiral of the text unfolds, the notion of worldhood is subject to a series of reinterpretations until, finally, its deep structure gets played out in terms of temporality.

2.2.4 The Critique of Cartesianism

Having completed what we might think of as the first phase of the existential analytic, Heidegger uses its results to launch an attack on one of the front-line representatives of the tradition, namely Descartes. This is the only worked-through example in Being and Time itself of what Heidegger calls the destruction (Destruktion) of the Western philosophical tradition, a process that was supposed to be a prominent theme in the ultimately unwritten second part of the text. The aim is to show that although the tradition takes theoretical knowledge to be primary, such knowledge (the prioritization of which is an aspect of the ‘onticization’ of Being mentioned earlier) presupposes the more fundamental openness to Being that Heidegger has identified as an essential characteristic of Dasein.

According to Heidegger, Descartes presents the world to us “with its skin off” (Being and Time 20: 132), i.e., as a collection of present-at-hand entities to be encountered by subjects. The consequence of this prioritizing of the present-at-hand is that the subject needs to claw itself into a world of equipmental meaning by adding what Heidegger calls ‘value-predicates’ (context-dependent meanings) to the present-at-hand. In stark contrast, Heidegger's own view is that Dasein is in primary epistemic contact not with context-independent present-at-hand primitives (e.g., raw sense data, such as a ‘pure’ experience of a patch of red), to which context-dependent meaning would need to be added via value-predicates, but rather with equipment, the kind of entity whose mode of Being is readiness-to-hand and which therefore comes already laden with context-dependent significance. What is perhaps Heidegger's best statement of this opposition comes later in Being and Time.


What we ‘first’ hear is never noises or complexes of sounds, but the creaking waggon, the motor-cycle. We hear the column on the march, the north wind, the woodpecker tapping, the fire crackling… It requires a very artificial and complicated frame of mind to ‘hear’ a ‘pure noise’. The fact that motor-cycles and waggons are what we proximally hear is the phenomenal evidence that in every case Dasein, as Being-in-the-world, already dwells alongside what is ready-to-hand within-the-world; it certainly does not dwell proximally alongside ‘sensations’; nor would it first have to give shape to the swirl of sensations to provide a springboard from which the subject leaps off and finally arrives at a ‘world’. Dasein, as essentially understanding, is proximally alongside what is understood. (Being and Time 34: 207)

For Heidegger, then, we start not with the present-at-hand, moving to the ready-to-hand by adding value-predicates, but with the ready-to-hand, moving to the present-at-hand by stripping away the holistic networks of everyday equipmental meaning. It seems clear, then, that our two positions are diametrically opposed to each other, but why should we favour Heidegger's framework over Descartes'? Heidegger's flagship argument here is that the systematic addition of value-predicates to present-at-hand primitives cannot transform our encounters with those objects into encounters with equipment. It comes in the following brief but dense passage: “Adding on value-predicates cannot tell us anything at all new about the Being of goods, but would merely presuppose again that goods have pure presence-at-hand as their kind of Being. Values would then be determinate characteristics which a thing possesses, and they would be present-at-hand”(Being and Time 21: 132). In other words, once we have assumed that we begin with the present-at-hand, values must take the form of determinate features of objects, and therefore constitute nothing but more present-at-hand structures. And if you add more present-at-hand structures to some existing present-at-hand structures, what you end up with is not equipmental meaning (totalities of involvements) but merely a larger number of present-at-hand structures.

Heidegger's argument here is (at best) incomplete (for discussion, see Dreyfus 1990, Wheeler 2005). The defender of Cartesianism might concede that present-at-hand entities have determinate properties, but wonder why the fact that an entity has determinate properties is necessarily an indication of presence-at-hand. On this view, having determinate properties is necessary but not sufficient for an entity to be present-at-hand. More specifically, she might wonder why involvements cannot be thought of as determinate features that entities possess just when they are embedded in certain contexts of use. Consider for example the various involvements specified in the academic writing context described earlier. They certainly seem to be determinate, albeit context-relative, properties of the computer. Of course, the massively holistic character of totalities of involvements would make the task of specifying the necessary value-predicates (say, as sets of internal representations) incredibly hard, but it is unclear that it makes that task impossible. So it seems as if Heidegger doesn't really develop his case in sufficient detail. However, Dreyfus (1990) pursues a response that Heidegger might have given, one that draws on the familiar philosophical distinction between knowing-how and knowing-that. It seems that value-predicates constitute a form of knowing-that (i.e., knowing that an entity has a certain context-dependent property) whereas the circumspective knowledge of totalities of involvements (Dasein's skilled practical activity) constitutes a form of knowing-how (i.e., knowing how to use equipment in appropriate ways; see the characterization of readiness-to-hand given earlier). Given the plausible (although not universally held) assumption that knowing-how cannot be reduced to knowledge-that, this would explain why value-predicates are simply the wrong sort of structures to capture the phenomenon of world-embeddedness.

2.2.5 Spatiality

In the wake of his critique of Cartesianism, Heidegger turns his attention to spatiality. He argues that Dasein dwells in the world in a spatial manner, but that the spatiality in question—Dasein's existential spatiality—cannot be a matter of Dasein being located at a particular co-ordinate in physical, Cartesian space. That would be to conceive of Dasein as present-at-hand, and presence-at-hand is a mode of Being that can belong only to entities other than Dasein. According to Heidegger, the existential spatiality of Dasein is characterized most fundamentally by what he calls de-severance, a bringing close. “ ‘De-severing’ amounts to making the farness vanish—that is, making the remoteness of something disappear, bringing it close” (Being and Time: 23: 139). This is of course not a bringing close in the sense of reducing physical distance, although it may involve that. Heidegger's proposal is that spatiality as de-severance is in some way (exactly how is a matter of subtle interpretation; see e.g., Malpas 2006) intimately related to the ‘reach’ of Dasein's skilled practical activity. For example, an entity is ‘near by’ if it is readily available for some such activity, and ‘far away’ if it is not, whatever physical distances may be involved. Given the Dasein-world relationship highlighted above, the implication (drawn explicitly by Heidegger, see Being and Time 22: 136) is that the spatiality distinctive of equipmental entities, and thus of the world, is not equivalent to physical, Cartesian space. Equipmental space is a matter of pragmatically determined regions of functional places, defined by Dasein-centred totalities of involvements (e.g., an office with places for the computers, the photocopier, and so on—places that are defined by the way in which they make these equipmental entities available in the right sort of way for skilled activity). For Heidegger, physical, Cartesian space is possible as something meaningful for Dasein only because Dasein has de-severance as one of its existential characteristics. Given the intertwining of de-severance and equipmental space, this licenses the radical view (one that is consistent with Heidegger's prior treatment of Cartesianism) that physical, Cartesian space (as something that we can find intelligible) presupposes equipmental space; the former is the present-at-hand phenomenon that is revealed if we strip away the worldhood from the latter.

Malpas (forthcoming) rejects the account of spatiality given in Being and Time. Drawing on Kant, he argues that “[any] agent, insofar as it is capable of action at all (that is, insofar as it is, indeed, an agent), acts in a space that is an objective space, in which other agents also act, and yet which is always immediately configured subjectively in terms of the agent's own oriented locatedness” (Malpas forthcoming, 14). According to Malpas, then, equipmental space (a space ordered in terms of practical activity and within which an agent acts) presupposes a more fundamental notion of space as a complex unity with objective, intersubjective and subjective dimensions. If this is right, then of course equipmental space cannot itself explain the spatial. A further problem, as Malpas also notes, is that the whole issue of spatiality brings into sharp focus the awkward relationship that Heidegger has with the body in Being and Time. In what is now a frequently quoted remark, Heidegger sets aside Dasein's embodiment, commenting that “this ‘bodily nature’ hides a whole problematic of its own, though we shall not treat it here” (Being and Time 23: 143). Indeed, at times, Heidegger might be interpreted as linking embodiment with Thinghood. For example: “[as] Dasein goes along its ways, it does not measure off a stretch of space as a corporeal Thing which is present-at-hand” (Being and Time 23: 140). Here one might plausibly contain the spread of presence-at-hand by appealing to a distinction between material (present-at-hand) and lived (existential) ways in which Dasein is embodied. Unfortunately this distinction isn't made in Being and Time (a point noted by Ricouer 1992, 327), although Heidegger does adopt it in the much later Seminar in Le Thor (see Malpas forthcoming, 5). What seems clear, however, is that while the Heidegger of Being and Time seems to hold that Dasein's embodiment somehow depends on its existential spatiality (see e.g., 23: 143), the more obvious thing to say is that Dasein's existential spatiality somehow depends on its embodiment.

Before leaving this issue, it is worth noting briefly that space reappears later in Being and Time (70: 418–21), where Heidegger argues that existential space is derived from temporality. This makes sense within Heidegger's overall project, because, as we shall see, the deep structure of totalities of involvements (and thus of equipmental space) is finally understood in terms of temporality. Nevertheless, and although the distinctive character of Heidegger's concept of temporality needs to be recognized, there is reason to think that the dependency here may well travel in the opposite direction. The worry, as Malpas (forthcoming, 26) again points out, has a Kantian origin. Kant (1781/1999) argued that the temporal character of inner sense is possible only because it is mediated by outer intuition whose form is space. If this is right, and if we can generalize appropriately, then the temporality that matters to Heidegger will be dependent on existential spatiality, and not the other way round. All in all, one is tempted to conclude that Heidegger's treatment of spatiality in Being and Time, and (relatedly) his treatment (or lack of it) of the body, face serious difficulties.

I continue to emphasize that this thread is just the beginning. It merely lays the groundwork for that which is to come. It involves a conditioning process which is frankly a mixture of sanity and insanity. It is intended as a mental and spiritual exercise. At this point, I'm just about ready to just focus on astronomy and sacred classical music -- and let everything else go. Perhaps I've paid my dues -- dealing with the devil -- and perhaps now it is time for me to deal exclusively with that which is heavenly. If there is any merit to my previous posting -- hopefully the right individuals will take things to the next level. Anyway, here is more Martin Heidegger. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/ Perhaps studying Heidegger is a reasonable back-door approach to studying the Third Reich. Who knows??

2.2.6 Being-with

Heidegger turns next to the question of “who it is that Dasein is in its everydayness” (Being and Time, Introduction to IV: 149). He rejects the idea of Dasein as a Cartesian ‘I-thing’ (the Cartesian thinking thing conceived as a substance), since once again this would be to think of Dasein as present-at-hand. In searching for an alternative answer, Heidegger observes that equipment is often revealed to us as being for the sake of (the lives and projects of) other Dasein.

The boat anchored at the shore is assigned in its Being-in-itself to an acquaintance who undertakes voyages with it; but even if it is a ‘boat which is strange to us’, it still is indicative of Others. The Others who are thus ‘encountered’ in a ready-to-hand, environmental context of equipment, are not somehow added on in thought to some Thing which is proximally just present-at-hand; such ‘Things’ are encountered from out of a world in which they are ready-to-hand for Others—a world which is always mine too in advance. (Being and Time 26: 154)

On the basis of such observations, Heidegger argues that to be Dasein at all means to Be-with: “So far as Dasein is at all, it has Being-with-one-another as its kind of Being” (Being and Time 26: 163). One's immediate response to this might be that it is just false. After all, ordinary experience establishes that each of us is often alone. But of course Heidegger is thinking in an ontological register. Being-with (Mitsein) is thus the a priori transcendental condition that makes it possible that Dasein can discover equipment in this Other-related fashion. And it's because Dasein has Being-with as one of its essential modes of Being that everyday Dasein can experience being alone. Being-with is thus the a priori transcendental condition for loneliness.

It is important to understand what Heidegger means by ‘Others’, a term that he uses interchangeably with the more evocative ‘the “they” ’ (das Man). He explains:

By ‘Others’ we do not mean everyone else but me—those over against whom the ‘I’ stands out. They are rather those from whom, for the most part, one does not distinguish oneself—those among whom one is too… By reason of this with-like Being-in-the-world, the world is always the one that I share with Others. (Being and Time 26: 154–5)

A piece of data (cited by Dreyfus 1990) helps to illuminate this idea. Each society seems to have its own sense of what counts as an appropriate distance to stand from someone during verbal communication, and this varies depending on whether the other person is a lover, a friend, a colleague, or a business acquaintance, and on whether communication is taking place in noisy or quiet circumstances. Such standing-distance practices are of course normative, in that they involve a sense of what one should and shouldn't do. And the norms in question are culturally specific. So what this example illustrates is that the phenomenon of the Others, the ‘who’ of everyday Dasein, the group from whom for the most part I do not stand out, is my culture, understood not as the sum of all its members, but as an ontological phenomenon in its own right. This explains the following striking remark. “The ‘who’ is not this one, not that one, not oneself, not some people, and not the sum of them all. The ‘who’ is the neuter, the ‘they’ ” (Being and Time 27: 164). Another way to capture this idea is to say that what I do is determined largely by ‘what one does’, and ‘what one does’ is something that I absorb in various ways from my culture. Thus Dreyfus (1990) prefers to translate das Man not as ‘the “they” ’, but as ‘the one’.

This all throws important light on the phenomenon of world, since we can now see that the crucial for-the-sake-of-which structure that stands at the base of each totality of involvements is culturally and historically conditioned. The specific ways in which I behave for the sake of being an academic are what one does if one wants to be considered a good academic, at this particular time, in this particular historically embedded culture (carrying out research, tutoring students, giving lectures, and so on). As Heidegger himself puts the point: “Dasein is for the sake of the ‘they’ in an everyday manner, and the ‘they’ itself articulates the referential context of significance” (Being and Time 27: 167). Worlds (the referential context of significance, networks of involvements) are then culturally and historically conditioned, from which several things seem to follow. First, Dasein's everyday world is, in the first instance, and of its very essence, a shared world. Second, Being-with and Being-in-the-world are, if not equivalent, deeply intertwined. And third, the sense in which worlds are Dasein-dependent involves some sort of cultural relativism, although, as we shall see later, this final issue is one that needs careful interpretative handling.

Critics of the manner in which Heidegger develops the notion of Being-with have often focussed, albeit in different ways, on the thought that Heidegger either ignores or misconceives the fundamental character of our social existence by passing over its grounding in direct interpersonal interaction (see e.g., Löwith 1928, Binswanger 1943/1964, Gallagher and Jacobson forthcoming). From this perspective, the equipmentally mediated discovery of others that Heidegger sometimes describes (see above) is at best a secondary process that reveals other people only to the extent that they are relevant to Dasein's practical projects. Moreover, Olafson (1987) argues that although Heidegger's account clearly involves the idea that Dasein discovers socially shared equipmental meaning (which then presumably supports the discovery of other Dasein along with equipment), that account fails to explain why this must be the case. Processes of direct interpersonal contact (e.g., in learning the use of equipment from others) might plausibly fill this gap. The obvious move for Heidegger to make here is to claim that the processes that the critics find to be missing from his account, although genuine, are not a priori, transcendental structures of Dasein. Rather, they are psychological factors that enable (in a ‘merely’ developmental or causal way) human beings to realize the phenomenon of Being-with (see e.g., Heidegger's response to the existentialist psychologist and therapist Binswanger in the Zollikon seminars, and see Dreyfus 1990, chapter 8, for a response to Olafson that exploits this point). However, one might wonder whether it is plausible to relegate the social processes in question to the status of ‘mere’ enabling factors (Gallagher and Jacobson forthcoming; Pöggeler 1989 might be read as making a similar complaint). If not, then Heidegger's notion of Being-with is at best an incomplete account of our social Being.

2.2.7 Care

The introduction of the ‘they’ is followed by a further layer of interpretation in which Heidegger understands Being-in-the-world in terms of (what he calls) thrownness, projection and fallen-ness, and (interrelatedly) in terms of Dasein as a dynamic combination of disposedness, understanding and fascination with the world. In effect, this is a reformulation of the point that Dasein is the having-to-be-open, i.e., that it is an a priori structure of our existential constitution that we operate with the capacity to take-other-beings-as. Dasein's existence (ek-sistence) is thus now to be understood by way of an interconnected pair of three-dimensional unitary structures: thrownness-projection-fallen-ness and disposedness-understanding-fascination. Each of these can be used to express the “formally existential totality of Dasein's ontological structural whole” (Being and Time 42: 237), a phenomenon that Heidegger also refers to as disclosedness or care. Crucially, it is with the configuration of care that we encounter the first tentative emergence of temporality as a theme in Being and Time, since the dimensionality of care will ultimately be interpreted in terms of the three temporal dimensions: past (thrownness/disposedness), future (projection/understanding), and present (fallen-ness/fascination).

As Dasein, I ineluctably find myself in a world that matters to me in some way or another. This is what Heidegger calls thrownness (Geworfenheit), a having-been-thrown into the world. ‘Disposedness’ is Kisiel's (2002) translation of Befindlichkeit, a term rendered somewhat infelicitously by Macquarrie and Robinson as ‘state-of-mind’. Disposedness is the receptiveness (the just finding things mattering to one) of Dasein, which explains why Richardson (1963) renders Befindlichkeit as ‘already-having-found-oneself-there-ness’. To make things less abstract, we can note that disposedness is the a priori transcendental condition for, and thus shows up pre-ontologically in, the everyday phenomenon of mood (Stimmung). According to Heidegger's analysis, I am always in some mood or other. Thus say I'm depressed, such that the world opens up (is disclosed) to me as a sombre and gloomy place. I might be able to shift myself out of that mood, but only to enter a different one, say euphoria or lethargy, a mood that will open up the world to me in a different way. As one might expect, Heidegger argues that moods are not inner subjective colourings laid over an objectively given world (which at root is why ‘state-of-mind’ is a potentially misleading translation of Befindlichkeit, given that this term names the underlying a priori condition for moods). For Heidegger, moods (and disposedness) are aspects of what it means to be in a world at all, not subjective additions to that in-ness. Here it is worth noting that some aspects of our ordinary linguistic usage reflect this anti-subjectivist reading. Thus we talk of being in a mood rather than a mood being in us, and we have no problem making sense of the idea of public moods (e.g., the mood of a crowd). In noting these features of moods we must be careful, however. It would be a mistake to conclude from them that moods are external, rather than internal, states. A mood “comes neither from ‘outside’ nor from ‘inside’, but arises out of Being-in-the-world, as a way of such being” (Being and Time 29: 176). Nevertheless, the idea that moods have a social character does point us towards a striking implication of Heidegger's overall framework: with Being-in-the-world identified previously as a kind of cultural co-embeddedness, it follows that the repertoire of world-disclosing moods in which I might find myself will itself be culturally conditioned. (For recent philosophical work that builds, in part, on Heidegger's treatment of moods, in order to identify and understand certain affective phenomena—dubbed ‘existential feelings’—that help us to understand various forms of psychiatric illness, see Ratcliffe 2008.)

Dasein confronts every concrete situation in which it finds itself (into which it has been thrown) as a range of possibilities for acting (onto which it may project itself). Insofar as some of these possibilities are actualized, others will not be, meaning that there is a sense in which not-Being (a set of unactualized possibilities of Being) is a structural component of Dasein's Being. Out of this dynamic interplay, Dasein emerges as a delicate balance of determination (thrownness) and freedom (projection). The projective possibilities available to Dasein are delineated by totalities of involvements, structures that, as we have seen, embody the culturally conditioned ways in which Dasein may inhabit the world. Understanding is the process by which Dasein projects itself onto such possibilities. Crucially, understanding as projection is not conceived, by Heidegger, as involving, in any fundamental way, conscious or deliberate forward-planning. Projection “has nothing to do with comporting oneself towards a plan that has been thought out” (Being and Time 31: 185). The primary realization of understanding is as skilled activity in the domain of the ready-to-hand, but it can be manifested as interpretation, when Dasein explicitly takes something as something (e.g., in cases of disturbance), and also as linguistic assertion, when Dasein uses language to attribute a definite character to an entity as a mere present-at-hand object. (NB: assertion of the sort indicated here is of course just one linguistic practice among many; it does not in any way exhaust the phenomenon of language or its ontological contribution.) Another way of putting the point that culturally conditioned totalities of involvements define the space of Dasein's projection onto possibilities is to say that such totalities constitute the fore-structures of Dasein's practices of understanding and interpretation, practices that, as we have just seen, are projectively oriented manifestations of the taking-as activity that forms the existential core of Dasein's Being. What this tells us is that the hermeneutic circle is the “essential fore-structure of Dasein itself” (Being and Time 32: 195).

Thrownness and projection provide two of the three dimensions of care. The third is fallen-ness. “Dasein has, in the first instance, fallen away from itself as an authentic potentiality for Being its Self, and has fallen into the world” (Being and Time 38: 220). Such fallen-ness into the world is manifested in idle talk (roughly, conversing in a critically unexamined and unexamining way about facts and information while failing to use language to reveal their relevance), curiosity (a search for novelty and endless stimulation rather than belonging or dwelling), and ambiguity (a loss of any sensitivity to the distinction between genuine understanding and superficial chatter). Each of these aspects of fallen-ness involves a closing off or covering up of the world (more precisely, of any real understanding of the world) through a fascination with it. What is crucial here is that this world-obscuring process of fallen-ness/fascination, as manifested in idle talk, curiosity and ambiguity, is to be understood as Dasein's everyday mode of Being-with. In its everyday form, Being-with exhibits what Heidegger calls levelling or averageness—a “Being-lost in the publicness of the ‘they’ ” (Being and Time 38: 220). Here, in dramatic language, is how he makes the point.

In utilizing public means of transport and in making use of information services such as the newspaper, every Other is like the next. This Being-with-one-another dissolves one's own Dasein completely into a kind of Being of ‘the Others’, in such a way, indeed, that the Others, as distinguishable and explicit, vanish more and more. In this inconspicuousness and unascertainability, the real dictatorship of the ‘they’ is unfolded. We take pleasure and enjoy ourselves as they take pleasure; we read, see, and judge about literature and art as they see and judge; likewise we shrink back from the ‘great mass’ as they shrink back; we find ‘shocking’ what they find shocking. The ‘they’, which is nothing definite, and which all are, though not as the sum, prescribes the kind of Being of everydayness. (Being and Time 27: 164)

This analysis opens up a path to Heidegger's distinction between the authentic self and its inauthentic counterpart. At root, ‘authentic’ means ‘my own’. So the authentic self is the self that is mine (leading a life that, in a sense to be explained, is owned by me), whereas the inauthentic self is the fallen self, the self lost to the ‘they’. Hence we might call the authentic self the ‘mine-self’, and the inauthentic self the ‘they-self’, the latter term also serving to emphasize the point that fallen-ness is a mode of the self, not of others. Moreover, as a mode of the self, fallen-ness is not an accidental feature of Dasein, but rather part of Dasein's existential constitution. It is a dimension of care, which is the Being of Dasein. So, in the specific sense that fallen-ness (the they-self) is an essential part of our Being, we are ultimately each to blame for our own inauthenticity (Sheehan 2002). Of course, one shouldn't conclude from all this talk of submersion in the ‘they’ that a state of authenticity is to be achieved by re-establishing some version of a self-sufficient individual subject. As Heidegger puts it: “Authentic Being-one's-Self does not rest upon an exceptional condition of the subject, a condition that has been detached from the ‘they’; it is rather an existentiell modification of the ‘they’ ” (Being and Time 27: 168). So authenticity is not about being isolated from others, but rather about finding a different way of relating to others such that one is not lost to the they-self. It is in Division 2 of Being and Time that authenticity, so understood, becomes a central theme.

2.3 Division 2

2.3.1 Death

As the argument of Being and Time continues its ever-widening hermeneutic spiral into Division 2 of the text, Heidegger announces a twofold transition in the analysis. He argues that we should (i) pay proper heed to the thought that to understand Dasein we need to understand Dasein's existence as a whole, and (ii) shift the main focus of our attention from the inauthentic self (the they-self) to the authentic self (the mine-self) (Being and Time 45: 276). Both of these transitions figure in Heidegger's discussion of death.

So far, Dasein's existence has been understood as thrown projection plus falling. The projective aspect of this phenomenon means that, at each moment of its life, Dasein is Being-ahead-of-itself, oriented towards the realm of its possibilities, and is thus incomplete. Death completes Dasein's existence. Therefore, an understanding of Dasein's relation to death would make an essential contribution to our understanding of Dasein as a whole. But now a problem immediately presents itself: since one cannot experience one's own death, it seems that the kind of phenomenological analysis that has hitherto driven the argument of Being and Time breaks down, right at the crucial moment. One possible response to this worry, canvassed explicitly by Heidegger, is to suggest that Dasein understands death through experiencing the death of others. However, the sense in which we experience the death of others falls short of what is needed. We mourn departed others and miss their presence in the world. But that is to experience Being-with them as dead, which is a mode of our continued existence. As Heidegger explains:

The greater the phenomenal appropriateness with which we take the no-longer-Dasein of the deceased, the more plainly is it shown that in such Being-with the dead, the authentic Being-come-to-and-end of the deceased is precisely the sort of thing which we do not experience. Death does indeed reveal itself as a loss, but a loss such as is experienced by those who remain. In suffering this loss, however, we have no way of access to the loss-of-Being as such which the dying man ‘suffers’. The dying of Others is not something which we experience in a genuine sense; at most we are always just ‘there alongside’. (Being and Time 47: 282)

What we don't have, then, is phenomenological access to the loss of Being that the dead person has suffered. But that, it seems, is precisely what we would need in order to carry through the favoured analysis. So another response is called for. Heidegger's move is to suggest that although Dasein cannot experience its own death as actual, it can relate towards its own death as a possibility that is always before it—always before it in the sense that Dasein's own death is inevitable. Peculiarly among Dasein's possibilities, the possibility of Dasein's own death must remain only a possibility, since once it becomes actual, Dasein is no longer. Death is thus the “possibility of the impossibility of any existence at all” (Being and Time 53: 307). And it is this awareness of death as an omnipresent possibility that cannot become actual that stops the phenomenological analysis from breaking down. The detail here is crucial. What the failure of the ‘death of others’ strategy indicates is that in each instance death is inextricably tied to some specific individual Dasein. My death is mine in a radical sense; it is the moment at which all my relations to others disappear. Heidegger captures this non-relationality by using the term ‘ownmost’. And it is the idea of death “as that possibility which is one's ownmost” (Being and Time 50: 294) that engages the second transition highlighted above. When I take on board the possibility of my own not-Being, my own being-able-to-Be is brought into proper view. Hence my awareness of my own death as an omnipresent possibility discloses the authentic self (a self that is mine). Moreover, the very same awareness engages the first of the aforementioned transitions too: there is a sense in which the possibility of my not existing encompasses the whole of my existence (Hinman 1978, 201), and my awareness of that possibility illuminates me, qua Dasein, in my totality. Indeed, my own death is revealed to me as inevitable, meaning that Dasein is essentially finite. This explains why Heidegger says that death is disclosed to Dasein as a possibility which is “not to be outstripped” (Being and Time 50: 294).

Heidegger's account of Dasein's relation towards the possibility of its own not-Being forms the backbone of a reinterpretation of the phenomenon of care—the “formally existential totality of Dasein's ontological structural whole” (Being and Time 42: 237). Care is now interpreted in terms of Being-towards-death, meaning that Dasein has an internal relation to the nothing (i.e., to not-being; see Vallega-Neu 2003, 21, for an analysis that links this ‘not’ quality to the point made earlier that sets of unactualized possibilities of Being are structural components of Dasein's Being). As one might expect, Heidegger argues that Being-towards-death not only has the three-dimensional character of care, but is realized in authentic and inauthentic modes. Let's begin with the authentic mode. We can think of the aforementioned individualizing effect of Dasein's awareness of the possibility of its own not-Being (an awareness that illuminates its own being-able-to-Be) as an event in which Dasein projects onto a possible way to be, in the technical sense of such possibilities introduced earlier in Being and Time. It is thus an event in which Dasein projects onto a for-the-sake-of-which, a possible way to be. More particularly, given the authentic character of the phenomenon, it is an event in which Dasein projects onto a for-the-sake-of-itself. Heidegger now coins the term anticipation to express the form of projection in which one looks forward to a possible way to be. Given the analysis of death as a possibility, the authentic form of projection in the case of death is anticipation. Indeed Heidegger often uses the term anticipation in a narrow way, simply to mean being aware of death as a possibility. But death is disclosed authentically not only in projection (the first dimension of care) but also in thrownness (the second dimension). The key phenomenon here is the mode of disposedness that Heidegger calls anxiety. Anxiety, at least in the form in which Heidegger is interested, is not directed towards some specific object, but rather opens up the world to me in a certain distinctive way. When I am anxious I am no longer at home in the world. I fail to find the world intelligible. Thus there is an ontological sense (one to do with intelligibility) in which I am not in the world, and the possibility of a world without me (the possibility of my not-Being-in-the-world) is revealed to me. “[The] state-of-mind [mode of disposedness] which can hold open the utter and constant threat to itself arising from Dasein's ownmost individualized Being, is anxiety. In this state-of-mind, Dasein finds itself face to face with the ‘nothing’ of the possible impossibility of its existence” (Being and Time 53: 310). Heidegger has now reinterpreted two of the three dimensions of care, in the light of Dasein's essential finitude. But now what about the third dimension, identified previously as fallen-ness? Since we are presently considering a mode of authentic, i.e., not fallen, Dasein, it seems that fallen-ness cannot be a feature of this realization of care, and indeed that a general reformulation of the care structure is called for in order to allow for authentic Being. This is an issue that will be addressed in the next section. First, though, the inauthentic form of Being-towards-death needs to be brought into view.

In everyday Being-towards-death, the self that figures in the for-the-sake-of-itself structure is not the authentic mine-self, but rather the inauthentic they-self. In effect, the ‘they’ obscures our awareness of the meaning of our own deaths by de-individualizing death. As Heidegger explains: in “Dasein's public way of interpreting, it is said that ‘one dies’, because everyone else and oneself can talk himself into saying that ‘in no case is it I myself’, for this ‘one’ is the ‘nobody’ ” (Being and Time 51: 297). In this way, everyday Dasein flees from the meaning of its own death, in a manner determined by the ‘they’. It is in this evasion in the face of death, interpreted as a further way in which Dasein covers up Being, that everyday Dasein's fallen-ness now manifests itself. To be clear: evasion here does not necessarily mean that I refuse outright to acknowledge that I will someday die. After all, as I might say, ‘everyone dies’. However, the certainty of death achieved by idle talk of this kind is of the wrong sort. One might think of it as established by the conclusion of some sort of inductive inference from observations of many cases of death (the deaths of many others). But “we cannot compute the certainty of death by ascertaining how many cases of death we encounter” (Being and Time 53: 309).

The certainty brought into view by such an inference is a sort of empirical certainty, one which conceals the apodictic character of the inevitability with which my own death is authentically revealed to me (Being and Time 52: 301). In addition, as we have seen, according to Heidegger, my own death can never be actual for me, so viewed from my perspective, any case of death, i.e., any actual death, cannot be my death. Thus it must be a death that belongs to someone else, or rather, to no one.

Inauthenticity in relation to death is also realized in thrownness, through fear, and in projection, through expectation. Fear, as a mode of disposedness, can disclose only particular oncoming events in the world. To fear my own death, then, is once again to treat my death as a case of death. This contrasts with anxiety, the form of disposedness which, as we have seen, discloses my death via the awareness of the possibility of a world in which I am not. The projective analogue to the fear-anxiety distinction is expectation-anticipation. A mundane example might help to illustrate the generic idea. When I expect a beer to taste a certain way, I am waiting for an actual event—a case of that distinctive taste in my mouth—to occur. By contrast, when I anticipate the taste of that beer, one might say that, in a cognitive sense, I actively go out to meet the possibility of that taste. In so doing, I make it mine. Expecting death is thus to wait for a case of death, whereas to anticipate death is to own it.

In reinterpreting care in terms of Being-towards-death, Heidegger illuminates in a new way the taking-as structure that, as we have seen, he takes to be the essence of human existence. Human beings, as Dasein, are essentially finite. And it is this finitude that explains why the phenomenon of taking-as is an essential characteristic of our existence. An infinite Being would understand things directly, without the need for interpretative intercession. We, however, are Dasein, and in our essential finitude we must understand things in a hermeneutically mediated, indirect way, that is, by taking-as (Sheehan 2001).

What are we to make of Heidegger's analysis of death? Perhaps the most compelling reason for being sceptical can be found in Sartre, who argued that just as death cannot be actual for me, it cannot be one of my possibilities either, at least if the term ‘possibility’ is understood, as Heidegger surely intends it to be, as marking a way of my Being, an intelligible way for me to be. Sartre argues that death is the end of such possibilities. Thus:

[The] perpetual appearance of chance at the heart of my projects cannot be apprehended as my possibility but, on the contrary, as the nihilation of all my possibilities. A nihilation which itself is no longer a part of my possibilities. Thus death is not my possibility of no longer realizing a presence in the world but rather an always possible nihilation of my possibilities which is outside my possibilities. (Sartre 1956, 537)

If Sartre is right, there is a significant hole in Heidegger's project, since we would be left without a way of completing the phenomenological analysis of Dasein.

For further debate over Heidegger's handling of death, see Edwards' (1975, 1976, 2004) unsympathetic broadsides alongside Hinman's (1978) robust response. Carel (2006) develops an analysis that productively connects Heidegger's and Freud's accounts of death, despite Heidegger's open antipathy towards Freud's theories in general.

2.3.2 Anticipatory Resoluteness

In some of the most difficult sections of Being and Time, Heidegger now begins to close in on the claim that temporality is the ontological meaning of Dasein's Being as care. The key notion here is that of anticipatory resoluteness, which Heidegger identifies as an (or perhaps the) authentic mode of care. As we have seen, anticipation is the form of Being-towards in which one looks forward to a possible way to be. Bringing resoluteness into view requires further groundwork that begins with Heidegger's reinterpretation of the authentic self in terms of the phenomenon of conscience or Being-guilty. The authentic self is characterized by Being-guilty. This does not mean that authenticity requires actually feeling guilty. Rather, the authentic self is the one who is open to the call of conscience. The inauthentic self, by contrast, is closed to conscience and guilt. It is tempting to think that this is where Heidegger does ethics. However, guilt as an existential structure is not to be understood as some psychological feeling that one gets when one transgresses some moral code. If the term ‘guilt’ is to be heard in an ethical register at all, the phenomenon of Being-guilty will, for Heidegger, be the a priori condition for there to be moral codes, not the psychological result of transgressions of those codes. Having said that, however, it may be misleading to adopt an ethical register here. For Heidegger, conscience is fundamentally a disclosive rather than an ethical phenomenon. What is more important for the project of Being and Time, then, is the claim that the call of conscience interrupts Dasein's everyday fascination with entities by summoning Dasein back to its own finitude and thereby to authenticity. To see how the call of conscience achieves this, we need to unpack Heidegger's reformulation of conscience in terms of anticipatory resoluteness.

In the by-now familiar pattern, Heidegger argues that conscience (Being-guilty) has the structure of care. However, there's now a modification to the picture, presumably driven by a factor mentioned earlier, namely that authentic Dasein is not fallen. Since conscience is a mode of authentic Dasein, fallen-ness cannot be one of the dimensions of conscience. So the three elements of care are now identified as projection, thrownness and discourse. What is discourse? It clearly has something to do with articulation, and it is tempting to make a connection with language, but in truth this aspect of Heidegger's view is somewhat murky. Heidegger says that the “intelligibility of Being-in-the-world… expresses itself as discourse” (Being and Time 34: 204). But this might mean that intelligibility is essentially a linguistic phenomenon; or it might mean that discourse is intelligibility as put into language. There is even room for the view that discourse is not necessarily a linguistic phenomenon at all, but rather any way in which the referential structure of significance is articulated, either by deeds (e.g., by hammering) or by words (see e.g., Dreyfus 1991, 215; Dreyfus translates the German term Rede not as ‘discourse’ but as ‘telling’, and notes the existence of non-linguistic tellings such as telling the time). But however we settle that point of interpretation, there is something untidy about the status of discourse in relation to fallen-ness and authenticity. Elsewhere in Being and Time, the text strongly suggests that discourse has inauthentic modes, for instance when it is manifested as idle talk; and in yet other sections we find the claim that fallen-ness has an authentic manifestation called a moment-of-vision (e.g., Being and Time 68: 401). Regarding the general relations between discourse, fallen-ness and authenticity, then, the conceptual landscape is not entirely clear. Nevertheless, we can say this: when care is realized authentically, I experience discourse as reticence, as a keeping silent (ignoring the chatter of idle talk) so that I may hear the call of conscience; I experience projection onto guilt as a possible way of Being in which I take responsibility for a lack or a not-Being that is located firmly in my own self (where ‘taking responsibility for’ means recognizing that not-Being is one of my essential structures); and I experience thrownness as anxiety, a mode of disposedness that, as we have seen, leaves me estranged from the familiar field of intelligibility determined by the ‘they’ and thereby discloses the possibility of my own not-Being. So, reticence, guilt and anxiety all have the effect of extracting Dasein from the ontological clutches of the ‘they’. That is why the unitary structure of reticence-guilt-anxiety characterizes the Being of authentic Dasein.

So now what of resoluteness? ‘Resoluteness’ is perhaps best understood as simply a new term for reticence-guilt-anxiety. But why do we need a new term? There are two possible reasons for thinking that the relabelling exercise here adds value. Each of these indicates a connection between authenticity and freedom. Each corresponds to an authentic realization of one of two possible understandings of what Heidegger means by (human) existence (see above). The first take on resoluteness is emphasized by, for example, Gelven (1989), Mulhall (2005) and Polt (1999). In ordinary parlance, to be resolved is to commit oneself to some project and thus, in a sense, to take ownership of one's life. By succumbing to, but without making any real commitment to, the patterns laid down by the ‘they’ (i.e., by uncritically ‘doing what one does’), inauthentic Dasein avoids owning its own life. Authentic Being (understood as resoluteness) is, then, a freedom from the ‘they’—not, of course, in any sense that involves extracting oneself from one's socio-cultural embeddedness (after all, Being-with is part of Dasein's existential constitution), but rather in a sense that involves individual commitment to (and thus individual ownership of) one of the possible ways to be that one's socio-cultural embeddedness makes available (more on this below). Seen like this, resoluteness correlates with the idea that Dasein's existence is constituted by a series of events in which possible ways to be are chosen.

At this point we would do well to hesitate. The emphasis on notions such as choice and commitment makes it all too easy to think that resoluteness essentially involves some sort of conscious decision-making. For this reason, Vallega-Neu (2003, 15) reminds us that resoluteness is not a “choice made by a human subject” but rather an “occurrence that determines Dasein”. This occurrence discloses Dasein's essential finitude. It is here that it is profitable to think in terms of anticipatory resoluteness. Heidegger's claim is that resoluteness and anticipation are internally related, such that they ultimately emerge together as the unitary phenomenon of anticipatory resoluteness. Thus, he argues, Being-guilty (the projective aspect of resoluteness) involves Dasein wanting to be open to the call of conscience for as long as Dasein exists, which requires an awareness of the possibility of death. Since resoluteness is an authentic mode of Being, this awareness of the possibility of death must also be authentic. But the authentic awareness of the possibility of death just is anticipation (see above). Thus “only as anticipating does resoluteness become a primordial Being towards Dasein's ownmost potentiality-for-Being” (Being and Time 62: 354). Via the internal connection with anticipation, then, the notion of resoluteness allows Heidegger to rethink the path to Dasein's essential finitude, a finitude that is hidden in fallen-ness, but which, as we have seen, is the condition of possibility for the taking-as structure that is a constitutive aspect of Dasein. Seen this way, resoluteness correlates more neatly with the idea that human existence is essentially a standing out in an openness to, and in an opening of, Being.

2.3.3 Temporality and Temporalizing

In a further hermeneutic spiral, Heidegger concludes that temporality is the a priori transcendental condition for there to be care (sense-making, intelligibility, taking-as, Dasein's own distinctive mode of Being). Moreover, it is Dasein's openness to time that ultimately allows Dasein's potential authenticity to be actualized: in authenticity, the constraints and possibilities determined by Dasein's cultural-historical past are grasped by Dasein in the present so that it may project itself into the future in a fully authentic manner, i.e., in a manner which is truest to the mine-self.

The ontological emphasis that Heidegger places on temporality might usefully be seen as an echo and development of Kant's claim that embeddedness in time is a precondition for things to appear to us the way they do. (According to Kant, embeddedness in time is co-determinative of our experience, along with embeddedness in space. See above for Heidegger's problematic analysis of the relationship between spatiality and temporality.) With the Kantian roots of Heidegger's treatment of time acknowledged, it must be registered immediately that, in Heidegger's hands, the notion of temporality receives a distinctive twist. Heidegger is concerned not with clock-time (an infinite series of self-contained nows laid out in an ordering of past, present and future) or with time as some sort of relativistic phenomenon that would satisfy the physicist. Time thought of in either of these ways is a present-at-hand phenomenon, and that means that it cannot characterize the temporality that is an internal feature of Dasein's existential constitution, the existential temporality that structures intelligibility (taking-as). As he puts it in his History of the Concept of Time (a 1925 lecture course): “Not ‘time is’, but ‘Dasein qua time temporalizes its Being’ ” (319). To make sense of this temporalizing, Heidegger introduces the technical term ecstases. Ecstases are phenomena that stand out from an underlying unity. (He later reinterprets ecstases as horizons, in the sense of what limits, surrounds or encloses, and in so doing discloses or makes available.) According to Heidegger, temporality is a unity against which past, present and future stand out as ecstases while remaining essentially interlocked. The importance of this idea is that it frees the phenomenologist from thinking of past, present and future as sequentially ordered groupings of distinct events. Thus:

Temporalizing does not signify that ecstases come in a ‘succession’. The future is not later than having been, and having-been is not earlier than the Present. Temporality temporalizes itself as a future which makes present in a process of having been. (Being and Time 68: 401)

What does this mean and why should we find it compelling? Perhaps the easiest way to grasp Heidegger's insight here is to follow him in explicitly reinterpreting the different elements of the structure of care in terms of the three phenomenologically intertwined dimensions of temporality.

Dasein's existence is characterized phenomenologically by thrown projection plus fallenness/discourse. Heidegger argues that for each of these phenomena, one particular dimension of temporality is primary. Thus projection is disclosed principally as the manner in which Dasein orients itself towards its future. Anticipation, as authentic projection, therefore becomes the predominantly futural aspect of (what we can now call) authentic temporalizing, whereas expectation, as inauthentic projection, occupies the same role for inauthentic temporalizing. However, since temporality is at root a unitary structure, thrownness, projection, falling and discourse must each have a multi-faceted temporality. Anticipation, for example, requires that Dasein acknowledge the unavoidable way in which its past is constitutive of who it is, precisely because anticipation demands of Dasein that it project itself resolutely onto (i.e., come to make its own) one of the various options established by its cultural-historical embeddedness. And anticipation has a present-related aspect too: in a process that Heidegger calls a moment of vision, Dasein, in anticipating its own death, pulls away from they-self-dominated distractions of the present.

Structurally similar analyses are given for the other elements of the care structure. Here is not the place to pursue the details but, at the most general level, thrownness is identified predominantly, although not exclusively, as the manner in which Dasein collects up its past (finding itself in relation to the pre-structured field of intelligibility into which it has been enculturated), while fallen-ness and discourse are identified predominantly, although not exclusively, as present-oriented (e.g., in the case of fallen-ness, through curiosity as a search for novelty in which Dasein is locked into the distractions of the present and devalues the past and the projective future). A final feature of Heidegger's intricate analysis concerns the way in which authentic and inauthentic temporalizing are understood as prioritizing different dimensions of temporality. Heidegger argues that because future-directed anticipation is intertwined with projection onto death as a possibility (thereby enabling the disclosure of Dasein's all-important finitude), the “primary phenomenon of primordial and authentic temporality is the future” (Being and Time 65: 378), whereas inauthentic temporalizing (through structures such as ‘they’-determined curiosity) prioritizes the present.

What the foregoing summary of Heidegger's account of temporality makes clear is that each event of intelligibility that makes up a ‘moment’ in Dasein's existence must be unpacked using all three temporal ecstases. Each such event is constituted by thrownness (past), projection (future) and falling/discourse (present). In a sense, then, each such event transcends (goes beyond) itself as a momentary episode of Being by, in the relevant sense, co-realizing a past and a future along with a present. This explains why “the future is not later than having been, and having-been is not earlier than the Present”. In the sense that matters, then, Dasein is always a combination of the futural, the historical and the present. And since futurality, historicality and presence, understood in terms of projection, thrownness and fallenness/discourse, form the structural dimensions of each event of intelligibility, it is Dasein's essential temporality (or temporalizing) that provides the a priori transcendental condition for there to be care (the sense-making that constitutes Dasein's own distinctive mode of Being).

(Some worries about Heidegger's analysis of time will be explored below. For a view which is influenced by, and contains an original interpretation of, Heidegger on time, see Stiegler's 1996/2003 analysis according to which human temporality is constituted by technology, including alphabetical writing, as a form of memory.)

2.3.4 Historicality and Historizing

In the final major development of his analysis of temporality, Heidegger identifies a phenomenon that he calls Dasein's historicality, understood as the a priori condition on the basis of which past events and things may have significance for us. The analysis begins with an observation that Being-towards-death is only one aspect of Dasein's finitude.

[Death] is only the ‘end’ of Dasein; and, taken formally, it is just one of the ends by which Dasein's totality is closed round. The other ‘end’, however, is the ‘beginning’, the ‘birth’. Only that entity which is ‘between’ birth and death presents the whole which we have been seeking… Dasein has [so far] been our theme only in the way in which it exists ‘facing forward’, as it were, leaving ‘behind’ all that has been. Not only has Being-towards-the-beginning remained unnoticed; but so too, and above all, has the way in which Dasein stretches along between birth and death. (Being and Time 72: 425).

Here Dasein's beginning (its ‘birth’) is to be interpreted not as a biological event, but as a moment of enculturation, following which the a priori structure underlying intelligibility (thrown projection plus falling/discourse) applies. Dasein's beginning is thus a moment at which a biological human being has become embedded within a pre-existing world, a culturally determined field of intelligibility into which it is thrown and onto which it projects itself. Such worlds are now to be reinterpreted historically as Dasein's heritage. Echoing the way in which past, present and future were disclosed as intertwined in the analysis of temporality, Dasein's historicality has the effect of bringing the past (its heritage) alive in the present as a set of opportunities for future action. In the original German, Heidegger calls this phenomenon Wiederholung, which Macquarrie and Robinson translate as repetition. Although this is an accurate translation of the German term, there is a way of hearing the word ‘repetition’ that is misleading with regard to Heidegger's usage. The idea here is not that I can do nothing other than repeat the actions of my cultural ancestors, but rather that, in authentic mode, I may appropriate those past actions (own them, make them mine) as a set of general models or heroic templates onto which I may creatively project myself. Thus, retrieving may be a more appropriate translation. This notion of retrieving characterizes the “specific movement in which Dasein is stretched along and stretches itself along”, what Heidegger now calls Dasein's historizing. Historizing is an a priori structure of Dasein's Being as care that constitutes a stretching along between Dasein's birth as the entity that takes-as and death as its end, between enculturation and finitude. “Factical Dasein exists as born; and, as born, it is already dying, in the sense of Being-towards-death… birth and death are ‘connected’ in a manner characteristic of Dasein. As care, Dasein is the ‘between’ ”(Being and Time 73: 426–7).

It is debatable whether the idea of creative appropriation does enough to allay the suspicion that the concept of heritage introduces a threat to our individual freedom (in an ordinary sense of freedom) by way of some sort of social determinism. For example, since historicality is an aspect of Dasein's existential constitution, it is arguable that Heidegger effectively rules out the possibility that I might reinvent myself in an entirely original way. Moreover, Polt (1999) draws our attention to a stinging passage from earlier in Being and Time which might be taken to suggest that any attempt to take on board elements of cultures other than one's own should be judged an inauthentic practice indicative of fallen-ness. Thus:

the opinion may now arise that understanding the most alien cultures and ‘synthesizing’ them with one's own may lead to Dasein's becoming for the first time thoroughly and genuinely enlightened about itself. Versatile curiosity and restlessly ‘knowing it all’ masquerade as a universal understanding of Dasein. (Being and Time 38: 178)

This sets the stage for Heidegger's own final elucidation of human freedom. According to Heidegger, I am genuinely free precisely when I recognize that I am a finite being with a heritage and when I achieve an authentic relationship with that heritage through the creative appropriation of it. As he explains:

Once one has grasped the finitude of one's existence, it snatches one back from the endless multiplicity of possibilities which offer themselves as closest to one—those of comfortableness, shirking and taking things lightly—and brings Dasein to the simplicity of its fate. This is how we designate Dasein's primordial historizing, which lies in authentic resoluteness and in which Dasein hands itself down to itself, free for death, in a possibility which it has inherited and yet has chosen” (Being and Time 74: 435)

This phenomenon, a final reinterpretation of the notion of resoluteness, is what Heidegger calls primordial historizing or fate. And crucially, historizing is not merely a structure that is partly constitutive of individual authentic Dasein. Heidegger also points out the shared primordial historizing of a community, what he calls its destiny.

When the contemporary reader of Being and Time encounters the concepts of heritage, fate and destiny, and places them not only in the context of the political climate of mid-to-late 1920s Germany, but also alongside Heidegger's later membership of the Nazi party, it is hard not to hear dark undertones of cultural chauvinism and racial prejudice. This worry becomes acute when one considers the way in which these concepts figure in passages such as the following, from the inaugural rectoral address that Heidegger gave at Freiburg University in 1933.

The third bond [knowledge service, in addition to labour service and military service] is the one that binds the [German] students to the spiritual mission of the German Volk. This Volk is playing an active role in shaping its own fate by placing its history into the openness of the overpowering might of all the world-shaping forces of human existence and by struggling anew to secure its spiritual world… The three bonds—through the Volk to the destiny of the state in its spiritual mission—are equally original aspects of the German essence. (The Self-Assertion of the German University, 35–6)

The issue of Heidegger's later relationship with Nazi politics and ideology will be discussed briefly below. For the moment, however, it is worth saying that the temptation to offer extreme social determinist or Nazi reconstructions of Being and Time is far from irresistible. It is at least arguable that Heidegger's claim at this point in his work is ‘merely’ that it is only on the basis of fate—an honest and explicit retrieval of my own culture which allows me to recognize and accept the manifold ways in which I am shaped by that culture—that I can open up a genuine path to personal reconstruction or to the possibly enriching structures that other cultures have to offer. And that does not sound nearly so pernicious.

BTW -- How is that God-Off coming?? Everything ends up being some sort of a struggle for Fame, Fortune, Power, and Pleasure -- doesn't it?? Does Humanity Want a God or Not?? Does Humanity Wish to be Told What to Do?? Did Humanity Tell God to Go to Hell in Antiquity?? Is Humanity in the Final Stages of Rejecting God -- One Last Time?? Perhaps There Will be Weeping, Wailing, and Gnashing of Teeth When Humanity Sees What Those Who Were Loyal to God Got. Perhaps We Are Rebels Without a Clue That We Are Rebels Without a Clue. Perhaps a Rude Awakening Awaits Us. More Martin Heidegger. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

2.4 Realism and Relativism in Being and Time

One might think that an unpalatable relativism is entailed by any view which emphasizes that understanding is never preconception-free. But that would be too quick. Of course, if authentic Dasein were individualized in the sense of being a self-sufficient Cartesian subject, then perhaps an extreme form of subjectivist relativism would indeed beckon. Fortunately, however, authentic Dasein isn't a Cartesian subject, in part because it has a transformed and not a severed relationship with the ‘they’. This reconnects us with our earlier remark that the philosophical framework advocated within Being and Time appears to mandate a kind of cultural relativism. This seems right, but it is important to try to understand precisely what sort of cultural relativism is on offer. Here is one interpretation.

Although worlds (networks of involvements, what Heidegger sometimes calls Reality) are culturally relative phenomena, Heidegger occasionally seems to suggest that nature, as it is in itself, is not. Thus, on the one hand, nature may be discovered as ready-to-hand equipment: the “wood is a forest of timber, the mountain is a quarry of rock; the river is water-power, the wind is wind ‘in the sails’ ” (Being and Time 15: 100). Under these circumstances, nature is revealed in certain culturally specific forms determined by our socially conditioned patterns of skilled practical activity. On the other hand, when nature is discovered as present-at-hand, by say science, its intelligibility has an essentially cross-cultural character. Indeed, Heidegger often seems to hold the largely commonsense view that there are culture-independent causal properties of nature which explain why it is that you can make missiles out of rocks or branches, but not out of air or water. Science can tell us both what those causal properties are, and how the underlying causal processes work. Such properties and processes are what Heidegger calls the Real, and he comments: “[the] fact that Reality [intelligibility] is ontologically grounded in the Being of Dasein does not signify that only when Dasein exists and as long as Dasein exists can the Real [e.g., nature as revealed by science] be as that which in itself it is” (Being and Time, 43: 255).

If the picture just sketched is a productive way to understand Heidegger, then, perhaps surprisingly, his position might best be thought of as a mild kind of scientific realism. For, on this interpretation, one of Dasein's cultural practices, the practice of science, has the special quality of revealing natural entities as they are in themselves, that is, independently of Dasein's culturally conditioned uses and articulations of them. Crucially, however, this sort of scientific realism maintains ample conceptual room for Sheehan's well-observed point that, for Heidegger, at every stage of his thinking, “there is no ‘is’ to things without a taking-as… no sense that is independent of human being… Before homo sapiens evolved, there was no ‘being’ on earth… because ‘being’ for Heidegger does not mean ‘in existence’ ” (Sheehan 2001). Indeed, Being concerns sense-making (intelligibility), and the different ways in which entities make sense to us, including as present-at-hand, are dependent on the fact that we are Dasein, creatures with a particular mode of Being. So while natural entities do not require the existence of Dasein in order just to occur (in an ordinary, straightforward sense of ‘occur’), they do require Dasein in order to be intelligible at all, including as entities that just occur. Understood properly, then, the following two claims that Heidegger makes are entirely consistent with each other. First: “Being (not entities) is dependent upon the understanding of Being; that is to say, Reality (not the Real) is dependent upon care”. Secondly: “[O]nly as long as Dasein is (that is, only as long as an understanding of Being is ontically possible), ‘is there’ Being. When Dasein does not exist, ‘independence’ ‘is’ not either, nor ‘is’ the ‘in-itself’ ”. (Both quotations from Being and Time, 43: 255.)

How does all this relate to Heidegger's account of truth? Answering this question adds a new dimension to the pivotal phenomenon of revealing. Heidegger points out that the philosophical tradition standardly conceives of truth as attaching to propositions, and as involving some sort of correspondence between propositions and states of affairs. But whereas for the tradition (as Heidegger characterizes it), propositional truth as correspondence exhausts the phenomenon of truth, for Heidegger, it is merely the particular manifestation of truth that is operative in those domains, such as science, that concern themselves with the Real. According to Heidegger, propositional truth as correspondence is made possible by a more fundamental phenomenon that he dubs ‘original truth’. Heidegger's key thought here is that before (in a conceptual sense of ‘before’) there can be any question of correspondence between propositions and states of affairs, there needs to be in place a field of intelligibility (Reality, a world), a sense-making structure within which entities may be found. Unconcealing is the Dasein-involving process that establishes this prior field of intelligibility. This is the domain of original truth—what we might call truth as revealing or truth as unconcealing. Original truth cannot be reduced to propositional truth as correspondence, because the former is an a priori, transcendental condition for the latter. Of course, since Dasein is the source of intelligibility, truth as unconcealing is possible only because there is Dasein, which means that without Dasein there would be no truth—including propositional truth as correspondence. But it is reasonable to hear this seemingly relativistic consequence as a further modulation of the point (see above) that entities require Dasein in order to be intelligible at all, including, now, as entities that are capable of entering into states of affairs that may correspond to propositions.

Heidegger's analysis of truth also countenances a third manifestation of the phenomenon, one that is perhaps best characterized as being located between original truth and propositional truth. This intermediate phenomenon is what might be called Heidegger's instrumental notion of truth (Dahlstrom 2001, Overgaard 2002). As we saw earlier, for Heidegger, the referential structure of significance may be articulated not only by words but by skilled practical activity (e.g., hammering) in which items of equipment are used in culturally appropriate ways. By Heidegger's lights, such equipmental activity counts as a manifestation of unconcealing and thus as the realization of a species of truth. This fact further threatens the idea that truth attaches only to propositions, although some uses of language may themselves be analysed as realizing the instrumental form of truth (e.g., when I exclaim that ‘this hammer is too heavy for the job’, rather than assert that it has the objective property of weighing 2.5 kilos; Overgaard 2002, 77; cf. Being and Time 33:199–200).

It is at this point that an ongoing dispute in Heidegger scholarship comes to the fore. It has been argued (e.g., Dahlstrom 2001, Overgaard 2002) that a number of prominent readings of Heidegger (e.g., Okrent 1988, Dreyfus 1991) place such heavy philosophical emphasis on Dasein as a site of skilled practical activity that they end up simply identifying Dasein's understanding of Being with skilled practical activity. Because of this shared tendency, such readings are often grouped together as advocating a pragmatist interpretation of Heidegger. According to its critics, the inadequacy of the pragmatist interpretation is exposed once it is applied to Heidegger's account of truth. For although the pragmatist interpretation correctly recognizes that, for Heidegger, propositional correspondence is not the most fundamental phenomenon of truth, it takes the fundamental variety to be exhausted by Dasein's sense-making skilled practical activity. But (the critic points out) this is to ignore the fact that even though instrumental truth is more basic than traditional propositional truth, nevertheless it too depends on a prior field of significance (one that determines the correct and incorrect uses of equipment) and thus on the phenomenon of original truth. Put another way, the pragmatist interpretation falls short because it fails to distinguish original truth from instrumental truth. It is worth commenting here that not every so-called pragmatist reading is on a par with respect to this issue. For example, Dreyfus (2008) separates out (what he calls) background coping (Dasein's familiarity with, and knowledge of how to navigate the meaningful structures of, its world) from (what he calls) skilled or absorbed coping (Dasein's skilled practical activity), and argues that, for Heidegger, the former is ontologically more basic than the latter. If original truth is manifested in background coping, and instrumental truth in skilled coping, this disrupts the thought that the two notions of truth are being run together (for discussion, see Overgaard 2002 85–6, note 17).

How should one respond to Heidegger's analysis of truth? One objection is that original truth ultimately fails to qualify as a form of truth at all. As Tugendhat (1967) observes, it is a plausible condition on the acceptability of any proposed account of truth that it accommodate a distinction between what is asserted or intended and how things are in themselves. It is clear that propositional truth as correspondence satisfies this condition, and notice that (if we squint a little) so too does instrumental truth, since despite my intentions, I can fail, in my actions, to use the hammer in ways that successfully articulate its place in the relevant equipmental network. However, as Tugendhat argues, it is genuinely hard to see how original truth as unconcealing could possibly support a distinction between what is asserted or intended and how things are in themselves. After all, unconcealing is, in part, the process through which entities are made intelligible to Dasein in such a way that the distinction in question can apply. Thus, Tugendhat concludes, although unconcealing may be a genuine phenomenon that constitutes a transcendental condition for there to be truth, it is not itself a species of truth. (For discussions of Tugendhat's critique, see Dahlstrom 2001, Overgaard 2002.)

Whether or not unconcealing ought to count as a species of truth, it is arguable that the place which it (along with its partner structure, Reality) occupies in the Heideggerian framework must ultimately threaten even the mild kind of scientific realism that we have been attributing, somewhat tentatively, to Heidegger. The tension comes into view just at the point where unconcealing is reinterpreted in terms of Dasein's essential historicality. Because intelligibility, and thus unconcealing, has an essentially historical character, it is difficult to resist the thought that the propositional and instrumental truths generated out of some specific field of intelligibility will be relativistically tied to a particular culture in a particular time period. Moreover, at one point, Heidegger suggests that even truth as revealed by science is itself subject to this kind of relativistic constraint. Thus he says that “every factical science is always manifestly in the grip of historizing” (Being and Time 76: 444). The implication is that, for Heidegger, one cannot straightforwardly subject the truth of one age to the standards of another, which means, for example, that contemporary chemistry and alchemical chemistry might both be true (cf. Dreyfus 1990, 261–2). But even if this more radical position is ultimately Heidegger's, there remains space here for some form of realism. Given the transcendental relation that, according to Heidegger, obtains between fields of intelligibility and science, the view on offer might still support a historically conditioned form of Kantian empirical realism with respect to science. Nevertheless it must, it seems, reject the full-on scientific realist commitment to the idea that the history of science is regulated by progress towards some final and unassailable set of scientifically established truths about nature, by a journey towards, as it were, God's science (Haugeland 2007).

The realist waters in which our preliminary interpretation has been swimming are muddied even further by another aspect of Dasein's essential historicality. Officially, it is seemingly not supposed to be a consequence of that historicality that we cannot discover universal features of ourselves. The evidence for this is that there are many conclusions reached in Being and Time that putatively apply to all Dasein, for example that Dasein's everyday experience is characterized by the structural domains of readiness-to-hand, un-readiness-to-hand and presence-at-hand (for additional evidence, see Polt 1999 92–4). Moreover, Heidegger isn't saying that any route to understanding is as good as any other. For example, he prioritizes authenticity as the road to an answer to the question of the meaning of Being. Thus:


the idea of existence, which guides us as that which we see in advance, has been made definite [transformed from pre-ontological to ontological, from implicit and vague to explicitly articulated] by the clarification of our ownmost potentiality-for-Being. (Being and Time 63: 358)

Still, if this priority claim and the features shared by all Dasein really are supposed to be ahistorical, universal conditions (applicable everywhere throughout history), we are seemingly owed an account of just how such conditions are even possible, given Dasein's essential historicality.

Finally, one might wonder whether the ‘realist Heidegger’ can live with the account of temporality given in Being and Time. If temporality is the a priori condition for us to encounter entities as equipment, and if, in the relevant sense, the unfolding of time coincides with the unfolding of Dasein (Dasein, as temporality, temporalizes; see above), then equipmental entities will be intelligible to us only in (what we might call) Dasein-time, the time that we ourselves are. Now, we have seen previously that nature is often encountered as equipment, which means that natural equipment will be intelligible to us only in Dasein-time. But what about nature in a non-equipmental form—nature (as one might surely be tempted to say) as it is in itself? One might try to argue that those encounters with nature that reveal nature as it is in itself are precisely those encounters that reveal nature as present-at-hand, and that to reveal nature as present-at-hand is, in part, to reveal nature within present-at-hand time (e.g., clock time), a time which is, in the relevant sense, independent of Dasein. Unfortunately there's a snag with this story (and thus for the attempt to see Heidegger as a realist). Heidegger claims that presence-at-hand (as revealed by theoretical reflection) is subject to the same Dasein-dependent temporality as readiness-to-hand:


…if Dasein's Being is completely grounded in temporality, then temporality must make possible Being-in-the-world and therewith Dasein's transcendence; this transcendence in turn provides the support for concernful Being alongside entities within-the-world, whether this Being is theoretical or practical. (Being and Time 69: 415, my emphasis)

But now if theoretical investigations reveal nature in present-at-hand time, and if in the switching over from the practical use of equipment to the theoretical investigation of objects, time remains the same Dasein-time, then present-at-hand time is Dasein-dependent too. Given this, it seems that the only way we can give any sense to the idea of nature as it is in itself is to conceive of such nature as being outside of time. Interestingly, in the History of the Concept of Time (a text based on Heidegger's notes for a 1925 lecture course and often thought of as a draft of Being and Time), Heidegger seems to embrace this very option, arguing that nature is within time only when it is encountered in Dasein's world, and concluding that nature as it is in itself is entirely atemporal. It is worth noting the somewhat Kantian implication of this conclusion: if all understanding is grounded in temporality, then the atemporality of nature as it is in itself would mean that, for Heidegger, we cannot understand natural things as they really are in themselves (cf. Dostal 1993).

3. The Later Philosophy

3.1 The Turn and the Contributions to Philosophy

After Being and Time there is a shift in Heidegger's thinking that he himself christened ‘the turn’ (die Kehre). In a 1947 piece, in which Heidegger distances his views from Sartre's existentialism, he links the turn to his own failure to produce the missing divisions of Being and Time.


The adequate execution and completion of this other thinking that abandons subjectivity is surely made more difficult by the fact that in the publication of Being and Time the third division of the first part, “Time and Being,” was held back… Here everything is reversed. The division in question was held back because everything failed in the adequate saying of this turning and did not succeed with the help of the language of metaphysics… This turning is not a change of standpoint from Being and Time, but in it the thinking that was sought first arrives at the location of that dimension out of which Being and Time is experienced, that is to say, experienced from the fundamental experience of the oblivion of Being. (Letter on Humanism, pp. 231–2)

Notice that while, in the turning, “everything is reversed”, nevertheless it is “not a change of standpoint from Being and Time”, so what we should expect from the later philosophy is a pattern of significant discontinuities with Being and Time, interpretable from within a basic project and a set of concerns familiar from that earlier text. The quotation from the Letter on Humanism provides some clues about what to look for. Clearly we need to understand what is meant by the abandonment of subjectivity, what kind of barrier is erected by the language of metaphysics, and what is involved in the oblivion of Being. The second and third of these issues will be clarified later. The first bears immediate comment.

At root Heidegger's later philosophy shares the deep concerns of Being and Time, in that it is driven by the same preoccupation with Being and our relationship with it that propelled the earlier work. In a fundamental sense, then, the question of Being remains the question. However, Being and Time addresses the question of Being via an investigation of Dasein, the kind of being whose Being is an issue for it. As we have seen, this investigation takes the form of a transcendental hermeneutic phenomenology that begins with ordinary human experience. It is arguable that, in at least one important sense, it is this philosophical methodology that the later Heidegger is rejecting when he talks of his abandonment of subjectivity. Of course, as conceptualized in Being and Time, Dasein is not a Cartesian subject, so the abandonment of subjectivity is not as simple as a shift of attention away from Dasein and towards some other route to Being. Nevertheless the later Heidegger does seem to think that his earlier focus on Dasein bears the stain of a subjectivity that ultimately blocks the path to an understanding of Being. This is not to say that the later thinking turns away altogether from the project of transcendental hermeneutic phenomenology. The project of illuminating the a priori conditions on the basis of which entities show up as intelligible to us is still at the heart of things. What the later thinking involves is a reorientation of the basic project so that, as we shall see, the point of departure is no longer a detailed description of ordinary human experience. (For an analysis of ‘the turn’ that identifies a number of different senses of the term at work in Heidegger's thinking, and which in some ways departs from the brief treatment given here, see Sheehan 2010.)

A further difficulty in getting to grips with Heidegger's later philosophy is that, unlike the early thought, which is heavily centred on a single text, the later thought is distributed over a large number and range of works, including books, lecture courses, occasional addresses, and presentations given to non-academic audiences. So one needs a navigational strategy. The strategy adopted here will be to view the later philosophy through the lens of Heidegger's strange and perplexing study from the 1930s called Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), (Beitrage zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis)), henceforth referred to as the Contributions. (For a book-length introduction to the Contributions, see Vallega-Neu 2003. For a useful collection of papers, see Scott et al. 2001.) The key themes that shape the later philosophy will be identified in the Contributions, but those themes will be explored in a way that draws on, and make connections with, a selection of other works. From this partial expedition, the general pattern of Heidegger's post-turn thinking, although not every aspect of it, will emerge.

The Contributions was written between 1936 and 1938. Intriguingly, Heidegger asked for the work not to appear in print until after the publication of all his lecture courses, and although his demand wasn't quite heeded by the editors of his collected works, the Contributions was not published in German until 1989 and not in English until 1999. To court a perhaps overly dramatic telling of Heideggerian history, if one puts a lot of weight on Heidegger's view of when the Contributions should have been published, one might conceivably think of those later writings that, in terms of when they were produced, followed the Contributions as something like the training material needed to understand the earlier work (see e.g., Polt 1999 140). In any case, during his lifetime, Heidegger showed the Contributions to no more than a few close colleagues. The excitement with which the eventual publication of the text was greeted by Heidegger's readers was partly down to the fact that one of the chosen few granted a sneak preview was the influential interpreter of Heidegger, Otto Pöggeler, who then proceeded to give it some rather extraordinary advance publicity, describing it as the work in which Heidegger's genuine and complete thinking is captured (see e.g., Pöggeler 1963/1987).

Whether or not the hype surrounding the Contributions was justified remains a debated question among Heidegger scholars (see e.g., Sheehan 2001, Thomson 2003). What is clear, however, is that reading the work is occasionally a bewildering experience. Rather than a series of systematic hermeneutic spirals in the manner of Being and Time, the Contributions is organised as something like a musical fugue, that is, as a suite of overlapping developments of a single main theme (Schoenbohm 2001; Thomson 2003). And while the structure of the Contributions is challenging enough, the language in which it is written can appear to be wilfully obscurantist. Polt (1999, 140) comments that “the most important sections of the text can appear to be written in pure Heideggerese… [as Heidegger] exploits the sounds and senses of German in order to create an idiosyncratic symphony of meanings”. Less charitably, Sheehan (2001) describes it as “a needlessly difficult text, obsessively repetitious, badly in need of an editor”, while Schurmann (1992, 313, quoted by Thomson 2003, 57) complains that “at times one may think one is reading a piece of Heideggerian plagiarism, so encumbered is it with ellipses and assertoric monoliths”. Arguably, the style in which the Contributions is written is ‘merely’ the most extreme example (perhaps, the purest example) of a ‘poetic’ style that Heidegger adopts pretty much throughout the later philosophy. This stylistic aspect of the turn is an issue discussed below. For the moment, however, it is worth noting that, in the stylistic transition achieved in the Contributions, Heidegger's writing finally leaves behind all vestiges of the idea that Being can be represented accurately using some pseudo-scientific philosophical language. The goal, instead, is to respond appropriately to Being in language, to forge a pathway to another kind of thinking—Being-historical thinking (for discussion of this term, see Vallega 2001, von Herrmann 2001, Vallega-Neu 2003, 28-9). In its attempt to achieve this, the Contributions may be viewed as setting the agenda for Heidegger's post-turn thought. So what are the central themes that appear in the Contributions and which then resonate throughout the later works? Four stand out: Being as appropriation (an idea which, as we shall see, is bound up with a reinterpretation of the notion of dwelling that, in terms of explicit textual development, takes place largely outwith the text of the Contributions itself); technology (or machination); safeguarding (or sheltering); and the gods. Each of these themes will now be explored.

3.2 Appropriation, Dwelling and the Fourfold

In Being and Time, the most fundamental a priori transcendental condition for there to be Dasein's distinctive mode of Being which is identified is temporality. In the later philosophy, the ontological focus ultimately shifts to the claim that human Being consists most fundamentally in dwelling. This shift of attention emerges out of a subtle reformulation of the question of Being itself, a reformulation performed in the Contributions. The question now becomes not ‘What is the meaning of Being?’ but rather ‘How does Being essentially unfold?’. This reformulation means (in a way that should become clearer in a moment) that we are now asking the question of Being not from the perspective of Dasein, but from the perspective of Being (see above on abandoning subjectivity). But it also suggests that Being needs to be understood as fundamentally a timebound, historical process. As Heidegger puts it: “A being is: Be-ing holds sway [unfolds]”. (Contributions 10: 22. Quotations from the Contributions will be given in the form ‘section: page number’ where ‘page number’ refers to the Emad and Maly English translation. The hyphenated term ‘be-ing’ is adopted by Emad and Maly, in order to respect the fact that, in the Contributions, Heidegger substitutes the archaic spelling ‘Seyn’ for the contemporary ‘Sein’ as a way of distancing himself further from the traditional language of metaphysics. This translational convention, which has not become standard practice in the secondary literature, will not be adopted here, except in quotations from the Emad and Maly translation.)

Further aspects of the essential unfolding of Being are revealed by what is perhaps the key move in the Contributions—a rethinking of Being in terms of the notion of Ereignis, a term translated variously as ‘event’ (most closely reflecting its ordinary German usage), ‘appropriation’, ‘appropriating event’, ‘event of appropriation’ or ‘enowning’. (For an analysis which tracks Heidegger's use of the term Ereignis at various stages of his thought, see Vallega-Neu 2010). The history of Being is now conceived as a series of appropriating events in which the different dimensions of human sense-making—the religious, political, philosophical (and so on) dimensions that define the culturally conditioned epochs of human history—are transformed. Each such transformation is a revolution in human patterns of intelligibility, so what is appropriated in the event is Dasein and thus the human capacity for taking-as (see e.g., Contributions 271: 343). Once appropriated in this way, Dasein operates according to a specific set of established sense-making practices and structures. In a Kuhnian register, one might think of this as the normal sense-making that follows a paradigm-shift. But now what is it that does the appropriating? Heidegger's answer to this question is Being. Thus Heidegger writes of the “En-ownment [appropriation] of Da-sein by be-ing” (Contributions 141: 184) and of “man as owned by be-ing” (Contributions 141: 185). Indeed, this appropriation of Dasein by Being is what enables Being to unfold: “Be-ing needs man in order to hold sway [unfold]” (Contributions 133: 177). The claim that Being appropriates Dasein might seem to invite the adoption of an ethereal voice and a far-off look in the eye, but any such temptation towards mysticism of this kind really ought to be resisted. The mystical reading seems to depend on a view according to which “be-ing holds sway ‘for itself’ ” and Dasein “takes up the relating to be-ing”, such that Being is “something over-against” Dasein (Contributions 135: 179). But Heidegger argues that this relational view would be ‘misleading’. That said, to make proper inroads into the mystical reading, we need to reacquaint ourselves with the notion of dwelling.

As we have seen, the term ‘dwelling’ appears in Being and Time, where it is used to capture the distinctive manner in which Dasein is in the world. The term continues to play this role in the later philosophy, but, in texts such as Building Dwelling, Thinking (1954), it is reinterpreted and made philosophically central to our understanding of Being. This reinterpretation of, and the new emphasis on, dwelling is bound up with the idea from the Contributions of Being as appropriation. To explain: Where one dwells is where one is at home, where one has a place. This sense of place is what grounds Heidegger's existential notion of spatiality, as developed in the later philosophy (see Malpas 2006). In dwelling, then, Dasein is located within a set of sense-making practices and structures with which it is familiar. This way of unravelling the phenomenon of dwelling enables us to see more clearly—and more concretely—what is meant by the idea of Being as event/appropriation. Being is an event in that it takes (appropriates) place (where one is at home, one's sense-making practices and structures) (cf. Polt 1999 148). In other words, Being appropriates Dasein in that, in its unfolding, it essentially happens in and to Dasein's patterns of sense-making. This way of thinking about the process of appropriation does rather less to invite obscurantist mysticism.

The reinterpretation of dwelling in terms of Being as appropriation is ultimately intertwined with a closely related reinterpretation of what is meant by a world. One can see the latter development in a pregnant passage from Heidegger's 1954 piece, Building Dwelling Thinking.


[H]uman being consists in dwelling and, indeed, dwelling in the sense of the stay of mortals on the earth.

But ‘on the earth’ already means ‘under the sky.’ Both of these also mean ‘remaining before the divinities’ and include a ‘belonging to men's being with one another.’ By a primal oneness the four—earth and sky, divinities and mortals—belong together in one. (351)

So, human beings dwell in that they stay (are at home) on the earth, under the sky, before the divinities, and among the mortals (that is, with one another as mortals). It is important for Heidegger that these dimensions of dwelling are conceived not as independent structures but as (to use a piece of terminology from Being and Time) ecstases—phenomena that stand out from an underlying unity. That underlying unity of earth, sky, divinities and mortals—the ‘simple oneness of the four’ as Heidegger puts it in Building Dwelling Thinking (351)—is what he calls the fourfold. The fourfold is the transformed notion of world that applies within the later work (see e.g., The Thing; for an analysis of the fourfold that concentrates on its role as a thinking of things, see Mitchell 2010). It is possible to glimpse the character of the world-as-fourfold by noting that whereas the world as understood through Being and Time is a culturally conditioned structure distinct from nature, the world-as-fourfold appears to be an integrated combination of nature (earth and sky) and culture (divinities and mortals). (Two remarks: First, it may not be obvious why the divinities count as part of culture. This will be explained in a moment. Secondly, the later Heidegger sometimes continues to employ the sense of world that he established in Being and Time, which is why it is useful to signal the new usage as the transformed notion of world, or as the world-as-fourfold.)

There is something useful, as a preliminary move, about interpreting the fourfold as a combination of nature and culture, but it is an idea that must be handled with care. For one thing, if what is meant by nature is the material world and its phenomena as understood by natural science, then Heidegger's account of the fourfold tells against any straightforward identification of earth and sky with nature. Why this is becomes clear once one sees how Heidegger describes the earth and the sky in Building Dwelling Thinking. “Earth is the serving bearer, blossoming and fruiting, spreading out in rock and water, rising up into plant and animal… The sky is the vaulting path of the sun, the course of the changing moon, the wandering glitter of the stars, the year's seasons and their changes, the light and dusk of day, the gloom and glow of night, the clemency and inclemency of the weather, the drifting clouds and blue depth of the ether” (351). What Heidegger's language here indicates is that the earth-as-dwelt-on and the sky-as-dwelt-under are spaces for a mode of habitation by human beings that one might call poetic rather than scientific. So, the nature of dwelling is the nature of the poet. In dwelling we inhabit the poetic (for discussion, see e.g., Young 2002, 99–100).

How does this idea of dwelling as poetic habitation work for the cultural aspects of the fourfold—dwelling among the mortals and before the divinities? To dwell among the mortals is to be “capable of death as death” (Building Dwelling Thinking 352). In the language of Being and Time, this would be to enter into an authentic and thus non-evasive relationship with death (see above). However, as we shall see in a moment, the later Heidegger has a different account of the nothing and thus of the internal relation with the nothing that death involves. It is this reworking of the idea of the nothing that ultimately marks out a newly conceived non-evasive relationship with death as an aspect of dwelling, understood in terms of poetic habitation. The notion of dwelling before the divinities also turns on the development of a theme established in Being and Time, namely that intelligibility is itself cultural and historical in character. More specifically, according to Being and Time, the a priori transcendental conditions for intelligibility are to be interpreted in terms of the phenomenon of heritage, that is as culturally determined structures that form pre-existing fields of intelligibility into which individual human beings are thrown and onto which they project themselves. A key aspect of this idea is that there exist historically important individuals who constitute heroic cultural templates onto which I may now creatively project myself. In the later philosophy these heroic figures are reborn poetically as the divinities of the fourfold, as “the ones to come” (Contributions 248–52: 277–81), and as the “beckoning messengers of the godhead” (Building Dwelling Thinking 351). When Heidegger famously announces that only a god can save us (Only a God can Save Us), or that “the last god is not the end but the other beginning of immeasurable possibilities for our history” (Contributions 256: 289), he has in mind not a religious intervention in an ‘ordinary’ sense of the divine, but rather a transformational event in which a secularized sense of the sacred—a sensitivity to the fact that beings are granted to us in the essential unfolding of Being—is restored (more on this below).

The notion of dwelling as poetic habitation opens up a path to what Heidegger calls ‘the mystery’ (not to be confused with the kind of obscurantist mysticism discussed above). Even though the world always opens up as meaningful in a particular way to any individual human being as a result of the specific heritage into which he or she has been enculturated, there are of course a vast number of alternative fields of intelligibility ‘out there’ that would be available to each of us, if only we could gain access to them by becoming simultaneously embedded in different heritages. But Heidegger's account of human existence means that any such parallel embedding is ruled out, so the plenitude of alternative fields of intelligibility must remain a mystery to us. In Heidegger's later philosophy this mysterious region of Being emerges as a structure that, although not illuminated poetically in dwelling as a particular world-as-fourfold, nevertheless constitutes an essential aspect of dwelling in that it is ontologically co-present with any such world. Appropriation is necessarily a twofold event: as Dasein is thrown into an intelligible world, vast regions of Being are plunged into darkness. But that darkness is a necessary condition for there to be any intelligibility at all. As Heidegger puts it in The Question Concerning Technology (330), “[a]ll revealing belongs within a harboring and a concealing. But that which frees [entities for intelligibility]—the mystery—is concealed and always concealing itself…. Freedom [sense-making, the revealing of beings] is that which conceals in a way that opens to light, in whose clearing shimmers the veil that hides the essential occurrence of all truth and lets the veil appear as what veils”.

It is worth pausing here to comment on the fact that, in his 1935 essay The Origin of the Work of Art, Heidegger writes of a conflict between earth and world. This idea may seem to sit unhappily alongside the simple oneness of the four. The essay in question is notoriously difficult, but the notion of the mystery may help. Perhaps the pivotal thought is as follows: Natural materials (the earth), as used in artworks, enter into intelligibility by establishing certain culturally codified meanings—a world in the sense of Being and Time. Simultaneously, however, those natural materials suggest the existence of a vast range of other possible, but to us unintelligible, meanings, by virtue of the fact that they could have been used to realize those alternative meanings. The conflict, then, turns on the way in which, in the midst of a world, the earth suggests the presence of the mystery. This is one way to hear passages such as the following: “The world, in resting upon the earth, strives to surmount it. As self-opening it cannot endure anything closed. The earth, however, as sheltering and concealing, tends always to draw the world into itself and keep it there” (Origin of the Work of Art 174).

Because the mystery is unintelligible, it is the nothing (no-thing). It is nonetheless a positive ontological phenomenon—a necessary feature of the essential unfolding of Being. This vision of the nothing, as developed in Heidegger's What is Metaphysics?, his 1929 inaugural lecture as Professor of Philosophy at Freiburg, famously attracts the philosophical disdain of the logical positivist Carnap. Carnap judged Heidegger's lecture to turn on a series of unverifiable statements, and thus to be a paradigm case of metaphysical nonsense (Carnap 1932/1959; for an nice account and analysis of the disagreement between Heidegger and Carnap, see Critchley 2001). But placing Carnap's positivist critique to one side, the idea of the nothing allows Heidegger to rethink our relationship with death in relation to poetic habitation. In Being and Time, Being-towards-death is conceived as a relation to the possibility of one's own non-existence. This gives us a sense in which Dasein has an internal structural relation to the nothing. That internal structural relation remains crucial to the later philosophy, but now ‘the nothing’ is to be heard explicitly as ‘the mystery’, a kind of ‘dark matter’ of intelligibility that must remain concealed in the unfolding of Being through which beings are unconcealed. This necessary concealment is “the essential belongingness of the not to being as such” (Contributions 160: 199). In Being-towards-death, this “essential belongingness” is “sheltered” and “comes to light with a singular keenness” (Contributions 160: 199). This is because (echoing a point made earlier) the concealing-unconcealing structure of Being is ultimately to be traced to Dasein's essential finitude. Sheehan (2001) puts it like this: “[o]ur finitude makes all ‘as’-taking… possible by requiring us to understand things not immediately and ontically… but indirectly and ontologically (= imperfectly), through their being”. In Being-towards-death, the human finitude that grounds the mystery, the plenitude of possible worlds in which I am not, is highlighted. As mortals, then, our internal relation to death links us to the mystery (see The Thing). So dwelling (as poetic habitation) involves not only embeddedness in the fourfold, but also, as part of a unitary ontological structure, a necessary relationship with the mystery. (As mentioned earlier (2.2.7), it is arguable that the sense of the nothing as unactualized possibilities of Being is already at work in Being and Time (see Vallega-Neu 2003, 21). Indeed, Heidegger's explicit remarks on Being-towards-death in the Contributions (sections 160–2) suggest that it is. But even if that is so, the idea undoubtedly finds its fullest expression in the later work.)

If the essence of human Being is to dwell in the fourfold, then human beings are to the extent that they so dwell. And this will be achieved to the extent that human beings realize the “basic character of dwelling”, which Heidegger now argues is a matter of safeguarding “the fourfold in its essential unfolding” (Building Dwelling Thinking, 352). Such safeguarding is unpacked as a way of Being in which human beings save the earth, receive the sky as sky, await the divinities as divinities, and initiate their own essential being as mortals. Perhaps the best way to understand this four-way demand is to explore Heidegger's claim that modern humans, especially modern Western humans, systematically fail to meet it. That is, we are marked out by our loss of dwelling—our failure to safeguard the fourfold in its essential unfolding. This existential malaise is what Heidegger refers to in the Letter on Humanism as the oblivion of Being. As we are about to see, the fact that this is the basic character of our modern human society is, according to Heidegger, explained by the predominance of a mode of sense-making that, in the Contributions, he calls machination, but which he later (and more famously) calls technology.

I will attempt to internalize this thread -- but don't hold your breath -- waiting for me to morph into a Telegenic-Genius. I'll probably just continue to Lurk, Shirk, and Smirk!! It takes all kinds -- but why?? There is no resolution to my quest. Things continue to worsen -- on all levels. Is there some legitimacy to a Psalms, Proverbs, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John centered approach to Theology and Biblical Studies?? Think about it -- but don't strain yourselves. Perhaps most of us prefer football and beer!! O'Douls Amber on the Rocks for me!! Here is a video which I don't endorse -- but which some of you might find interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QxywTIZ3xg I simply wish for many (if not all) of you to struggle with theological issues. Again, I'm trying to be on everyone's side -- even though this is probably naive and impossible. "To dream the impossible dream!" I think I'd like to see a combination of the Old Avalon (without the drama) combined with the Mists of Avalon (with more members). It seems as if there are really only a couple of dozen regular posters here -- and most everyone has stopped talking to me (or perhaps I have stopped talking to them). I liked the white print on blue background. I liked the Bill and Kerry interviews (despite the criticism -- especially of Kerry). I keep envisioning getting briefed by someone who really knows everything about everything -- and I imagine this person (or other than person) being completely different than what I've been exposed to thus far. I seem to end up briefing myself -- with a composite of everyone and everything I've been exposed to. Perhaps this site is just fine -- as is -- because it forces me to be a Galactic Lone Ranger. Sherry Shriner keeps talking about 'them' being very, very angry. She also keeps talking about the New World Order Cabal in conflict with the New-Age Alien-Agenda. She seems to be saying that BOTH of these factions are in serious trouble. I tend to think that EVERYONE is in serious trouble. I'm seriously trying to figure out what to do -- without regard to which faction is in or out of power. I continue to think that a bad@ss faction is required to gain and retain power -- but that such a faction always ends up misusing and abusing the commoners. I continue to sense that some sort of a meltdown is immanent in this solar system -- regardless of who rules -- and regardless of how they rule. What if the Great Archangelic Controversy ends something like this?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glgM743uhVE Too many dark secrets are being exposed -- and we may be facing revolutionary change -- rather than the preferred evolutionary change. I just hope that we survive the coming changes. The technological advances seem to be making humanity obsolete. Is there a way to properly combine Socialism and Capitalism in sort of a Responsible Enterprise (as opposed to Free Enterprise or Laissez Faire Capitalism)?? Sorry for the tangential rant. Anyway, here is more Martin Heidegger. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

3.3 Technology

In his 1953 piece The Question Concerning Technology, Heidegger begins with the everyday account of technology according to which technology is the vast array of instruments, machines, artefacts and devices that we human beings invent, build, and then exploit. On this view technology is basically a tool that we control. Heidegger claims that this everyday account is, in a sense, correct, but it provides only a limited “instrumental and anthropological definition” of technology (Question Concerning Technology 312). It depicts technology as a means to an end (instrumental) and as a product of human activity (anthropological). What needs to be exposed and interrogated, however, is something that is passed over by the everyday account, namely the essence of technology. To bring this into view, Heidegger reinterprets his earlier notion of intelligibility in terms of the concept of a clearing. A clearing is a region of Being in which things are revealed as mattering in some specific way or another. To identify the essence of technology is to lay bare technology as a clearing, that is, to describe a technological mode of Being. As Heidegger puts it in the Contributions (61: 88), “[i]n the context of the being-question, this word [machination, technology] does not name a human comportment but a manner of the essential swaying of being”.

So what is the character of entities as revealed technologically? Heidegger's claim is that the “revealing that holds sway throughout modern technology… [is]… a challenging… which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy which can be extracted and stored as such” (Question Concerning Technology 320). The mode of revealing characteristic of modern technology understands phenomena in general—including the non-biological natural world, plants, animals, and indeed human beings—to be no more than what Heidegger calls standing-reserve, that is, resources to be exploited as means to ends. This analysis extends to regions of nature and sections of society that have not yet been harnessed positively as resources. Such unexploited elements (e.g., an unexplored jungle, this year's unemployed school leavers) exist technologically precisely as potential resources.

Heidegger's flagship example of technology is a hydroelectric plant built on the Rhine river that converts that river into a mere supplier of water power. Set against this “monstrousness” (Question Concerning Technology 321) is the poetic habitation of the natural environment of the Rhine as signalled by an old wooden bridge that spanned the river for hundreds of years, plus the river as revealed by Hölderlin's poem “The Rhine”. In these cases of poetic habitation, natural phenomena are revealed to us as objects of respect and wonder. One might think that Heidegger is over-reacting here, and that despite the presence of the hydroelectric plant, the Rhine in many ways remains a glorious example of natural beauty. Heidegger's response to this complaint is to focus on how the technological mode of Being corrupts the very notion of unspoilt areas of nature, by reducing such areas to resources ripe for exploitation by the tourist industry. Turning our attention to inter-human affairs, the technological mode of Being manifests itself when, for example, a friendly chat in the bar is turned into networking (Dreyfus 1993). And, in the light of Heidegger's analysis, one might smile wryly at the trend for companies to take what used to be called ‘personnel’ departments, and to rename them ‘human resources’. Many other examples could be given, but the general point is clear. The primary phenomenon to be understood is not technology as a collection of instruments, but rather technology as a clearing that establishes a deeply instrumental and, as Heidegger sees it, grotesque understanding of the world in general. Of course, if technological revealing were a largely restricted phenomenon, characteristic of isolated individuals or groups, then Heidegger's analysis of it would be of limited interest. The sting in the tale, however, is that, according to Heidegger, technological revealing is not a peripheral aspect of Being. Rather, it defines our modern way of living, at least in the West.

At this point one might pause to wonder whether technology really is the structure on which we should be concentrating. The counter-suggestion would be that technological thinking is merely the practical application of modern mathematical science, and that the latter is therefore the primary phenomenon. Heidegger rejects this view, arguing in contrast that the establishment of the technological mode of revealing is a necessary condition for there to be mathematical science at all, since such science “demands that nature be orderable as standing-reserve” by requiring that “nature report itself in some way or other that is identifiable through calculation and that it remain orderable as a system of information” (Question Concerning Technology 328). Either way, one might object to the view of science at work here, by pointing to analyses which suggest that while science may reduce objects to instrumental means rather than ends, it need not behave in this way. For example, O'Neill (2003) develops such an analysis by drawing explicitly on (one interpretation of) the Marxist (and ultimately Aristotelian) notion of the humanization of the senses. Good science may depend on the capacity for the disinterested use of the senses, and so foster a non-instrumental responsiveness to natural objects as ends rather than as means. This is a ‘humanization’ because the disinterested use of the senses is a characteristically human capacity. Thus to develop such a capacity is to develop a distinctively human virtue, something which is a constituent of human well-being. Moreover, if science may sometimes operate with a sense of awe and wonder in the face of beings, it may point the way beyond the technological clearing, an effect that, as we shall see later, Heidegger thinks is achieved principally by some great art.

By revealing beings as no more than the measurable and the manipulable, technology ultimately reduces beings to not-beings (Contributions 2: 6). This is our first proper glimpse of the oblivion of Being, the phenomenon that, in the Contributions, Heidegger also calls the abandonment of Being, or the abandonment of beings by Being (e.g., 55: 80). The notion of a not-being signals two things: (i) technological revealing drives out any sense of awe and wonder in the presence of beings, obliterating the secularized sense of what is sacred that is exemplified by the poetic habitation of the natural environment of the Rhine; (ii) we are essentially indifferent to the loss. Heidegger calls this indifference “the hidden distress of no-distress-at-all” (Contributions 4: . Indeed, on Heidegger's diagnosis, our response to the loss of any feeling of sacredness or awe in the face of beings is to find a technological substitute for that feeling, in the form of “lived-experience”, a drive for entertainment and information, “exaggeration and uproar” (Contributions 66: 91). All that said, however, technology should not be thought of as a wholly ‘negative’ phenomenon. For Heidegger, technology is not only the great danger, it is also a stage in the unfolding of Being that brings us to the brink of a kind of secularized salvation, by awakening in us a (re-)discovery of the sacred, appropriately understood (cf. Thomson 2003, 64–66). A rough analogy might be drawn here with the Marxist idea that the unfolding of history results in the establishment of capitalist means of production with their characteristic ‘negative’ elements—labour treated merely as a commodity, the multi-dimensional alienation of the workers—that bring us to the brink of (by creating the immediate social and economic preconditions for) the socialist transformation of society. Indeed, the analogy might be pushed a little further: just as the socialist transformation of society remains anything but inevitable (Trotsky taught us that), Heidegger argues that the salvation-bringing transformation of the present condition of human being is most certainly not bound to occur.

To bring all these points into better view, we need to take a step back and ask the following question. Is the technological mode of revealing ultimately a human doing for which we are responsible? Heidegger's answer is ‘yes and no’. On the one hand, humankind is the active agent of technological thinking, so humankind is not merely a passive element. On the other hand, “the unconcealment itself… is never a human handiwork” (Question Concerning Technology 324). As Heidegger later put it, the “essence of man is framed, claimed and challenged by a power which manifests itself in the essence of technology, a power which man himself does not control.” (Only a God can Save Us; 107, my emphasis). To explicate the latter point, Heidegger introduces the concepts of destining (cf. the earlier notion of ‘destiny’) and enframing. Destining is “what first starts man upon a way of revealing” (Question Concerning Technology 329). As such it is an a priori transcendental structure of human Being and so beyond our control. Human history is a temporally organized kaleidoscope of particular ordainings of destining (see also On the Essence of Truth). Enframing is one such ordaining, the “gathering together of the setting-upon that sets upon man, i.e., challenges him forth, to reveal the actual, in the mode of ordering, as standing-reserve” (Question Concerning Technology 325). This is, of course, a way of unpacking the point (see above) that technology is “a manner of the essential swaying of being” (Contributions 61: 88), that is, of Being's own essential unfolding.

Enframing, then, is the ordaining of destining that ushers in the modern technological clearing. But there is more to it than that. To see why, consider the following criticism of Heidegger's analysis, as we have unpacked it so far. Any suggestion that technological thinking has appeared for the first time along with our modern Western way of living would seem to be straightforwardly false. To put the point crudely, surely the ancient Greeks sometimes treated entities merely as instrumental means. But if that is right, and Heidegger would agree that it is, then how can it be that technological thinking defines the spirit of our age? The answer lies in Heidegger's belief that pre-modern, traditional artisanship (as exemplified by the old wooden bridge over the Rhine), manifests what he calls poiesis. In this context poiesis is to be understood as a process of gathering together and fashioning natural materials in such a way that the human project in which they figure is in a deep harmony with, indeed reveals—or as Heidegger sometimes says when discussing poiesis, brings forth—the essence of those materials and any natural environment in which they are set. Thus, in discussing what needs to be learnt by an apprentice to a traditional cabinetmaker, Heidegger writes:

If he is to become a true cabinetmaker, he makes himself answer and respond above all to the different kinds of wood and to the shapes slumbering within wood—to wood as it enters into man's dwelling with all the hidden riches of its essence. In fact, this relatedness to wood is what maintains the whole craft. Without that relatedness, the craft will never be anything but empty busywork, any occupation with it will be determined exclusively by business concerns. Every handicraft, all human dealings, are constantly in that danger. (What is Called Thinking? 379)

Poiesis, then, is a process of revealing. Poietic events are acts of unconcealment—one is tempted to coin the ugly neologism truth-ing—in which entities are allowed to show themselves. As with the closely related notion of original truth that is at work in Being and Time, the idea of entities showing themselves does not imply that what is revealed in poiesis is something independent of human involvement. Thus what is revealed by the artisanship of the cabinetmaker is “wood as it enters into man's dwelling”. This telling remark forges a crucial philosophical link (and not merely an etymological one) between the poietic and poetic. Poietic events and poetic habitation involve the very same mode of intelligibility.

By introducing the concept of poiesis, and by unearthing the presence of the phenomenon in traditional artisanship, Heidegger is suggesting that even though technological thinking was a possibility in pre-modern society, it was neither the only nor the dominant mode of bringing-forth. So what has changed? Heidegger argues that what is distinctive about enframing as an ordaining of destining is (i) that it “drives out every other possibility of revealing” (Question Concerning Technology 332), and (ii) that it covers up revealing as such (more precisely, covers up the concealing-unconcealing character of appropriation), thereby leaving us blind to the fact that technology is, in its essence, a clearing. For Heidegger, these dual features of enframing are intimately tied up with the idea of technology as metaphysics completing itself. He writes: “[a]s a form of truth [clearing] technology is grounded in the history of metaphysics, which is itself a distinctive and up to now the only perceptible phase of the history of Being” (Letter on Humanism 244). According to Heidegger, metaphysics conceives of Being as a being (for more on the reduction of Being to a being, see section 2.2.1 above). In so doing, metaphysics obscures the concealing-unconcealing dynamic of the essential unfolding of Being, a dynamic that provides the a priori condition for there to be beings. The history of metaphysics is thus equivalent to the history of Western philosophy in which Being as such is passed over, a history that, for Heidegger, culminates in the nihilistic forces of Nietzsche's eternally recurring will-to-power. The totalizing logic of metaphysics involves the view that there is a single clearing (whatever it may be) that constitutes reality. This renders thought insensitive to the fundamental structure of Being, in which any particular clearing is ontologically co-present with the unintelligible plenitude of alternative clearings, the mystery. With this totalizing logic in view, enframing might be thought of as the ordaining of destining that establishes the technological clearing as the one dominant picture, to the exclusion of all others. Hence technology is metaphysics completing itself.

We are now in a position to deal with two items of unfinished business. First, recall the stylistic shift that characterizes Heidegger's later work. Heidegger not only increasingly engages with poetry in his later thinking (especially the works of the German lyric poet Hölderlin), he also adopts a substantially more poetic style of writing. But why? The language of metaphysics, which ultimately unpacks itself as technological, calculative thinking, is a language from which Heidegger believed he did not fully escape in Being and Time (see quotation from the Letter on Humanism at the beginning of section 3.1 above, and Vallega-Neu 2003 24–9 for discussion). What is needed to think Being historically, to think Being in its essential unfolding, is a different kind of philosophical language, a language suggested by the poetic character of dwelling. It is important to realize that Heidegger's intention here is not to place Being beyond philosophy and within the reach of poetry, although he does believe that certain poets, such as Hölderlin, enable us to glimpse the mysterious aspect of Being. His intention, rather, is to establish that the kind of philosophy that is needed here is itself poetic. This explains the stylistic component of the turn.

Secondly, recall the loss of dwelling identified by Heidegger. Modern humankind (at least in the West) is in the (enframed) grip of technological thinking. Because of this promotion of instrumentality as the fundamental way of Being of entities, we have lost sight of how to inhabit the fourfold poetically, of how to safeguard the fourfold in its essential unfolding. Such safeguarding would, in a sense, be the opposite of technological thinking. But what ‘opposite’ amounts to here needs to be worked out with care. Given contemporary concerns over deforestation, global warming and the like, it is tempting to think that Heidegger's analysis of technology might provide the philosophical platform for some sort of extreme eco-radicalism. However, while there is undoubtedly much of value to be said about the contribution that Heidegger's thinking may make to contemporary debates in environmental ethics (see e.g., Zimmerman 1983, 1993, 2002), Heidegger was no eco-warrior and no luddite. Although he often promoted a romantic image of a pre-technological age inhabited by worthy peasants in touch with nature, he did not believe that it is possible for modern humankind to forge some pastoral Eden from which technology (in both the everyday and the essential sense) is entirely absent. So we should neither “push on blindly with technology” nor “curse it as the work of the devil” (Question Concerning Technology 330). Indeed, both these options would at root be technological modes of thinking. The way forward, according to Heidegger, is not to end technology, but rather to inhabit it differently (see e.g., Vallega-Neu 2003 93 note 15). We need to transform our mode of Being into one in which technology (in the sense of the machines and devices of the modern age) is there for us to enjoy and use, but in which technology (in the sense of a mode of Being-in-the-world) is not our only or fundamental way of encountering entities. And what is the basic character of this reinhabiting? It is to shelter the truth of Being in beings (e.g., Contributions 246: 273), to safeguard the fourfold in its essential unfolding. In what, then, does this safeguarding consist?

3.4 Safeguarding

Heidegger argues that if humankind is to enter into safeguarding, it needs to learn (or perhaps to learn once more) to think of Being as a gift that has been granted to us in history. Indeed, to think properly is precisely to be grateful for the gift of Being (see What is Called Thinking?). (Terms such as ‘gift’ and ‘granted’ should not be heard theologically, but in terms of secularized sacredness and destining.) In this learning process, certain artworks constitute ontological beacons that disrupt the technological clearing. Thus recall that Heidegger identifies a shared form of disclosure that is instantiated both by the old wooden bridge over the Rhine and by Hölderlin's poem “The Rhine”. We can now understand this identification in terms of the claim that certain artworks (although of course not those that themselves fall prey to technological thinking) share with traditional artisanship the capacity to realize poiesis. In so doing such artworks succeed in bringing us into contact with the mystery through their expression of dwelling (poetic habitation). In listening attentively and gratefully to how Being announces itself in such artworks, humankind will prepare themselves for the task of safeguarding.

But what exactly would one do in order to safeguard the fourfold in its essential unfolding. Recall that in Building Dwelling Thinking Heidegger presents safeguarding as a four-dimensional way of Being. The first two dimensions—saving the earth and receiving the sky as sky—refer to our relationship with the non-human natural world. As such they forge a genuine connection between the later Heidegger and contemporary environmentalist thinking. However, the connection needs to be stated with care. Once again the concept of poiesis is central. Heidegger holds that the self-organized unfolding of the natural world, the unaided blossoming of nature, is itself a process of poiesis. Indeed it is poiesis “in the highest sense” (Question Concerning Technology 317). One might think, then, that saving the earth, safeguarding in its first dimension, is a matter of leaving nature to its own devices, of actively ensuring that the conditions obtain for unaided natural poiesis. However, for Heidegger, saving the earth is primarily an ontological, rather than an ecological, project. ‘Save’ here means “to set something free into its own essence” (Building Dwelling Thinking, p.352), and thus joins a cluster of related concepts that includes dwelling and also poiesis as realized in artisanship and art. So while, say, fiercely guarding the integrity of wilderness areas may be one route to safeguarding, saving the earth may also be achieved through the kind of artisanship and its associated gathering of natural materials that is characteristic of the traditional cabinetmaker. The concept of saving as a setting free of something into its own essence also clears a path to another important point. All four dimensions of safeguarding have at their root the notion of staying with things, of letting things be in their essence through cultivation or construction. Heidegger describes such staying with things as “the only way in which the fourfold stay within the fourfold [i.e., safeguarding] is accomplished at any time in simple unity” (Building Dwelling Thinking 353). It is thus the unifying existential structure of safeguarding.

What now of safeguarding in its second dimension—to receive the sky as sky? Here Heidegger's main concern seems to be to advocate the synchronization of contemporary human life with the rhythms of nature (day and night, the seasons, and so on). Here safeguarding is exemplified by the aforementioned peasants whose lives were interlocked with such natural rhythms (through planting seasons etc.) in a way that modern technological society is not. One might note that this dislocation has become even more pronounced since Heidegger's death, with the advent of the Internet-driven, 24-hours-a-day-7-days-a-week service culture. Once again we need to emphasize that Heidegger's position is not some sort of philosophical ludditism, but a plea for the use of contemporary machines and devices in a way that is sensitive to the temporal patterns of the natural world. (For useful discussion see Young 2002, 110–113. Young makes an illuminating connection with Heidegger's eulogy to van Gogh's painting of a pair of peasant shoes to be found in The Origin of the Work of Art.)

Of course, these relationships with nature are still only part of what safeguarding involves. Its third and fourth dimensions demand that human beings await the divinities as divinities and “initiate their own essential being—their being capable of death as death—into the use and practice of this capacity, so that there may be a good death” (Building Dwelling Thinking 352). The latter demand suggests that we may safeguard each other as mortals by integrating a non-evasive attitude to death (see above) into the cultural structures (e.g., the death-related customs and ceremonies) of the community. But now what about the third dimension of safeguarding? What does it mean to await the divinities as divinities?

Let's again approach our question via a potential problem with Heidegger's account. Echoing a worry that attaches to the concept of heritage in Being and Time, it may seem that the notion of destining, especially in its more specific manifestation as enframing, involves a kind of fatalism. Despite some apparent rhetoric to the contrary, however, Heidegger's considered view is that destining is ultimately not a “fate that compels” (Question Concerning Technology 330). We have been granted the saving power to transform our predicament. Moreover, the fact that we are at a point of danger—a point at which the grip of technological thinking has all but squeezed out access to the poetic and the mystical—will have the effect of thrusting this saving power to the fore. This is the good news. The bad news is that:

philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world. This is not only true of philosophy, but of all merely human thought and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poetizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering [Untergang]; for in the face of the god who is absent, we founder. (Only a God can Save Us 107)

That is what it means to await the divinities as divinities.

3.5 Only a God can Save Us

Heidegger sometimes uses the term ‘god’ to mean the secularized notion of the sacred already indicated, such that to embrace a god would be to maintain due sensitivity to the thought that beings are granted to us in the essential unfolding of Being. When, in the Contributions, Heidegger writes of the last or ultimate god of the other beginning (where ‘other’ is in relation to the ‘first beginning’ of Western thought in ancient Greece—the beginning of metaphysics), it often seems to be this secularized sacredness that he has in mind (cf. Thomson 2003; see Crownfield 2001for an alternative reading of the last god that maintains a more robust theological dimension, although one which is concrete and historicized). However, Heidegger sometimes seems to use the term ‘god’ or ‘divinity’ to refer to a heroic figure (a cultural template) who may initiate (or help to initiate) a transformational event in the history of Being by opening up an alternative clearing (for this interpretation, see e.g., Young 2002, 98). These heroic figures are the grounders of the abyss, the restorers of sacredness (Contributions 2: 6, see Sallis 2001 for analysis and discussion). It might even be consistent with Heidegger's view to relax the requirement that the divine catalyst must be an individual being, and thus to conceive of certain transformational cultural events or forces themselves as divinities (Dreyfus 2003). In any case, Heidegger argues that, in the present crisis, we are waiting for a god who will reawaken us to the poetic, and thereby enable us to dwell in the fourfold. This task certainly seems to be a noble one. Unfortunately, however, it plunges us into the murkiest and most controversial region of the Heideggerian intellectual landscape, his infamous involvement with Nazism.

Here is not the place to enter into the historical debate over exactly what Heidegger did and when he did it. However, given his deliberate, albeit arguably short-lived, integration of Nazi ideology with the philosophy of Being (see above), a few all-too-brief comments on the relationship between Heidegger's politics and his philosophical thought are necessary. (For more detailed evidence and discussion, as well as a range of positions on how we should interpret and respond to this relationship, see e.g., Farias 1989; Neske and Kettering 1990; Ott 1993; Pattison 2000; Polt 1999; Rockmore 1992; Sluga, 1993; Wolin 1990, 1993; Young 1997). There is no doubt that Heidegger's Nazi sympathies, however long they lasted, have a more intimate relationship with his philosophical thought than might be suggested by apologist claims that he was a victim of his time (in 1933, lots of intelligent people backed Hitler without thereby supporting the Holocaust that was to come) or that what we have here is ‘merely’ a case of bad political judgment, deserving of censure but with no implications for the essentially independent philosophical programme. Why does the explanation run deeper? The answer is that Heidegger believed (indeed continued to believe until he died) that the German people were destined to carry out a monumental spiritual mission. That mission was nothing less than to be at the helm of the aforementioned transformation of Being in the West, from one of instrumental technology to one of poetic dwelling. In mounting this transformation the German people would be acting not imperialistically, but for all nations in the encounter with modern technology. Of course destining is not a fate that compels, so some divine catalyst would be needed to awake the German nation to its historic mission, a catalyst provided by the spiritual leaders of the Nazi Party.

Why did Heidegger believe that the German people enjoyed this position of world-historical significance? In the later writings Heidegger argues explicitly that “[t]hinking itself can be transformed only by a thinking which has the same origin and calling”, so the technological mode of Being must be transcended through a new appropriation of the European tradition. Within this process the German people have a special place, because of the “inner relationship of the German language with the language of the Greeks and with their thought”. (Quotations from Only a God can Save Us 113.) Thus it is the German language that links the German people in a privileged way to, as Heidegger sees it, the genesis of European thought and to a pre-technological world-view in which bringing-forth as poiesis is dominant. This illustrates the general point that, for Heidegger, Being is intimately related to language. Language is, as he famously put it in the Letter on Humanism (217), the “house of Being”. So it is via language that Being is linked to particular peoples.

Even if Heidegger had some sort of argument for the world-historical destiny of the German people, why on earth did he believe that the Nazi Party, of all things, harboured the divine catalyst? Part of the reason seems to have been the seductive effect of a resonance that exists between (a) Heidegger's understanding of traditional German rural life as realizing values and meanings that may counteract the insidious effects of contemporary technology, and (b) the Nazi image of rustic German communities, rooted in German soil, providing a bulwark against foreign contamination. Heidegger certainly exploits this resonance in his pro-Nazi writings. That said there is an important point of disagreement here, one that Heidegger himself drew out. And once again the role of language in Being is at the heart of the issue. Heidegger steadfastly refused to countenance any biologistic underpinning to his views. In 1945 he wrote that, in his 1934 lectures on logic, he “sought to show that language was not the biological-racial essence of man, but conversely, that the essence of man was based on language as a basic reality of spirit” (Letter to the Rector of Freiburg University, November 4, 1945, 64). In words that we have just met, it is language and not biology that, for Heidegger, constitutes the house of Being. So the German Volk are a linguistic-historical, rather than a biological, phenomenon, which explains why Heidegger officially rejected one of the keystones of Nazism, namely its biologically grounded racism. Perhaps Heidegger deserves some credit here, although regrettably the aforementioned lectures on logic also contain evidence of a kind of historically driven ‘racism’. Heidegger suggests that while Africans (along with plants and animals) have no history (in a technical sense understood in terms of heritage), the event of an airplane carrying Hitler to Mussolini is genuinely part of history (see Polt 1999, 155).

Heidegger was soon disappointed by his ‘divinities’. In a 1935 lecture he remarks that the

works that are being peddled (about) nowadays as the philosophy of National Socialism, but have nothing whatever to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement (namely, the encounter between global technology and contemporary man), have all been written by men fishing the troubled waters of values and totalities. (An Introduction to Metaphysics 166)

So Heidegger came to believe that the spiritual leaders of the Nazi party were false gods. They were ultimately agents of technological thought and thus incapable of completing the historic mission of the German people to transcend global technology. Nonetheless, one way of hearing the 1935 remark is that Heidegger continued to believe in the existence of, and the philosophical motivation for, that mission, a view that Rockmore (1992, 123–4) calls “an ideal form of Nazism”. This interpretation has some force. But perhaps we can at least make room for the thought that Heidegger's repudiation of Nazism goes further than talk of an ideal Nazism allows. For example, responding to the fact that Heidegger drew a parallel between modern agriculture (as a motorized food-industry) and “the manufacturing of corpses in gas chambers and extermination camps”, Young (1997) argues that this would count as a devaluing of the Holocaust only on a superficial reading. According to Young, Heidegger's point is that both modern agriculture and the Final Solution are workings-out of the technological mode of Being, which does not entail that they should be treated as morally equivalent. (Heidegger draws the parallel in a lecture called The Enframing given in 1949. The quotation is taken from Young 1997, 172. For further discussion, see Pattison 2000).

Heidegger's involvement with Nazism casts a shadow over his life. Whether, and if so to what extent, it casts a more concentrated shadow over at least some of his philosophical work is a more difficult issue. It would be irresponsible to ignore the relationship between Heidegger's philosophy and his politics. But it is surely possible to be critically engaged in a deep and intellectually stimulating way with his sustained investigation into Being, to find much of value in his capacity to think deeply about human life, to struggle fruitfully with what he says about our loss of dwelling, and to appreciate his massive and still unfolding contribution to thought and to thinking, without looking for evidence of Nazism in every twist and turn of the philosophical path he lays down.

Bibliography

Primary Literature

The Gesamtausgabe (Heidegger's collected works in German) are published by Vittorio Klostermann. The process of publication started during Heidegger's lifetime but has not yet been completed. The publication details are available at the Gesamtausgabe Plan page.
An Introduction to Metaphysics, translated by R. Manheim, New York: Doubleday, 1961.
Becoming Heidegger: On the Trail of His Early Occasional Writings, 1910–1927, T. Kisiel and T. Sheehan (eds.), Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2007. A collection of English translations of the most philosophical of Heidegger's earliest occasional writings.
Being and Time, translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962 (first published in 1927).
[NB: Page numbers in the article refer to the Macquarrie and Robinson translation. A more recent translation of Being and Time exists: Being and Time, translated by J. Stambaugh. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1996. The Stambaugh translation has many virtues, and is certainly more user-friendly for the Heidegger-novice, but it is arguable that the Macquarrie and Robinson translation remains the first choice of most Heidegger scholars.]
“Building Dwelling Thinking”, translated by A. Hofstadter, in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 217–65.
Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), translated by P. Emad and K. Maly, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.
History of the Concept of Time, translated by T. Kisiel, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.
Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, translated by R. Taft, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1929/1997
“Letter on Humanism”, translated by F. A Capuzzi and J. Glenn Gray, in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 217–65.
“Seminar in Le Thor 1968”, translated by A. Mitchell and F. Raffoul, in Four Seminars, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004.
“Letter to the Rector of Freiburg University, November 4, 1945”, may be found in K. A. Moehling, Martin Heidegger and the Nazi Party: An Examination, Ph.D. Dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1972. Translated by R. Wolin and reprinted in R. Wolin (ed.), The Heidegger Controversy: a Critical Reader, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993, pp. 61–66.
“On the Essence of Truth”, translated by John Sallis, in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 115–38.
“ ‘Only a God can Save Us’: Der Spiegel's Interview with Martin Heidegger”, Der Spiegel, May 31st, 1976. Translated by M. O. Alter and J. D. Caputo and published in Philosophy Today XX(4/4): 267–285. Translation reprinted in R. Wolin (ed.), in The Heidegger Controversy: a Critical Reader, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993, pp. 91–116.
The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, translated by A. Hofstadter, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982.
“The Origin of the Work of Art”, translated by A. Hofstadter with minor changes by D. F. Krell, in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 143–212.
“The Question Concerning Technology”, translated by W. Lovitt with revisions by D. F. Krell, in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 311–41.
“The Self-Assertion of the German University”, translated by W. S. Lewis, in R. Wolin (ed.), in The Heidegger Controversy: a Critical Reader, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993, pp. 29–39.
“The Thing”, translated by A. Hofstadter, in Poetry, Language, Thought, New York: Harper & Row, 1971.
What is Called Thinking?, translated by F. D. Wieck and J. Glenn Gray, New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Excerpt published under the title “What Calls for Thinking?” in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 369–91, from which the page number of the passage reproduced above is taken.
“What is Metaphysics?”, translated by D. F. Krell, in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 93–110.
Zollikon Seminars: Protocols—Conversations—Letters, translated by F. Mayr, Northwestern University Press, Illinois: Evanston, 2001.

Other Cited Words

Adorno, T., 1964, The Jargon of Authenticity, London: Routledge, 2002.
Binswanger, L., 1943, Grundformen und Erkenntnis menschlichen Daseins (The Foundations and Cognition of Human Existence), untranslated, Munich: Ernst Reinhart Verlag, 1964.
Brandom, R., 1983, “Heidegger's Categories in Being and Time”, The Monist, 66(3): 387–409.
–––, 2002, Tales of the Mighty Dead. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Cappuccio, M. and Wheeler, M., 2010, “When the Twain Meet: Could the Study of Mind be a Meeting of Minds?”, in J. Chase, E. Mares, J. Reynolds and J. Williams (eds.), On the Futures of Philosophy: Post-Analytic and Meta-Continental Thinking, London: Continuum.
Caputo, J., 1984, “Husserl, Heidegger and the Question of a ‘Hermeneutic’ Phenomenology”, Husserl Studies, 1: 157–178.
–––, 1993, “Heidegger and Theology”, in C. Guignon (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 270–88.
Carel, H., 2006, Life and Death in Freud and Heidegger, New York & Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Carman, T., 2002, “Review of Steven Galt Crowell, Husserl, Heidegger, and the Space of Meaning: Paths Toward Transcendental Phenomenology”. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2002.02.03. URL=http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1248
Carnap, R., 1932, “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language”, in A.J. Ayer (ed.), Logical Positivism, Glencoe, Scotland: Free Press, 1959.
Christensen, C. B., 1997, “Heidegger's Representationalism”, The Review of Metaphysics 51(1): 77–103.
–––, 1998, “Getting Heidegger Off the West Coast”, Inquiry 41(1): 65–87.
Critchley, S., 2001, Continental Philosophy: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crowell, S. Galt, 2001, Husserl, Heidegger, and the Space of Meaning: Paths Toward Transcendental Phenomenology, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
–––, 2005, “Heidegger and Husserl: The Matter and Method of Philosophy”, in H. L. Dreyfus and M. A. Wrathall (eds.) A Companion to Heidegger, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 49–64.
Crowell, S. Galt. and Malpas, J. (eds.), 2007, Transcendental Heidegger, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Crownfield, D., 2001, “The Last God”, in Scott et al., pp. 213–228.
Dahlstrom, D.O., 1994, “Heidegger's Critique of Husserl”. In T. Kisiel and J. van Buren (eds.) Reading Heidegger from the Start: Essays in His Earliest Thought, Albany: State University of New York Press.
–––, 2001, Heidegger's Concept of Truth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dostal, R. J., 1993, “Time and Phenomenology in Husserl and Heidegger”, in C. Guignon (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–169.
Dreyfus, H. L., 1990, Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
–––, 1992, What Computers Still Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
–––, 1993, “Heidegger on the Connection between Nihilism, Art, Technology and Politics”, in C. Guignon (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 289–316.
–––, 2008, “Why Heideggerian AI Failed and How Fixing It Would Require Making It More Heideggerian”, in P. Husbands, O. Holland, and M. Wheeler (eds.), The Mechanical Mind in History, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 331–71. (A shortened version of this paper appears in under the same title in Philosophical Psychology 20/2: 247–268, 2007. Another version appears under the same title in Artificial Intelligence, 171: 1137–1160, 2007.)
Edwards, P., 1975, “Heidegger and Death as a ‘Possibility’ ”, Mind 84(1): 546–66.
–––, 1976, “Heidegger and Death: a Deflationary Critique”, The Monist 59(1):161–86.
–––, 2004, Heidegger's Confusions, New York: Prometheus.
Farias, V., 1989, Heidegger and Nazism, Temple University Press.
Gallagher, S., and Jacobson, R.S., forthcoming, “Heidegger and Social Cognition”, in J. Kiverstein and M. Wheeler (eds.), Heidegger and Cognitive Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gelven, M., 1989, A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Revised Edition, De Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
Guignon, C., 1993, “Authenticity, Moral Values, and Psychotherapy”, in C. Guignon (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–39.
Haugeland, J., 2007, “Letting Be”, in Crowell and Malpas 2007.
–––, 2005, “Reading Brandom Reading Heidegger”, European Journal of Philosophy 13(3): 421–28.
Hinman, L., 1978, “Heidegger, Edwards, and Being-toward-Death”, Southern Journal of Philosophy XVI(3): 193–212.
Husserl, E., 1900, Logical Investigations, translated by A.J. Findlay, London: Routledge, 1973.
–––, 1913, Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology Book 1, translated by F. Kersten, Berlin: Springer, 1983.
Kant, I., 1781, Critique of Pure Reason, translated by P. Guyer and A. Wood, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Kisiel, T., 1993, The Genesis of Heidegger's Being and Time, Berkeley: University of California Press.
–––, 2002, Heidegger's Way of Thought: Critical and Interpretive Signposts, A. Denker and M. Heinz (eds.), London: Continuum.
Kisiel, T. and van Buren, J. (eds.), 1994, Reading Heidegger from the Start: Essays in His Earliest Thought, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kiverstein, J. and Wheeler. M. (eds.), forthcoming, Heidegger and Cognitive Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Löwith, K., 1928, Das Individuum in der Rolle des Mitmenschen, in K. Stichweh (ed.), Sämtliche Schriften, Vol. 1. (9–197), untranslated, Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1981.
Malpas, J., 2006, Heidegger's Topology, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
–––, forthcoming, “Heidegger, Space, and World”, in J. Kiverstein and M. Wheeler (eds.), Heidegger and Cognitive Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mitchell, A. J., 2010, “The Fourfold”, in B. W. Davis (ed.), Martin Heidegger: Key Concepts, Durham: Acumen, pp. 208–18
Mulhall, S., 2005, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Heidegger and ‘Being and Time‘, (second edition), London: Routledge.
Murray, M. (ed.), 1978, Heidegger and Modern Philosophy: Critical Essays, New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Neske, G. and Kettering, E., 1990, Martin Heidegger and National Socialism: Questions and Answers, translated by Lisa Harries, New York: Paragon House.
Olafson, F., 1987, Heidegger and the Philosophy of Mind, New Haven: Yale University Press.
O'Neill, J., 1993, Ecology, Policy and Politics: Human Well-Being and the Natural World, New York: Routledge.
Okrent, S., 1988, Heidegger's Pragmatism, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ott, H., 1993, Martin Heidegger: a Political Life, London: Harper Collins.
Overgaard, S., 2002, “Heidegger's Concept of Truth Revisited”, Nordic Journal of Philosophy, 3(2): 73–90.
–––, 2003, “Heidegger's Early Critique of Husserl”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 11(2): 157–175.
Pattison, G., 2000, The Later Heidegger, London: Routledge.
Pöggeler, O., 1963, Martin Heidegger's Path of Thinking, translated by D. Magurshak and S. Barber, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press International, 1987.
Polt, R., 1999, Heidegger: an Introduction, London: Routledge.
Ratcliffe, M., 2008, Feelings of Being: Phenomenology, Psychiatry and the Sense of Reality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richardson, W. J., 1963, Heidegger: Through Phenomenology to Thought, The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.
Ricoeur, P., 1992, Oneself as Another, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rockmore, T., 1992, On Heidegger's Nazism and Philosophy, London: Wheatsheaf.
Rorty, R., 1991a, Essays on Heidegger and Others (Philosophical Papers, Volume 2), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 1991b, “Heidegger, Contingency, and Pragmatism”, in his Essays on Heidegger and Others (Philosophical Papers, Volume 2), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–49. Also in H. L. Dreyfus and H. Hall (eds.), Heidegger: a Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, and H. L. Dreyfus and M. A. Wrathall (eds.) A Companion to Heidegger, Oxford: Blackwell, 2005, pp. 511–32.
Sallis, J., 2001, “Grounders of the Abyss”, in Scott et al., 2001, pp. 181–97.
Sartre, J.-P., 1956, Being and Nothingness, New York: Philosophical Library.
Schoenbohm, S. M., 2001, “Reading Heidegger's Contributions to Philosophy: an Orienation”, in Scott et al., 2001, pp. 15–31
Schurmann, R., 1992, “Riveted to a Monstrous Site: on Heidegger's Beitrage zur Philosophie”, in T. Rockmore and J. Margolis (eds.) The Heidegger Case: on Philosophy and Politics, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Scott, C. E., Schoenbohm, S. M. Vallega-Neu, D. and Vallega, A. (eds.), 2001, Companion to Heidegger's, Contributions to Philosophy, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Sharr, A., 2007, Heidegger for Architects, London: Routledge.
Sheehan, T., 1975, “Heidegger, Aristotle and Phenomenology”, Philosophy Today, XIX(Summer): 87–94.
–––, 2001, “A Paradigm Shift in Heidegger Research”, Continental Philosophy Review, 32(2): 1–20.
–––, 2010, “The Turn’, in B. W. Davis (ed.), Martin Heidegger: Key Concepts, Durham: Acumen, pp. 82–101.
Sluga, H., 1993, Heidegger's Crisis: Philosophy and Politics in Nazi Germany, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Stiegler, B., 1996, Technics and Time, 2: Disorientation, translated by Stephen Barker, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2003.
Thomson, I., 2003, “The Philosophical Fugue: Understanding the Structure and Goal of Heidegger's Beiträge”, Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 34(1): 57–73.
Tugendhat, E., 1967, Der Wahrheitsbegriff bei Husserl und Heidegger (The Concept of truth in Husserl and Heidegger), untranslated, Berlin: de Gruyter.
Vallega, A., 2001, “ ‘Beyng-Historical Thinking’ in Heidegger's Contributions to Philosophy”, in Scott et al., 2001, pp. 48–65
Vallega-Neu, D., 2003, Heidegger's Contributions to Philosophy: an Introduction, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
–––, 2010, “Ereignis: the Event of Appropriation”, in B. W. Davis (ed.), Martin Heidegger: Key Concepts, Durham: Acumen,pp. 140–54
van Buren, J., 1994, The Young Heidegger: Rumor of the Hidden King, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
–––, 2005, “The Earliest Heidegger: a New Field of Research”, in H. L. Dreyfus and M. A. Wrathall (eds.) A Companion to Heidegger, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 19–31.
von Herrmann, F.-W., 2001, “Contributions to Philosophy and Enowning-Historical Thinking”, in Scott et al. 2001, pp. 105–26
Wheeler, M., 2005, Reconstructing the Cognitive World: the Next Step, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wolin, R., 1990, The Politics of Being: The Political Thought of Martin Heidegger, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
–––, 1993, The Heidegger Controversy: a Critical Reader, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Young, J., 1997, Heidegger, Philosophy, Nazism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2002, Heidegger's Later Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ziarek, K., 1989, “The Reception of Heidegger's Thought in American Literary Criticism”, Diacritics, 19(3/4): 114–26.
Zimmerman, M. E., 1983, “Toward a Heideggerean Ethos for Radical Environmentalism”, Environmental Ethics, 5(3): 99–131.
–––, 1993, “Rethinking the Heidegger—Deep Ecology Relationship”, Environmental Ethics, 15(3): 195–224.
–––, 2002, “Heidegger's Phenomenology and Contemporary Environmentalism”, in T. Toadvine (ed.), Eco-Phenomenology: Back to the Earth Itself, Albany: SUNY Press, pp. 73–101.

Additional Reading

Carman, T., 2003, Heidegger's Analytic: Interpretation, Discourse, and Authenticity in ‘Being and Time’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, T., 2001, Routledge Critical Thinkers: Martin Heidegger, London: Routledge.
Dreyfus, H.L. and Hall, H. (eds.), 1992, Heidegger: a Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell.
Dreyfus, H.L. and Wrathall, M. (eds.), 2002, Heidegger Reexamined (4 Volumes), London: Routledge.
Gorner, P., 2007, Heidegger's Being and Time: an Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guignon, C., 1983, Heidegger and the Problem of Knowledge, Indiana: Hackett.
–––, (ed.), 1993, The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macann, C. (ed.), 1992, Heidegger: Critical Assessments (4 Volumes), London: Routledge.
–––. (ed.), 1996, Critical Heidegger, London: Routledge.
Marx. W., 1970, Heidegger and the Tradition, translated by T. Kisiel and M. Greene, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Wrathall, M., 2003, How to Read Heidegger, London: Granta.
Wrathall, M. and Malpas, J. (eds.), 2000, Heidegger, Authenticity and Modernity: Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus, Volume 1, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
–––, (eds.), 2000, Heidegger, Coping and Cognitive Science: Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus, Volume 2, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.