university of louisville graduate named rhodes scholarhttp://www.courier-journal.com/article/20091121/news01/911210361/university+of+louisville+graduate+named+school+s+first+rhodes+scholar.
monica marks grew up among fundamentalist jehovahs witnesses in eastern kentucky craving books and learning in a community where education wasnt valued.. today the university of louisville graduate is the state's latest rhodes scholar, the winner of one of the most coveted awards in academia.. growing up, the discussion wasnt about what college you would go to, it was whether or not you were even going to college, she said.
the idea of going to university and getting a degree, much less getting a rhodes, didnt even fall within our purview.. at 23 years of age, her studies in islamic law have already taken her around the globe to places like jordan, tanzania and tunisia.
Marks credits her father with letting her stray from church teachings to make a better life for herself.
Jesse Marks was an elder in the local Jehovah’s Witness church — a church she said focused on preparing for the apocalypse.
I can just imagine the talk about her father in the congregation now.
robert king recently announced that his website, www.e-watchman.com, is going to close down because he no longer has the services of his administrator, and because the website has fallen to a lower google rating because of recent inactivity.
says he is moving everything to a blog..
He truly is disturbed. I pity him, and most especially his wife. I hope he eventually finds some peace.
never found an answer to that.. was he really a judge for some time?
how do you get such title?
was it legal for him to use it?.
The title was perpetuated by the Witnesses and so got stuck on him.
If I remember correctly, he adopted the title and (inappropriately) referred to himself as 'Judge Rutherford.' That provides much insight into his dearth of honor and low self esteem.
Justitia
.
i started a topic like this about 4 years ago but, as you'd expect, most of the images no longer show so here we go again .
.
avid and kelly arellanes hesitated when the afl-cio asked them to visit washington as part of a union-led effort to encourage lawmakers to include a public insurance option in health care reform legislation.
the bryant, ark.
couple, broke due to medical bills, didn't want to look like they wanted help, or even sympathy.. but they decided to make the trip after opening a bill for lab work related to the accident that bankrupted them.
Contrary to popular perceptions, medical bills are the PRIMARY cause of persons filing bankruptcy, despite the fact that the MAJORITY of persons had medical insurance. The Harvard researchers were distraught when their research, which they hoped would help lead to laws that would protect such persons and perhaps national health care, instead was used by the powers-that-be to lobby the Congress to pass 'more stringent legislation' that now disallows medical bills defaults.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html
February 3, 2005
Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.
The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.
Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.
Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.
Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care.
The research, carried out jointly by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical causes of bankruptcy. With the cooperation of bankruptcy judges in five Federal districts (in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas) they administered questionnaires to bankruptcy filers and reviewed their court records.
Dr. David Himmelstein, the lead author of the study and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard commented: "Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick."
Today's health insurance policies -- with high deductibles, co-pays, and many exclusions -- offer little protection during a serious illness. Uncovered medical bills averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the start of their illness. People with cancer had average medical debts of $35,878.
"The paradox is that the costliest health system in the world performs so poorly. We waste one-third of every health care dollar on insurance bureaucracy and profits while two million people go bankrupt annually and we leave 45 million uninsured" said Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program.
"With national health insurance ('Medicare for All'), we could provide comprehensive, lifelong coverage to all Americans for the same amount we are spending now and end the cruelty of ruining families financially when they get sick."
Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0U1noqCHh
i'd like to move in the next year or two to turkey - a huge, self-supporting country at the far eastern end of the mediterranean.
i want to retire at 60 - my wife will then be 61. due to the local economy in turkey, this could just be a practical possibility, not just a pipe-dream.
although we'd prefer italy, which we've visited far more often, the costs there are just too expensive for our restricted budget!.
i'd like to move in the next year or two to turkey - a huge, self-supporting country at the far eastern end of the mediterranean.
i want to retire at 60 - my wife will then be 61. due to the local economy in turkey, this could just be a practical possibility, not just a pipe-dream.
although we'd prefer italy, which we've visited far more often, the costs there are just too expensive for our restricted budget!.
I have little information to go on and can only comment as a female about you guys maybe moving to a Muslim country. I couldn't do it because I would be way too concerned about my freedom and safety as a woman...Muslims don't tend to be female friendly as far as equality of the sexes goes. And their religion might hold a huge influence on their government and laws, thereby empinging freedom for women. You said liberal Muslim land, but I don't really understand what that means. Would your wife be required to wear a head scarf every where she goes and ride in the back seat of your car, or be arrested and beaten for not having you with her if she wants to take a stroll around the block?
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/06/05/turkey.scarves/index.html
Turkey's top court has upheld a ban on wearing Muslim headscarves at the country's universities.
If we open the Old Testament of the Bible, it tells us to murder our children, if they are disobedient. So, most Christians read this, then interpret this (however they do it) and decide that these instructions do not apply to them, and they ignore this command.
With the Koran, it instructs the Muslim to slaughter the Infidel. So, most Muslims then interpret this (however they do it) and decide that it does not apply to them, and they ignore this command.
When Osama bin Laden kills Infidels, it's not because he interpreted anything, it's because he read the Koran and it told him to do so. It's there in black and white. No interpretation is needed. (It would be exactly the same scenario if a Bible-believing person stoned their child.)
I understand your post better now. Thank you :) However, there is some correction. Muslims do not see any portion of the Quran as not applying to them; they might, however, see it as applying to a different time (Mecca/Medina). In like manner, a Christian may dismiss literal sacrifices as applying to a different time period.
As for bin Laden, you are absolutely correct about the black/white dichotomy. Interestingly, Wahabism originated in a very black/white location. The land had few colors, even the predominate musical instrument had only one string. Their black/white Quranic interpretation motivated this sect to destroy the Graves of the Companions and murder many muslims; the Ottomon caliphate had to intervene to stop the slaughter. Like JWs, they just put them in the apostate column (for worshipping under the trees), which then made it an honorable action to kill them.
Which requires more "interpretation"? (1) Reading the actual text of the Koran and obeying it, or (2) reading the actual text of the Koran and ignoring the commands?
I don't understand your post. However, tafsir is often approached from a socio-historical context, and it is influenced greatly by whether a specific verse is from the Medina or Mecca periods. Hijabi is an excellent example of the diversity of interpretation with some promoting stringent rules and others using verses to promote that a woman has the "right" to look beautiful. So again, which sharia?
Since the subject of hijab (headcovering) has been presented...
