Trade Show Exhibit Display Booths

Does anyone here attend trade shows and deal with the union "help"? I'm in the shipping industry, and many clients use my company to ship their exhibit materials to trade shows. The horror stories about the union "decorators" at convention centers are unbelievable! My clients are astonished when they are charged more for these thugs to move their booths from the shipping dock to the show floor than it took for my company to ship it across ten states! The union creeps are universally rude, unhelpful, belligerent and drop whatever they are doing to take their contracted breaks. Do-nothing thugs. All of them. Just wait until they get their hands on our health care!

Algebra 2 take home test problem inequality help? A convection center designated a maximum of 34000 square feet of floor space for trade-show exhibits. The space will be divided into two types of areas, wired and unwired zones. Wired zones are for exhibits that require electricity; each occupies 500 sq ft and accommodates 4 exhibits. Unwired zones are for exhibits that do not require electricity; each occupies 850 sq ft and accommodates 6 exhibits. There will be at least 10 of each type of zone, but no more than 40 wired zones. There is not enough space to accommodate all the companies that have applied to exhibit. Linear programming can be used to Determine how many wired zones and unwired zones should be used to accommodate as many exhibits as possible. what are the inequalities?

If your good at maths please can you help me? I have this investigation and I'm so stuck on it. A manufacturer supplies Display Boxes which are used to protect exhibits at trade shows etc. The boxes have no base, but the walls are made of good quality wood to enhance their experience and the tops are made from a high quality of laminated glass. All the wood used is the same thickness and material. The cost of the boxes depends only on the amount of wood and amount of glass used. The following six boxes (which are shown below with the cost and dimensions) were sent to a museum for an exhibition. The curator was anxious to save money and queried the bill. She maintained that one of the boxes had been wrongly priced. By considering the two materials used in the construction of the boxes investigate the curator's claim. I'd be so grateful if anyone could give me an idea on how to solve this. I'm so stuck These are the boxes. A £56.20 3ft length, 2ft breadth, 1ft height B £94.60 5.5 length, 2ft breadth, 1ft height C £82.50 6ft length, 2ft breadth, 0.5 ft height D £171.50 5ft length, 4ft breadth, 1.5ft height E £66.30 3ft length, 3ft breadth, 0.75ft height F £127.35 12ft length, 1.5ft breadth, 0.5ft height.

Question for anyone thats good at maths? A manufacturer supplies Display Boxes which are used to protect exhibits at trade shows etc. The boxes have no base, but the walls are made of good quality wood to enhance their experience and the tops are made from a high quality of laminated glass. All the wood used is the same thickness and material. The cost of the boxes depends only on the amount of wood and amount of glass used. The following six boxes (which are shown below with the cost and dimensions) were sent to a museum for an exhibition. My question - How can I find out how much the wood is per sq. ft and how much the glass is per sq. ft. for the following boxes. A £56.20 3ft length, 2ft breadth, 1ft height B £94.60 5.5 length, 2ft breadth, 1ft height C £82.50 6ft length, 2ft breadth, 0.5 ft height D £171.50 5ft length, 4ft breadth, 1.5ft height E £66.30 3ft length, 3ft breadth, 0.75ft height F £127.35 12ft length, 1.5ft breadth, 0.5ft height. Please show all your working so I can learn!

need help with my assingment...? The following memo contains 30 intentional errors in sentence structure, spelling, and proofreading. Edit the memo and print it with a 1-inch top margin. Delete these instructions. MEMORANDUM DATE:[Use current date] TO:Maria S. Damen, Vice President, Marketing [Insert handwritten initials] FROM: Ryan Jenkins, Exhibit Manager SUBJECT:REDUCING A MAJOR EXPENSE AT TRADE SHOWS As you suggested, Matthew Chavez and myself have been searching for ways to reduce our trade show exhibition costs’. One of our companys major expenses at these shows is the visitors gift that we present. At last years show we gave away a nine-color, silk-screened T-shirt. Which was designed by a high-priced New York designer. Each shirt cost $15 to produce, however, I’ve located a Chinese supplier who can produce good-looking T-shirts. For the low cost of only $4 each. Look at the savings we can make: 2,000 silk-screened T-shirts @$15$30,000 2,000 cheaper T-shirts @$4 8,000 SAVINGS$22,000 This major saving was immediatley apparent to Matthew and I, as we studied the problem. Please examine the enclosed T-shirt sample. If you compare T-shirts, you might expect a cheaper shirt to be dis-similar; but as you can see, this shirt is quiet presentable. What’s more, it advertises our name just as well as the more expensive silk-screened T-shirts. If the decision were up to Matthew or I, we would be happy to wear the cheaper shirt. With increasing travel costs and de-creasing trade show budgets, us in marketing must look carefully at how we spent the companies limited funds for exhibitions. Over the last several years,’ we have de-creased the number of shows in which we participate, we have also taken fewer booth staffers then in the passed. This is a significant place to reduce expenses. For our next major trade show, please authorize the purchase of 2,000 T-shirts. Which can save us $22,000 in exhibition costs. With managements approval before December 1, we can be sure to receive supplys from our Chinese manufacturer for the spring Las Vegas trade show. Matthew and myself look forward to your quick response. If your worried about this suggestion or need more details, please call me at Ext. 480 so that we can talk about it. Enclosure

Can you please grade my essay? Give and You Shall Receive The entire world is in an economic recession, and each country has felt the devastating effects. Here in America, money has become tighter, jobs fewer, and food prices have gone up considerably. However, as citizens of an astoundingly wealthy, industrialized nation, if we believe that our current situation is disappointingly inopportune, then we would be greatly mistaken. Not only would we be mistaken, we would also be extremely foolish to lament over our petty woes when millions of people in Africa and Asia live--and often die-- in a state of perpetual poverty, under deplorable conditions. Some countries are stupendously rich and others horrendously poor.. Despite this, hope still remains, and it is for that very reason that wealthy, industrialized nations should adopt a policy in which they use a variety of methods to share their wealth with the undeveloped world, a policy from which there could be many beneficiaries. According to the MilleniumProject commissioned by the United Nations, four billion people live in poverty. Malaria and pneumonia, two diseases that are widely eradicated and completely preventable, seem to travel with the wind in places like Africa and Asia, killing millions each year. Moreover, (according to the UN) eight hundred million people go to bed hungry every night, unsure as to whether they will live to see another sunrise, but knowing that if they do, there still will not be any food. Amid all of this suffering, those who are fortunate enough to pick up a spoon at dinnertime should not find it hard to reach within their hearts to help those in dire need. By trading with those countries who have this dire need, we wealthy nations can jumpstart foreign economies, as well as give food, medicine, and peace of mind to those who need it most. It is said that if one gives, then he or she receives. Similarly, if a government is generous and munificent, it receives things in return. Many developing countries show economic promise, and are looking like eligible to be future trade partners that can provide bona fide investment opportunities. For example, if the United States were to invest in Africa, a continent which most unknowingly consider an investment wasteland, the paybacks could be gargantuan. In reality, Africa is an investment wasteland no longer. In fact, the AT Kearney 2007 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Confidence Index ranks fifteen emerging markets in Africa among the top twenty-five investment market destinations in the world. It is within those emerging markets where there is money to be made; between 1990 and 2005 private capital flows in ninety-four emerging markets rose from twenty five to three hundred billion dollars. However, careful planning is required to make certain that capital is not intercepted by corrupt heads of state and the like. Trade and aid should be reserved for those governments that exhibit democratic behavior. Besides facilitating money flow, sharing wealth would assist America in restoring its global reputation, and simultaneously give us allies for the future. “America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example,” says President Barack Obama. Therefore, we should reach out to the developing world now, so that in the future, complex issues, such as climate change, can be easily addressed. Giving financial aid should not only be viewed as humanitarianism, but also as a long-overdue act of penance for Imperialism. During the Age of Imperialism Western nations bombarded vulnerable nations with military might and injected them with their cultural needle. By doing so, the imperialistic nations, many of which remain world powers, put the native peoples under oppressive conditions and exploited their lands for natural resources. Even today, in this first decade of the twenty-first century, some African countries have barely begun to throw off the shackles that Imperialism placed on them and their economies. For example, in 1913 England possessed colonies such as modern-day South Africa, Egypt, Sudan, and Nigeria. Today, according to a 2008 list compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency, England’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is two trillion seven hundred and eighty seven billion dollars, while the average GDP of its former colonies listed above is a mere seven percent of that. Still, there are those who would scoff at these numbers, and reason that they are a fateful result of the inability of dysfunctional governments to provide for their citizens. It would not hurt those who hold this belief take a look at Walter Rodney’s 1973 novel How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, in which he states, “ When two societies of different sorts come into prolonged and effective contact, the rate and character of change taking place in both is serious

Signs Technology Took Over Your Life Part 2 - True or Not? 19. You go to computer trade shows and map out your path of the exhibit hall in advance. But you cannot give someone directions to your house without looking up the street names. 20. You would rather get more dots per inch than miles per gallon. 21. You become upset when a person calls you on the phone to sell you something, but you think it's okay for a computer to call and demand that you start pushing buttons on your telephone to receive more information about the product it is selling. 22. You know without a doubt that disks come in five-and-a-quarter and three-and-a-half-inch sizes. 23. Al Gore strikes you as an "intriguing" fellow. 24. You own a set of itty-bitty screw-drivers and you actually know where they are. 25. While contemporaries swap stories about their recent hernia surgeries, you compare mouse-induced index-finger strain with a nine-year-old. 26. You are so knowledgeable about technology that you feel secure enough to say "I don't know" when someone asks you a technology question instead of feeling compelled to make something up. 27. You rotate your screen savers more frequently than your automobile tires. 28. You have a functioning home copier machine, but every toaster you own turns bread into charcoal. 29. You have ended friendships because of irreconcilably different opinions about which is better, the track ball or the track pad. 30. You understand all the jokes in this message. If so, my friend, technology has taken over your life. We suggest, for your own good, that you go lie under a tree and write a haiku. And don't use a laptop. 31. You email this message to your friends over the net. You'd never get around to showing it to them in person or reading it to them on the phone. In fact, you have probably never met most of these people face-to-face. 32. You don't even read magazine articles anymore, unless someone's keyed them into e-mail and forwarded it to you. 33. You print the itinerary of your vacation from a scheduler software. 34. You pack the laptop computer first for any trip. 35. While you're away from home, the first three numbers you call are your voicenet, a bulletin board, and one of your e-mail accounts. 36. You are reading this from a screen.

How credible is the The Open Chemical Physics Journal? The Open Chemical Physics Journal ISSN: 1874-4125 Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic. Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark. http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm Gen. Stiggo-That is the only problem I find with this study. It would be hard to reproduce and verify with no other samples.

Ladies and Gents, your opinion please on this information? Is she being too hard on him? Asking too much? Insatiable? I'm gonna break this one down for you, because I used to BE that guy. How does this happen? The guy, good as he is, has a burning desire to excel and provide. He has lots of pressure. A man's job becomes his identity, as well as a source of validation. Now he has the GF living with him, he doesn't have to hunt anymore, that part of his life is squared away (he thinks). Also when living together, much of the excitement backs off, giving way to mundane everyday life, which is often just fine to a guy, and looks normal, just like it was when he was single. The one thing he did like to do, HUNT, is off the table. Often, the daily conflicts of life may also leave him offended or distant, especially if she accuses him of not doing enough, and claims her unhappiness with him. Massively frustrating to the guy, and upsetting. The Result- Things are out of balance. He is overly tired and doesn't know how to satisfy this seemingly ungrateful girl. He loses inspiration to try, as well. He doesn't understand why she can't just be happy, and she doesn't understand what happened to the fun guy she fell in love with. Her friends call her a fool and she doubts herself, because this is a situation most girls would be thrilled with- good guy, good dad, good provider. Passion is absent, and then when the sex does happen, it isn't like it used to be, given the boredom and resentment that exists now. She wants to go out, or talk, but all his energy and words are already spent, and she is now a pain in the ass to him. She is resentful because something else is getting that energy, and therefore feels like she is not real important to him. (for the record, for a woman to know that nothing is more important in her man's life than her is the one key thing she needs more than anything else) She doesn't want him 24/7, she just wants her share of him. It is non-negotiable, she must have it. The Solution- Bad news, dude. You have become mediocre. Boring. If she stays, she will feel like she settled, and may disrespect you for this constantly. You are also hurting her with rejection, though you don't mean to. I know it sounds stupid to you, she shouldn't feel that, but she DOES! The first thing to do is get in balance. Jobs come and go, money comes and goes. Even kids grow up and move out. Therefore, SHE comes first, if you want it to last. You want to spend every inch of your energy making that dollar and leave none for your woman and expect her to be cool with it? If she loves you, she would trade all the benefits of your killer job just to get YOU. She needs your focused attention. NEEDS it. If you don't give it, she will feel unloved, unimportant, rejected, needs not met. She practically has no choice in staying, you are packaging her up and sending her away. And if she truly can't leave, her dissatisfaction may turn into cruelty. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR FOCUSED ATTENTION AND TIME! You may want to resent her for getting in the way of your career and income, but that's crap. If you are all about the career, fine. Pour all your time and energy into it. Just don't expect a relationship. You can't have BOTH, unless you are willing to balance and make sacrifices in both areas. If you don't tend to a fire, and feed it fuel, it will go out. It was hot, but now cold ashes. Same with your girl. If you don't tend to her, the fire will go out. Date her. Seduce her. Forever. Not only does she need that, but she will be the happiest woman alive if she gets it. If you show up to work occasionally, and do a half-assed job, you will be fired. And that is exactly what is happening here, what you are doing to your WOMAN. Relationships are work, they COST, and if you can't afford it, you're toast. Cut things away until you get in balance. LISTEN to her when she says what she needs. If you don't understand, ask her- "what does that look like?" So she can describe it. Here's a few tips- get off early and take her to lunch. Go shoot pool at night with her. Make some simple sandwiches and take her for a walk around the lake. Shut the TV off and read to her. Then discuss what you read. Take her to a comedy club. Write her a sweet note. Brush her hair. Exercise together. You don't have to paint the town red, but you do need to take her OUT of the house. She doesn't want you to burn up cash on her, it is a poor substitute. She needs a CONNECTION. And if you are too tired to 'bring it' in bed, take better care of your health. Quit drinking and smoking. Take vitamins. She knows you CAN, because you used to. That means you just WON'T, hence her feelings of rejection. You just won't bother. If it is already like this, she knows that marrying you is only going to be worse. Handle this, at all costs. Your tired mediocre bullsh*t is not going to cut it, and you will lose her. Oh, and one more thing- she thinks she shouldn't have to tell you. She may not know how to tell you. But she really wants you to know. She loves you, and is dying for you to see. She wants to feel like you are a leader, and if she has to twist your arm, you will both resent that. Step up and take charge of your relationship, and have some passion. LOTS of passion. Women cannot live without it. You shouldn't want to either. TO THE WOMAN- Start with some mercy. If you are harsh with him at this point, you are only making it worse. You feel distant already, and he will distance himself more if you disrespect him. Men often have a 'slim-to-none' level of relationship awareness. That doesn't mean he sucks, it just means he needs to learn. Oh I know you think he should know this, but he doesn't. OK, so you are together now, who will teach him? You are going to have to. Teach him how to love you. Show him what it looks like. Deal in logic. Don't let your frustration sabotage you with hurtful words. Guide him. BE PATIENT. Do you see how I presented it above? Do that, except nicer.... like this... "Man of my life, I love you. I respect you. I admire you and appreciate the things that you do very much. I really do, and I always will. But I have to tell you that I am bored. Your life is out of balance, and you are not handling your business when it comes to me. If it goes on too long, I will be neglected, possibly become a jerk, and probably leave. Your neglect is unacceptable. Time to make choices, and set priorities. Your behavior shows me that you do not desire me, or value me at an acceptable level. Things will not continue as they are, one way or another. You are trying hard. Time to try differently." Talk to him like a guy. You can tell him how you feel, but I would keep the emotion to a minimum. If there is too much, he may see you as a stupid, ungrateful bitch who is dragging him down with dumb-ass feelings. This will not inspire him to new heights of love and passion with you. He may not understand all your emotion, but he does understand logic. Marriage is much like a business, with much expectation and duty, and his performance review is not good. See exhibit A, B, and C. Logic. Logic. Logic. No cruelty. ALWAYS speak to him respectfully, even in critique. You start taking shots at him with insults, and you are toast. He will have no interest in stepping up. You want him to be more loving to you... so make sure you are being lovable. It helps. He knows you could unleash on him, but when you choose not to, he will be grateful, and if he is a wise man, he will be open to correction and improvement. If he is not a wise man, he will end up just like I did. Alone. this is long but LEARN from it Some of you that answered are lazy. Read the information. Maybe if you got it, you wouldnt be asking all these ridiculous questions. Pull your heads out! I am a female. I found this blog written by a man and geeze it speaks to all of us in one way or another. I had to post it.

dont pay attention to this!? Organ and Tissue Transplants Modern techniques of medical transplantation—surgically removing a diseased or malfunctioning kidney, heart, or other organ, and replacing it with a healthy organ from a donor—has brought new life and new hope to patients who, just a few generations ago, would have died. But the practice has also raised significant ethical questions. One such question centers on the cold reality of supply versus demand: At any moment, there are upwards of 150,000 people in the world awaiting transplants. A scarcity of donor organs usually means a long wait—during which some patients die. A large supply of organs is available from the roughly 200,000 patients worldwide who are declared brain-dead each year, but the problem has been to secure consent from family members and loved ones to remove organs for transplant. For many years medical ethicists have considered the question of whether ethical means can be found to increase the supply of donor organs. In the early 1980s, for example, American bioethicist Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania discussed the concept of presumed consent—the idea that, barring strenuous objection from family members, doctors could presume that a person declared brain-dead would be willing to donate organs to save others. Some Asian nations, as well as some European nations, including France, Belgium, Austria, and Spain, have such policies. The United States and Canada later enforced a concept advanced by Caplan of required request—a policy whereby hospital personnel would be legally required to seek permission from family members before harvesting organs. The adoption of this policy in the United States and Canada increased the supply of donated tissues, such as corneas and bone marrow, but failed to dramatically increase the supply of donor organs. Current United States and Canadian law bars the sale or purchase of donor organs. The United States does permit the sale of plasma and other bodily products, such as hair and sperm. Would financial incentives provide a stimulus for more people to make organs available? Some ethicists believe so, while others find the idea of marketing organs ethically objectionable. Other ethical issues are raised by the practice of xenotransplantation—the use of animal tissues and organs for human transplant. In 1984 the case of “Baby Fae” stimulated wide ethical discussion. Doctors transplanted a baboon heart into a newborn girl to replace her own fatally flawed heart. She died shortly after. Some critics contend that xenotransplantation poses a danger to human health because of the risk of transferring deadly animal viruses to the human population. This risk causes bioethicists to question if such practices are ethical. In recent years, one of the most promising areas related to transplantation will likely trigger ethical debate well into the future: the experimental use of tissues from aborted human fetuses. In one particularly active area of this research, scientists have experimented for more than a decade with grafting nerve cells from human fetuses into the brains of patients suffering from Parkinson disease. This disorder, caused by the mysterious death of brain cells that produce a chemical called dopamine, gradually causes patients to lose control of their muscles. In early studies some patients who received fetal cells showed improvement in their symptoms, as the transplanted cells demonstrated the capacity to produce dopamine. But the treatment also produced unpleasant side effects. This research, like all research that depends on human fetal cells, has also provoked debate. Critics question the ethics of using tissues from human fetuses for any research purposes. Ethical uncertainty hangs over a related area of research on human embryonic stem cells. Human embryos contain stem cells that have the ability to develop into almost any type of cell. Scientists hope to direct stem cells to produce certain types of human tissue. It is possible that someday these cells might be used for transplants or for growing new tissue that can be grafted into the human body. For example, scientists hope that stem cells might one day be used to replace nerve cells destroyed by spinal injury, or heart muscle cells damaged during a heart attack. Interest in this field was heightened considerably when scientists announced in 1998 that they had learned how to grow human embryonic stem cells in the laboratory. At present the U.S. government has banned federal funding for human-embryo research, although private biotechnology companies are exempt from this ban and have been vigorously pursuing research on embryonic cells. In 2000 the federally funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) ruled that this ban was not necessary for studies using cells derived from human embryos, since these cells are not embryos. The NIH established guidelines enabling federal funds to be used in cases where cells were derived from frozen embryos that were created for the purposes of fertility treatment but were not going to be used and were therefore slated for destruction. Other nations currently differ widely in their policies: France, for example, has forbidden human-embryo research. No laws in Canada regulate human-embryo research, although scientists or institutions receiving federal funding must follow strict guidelines governing research on human embryos. The United Kingdom has laws permitting some forms of human-embryo research, going so far as to create guidelines allowing scientists to apply cloning technology to human embryonic cells to create genetically identical cells for a potential patient. But the ethical questions remain: Is it morally acceptable to use tissue taken from human embryos? One recent development might change the nature of this argument. Scientists discovered in 1999 that stem cells taken from adult mice, and not human embryos, also display an ability to change their function. Some stem-cell research continued with the use of adult mouse cells. In 2007 government medical authorities in the United Kingdom approved the creation of embryos that combine human and animal cells for use in medical research. British researchers claimed the hybrid embryos were vital in the fight against disease. ETHICAL ISSUES A number of ethical issues haunt the transplant field. With few exceptions, donated organs go to the patient who is nearest death, even though a healthier patient might benefit more by living longer after the transplant. People who need a second, third, or fourth transplant because their prior transplants failed usually gain top priority, even though they are not likely to do as well as patients who have not already had a transplant. Some critics object to giving organs to patients whose organ failure was the result of their own actions, such as cirrhosis of the liver resulting from alcohol abuse. Money is also a major issue. Access to transplantation is impossible without access to good primary medical care and good insurance, both of which are largely unavailable to the poor. To be placed on the waiting list, patients must show they can pay for the transplant. In 2005 a kidney transplant cost about $116,000 and a liver transplant as much as $250,000 in the first year after the surgery. Many insurance companies do not cover such costs, particularly for the new procedures, such as lung, pancreas, or multiple organ transplants, which are still considered experimental. Although organs cannot be bought and sold legally in the United States, there is evidence that a black market in organs exists in China and other countries. Persistent allegations have been made of people traveling to China and paying for organ transplants. Human rights groups have reported evidence that the bodies of executed prisoners are the source for most of the organs transplanted in China. In the United States, where organ donation is voluntary, ethical questions arise over the nature of the consent and the use of incentives. Intensive donor solicitations in recent years have not made much of a dent in the shortages of organs. Even though many people sign organ donor cards, their families are often reluctant to grant permission at the moment of crisis. Some ethicists debate whether family members should have the right to refuse donation if the deceased signed an organ donor card. Presumed consent laws, in which everyone would be considered willing donors unless they have specifically said they were unwilling, have been tried in Europe and South America, and on a limited basis in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Some experts have suggested financial incentives, such as cash rebates, estate tax discounts, or payment for burial expenses. Others have suggested broadening the criteria used to determine death beyond the lack of all brain activity. This would permit a surgeon to use organs from anencephalic children, who are born without a brain, and from people in a persistent vegetative state. The implantation of tissues from aborted fetuses into the brain showed promise as a treatment for both Parkinson and Huntington’s disease. Experimental results were mixed, but the treatment raised its own set of ethical questions. The foremost is the question of abortion itself. The possibility of using embryonic stem cells to create replacement organs has faced opposition for similar reasons. Some researchers believe that this issue can be surmounted by growing cells in the laboratory or by genetically engineering a patient’s own skin cells. Fetal pig cells have also been used as a treatment for Parkinson and Huntington’s disease, but that raises other ethical issues regarding the treatment of animals. The Moral Case for Organ Donation by Amitai Etzioni Thursday, August 26, 1999 Amitai Etzioni is the Director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University. He is the author of The Limits of Privacy. He can be reached at etzioni@gwu.edu. Pennsylvania is considering paying families of organ donors $300 to help cover the donors' funeral costs. The money will be paid directly to the funeral homes, to prevent it from being used for other purposes, thus openly introducing a market in organs. Such a market has been until now considered anathema in the United States, a sentiment backed by a law banning trade in organs. Could that be changing? In the market for organs A May Time magazine essay by Charles Krauthammer suggested that it is acceptable that the poor will be more likely than the rich to be enticed by the Pennsylvania gambit, given that most societal harms fall more heavily on the poor. Why not a cash benefit? And, Krauthammer argues, if paying for organs would lead to a flourishing market, one that licks the great shortage in organs, breaking the taboo against such a trade is a price well worth paying. What about an organ market? The experience in third-world countries, such as India and Egypt, should give pause to all those who favor an outright market in organs. Poor people have their kidneys taken without being properly informed of the risk involved. Rich people can buy all the organs they need or want; those less fortunate often cannot scare up any. At the same time, the urgent need to increase the organ supply on these shores is well established. An estimated 4,000 Americans die each year because no organs can be found for them. And the quality of life of thousands more suffers because they cannot find needed corneas and kidneys. Increased organ donations also would significantly reduce health-care expenditures. For instance, it costs less to transplant a kidney and maintain a person on the follow-up treatment needed than to keep the same person on dialysis for four years. Many stay on dialysis much longer if no kidney is found. Is there any way to greatly increase the number of organ donors without opening a market in human parts, which many -- myself included -- find ethically highly troubling? Before chapter and verse can be spelled out, the underlying principle needs to be explicated. Social scientists have shown that we are social creatures who deeply yearn for the approval of others. These can be members of our family, friends, neighbors, and more generally, community members. The strong power of so-called significant others is exhibited in intense, sometimes extreme, forms through peer pressure on teenagers, gang members and soldiers in combat. Members of such groups will do practically anything their group prescribes, even endanger their own lives. Much milder forms of such social pressure are evident when we donate money to a church or a civic cause, both because we believe in the merit of doing so and because we yearn for the approval of those whose opinions matter to us. (Anonymous donations are surprisingly rare.) The case for moral suasion Currently the voice of the community that favors organ donations has no chance to be aired or heard. People who feel like donating on their own, and remember to do so, mark their Motor Vehicle forms accordingly, but nobody is there to encourage them to do so, to appreciate it when they do, and maybe look at them with regret when they do not. Typically the issue does not come up until someone is on the death bed and -- at this most difficult time -- physicians and other health-care personnel are expected to ask the members of their family to consent to organ donation. To give moral suasion more of a chance, two measures should be taken. First, we should provide a new form at physicians' and hospitals' waiting rooms, clinics, Red Cross stations and other places where volunteers gather. The form would state explicitly that "we the people would be most appreciative, and hold you in high regard, if you could find it in your heart to make a life-affirming donation by authorizing the use of your organs once they are no longer of service to you." The text then would describe briefly the severe shortage of donated organs and its many dire effects. The main focus of the text, however, would be the moral virtue of donating organs. The forms would close by stating that if you decline, for religious or any other reason, no explanation is needed. All said and done, it is up to you. Second, the names of those who made the pledge would be logged into computerized databases, accessible to physicians engaged in organ transplantation. (A new law may be needed to establish the validity of the endorsements of these forms and to prevent family members from overriding them.) If these lists also were open to the press, its reports might greatly increase the number of those who would sign up; it is the best tool to alert the community about who has -- and has not yet -- committed to make an organ donation. At the same time, at least initially, such publication might be considered too high handed. The new forms should be promoted through public-service announcements, and by public figures -- urging people to come forward, announcing that "I myself have just made the commitment to save lives by donating my organs should I no longer need them." The main point, though, is as elementary as it is important: Instead of waiting for each person to consider the matter, without any encouragement or recognition by their community, we should unabashedly stress that in our minds and hearts we cheer donating organs and celebrate those who pledge to do so. One need not a priori rule out a market in organs, despite all the ethical challenges it poses. But at least we should first give moral suasion a chance. http://www.speakout.com/activism/opinions/4188-1.html http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=68158 http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=moral+issues+of+organ+transplantation

Is anti-Americanism a new phenomenon. Or did the WOT just bring out the haters that were always there? I have read much on the issue and I am convinced that the people who hate America today also hated America 20 years ago. Obviously younger generations will learn their hatred of America from their parents, teachers and the spiteful media. - I posted an interesting article on the subject below. The Falseness of Anti-Americanism Pollsters report rising anti-Americanism worldwide. The United States, they imply, squandered global sympathy after the September 11 terrorist attacks through its arrogant unilateralism. In truth, there was never any sympathy to squander. Anti-Americanism was already entrenched in the world's psyche—a backlash against a nation that comes bearing modernism to those who want it but who also fear and despise it. By Fouad Ajami Want to Know More? Suggested Readings “America is everywhere," Italian novelist Ignazio Silone once observed. It is in Karachi and Paris, in Jakarta and Brussels. An idea of it, a fantasy of it, hovers over distant lands. And everywhere there is also an obligatory anti-Americanism, a cover and an apology for the spell the United States casts over distant peoples and places. In the burning grounds of the Muslim world and on its periphery, U.S. embassies and their fate in recent years bear witness to a duality of the United States as Satan and redeemer. The embassies targeted by the masters of terror and by the diehards are besieged by visa-seekers dreaming of the golden, seductive country. If only the crowd in Tehran offering its tired rhythmic chant "marg bar amrika" ("death to America") really meant it! It is of visas and green cards and houses with lawns and of the glamorous world of Los Angeles, far away from the mullahs and their cultural tyranny, that the crowd really dreams. The frenzy with which radical Islamists battle against deportation orders from U.S. soil— dreading the prospect of returning to Amman and Beirut and Cairo— reveals the lie of anti-Americanism that blows through Muslim lands. The world rails against the United States, yet embraces its protection, its gossip, and its hipness. Tune into a talk show on the stridently anti-American satellite channel Al-Jazeera, and you'll behold a parody of American ways and techniques unfolding on the television screen. That reporter in the flak jacket, irreverent and cool against the Kabul or Baghdad background, borrows a form perfected in the country whose sins and follies that reporter has come to chronicle. In Doha, Qatar, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, arguably Sunni Islam's most influential cleric, at Omar ibn al-Khattab Mosque, a short distance away from the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, delivers a khutba, a Friday sermon. The date is June 13, 2003. The cleric's big theme of the day is the arrogance of the United States and the cruelty of the war it unleashed on Iraq. This cleric, Egyptian born, political to his fingertips, and in full mastery of his craft and of the sensibility of his followers, is particularly agitated in his sermon. Surgery and a period of recovery have kept him away from his pulpit for three months, during which time there has been a big war in the Arab world that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq with stunning speed and effectiveness. The United States was "acting like a god on earth," al-Qaradawi told the faithful. In Iraq, the United States had appointed itself judge and jury. The invading power may have used the language of liberation and enlightenment, but this invasion of Iraq was a 21st-century version of what had befallen Baghdad in the middle years of the 13th century, in 1258 to be exact, when Baghdad, the city of learning and culture, was sacked by the Mongols. The preacher had his themes, but a great deal of the United States had gone into the preacher's art: Consider his Web site, Qaradawi.net, where the faithful can click and read his fatwas (religious edicts)— the Arabic interwoven with html text— about all matters of modern life, from living in non-Islamic lands to the permissibility of buying houses on mortgage to the follies of Arab rulers who have surrendered to U.S. power. Or what about his way with television? He is a star of the medium, and Al-Jazeera carried an immensely popular program of his. That art form owes a debt, no doubt, to the American "televangelists," as nothing in the sheik's traditional education at Al Azhar University in Cairo prepared him for this wired, portable religion. And then there are the preacher's children: One of his daughters had made her way to the University of Texas where she received a master's degree in biology, a son had earned a Ph.D. from the University of Central Florida in Orlando, and yet another son had embarked on that quintessential American degree, an MBA at the American University in Cairo. Al-Qaradawi embodies anti-Americanism as the flip side of Americanization. A NEW ORTHODOXY Of late, pollsters have come bearing news and numbers of anti-Americanism the world over. The reports are one dimensional and filled with panic. This past June, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press published a survey of public opinion in 20 countries and the Palestinian territories that indicated a growing animus toward the United States. In the same month, the BBC came forth with a similar survey that included 10 countries and the United States. On the surface of it, anti-Americanism is a river overflowing its banks. In Indonesia, the United States is deemed more dangerous than al Qaeda. In Jordan, Russia, South Korea, and Brazil, the United States is thought to be more dangerous than Iran, the "rogue state" of the mullahs. There is no need to go so far away from home only to count the cats in Zanzibar. These responses to the United States are neither surprising nor profound. The pollsters, and those who have been brandishing their findings, see in these results some verdict on the United States itself— and on the performance abroad of the Bush presidency— but the findings could be read as a crude, admittedly limited, measure of the foul temper in some unsettled places. The pollsters have flaunted spreadsheets to legitimize a popular legend: It is not Americans that people abroad hate, but the United States! Yet it was Americans who fell to terrorism on September 11, 2001, and it is of Americans and their deeds, and the kind of social and political order they maintain, that sordid tales are told in Karachi and Athens and Cairo and Paris. You can't profess kindness toward Americans while attributing the darkest of motives to their homeland. The Pew pollsters ignored Greece, where hatred of the United States is now a defining feature of political life. The United States offended Greece by rescuing Bosnians and Kosovars. Then, the same Greeks who hailed the Serbian conquest of Srebrenica in 1995 and the mass slaughter of the Muslims there were quick to summon up outrage over the U.S. military campaign in Iraq. In one Greek public opinion survey, Americans were ranked among Albanians, Gypsies, and Turks as the most despised peoples. Takis Michas, a courageous Greek writer with an eye for his country's temperament, traces this new anti-Americanism to the Orthodox Church itself. A narrative of virtuous and embattled solitude and alienation from Western Christendom has always been integral to the Greek psyche; a fusion of church and nation is natural to the Greek worldview. In the 1990s, the Yugoslav wars gave this sentiment a free run. The church sanctioned and fed the belief that the United States was Satan, bent on destroying the "True Faith," Michas explains, and shoring up Turkey and the Muslims in the Balkans. A neo-Orthodox ideology took hold, slicing through faith and simplifying history. Where the Balkan churches— be they the Bulgars or the Serbs— had been formed in rebellion against the hegemony of the Greek priesthood, the new history made a fetish of the fidelity of Greece to its Orthodox "brethren." Greek paramilitary units fought alongside Bosnian Serbs as part of the Drina Corps under the command of indicted war criminal Gen. Ratko Mladic. The Greek flag was hoisted over the ruins of Srebenica's Orthodox church when the doomed city fell. Serbian war crimes elicited no sense of outrage in Greece; quite to the contrary, sympathy for Serbia and the identification with its war aims and methods were limitless. Beyond the Yugoslav wars, the neo-Orthodox worldview sanctified the ethnonationalism of Greece, spinning a narrative of Hellenic persecution at the hands of the United States as the standard-bearer of the West. Greece is part of NATO and of the European Union (EU), but an old schism— that of Eastern Orthodoxy's claim against the Latin world— has greater power and a deeper resonance. In the banal narrative of Greek anti-Americanism, this animosity emerges from U.S. support for the junta that reigned over the country from 1967 to 1974. This deeper fury enables the aggrieved to glide over the role the United States played in the defense and rehabilitation of Greece after World War II. Furthermore, it enables them to overlook the lifeline that migration offered to untold numbers of Greeks who are among the United States' most prosperous communities. Greece loves the idea of its "Westernness"— a place and a culture where the West ends, and some other alien world (Islam) begins. But the political culture of religious nationalism has isolated Greece from the wider currents of Western liberalism. What little modern veneer is used to dress up Greece's anti-Americanism is a pretense. The malady here is, paradoxically, a Greek variant of what plays out in the world of Islam: a belligerent political culture sharpening faith as a political weapon, an abdication of political responsibility for one's own world, and a search for foreign "devils." Lest they be trumped by their hated Greek rivals, the Turks now give voice to the same anti-Americanism. It is a peculiar sentiment among the Turks, given their pragmatism. They are not prone to the cluster of grievances that empower anti-Americanism in France or among the intelligentsia of the developing world. In the 1920s, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk gave Turkey a dream of modernity and self-help by pointing his country westward, distancing it from the Arab-Muslim lands to its south and east. But the secular, modernist dream in Turkey has fractured, and oddly, anti-Americanism blows through the cracks from the Arab lands and from Brussels and Berlin. The fury of the Turkish protests against the United States in the months prior to the war in Iraq exhibited a pathology all its own. It was, at times, nature imitating art: The protesters in the streets burned American flags in the apparent hope that Europeans (real Europeans, that is) would finally take Turkey and the Turks into the fold. The U.S. presence had been benign in Turkish lands, and Americans had been Turkey's staunchest advocates for coveted membership in the EU. But suddenly this relationship that served Turkey so well was no longer good enough. As the "soft" Islamists (there is no such thing, we ought to understand by now) revolted against Pax Americana, the secularists averted their gaze and let stand this new anti-Americanism. The pollsters calling on the Turks found a people in distress, their economy on the ropes, and their polity in an unfamiliar world beyond the simple certainties of Kemalism, yet without new political tools and compass. No dosage of anti-Americanism, the Turks will soon realize, will take Turkey past the gatekeepers of Europe. WE WERE ALL AMERICANS The introduction of the Pew report sets the tone for the entire study. The war in Iraq, it argues,"has widened the rift between Americans and Western Europeans" and "further inflamed the Muslim world." The implications are clear: The United States was better off before Bush's "unilateralism." The United States, in its hubris, summoned up this anti-Americanism. Those are the political usages of this new survey. But these sentiments have long prevailed in Jordan, Egypt, and France. During the 1990s, no one said good things about the United States in Egypt. It was then that the Islamist children of Egypt took to the road, to Hamburg and Kandahar, to hatch a horrific conspiracy against the United States. And it was in the 1990s, during the fabled stock market run, when the prophets of globalization preached the triumph of the U.S. economic model over the protected versions of the market in places such as France, when anti-Americanism became the uncontested ideology of French public life. Americans were barbarous, a threat to French cuisine and their beloved language. U.S. pension funds were acquiring their assets and Wall Street speculators were raiding their savings. The United States incarcerated far too many people and executed too many criminals. All these views thrived during a decade when Americans are now told they were loved and uncontested on foreign shores. Much has been made of the sympathy that the French expressed for the United States immediately after the September 11 attacks, as embodied by the famous editorial of Le Monde's publisher Jean-Marie Colombani, "Nous Sommes Tous Américains" ("We are all Americans"). And much has been made of the speed with which the United States presumably squandered that sympathy in the months that followed. But even Colombani's column, written on so searing a day, was not the unalloyed message of sympathy suggested by the title. Even on that very day, Colombani wrote of the United States reaping the whirlwind of its "cynicism"; he recycled the hackneyed charge that Osama bin Laden had been created and nurtured by U.S. intelligence agencies. Colombani quickly retracted what little sympathy he had expressed when, in December of 2001, he was back with an open letter to "our American friends" and soon thereafter with a short book, Tous Américains? le monde après le 11 septembre 2001 (All Americans? The World After September 11, 2001). By now the sympathy had drained, and the tone was one of belligerent judgment and disapproval. There was nothing to admire in Colombani's United States, which had run roughshod in the world and had been indifferent to the rule of law. Colombani described the U.S. republic as a fundamentalist Christian enterprise, its magistrates too deeply attached to the death penalty, its police cruel to its black population. A republic of this sort could not in good conscience undertake a campaign against Islamism. One can't, Colombani writes, battle the Taliban while trying to introduce prayers in one's own schools; one can't strive to reform Saudi Arabia while refusing to teach Darwinism in the schools of the Bible Belt; and one can't denounce the demands of the sharia (Islamic law) while refusing to outlaw the death penalty. Doubtless, he adds, the United States can't do battle with the Taliban before doing battle against the bigotry that ravages the depths of the United States itself. The United States had not squandered Colombani's sympathy; he never had that sympathy in the first place. Colombani was hardly alone in the French intellectual class in his enmity toward the United States. On November 3, 2001, in Le Monde, the writer and pundit Jean Baudrillard permitted himself a thought of stunning cynicism. He saw the perpetrators of September 11 acting out his own dreams and the dreams of others like him. He gave those attacks a sort of universal warrant: "How we have dreamt of this event," he wrote, "how all the world without exception dreamt of this event, for no one can avoid dreaming of the destruction of a power that has become hegemonic . . . . It is they who acted, but we who wanted the deed." Casting caution and false sympathy aside, Baudrillard saw the terrible attacks on the United States as an "object of desire." The terrorists had been able to draw on a "deep complicity," knowing perfectly well that they were acting out the hidden yearnings of others oppressed by the United States' order and power. To him, morality of the U.S. variety is a sham, and the terrorism directed against it is a legitimate response to the inequities of "globalization." In his country's intellectual landscape, Baudrillard was no loner. A struggle had raged throughout the 1990s, pitting U.S.-led globalization (with its low government expenditures, a "cheap" and merciless Wall Street-Treasury Department axis keen on greater discipline in the market, and relatively long working hours on the part of labor) against France's protectionist political economy. The primacy the United States assigned to liberty waged a pitched battle against the French commitment to equity. To maintain France's sympathy, and that of Le Monde, the United States would have had to turn the other cheek to the murderers of al Qaeda, spare the Taliban, and engage the Muslim world in some high civilizational dialogue. But who needs high approval ratings in Marseille? Envy of U.S. power, and of the United States' universalism, is the ruling passion of French intellectual life. It is not "mostly Bush" that turned France against the United States. The former Socialist foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, was given to the same anti-Americanism that moves his successor, the bombastic and vain Dominique de Villepin. It was Védrine, it should be recalled, who in the late 1990s had dubbed the United States a "hyperpower." He had done so before the war on terrorism, before the war on Iraq. He had done it against the background of an international order more concerned with economics and markets than with military power. In contrast to his successor, Védrine at least had the honesty to acknowledge that there was nothing unusual about the way the United States wielded its power abroad, or about France's response to that primacy. France, too, he observed, might have been equally overbearing if it possessed the United States' weight and assets. His successor gave France's resentment highly moral claims. Villepin appeared evasive, at one point, on whether he wished to see a U.S. or an Iraqi victory in the standoff between Saddam Hussein's regime and the United States. Anti-Americanism indulges France's fantasy of past greatness and splendor and gives France's unwanted Muslim children a claim on the political life of a country that knows not what to do with them. THE BURDEN OF MODERNITY To come bearing modernism to those who want it but who rail against it at the same time, to represent and embody so much of what the world yearns for and fears— that is the American burden. The United States lends itself to contradictory interpretations. To the Europeans, and to the French in particular, who are enamored of their laïcisme (secularism), the United States is unduly religious, almost embarrassingly so, its culture suffused with sacred symbolism. In the Islamic world, the burden is precisely the opposite: There, the United States scandalizes the devout, its message represents nothing short of an affront to the pious and a temptation to the gullible and the impressionable young. According to the June BBC survey, 78 percent of French polled identified the United States as a "religious" country, while only 10 percent of Jordanians endowed it with that label. Religious to the secularists, faithless to the devout— such is the way the United States is seen in foreign lands. So many populations have the United States under their skin. Their rage is oddly derived from that very same attraction. Consider the Saudi realm, a place where anti-Americanism is fierce. The United States helped invent the modern Saudi world. The Arabian American Oil Company— for all practical purposes a state within a state— pulled the desert enclave out of its insularity, gave it skills, and ushered it into the 20th century. Deep inside the anti-Americanism of today's Saudi Arabia, an observer can easily discern the dependence of the Saudi elite on their U.S. connection. It is in the image of the United States' suburbs and urban sprawl that Saudi cities are designed. It is on the campuses of Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford that the ruling elite are formed and educated. After September 11, 2001, the Saudi elite panicked that their ties to the United States might be shattered and that their world would be consigned to what they have at home. Fragments of the United States have been eagerly embraced by an influential segment of Saudi society. For many, the United States was what they encountered when they were free from home and family and age-old prohibitions. Today, an outing in Riyadh is less a journey to the desert than to the mall and to Starbucks. An academic in Riyadh, in the midst of an anti-American tirade about all policies American, was keen to let me know that his young son, born in the United States, had suddenly declared he no longer wanted to patronize McDonald's because of the United States' support of Israel. The message was plaintive and unpersuasive; the resolve behind that "boycott" was sure to crack. A culture that casts so long a shadow is fated to be emulated and resented at the same time. The United States is destined to be in the politics— and imagination— of strangers even when the country (accurately) believes it is not implicated in the affairs of other lands. In a hauntingly astute set of remarks made to the New Yorker in the days that followed the terrorism of September 11, the Egyptian playwright Ali Salem— a free spirit at odds with the intellectual class in his country and a maverick who journeyed to Israel and wrote of his time there and of his acceptance of that country— went to the heart of the anti-American phenomenon. He was thinking of his own country's reaction to the United States, no doubt, but what he says clearly goes beyond Egypt: People say that Americans are arrogant, but it's not true. Americans enjoy life and they are proud of their lives, and they are boastful of their wonderful inventions that have made life so much easier and more convenient. It's very difficult to understand the machinery of hatred, because you wind up resorting to logic, but trying to understand this with logic is like measuring distance in kilograms….These are people who are envious. To them, life is an unbearable burden. Modernism is the only way out. But modernism is frightening. It means we have to compete. It means we can't explain everything away with conspiracy theories. Bernard Shaw said it best, you know. In the preface to 'St. Joan,' he said Joan of Arc was burned not for any reason except that she was talented. Talent gives rise to jealousy in the hearts of the untalented. This kind of envy cannot be attenuated. Jordanians, for instance, cannot be talked out of their anti-Americanism. In the BBC survey, 71 percent of Jordanians thought the United States was more dangerous to the world than al Qaeda. But Jordan has been the rare political and economic recipient of a U.S. free trade agreement, a privilege the United States shares only with a handful of nations. A new monarch, King Abdullah II, came to power, and the free trade agreement was an investment that Pax Americana made in his reign and in the moderation of his regime. But this bargain with the Hashemite dynasty has not swayed the intellectual class, nor has it made headway among the Jordanian masses. On Iraq and on matters Palestinian, for more than a generation now, Jordanians have not had a kind thing to say about the United States. In the scheme of Jordan's neighborhood, the realm is benign and forgiving, but the political life is restrictive and tight. When talking about the United States, Jordanians have often been talking to their rulers, expressing their dissatisfaction with the quality of the country's public life and economic performance. A pollster venturing to Jordan must understand the country's temper, hemmed in by poverty and overshadowed by more resourceful powers all around it: Iraq to the east, Israel to the west, and Syria and Saudi Arabia over the horizon. A sense of disinheritance has always hung over Jordan. The trinity of God, country, and king puts much of the political life of the land beyond scrutiny and discussion. The anti-Americanism emanates from, and merges with, this political condition. With modernism come the Jews. They have been its bearers and beneficiaries, and they have paid dearly for it. They have been taxed with cosmopolitanism: The historian Isaac Deutscher had it right when he said that other people have roots, but the Jews have legs. Today the Jews have a singular role in U.S. public life and culture, and anti-Americanism is tethered to anti-Semitism. In the Islamic world, and in some European circles as well, U.S. power is seen as the handmaiden of Jewish influence. Witness, for instance, the London-based Arab media's obsession with the presumed ascendancy of the neoconservatives— such as former chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz— in the making of U.S. foreign policy. The neocons had been there for the rescue of the (Muslim) Bosnians and Kosovars, but the reactionaries in Muslim lands had not taken notice of that. Left to itself, the United States would be fair-minded, this Arab commentary maintains, and it would arrive at a balanced approach to the Arab-Islamic world. This narrative is nothing less than a modernized version of the worldview of that infamous forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. But it is put forth by men and women who insist on their oneness with the modern world. A century ago, in a short-story called "Youth," the great British author Joseph Conrad captured in his incomparable way the disturbance that is heard when a modern world pushes against older cultures and disturbs their peace. In the telling, Marlowe, Conrad's literary double and voice, speaks of the frenzy of coming upon and disturbing the East. "And then, before I could open my lips, the East spoke to me, but it was in a Western voice. A torrent of words was poured into the enigmatical, the fateful silence; outlandish, angry words mixed with words and even whole sentences of good English, less strange but even more surprising. The voice swore and cursed violently; it riddled the solemn peace of the bay by a volley of abuse. It began by calling me Pig . . . ." Today, the United States carries the disturbance of the modern to older places— to the east and to the intermediate zones in Europe. There is energy in the United States, and there is force. And there is resistance and resentment— and emulation— in older places affixed on the delicate balancing act of a younger United States not yet content to make its peace with traditional pains and limitations and tyrannies. That sensitive French interpreter of his country, Dominique Moïsi, recently told of a simple countryman of his who was wistful when Saddam Hussein's statue fell on April 9 in Baghdad's Firdos Square. France opposed this war, but this Frenchman expressed a sense of diminishment that his country had sat out this stirring story of political liberation. A society like France with a revolutionary history should have had a hand in toppling the tyranny in Baghdad, but it didn't. Instead, a cable attached to a U.S. tank had pulled down the statue, to the delirium of the crowd. The new history being made was a distinctly American (and British) creation. It was soldiers from Burlington, Vermont, and Linden, New Jersey, and Bon Aqua, Tennessee— I single out those towns because they are the hometowns of three soldiers who were killed in the Iraq war— who raced through the desert making this new history and paying for it. The United States need not worry about hearts and minds in foreign lands. If Germans wish to use anti-Americanism to absolve themselves and their parents of the great crimes of World War II, they will do it regardless of what the United States says and does. If Muslims truly believe that their long winter of decline is the fault of the United States, no campaign of public diplomacy shall deliver them from that incoherence. In the age of Pax Americana, it is written, fated, or maktoob (as the Arabs would say) that the plotters and preachers shall rail against the United States— in whole sentences of good American slang. Fouad Ajami is the Majid Khadduri professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/the_falseness_of_antiamericanism.htm

Are there any "holes" in the Theory of Evolution? I have gathered the following quotes from some "real" scientists who have a problem with the evolution theory as it is commonly taught: Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist). "most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago). "As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University). "The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150). "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist). "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science). "In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist). "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist). "I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97). "So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128). "It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168). "I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist). "But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" -Charles Darwin To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree...." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22) "The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagrams) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13) Sorry it's so long. My question is, are these guys telling us the truth...ARE so-called "evolutionists" so married to the theory that they simply can't see or admit that the theory COULD be wrong? To set the record straight...I am not a "Creationist", I am a Christian. In the arena of evolution/vs/creation, I am "agnostic"...that is, I am not sure, either way. I am curious. I've not seen any serious evidence to prove to me that evolution is, indeed, a fact...to me, it is an open question. Why, for instance, is this "common ancestor" so difficult to track down? Common sense tells me that it would have to have been some sort of ape-like creature...but what did it evolve from, and why? How can you be sure such a creature ever existed? Where did he go? These are questions that are very real, to me, and mean much more than whether or not I'm gonna need a new flu shot because the astute li'l critters that cause flu adapted to the vaccine I had last year.... REAL answers would be appreciated, but if you just HAVE to be rude, crude, and not to shrewd, all you prove to me is that you really don't have any answers, either, or you would give them. Thank you.

What do you think about Saturday or Sunday being the Sabbath? The Sabbath is Saturday? Which Day? "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Genesis 2:2-3 Which day is the Sabbath? "The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God." Exodus 20:10. "And when the sabbath was past, ...very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre." Mark 16:1,2. Modern and Historic Statements on the Sabbath American Congregationalist Anglican Baptist Brethren Catholic Church of Christ Church of England Congregational Christian Church Disciples of Christ Episcopalian Lutheran Lutheran Free Church Methodist Moody Bible Institute Presbyterian Protestant Episcopal Southern Baptist Dictionaries and Encyclopedias Infidel Miscellaneous American Congregationalist: "The current notion that Christ and His apostles authoritatively substituted the first day for the seventh, is absolutely without any authority in the New Testament." Dr. Layman Abbot, in the Christian Union, June 26, 1890. Anglican: "And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day... The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the Church, has enjoined it." Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism, pages 334, 336. Baptist: “There was and is a command to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will however be readily said, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, where can the record of such a transaction be found: Not in the New Testament – absolutely not. There is no scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week.” Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’. "To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years' discussion with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question, discussing it in some of its various aspects, freeing it from its false [Jewish traditional] glosses, never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during the forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated. Nor, so far as we know, did the Spirit, which was given to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever that He had said unto them, deal with this question. Nor yet did the inspired apostles, in preaching the gospel, founding churches, counseling and instructing those founded, discuss or approach the subject. Of course I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day as we learn from the Christian Fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of Paganism, and christened with the name of the sun-god, then adopted and sanctified by the Papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism." Dr. E. T. Hiscox, report of his sermon at the Baptist Minister's Convention, in 'New York Examiner,' November 16, 1893 (The leader / spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church agrees with this statement.See Below) "The Scriptures nowhere call the first day of the week the Sabbath. . .There is no Scriptural authority for so doing, nor of course, any Scriptural obligation." The Watchman. "We believe that the law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government."-"Baptist Church Manual," Art. 12. "There was never any formal or authoritative change from the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath to the Christian first-day observance." -WILLIAM OWEN CARVER, "The Lord's Day in Our Day," page 49. "There is nothing in Scripture that requires us to keep Sunday rather than Saturday as a holy day." Harold Lindsell (editor), Christianity Today, Nov. 5, 1976 Brethren: "With the views of the law and the Sabbath we once held ... and which are still held by perhaps the great majority of the most earnest Christians, we confess that we could not answer Adventists. What is more, neither before or since have I heard or read what would conclusively answer an Adventist in his Scriptural contention that the Seventh day is the Sabbath (Ex. 20:10). It is not 'one day in seven' as some put it, but 'the seventh day according to the commandment.' " Words of Truth and Grace, p. 281. ^ Top Catholic: “It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.” Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, NJ ‘News’ on March 18, 1903. See This Rock "Protestants ... accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change... But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that ... in observing Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church, the pope." Our Sunday Visitor, February 5th, 1950. See This Rock “Of course these two old quotations are exactly correct. The Catholic Church designated Sunday as the day for corporate worship and gets full credit – or blame – for the change.” This Rock, The Magazine of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization, p.8, June 1997 Question: Which is the Sabbath day? Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day. Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” -Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50 Q. Must not a sensible Protestant doubt seriously, when he finds that even the Bible is not followed as a rule by his co-religionists? A. Surely, when he sees them baptize infants, abrogate the Jewish Sabbath, and observe Sunday for which [pg. 7] there is no Scriptural authority; when he finds them neglect to wash one another's feet, which is expressly commanded, and eat blood and things strangled, which are expressly prohibited in Scripture. He must doubt, if he think at all. ... Q. Should not the Protestant doubt when he finds that he himself holds tradition as a guide? A. Yes, if he would but reflect that he has nothing but Catholic Tradition for keeping the Sunday holy; ... Controversial Catechism by Stephen Keenan, New Edition, revised by Rev. George Cormack, published in London by Burns & Oates, Limited - New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benzinger Brothers, 1896, pages 6, 7. "The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Commandments of God, Volume IV, © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition © 1999 by Kevin Knight, Nihil Obstat - Remy Lafort, Censor Imprimatur - +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 153. ''The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.'' The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4. "All of us believe many things in regard to religion that we do not find in the Bible. For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the Church outside the Bible." The Catholic Virginian, "To Tell You The Truth,” Vol. 22, No. 49 (Oct. 3, 1947). "... you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify." The Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 88th edition, page 89. Originally published in 1876, republished and Copyright 1980 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., pages 72-73. 'Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God... The Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.'' Catholic Record, September 1, 1923. "But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom, even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away - like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair." The Faith of Millions "Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. "The Day of the Lord" (dies Dominica) was chosen, not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church's sense of its own power. The day of resurrection, the day of Pentecost, fifty days later, came on the first day of the week. So this would be the new Sabbath. People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy." Sentinel, Pastor's page, Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995 “If Protestants would follow the Bible, they would worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church.” Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920. “The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church.” Monsignor Louis Segur, ‘Plain Talk about the Protestantism of Today’, p. 213. What Important Question Does the Papacy Ask Protestants? Protestants have repeatedly asked the papacy, "How could you dare to change God's law?" But the question posed to Protestants by the Catholic church is even more penetrating. Here it is officially: ""You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! but by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day, who shall dare to say, Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead? This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer. You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered."" *Library of Christian Doctrine: Why Don't You Keep Holy the Sabbath-Day? (London: Burns and Oates, Ltd.), pp. 3, 4. ''I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says, No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week. And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the Holy Catholic Church." Priest Thomas Enright, C.S.S.R., February 18, 1884, Printed in the American Sentinel, a New York Roman Catholic journal in June 1893, p. 173. "There is but one church on the face of the earth which has the power, or claims power, to make laws binding on the conscience, binding before God, binding under penalty of hell-fire. For instance, the institution of Sunday. What right has any other church to keep this day? You answer by virtue of the third commandment (the papacy did away with the 2nd regarding the worship of graven images, and called the 4th the 3rd), which says 'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.' But Sunday is not the Sabbath. Any schoolboy knows that Sunday is the first day of the week. I have repeatedly offered one thousand dollars to anyone who will prove by the Bible alone that Sunday is the day we are bound to keep, and no one has called for the money. It was the holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday, the seventh day, to Sunday, the first day of the week." - T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture delivered in 1893. ''Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act. And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.'' C. F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons, in answer to a letter regarding the change of the Sabbath, November 11, 1895. “Tradition, not Scripture, is the rock on which the church of Jesus Christ is built.” Adrien Nampon, Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent, p. 157 "The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine law". The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts a vicegerent of God upon earth" Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Papa, II, Vol. VI, p. 29. "The leader of the Catholic church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity." John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3, 1994 "...pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as "the day of the sun", which was the Roman name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages.(29) This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of the day to Christ, humanity's true "sun"." John Paul II, Dies Domini, 27. The day of Christ-Light, 1998 (Prominent protestant leaders agree with this statement - See above for a statement by Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’) "The Sun was a foremost god with heathen-dom…The sun has worshippers at this hour in Persia and other lands…. There is, in truth, something royal, kingly about the sun, making it a fit emblem of Jesus, the Sun of Justice. Hence the church in these countries would seem to have said, to 'Keep that old pagan name [Sunday]. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus." William Gildea, Doctor of Divinity, The Catholic World, March, 1894, p. 809 "The retention of the old pagan name of Dies Solis, for Sunday is, in a great measure, owing to the union of pagan and Christian sentiment with which the first day of the week was recommended by Constantine to his subjects - pagan and Christian alike - as the 'venerable' day of the sun."" Arthur P. Stanley, History of the Eastern Church, p. 184 "When St. Paul repudiated the works of the law, he was not thinking of the Ten Commandments, which are as unchangeable as God Himself is, which God could not change and still remain the infinitely holy God."-Our Sunday Visitor, Oct. 7, I951. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church." Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p.58 (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p.67) "Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the NEW LAW, that he himself has explicitly substituted sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as holy days. The church chose sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days." - Vincent J. Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, Studies in Sacred Theology, No. 70.,1943, p. 2. "If we consulted the Bible only, we should still have to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is, Saturday, with the Jews, instead of Sunday; ..." -- A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, by Rev. John Laux M.A., Benzinger Brothers, 1936 edition, Part 1. "Sunday is a Catholic institution, and... can be defended only on Catholic principles.... From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first." Catholic Press, Aug. 25, 1900 "The Sabbath was Saturday, not Sunday. The Church altered the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. Protestants must be rather puzzled by the keeping of Sunday when God distinctly said, 'Keep holy the Sabbath Day.' The word Sunday does not come anywhere in the Bible, so, without knowing it they are obeying the authority of the Catholic Church." Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Explained, p. 89. ''Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.'' John Cardinal Gibbons, The Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893. ^ Top Church of Christ: "But we do not find any direct command from God, or instruction from the risen Christ, or admonition from the early apostles, that the first day is to be substituted for the seventh day Sabbath." "Let us be clear on this point. Though to the Christian 'that day, the first day of the week' is the most memorable of all days ... there is no command or warrant in the New Testament for observing it as a holy day." "The Roman Church selected the first day of the week in honour of the resurrection of Christ. ..." Bible Standard, May, 1916, Auckland, New Zealand. "... If the fourth command is binding upon us Gentiles by all means keep it. But let those who demand a strict observance of the Sabbath remember that the seventh day is the ONLY sabbath day commanded, and God never repealed that command. If you would keep the Sabbath, keep it; but Sunday is not the Sabbath. The argument of the 'Seventh-day Adventists' is on one point unassailable. It is the Seventh day not the first day that the command refers to." G. Alridge, Editor, The Bible Standard, April, 1916. "There is no direct Scriptural authority for designating the first day the Lord's day."-DR. D. H. LUCAS, Christian Oracle, Jan. 23, 1890. "The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath. There never was any change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change."-"First-Day Observance," pages 17, 19. "It has reversed the fourth commandment by doing away with the Sabbath of God's Word, and instituting Sunday as a holiday." DR. N. SUMMERBELL, "History of the Christian Church," Third Edition, page 4I5. "To command...men...to observe...the Lord's day...is contrary to the gospel." - "Memoirs of Alexander Campbell," Vol. 1, page 528. "It is clearly proved that the pastors of the churches have struck out one of God's ten words, which, not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation, are the most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality."-ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, "Debate With Purcell," page 214. "I do not believe that the Lord's day came in the room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day, for this plain reason, where there is no testimony, there can be no faith. Now there is no testimony in all the oracles of heaven that the Sabbath was changed, or that the Lord's day came in the room of it."-ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, Washington Reporter, Oct. 8, 1821. ^ Top Church of England: "Many people think that Sunday is the Sabbath. But neither in the New Testament nor in the early church is there anything to suggest that we have any right to transfer the observance of the seventh day of the week to the first. The Sabbath was and is Saturday and not Sunday, and if it were binding on us then we should observe it on that day, and on no other." Rev. Lionel Beere, All-Saints Church, Ponsonby, N.Z. in Church and People, Sept. 1, 1947. "Nowhere in the Bible is it laid down that worship should be done on Sunday. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. ...! That is Saturday." P. Carrington, Archbishop of Quebec, Oct. 27, 1949; cited in Prophetic Signs, p 12. "The observance of the first instead of the seventh day rests on the testimony of the church, and the church alone." Hobart Church News, July 2, 1894; cited in Prophetic Signs, p 14. "Where are we told in Scripture that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the Seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day. The reason why we keep the first day holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many things, not because the Bible, but because the Church, has enjoined them." Rev. Isaac Williams, Ser. on Catechism, p. 334. "The seventh day, the commandment says, is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. No kind of arithmetic, no kind of almanac, can make seven equal one, nor the seventh mean the first, nor Saturday mean Sunday. ... The fact is that we are all Sabbath breakers, every one of us." Rev. Geo. Hodges. "Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or to His apostles."-SIR WILLIAM DOMVILLE, "Examination of the Six Texts," pages 6, 7. (Supplement). "There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about ab­staining from work on Sunday. . . . Into the rest of Sunday no divine law enters…, The observance of Ash Wednesday or Lent stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday." -CANON EYTON, 'The Ten Commandments," pages 52, 63, 65. "Is there any command in the New Testament to change the day of weekly rest from Saturday to Sunday? None."-"Manual of Christian Doctrine," page 127. "The Lord's day did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath....The Lord's day was merely an ecclesiastical institution. It was not introduced by virtue of the fourth commandment, because for almost three hundred years together they kept that day which was in that commandment...The primitive Christians did all manner of works upon the Lord's day, even in times of persecution, when they are the strictest observers of all the divine commandments; but in this they knew there was none."-BISHOP JEREMY TAYLOR, "Ductor Dubitantium," Part I, Book II, Chap. 2, Rule 6. Sec. 51, 59. "Sunday being the day on which the Gentiles solemnly adore that planet and called it Sunday, partly from its influence on that day especially, and partly in respect to its divine body (as they conceived it), the Christians thought fit to keep the same day and the same name of it, that they might not appear causelessly peevish, and by that means hinder the conversion of the Gentiles, and bring a greater prejudice than might be otherwise taken against the gospel."-T. M. MORER, "Dialogues on the Lord's Day," pages 22, 23. "The Puritan idea was historically unhappy. It made Sun­day into the Sabbath day. Even educated people call Sunday the Sabbath. Even clergymen do." "But, unless my reckoning is all wrong, the Sabbath day lasts twenty-four hours from six o'clock on Friday evening. It gives over, therefore, before we come to Sunday. If you suggest to a Sabbatarian that he ought to observe the Sabbath on the proper day, you arouse no enthusiasm. He at once replies that the day, not the principle, has been changed. But changed by whom? There is no injunction in the whole of the New Testament to Christians to change the Sabbath into Sunday.' - D. MORSE­BOYCOTT, Daily Herald, London, Feb. 26, 1931. "The Christian church made no formal, but a gradual and almost unconscious transference of the one day to the other."- F.W. FARRAR, D.D., "The Voice From Sinai," page 167. "Take which you will, either of the Fathers or the moderns, and we shall find no Lord's day instituted by any apostolical man­date; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week."-PETER HEYLYN, "History of the Sabbath," page 410. "Merely to denounce the tendency to secularise Sunday is as futile as it is easy. What we want is to find some principle, to which as Christians we can appeal, and on which we can base both our conduct and our advice. We turn to the New Testament, and we look in vain for any authoritative rule. There is no recorded word of Christ, there is no word of any of the apostles, which tells how we should keep Sunday, or indeed that we should keep it at all. It is disappointing, for it would make our task much easier if we could point to a definite rule, which left us no option but simple obedience or disobedience. . . . There is no rule for Sunday observance, either in Scripture or history."-DR. STEPHEN, Bishop of Newcastle, N.S.W., in an address reported in the Newcastle Morn­ing Herald, May 14, 1924. ^ Top Congregational: "The Christian Sabbath' [Sunday] is not in the Scripture, and was not by the primitive [early Christian] church called the Sabbath." Timothy Dwight, Theology, sermon 107, 1818 ed., Vol. IV, p49 Note: Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) was president of Yale University from 1795-1817. "It is quite clear that, however rigidly or devoutly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath ... The Sabbath was founded on a specific divine command. We can plead no such command for the obligation to observe Sunday ... There is not a single sentence in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday." Dr. Dale, The Ten Commandments, pp. 106, 107. "It must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day." Buck's Theological Dictionary page 403. "There is no command in the Bible requiring us to observe the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath."-ORIN FOWLER, A.M., "Mode and Subjects of Baptism." "The current notion that Christ and His apostles authoritatively substituted the first day for the seventh, is absolutely without any authority in the New Testament."-DR. LYMAN ABBOTT, Christian Union, Jan. 18, 1882. Christian Church: "I do not believe that the Lord's day came in the room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day, for this plain reason, where there is no testimony, there can be no faith. Now there is no testimony in all the oracles of heaven that the Sabbath is changed, or that the Lord’s Day came in the room of it." Alexander Campbell, in The Reporter, October 8, 1921 "It has reversed the fourth commandment by doing away with the Sabbath of God's Word, and instituting Sunday as a holiday." - Dr. N. Summerbell, History of the Christian Church, Third Edition, p. 415 "There is no direct scriptural authority for designating the first day the Lord's day." - Dr. D. H. Lucas, Christian Oracle, Jan. 23, 1890. "The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceeding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath. There never was any change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change." First-Day Observance, pp. 17, 19. Disciples of Christ: "There is no direct Scriptural authority for designating the first day ‘the Lord’s Day.’" Dr D.H. Lucas, Christian Oracle, January, 1890 "If it [the Ten Commandments] yet exist, let us observe it... And if it does not exist, let us abandon a mock observance of another day for it. 'But,' say some, 'it was changed from the seventh to the first day.' Where? when? and by whom? - No, it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again: for the reason assigned [in Genesis 2:1-3] must be changed before the observance or respect to the reason, can be changed. It is all old wives' fables to talk of the 'change of the sabbath' from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio, - I think his name is "Doctor Antichrist.'" Alexander Campbell, The Christian Baptist, February 2, 1824, vol 1, no. 7 ^ Top Episcopalian: "We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church of Christ." Bishop Symour, Why We keep Sunday. "The Bible commandment says on the seventh-day thou shalt rest. That is Saturday. Nowhere in the Bible is it laid down that worship should be done on Sunday." Phillip Carrington, quoted in Toronto Daily Star, Oct 26, 1949 [Carrington (1892-), Anglican archbishop of Quebec, spoke the above in a message on this subject delivered to a packed assembly of clergymen. It was widely reported at the time in the news media]. Lutheran: "The observance of the Lord's Day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the Church." Augsburg Confession of Faith. "They [the Catholics] allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord's day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it appears, neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing of the Sabbath day. Great, say they, is the power and authority of the church, since it dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments." -Augsburg Confession of Faith, Art. 28, par. 9. "They [Roman Catholics] allege the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's day, as it seemeth, to the Decalogue [the ten commandments]; and they have no example more in their mouths than they change of the Sabbath. They will needs have the Church's power to be very great, because it hath dispensed with the precept of the Decalogue." The Augsburg Confession, 1530 A.D. (Lutheran), part 2, art 7, in Philip Schaff, the Creeds of Christiandom, 4th Edition, vol 3, p64 [this important statement was made by the Lutherans and written by Melanchthon, only thirteen years after Luther nailed his theses to the door and began the Reformation]. "For up to this day mankind has absolutely trifled with the original and most special revelation of the Holy God, the ten words written upon the tables of the Law from Sinai."-"Crown Theological Library," page I78. "The Christians in the ancient church very soon distinguished the first day of the week, Sunday; however, not as a Sabbath, but as an assembly day of the church, to study the Word of God together, and to celebrate the ordinances one with another: without a shadow of doubt, this took place as early as the first part of the second century."-Bishop GRIMELUND, "History of the Sabbath," page 60. "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance."- AUGUSTUS NEANDER, "History of the Christian Religion and Church," Vol. 1, page 186. "I wonder exceedingly how it came to be imputed to me that I should reject the law of Ten Commandments...Whosoever abrogates the law must of necessity abrogate sin also."-MARTIN LUTHER, Spiritual Antichrist," pages 71, 72. "We have seen how gradually the impression of the Jewish Sabbath faded from the mind of the Christian church, and how completely the newer thought underlying the observance of the first day took possession of the church. We have seen that the Christian of the first three centuries never confused one with the other, but for a time celebrated both." The Sunday Problem, a study book by the Lutheran Church (1923) p.36 "But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be kept by the children of Israel .... These churches err in their teaching, for scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect" John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday, pp.15, 16 ^ Top Lutheran Free Church: “For when there could not be produced one solitary place in the Holy Scriptures which testified that either the Lord Himself or the apostles had ordered such a transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday, then it was not easy to answer the question: Who has transferred the Sabbath, and who has the right to do it?” George Sverdrup, ‘A New Day.’ Methodist: "This 'handwriting of ordinances' our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. (Colossians 2: 14.) But the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away.... The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law. ...Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages."-JOHN WESLEY, "Sermons on Several Occasions," 2-Vol. Edition, Vol. I, pages 221, 222. "No Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral."-"Methodist Church Discipline," (I904), page 23. "The Sabbath was made for MAN; not for the Hebrews, but for all men."-E.O. HAVEN, "Pillars of Truth," page 88. "The reason we observe the first day instead of the seventh is based on no positive command. One will search the Scriptures in vain for authority for changing from the seventh day to the first. The early Christians began to worship on the first day of the week because Jesus rose from the dead on that day. By and by, this day of worship was made also a day of rest, a legal holiday. This took place in the year 321. "The reason we observe the first day instead of the seventh is based on no positive command. One will search the Scriptures in vain for authority for changing from the seventh day to the first... Our Christian Sabbath, therefore, is not a matter of positive command. It is a gift of the church... "-CLOVIS G. CHAPPELL, "Ten Rules for Living," page 61. "Sabbath in the Hebrew language signifies rest, and is the seventh day of the week... and it must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day." Charles Buck, A Theological Dictionary, "Sabbath" "In the days of very long ago the people of the world began to give names to everything, and they turned the sounds of the lips into words, so that the lips could speak a thought. In those days the people worshipped the sun because many words were made to tell of many thoughts about many things. The people became Christians and were ruled by an emperor whose name was Constantine. This emperor made Sunday the Christian Sabbath, because of the blessing of light and heat which came from the sun. So our Sunday is a sun-day, isn't it?"-Sunday School Advocate, Dec. 31, 1921. "The moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He [Christ] did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken... Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their un­changeable relation to each other."-JOHN WESLEY, "Sermons on Several Occasions," Vol. I, Sermon XXV. “It is true that there is no positive command for infant baptism. Nor is there any for the keeping of the first day of the week. Many believe that Christ changed the Sabbath. But, from His own words, we see that He came for no such purpose. Those who believe that Jesus changed the Sabbath base it only on a supposition.” Amos Binney, ‘Theological Compendium’, p. 180-181 "The Sabbath instituted in the beginning, and confirmed again and again by Moses and the prophets, has never been abrogated. A part of the moral law, not a jot or a tittle of its sanctity has been taken away." New York Herald 1874, on the Methodist Episcopal Bishops Pastoral 1874 Moody Bible Institute: "The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?"- D.L. MOODY, "Weighed and Wanting," page 47. "I honestly believe that this commandment [the fourth, or Sabbath commandment] is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place. 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.' It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was-in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.' - Id., page 46. "This Fourth is not a commandment for one place, or one time, but for all places and times." D.L. Moody, at San Francisco, Jan. 1st, 1881. ^ Top Presbyterian: "The Christian Sabbath (Sunday) is not in the Scriptures, and was not by the primitive church called the Sabbath." Dwight's Theology, Vol. 14, p. 401. "A further argument for the perpetuity of the Sabbath we have in Matthew 24:20, Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter neither on the Sabbath day. But the final destruction of Jerusalem was after the Christian dispensation was fully set up (AD 70). Yet it is plainly implied in these words of the Lord that even then Christians were bound to strict observation of the Sabbath." Works of Jonathon Edwards, (Presby.) Vol. 4, p. 621. "We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law; for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must therefore be as unchangeable as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform." JOHN CALVIN, "Commentary on a Harmony of the Gospels," Vol. 1, page 277. "God instituted the Sabbath at the creation of man, setting apart the seventh day for the purpose, and imposed its observance as a universal and perpetual moral obligation upon the race." ­American Presbyterian Board of Publication, Tract No. 175. "The observance of the seventh-day Sabbath did not cease till it was abolished after the [Roman] empire became Christian," ­American Presbyterian Board of Publication, Tract No. 118. "The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard to the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel in any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation." "Westminster Confession of Faith," Chap. 19, Art. 5. "The Sabbath is a part of the Decalogue-the Ten Commandments. This alone for ever settles the question as to the perpetuity of the institution ... Until, therefore, it can be shown that the whole moral law has been repealed, the Sabbath will stand...The teaching of Christ confirms the perpetuity of the Sabbath."- T.C. BLAKE, D.D., "Theology Condensed," pages 474, 475. "Sunday being the first day of which the Gentiles solemnly adored that planet and called it Sunday, partly from its influence on that day especially, and partly in respect to its divine body (as they conceived it) the Christians thought fit to keep the same day and the same name of it, that they might not appear carelessly peevish, and by that means hinder the conversion of the Gentiles, and bring a greater prejudice that might be otherwise taken against the gospel" T.M. Morer, Dialogues on the Lord's Day "There is no word, no hint in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday. The observance of Ash Wednesday, or Lent, stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday. Into the rest of Sunday no Divine Law enters." Canon Eyton, in The Ten Commandments. "Some have tried to build the observance of Sunday upon Apostolic command, whereas the Apostles gave no command on the matter at all.... The truth is, so soon as we appeal to the litera scripta [literal writing] of the Bible, the Sabbatarians have the best of the argument." The Christian at Work, April 19, 1883, and Jan. 1884 Protestant Episcopal: “The day is now changed from the seventh to the first day... but as we meet with no Scriptural direction for the change, we may conclude it was done by the authority of the church.” ‘Explanation of Catechism’ ^ Top Southern Baptist: “The sacred name of the Seventh day is Sabbath. This fact is too clear to require argument [Exodus 20:10 quoted]… on this point the plain teaching of the Word has been admitted in all ages… Not once did the disciples apply the Sabbath law to the first day of the week, -- that folly was left for a later age, nor did they pretend that the first day supplanted the seventh.” Joseph Hudson Taylor, ‘The Sabbatic Question’, p. 14-17, 41. "The first four commandments set forth man's obligations directly toward God.... But when we keep the first four commandments, we are likely to keep the other six. . . . The fourth commandment sets forth God's claim on man's time and thought.... The six days of labour and the rest on the Sabbath are to be maintained as a witness to God's toil and rest in the creation. . . . No one of the ten words is of merely racial significance.... The Sabbath was established originally (long before Moses) in no special connection with the Hebrews, but as an institution for all mankind, in commemoration of God's rest after the six days of creation. It was designed for all the descendants of Adam."-Adult Quarterly, Southern Baptist Convention series, Aug. 15, 1937. Dictionaries and Encyclopedias: "Sunday was a name given by the heathens to the first day of the week, because it was the day on which they worshipped the sun, ...the seventh day was blessed and hallowed by God Himself, and ...He requires His creatures to keep it holy to Him. This commandment is of universal and perpetual obligation...The Creator 'blessed the seventh day'-declared it to be a day above all days, a day- on which His favour should assuredly rest. ...So long, then, as man exists, and the world around him endures,' does the law of the early Sabbath remain. It cannot be set aside so long as its foundations last.... It is not the Jewish Sabbath, properly so-called, which is ordained in the fourth commandment. In the whole of that injunction there is no Jewish element, any more than there is in the third commandment, or the sixth." ­Eadie's Biblical Cyclopedia, 1872 Edition, page 561. "Thus we learn from Socrates (H.E., vi.c.8) that in his time public worship was held in the churches of Constantinople on both days.... The view that the Christian's Lord's day or Sunday is but the Christian Sabbath deliberately transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week does not indeed find categorical expression till a much later period.... The earliest recognition of the observance of Sunday as a legal duty is a constitution of Constantine in A.D. 321, enacting that all courts of justice, inhabitants of towns, and workshops were to be at rest on Sunday (venerabili die Solis), with an exception in favour of those engaged in agricultural labour...The Council of Laodicea (363) ... forbids Christians from judaizing and resting on the Sabbath day, preferring the Lord's day, and so far as possible resting as Christians."-Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1899 Edition, Vol. XXIII, page 654. "Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the sabbatical observance of Sunday is known to have been ordained is the sabbatical edict of Constantine, A.D. 32I." ­Chambers' Encyclopedia, Article "Sunday." "It must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day."-M'CLINTOCK AND STRONG, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. IX, page 196. "Sunday (Dies Solis, of the Roman calendar, 'day of the sun,' because dedicated to the sun), the first day of the week, was adopted by the early Christians as a day of worship. The 'sun' of Latin adoration they interpreted as the 'Sun of Righteousness.' . . . No regulations for its observance are laid down in the New Testament, nor, indeed, is its observance even enjoined."-SCHAFF HERZOG, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1891 Edition, Vol. IV, Art. "Sunday." "Sabbath in the Hebrew language signifies rest, and is the seventh day of the week... and it must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day." CHARLES BUCK, "A Theological Dictionary," "As the Sabbath is of divine institution, so it is to be kept holy unto the Lord. Numerous have been the days appointed by men for religious services; but these are not binding, because of human institution. Not so the Sabbath. Hence the fourth commandment is ushered in with a peculiar emphasis-'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.'…The abolition of it would be unreasonable."-'CHARLES BUCK, "A Theological Dictionary," 1830 Edition, page 537. "But although it [Sunday] was in the primitive times indifferently called the Lord's day, or Sunday, yet it was never denominated the Sabbath; a name constantly appropriate to Saturday, or the seventh day, both by sacred and ecclesiastical writers."-Id., page 572. "The notion of a formal substitution by apostolic authority of the Lord's day [meaning Sunday] for the Jewish Sabbath [or the first for the seventh day]...and the transference to it, perhaps in a spiritualized form, of the sabbatical obligation established by the promulgation of the fourth commandment, has no basis whatever, either in Holy Scripture or in Christian antiquity." - SIR WILLIAM SMITH AND SAMUEL CHEETHAM, "A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities," Vol. 11, page 182, Article "Sabbath." "This long series of temporal enactments (in considering which we have, for the sake of exhibiting them as a whole, anticipated chronological order) must have told very powerfully upon the conception of the Lord's day in the church itself, not only tending to formalize its celebration, but to invest it in great degree with the character of a sabbath. Still, however, there was no connexion of its observance with the obligation of the fourth commandment, and therefore no application to it either of the laws of the Jewish sabbath, or of our Lord's teaching on the subject, as modifying and spiritualizing these laws." -Id., page 1047 Infidel: 'Probably very few Christians are aware of the fact that what they call the 'Christian Sabbath' (Sunday) is of pagan origin. "The first observance of Sunday- that history records is in the fourth century', when Constantine issued an edict (not requiring its religious observance, but simply abstinence from work) reading, 'let all the judges and people of the town rest and all the various trades be suspended on the venerable day of the sun.' At the time of the issue of this edict, Constantine was a sun-worshipper; therefore it could have had no relation whatever to Christianity." - ­HENRY M. TABER. "Faith or Fact" (preface by Robert G. Ingersoll), page 112. "I challenge any priest or minister of the Christian religion to show me the slightest authority for the religious observance of Sunday. And, if such cannot be shown by them, why is it that they are constantly preaching about Sunday as a holy day? ...The claim that Sunday takes the place of Saturday, and that because the Jews were supposed to be commanded to keep the seventh day of the week holy, therefore the first day of the week should be so kept by Christians, is so utterly absurd as to be hardly worth considering....That Paul habitually observed and preached on the seventh day of the week, is shown in Acts 18:4-'And be reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath' (Saturday)."-Id., pages ,114, 116. ^ Top Miscellaneous: "You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! But by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, 'Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day,' who shall dare to say, 'Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead'? This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer." "You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the Ten Commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered."-"The Library of Christian Doctrine," pages 3, 4. "The first precept in the Bible is that of sanctifying the seventh day: 'God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.' Genesis 2:3. This precept was confirmed by God in the Ten Commandments: 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep It holy. ...The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' Exodus 20: 8, 10. On the other hand, Christ declares that He is not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. (Matthew 5: 17.) He Himself observed the Sabbath: 'And, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day.' Luke 4: r6. His disciples likewise observed it after His death: 'They . . . rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.' Luke 23: 56. Yet with all this weight of Scripture authority for keeping the Sabbath or seventh day holy, Protestants of all denominations make this a profane day and transfer the obligation of it to the first day of the week, or the Sunday. Now what authority have they for doing this? None at all but the unwritten word, or tradition of the Catholic Church, which declares that the apostle made the change in honour of Christ's resurrection, and the descent of the Holy Ghost on that day of the week."-JOHN MILNER, "The End of Religious Controversy," page 71. "Sabbath means, of course, Saturday, the seventh day of the week, but the early Christians changed the observance to Sunday, to honour the day on which Christ arose from the dead."-FULTON OURSLER. Cosmopolitan, Sept. 1951, pages 34, 35. "I do not pretend to be even an amateur scholar of the Scriptures. I read the Decalogue merely as an average man searching for guidance, and in the immortal 'Ten Words' I find a blueprint for the good life."-Id., page 33. "Most certainly the Commandments are needed today, perhaps more than ever before. Their divine message confronts us with a profound moral challenge in an epidemic of evil; a unifying message acceptable alike to Jew, Moslem, and Christian. Who, reading the Ten in the light of history and of current events, can doubt their identity with the eternal law of nature?"-Id., page 124. "The Sabbath is commanded to be kept on the seventh day. It could not be kept on any other day. To observe the first day of the week or the fourth is not to observe the Sabbath. . . . It was the last day of the week, after six days of work, that was to be kept holy. The observance of no other day would fulfil the law."-H. J. FLOWERS, B.A., B.D., "The Permanent Value of the Ten Commandments," page 13. "The evaluation of Sunday, the traditionally accepted day of the resurrection of Christ, has varied greatly throughout the centuries of the Christian Era. From time to time it has been confused with the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath. English ­speaking peoples have been the most consistent in perpetuating the erroneous assumption that the obligation of the fourth commandment has passed over to Sunday. In popular speech, Sunday is frequently, but erroneously, spoken of as the Sabbath."-F. M. SETZLER, Head Curator, Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institute, from a letter dated Sept. 1, 1949. "He that observes the Sabbath aright holds the history of that which it celebrates to be authentic, and therefore believes in the creation of the first man; in the creation of a fair abode for man in the space of six days; in the primeval and absolute creation of the heavens and the earth, and, as a necessary antecedent to all this, in the Creator, who at the close of His latest creative effort, rested on the seventh day. The Sabbath thus becomes a sign by which the believers in a historical revelation are distinguished from those who have allowed these great facts to fade from their remembrance.' - JAMES G. MURPHY, "Commentary on the Book of Exodus," comments on Exodus 20: 8-11. ** The Bible also identifies the entity who thinks it can change God's law. ^ Top Enter a description of what you are looking for. "When St. Paul repudiated the works of the law, he was not thinking of the Ten Commandments, which are as unchangeable as God Himself is, which God could not change and still remain the infinitely holy God." Our Sunday Visitor, Oct. 7, 1951.