text: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 PT Reelected to USBJI Board, New President Takes the Helm Anita Bemis-Dougherty, PT, DPT, MAS, APTA director of clinical practice, has been reelected as secretary of the United States Bone and Joint Initiative (USBJI). Steve Gnatz, MD, MHA, has taken over as the new president; he had been president-elect. Gnatz said 2 of his priorities as president will be gaining a better understanding of members' interests and looking for ways to serve those interests while advancing USBJI's mission. He said asking the question "How will this create or add value to our members?" is a good barometer for evaluating proposed new efforts. "This question can also help assess current programs and consider how they might be modified or enhanced," he added. Other physical therapists on the 21-member USBJI Board are Jan K. Richardson, PT, PhD, OCS, FAPTA, and Paul A. Ullucci Jr, PT, DPT, ATC, SCS, LAT, CSCS, C-Dsc. USBJI brings together US organizations concerned with musculoskeletal health. It is one of more than 60 national action networks of the worldwide Bone and Joint Decade, a global alliance endorsed by the United Nations and the World Health Organization.


text:
Monitoring America: The Government's Development Of A Vast Panopticon Spy Network | Washington Post reports on feds targeting all Americans as possible domestic extremists
Artwork: Copyright Rosin Fairfield.
Steve Watson
Monday, Dec 20th, 2010
The Washington Post today reports on the vast growing domestic spying apparatus that the federal government is using, in conjunction with the Pentagon, to target millions of law-abiding American citizens who have not been accused of any wrongdoing.
In a lengthy report entitled "Monitoring America", the Post details how a vast centralized snooping machine is being constructed and employed by local, state and federal agencies as well as military investigators, to collect, store and analyze swathes of personal information.
Everything contained within the Post's article has already been reported and covered in depth by this website and others in the alternative media that have consistently warned of the threat of the exponential rise of the big brother spy system over the past decade.
The report details Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano's recent "See something, say something" campaign, which encompasses the federal government hooking up with Wal-Mart, Amtrak, major sports leagues, hotel chains and metro riders to encourage citizens to file "suspicious activity reports" if they see any activity they think could be criminal or terroristic.
The government defines a suspicious activity as "observed behavior reasonably indicative of pre-operational planning related to terrorism or other criminal activity" related to terrorism.
As we reported recently, critics of the program have been literally dubbed insane by it's coordinators, despite legitimate concerns over asking citizens to effectively spy on each other for the government.
The Washington Post report notes that such suspicious activity reports are just one piece of information being collected at the local and state levels and fed into a vast "Guardian" database via fusion centers, which ultimately connect to the FBI, the DHS and even the Department of Defense.
According to the report, the spook network includes 4,058 federal, state and local organizations.
Intelligence centers run by states across the country have access to personal information about millions of Americans, including unlisted cell phone numbers, insurance claims, driver's license photographs and credit reports.
Dozens of the fusion centers were created after 9/11 to identify potential threats and "improve the way information is shared". The centers use law enforcement analysts and sophisticated computer systems to compile, or fuse, disparate tips and clues and pass along the refined information to other agencies.
The centers have received billions in funding from the Department of Homeland Security and also work in conjunction with the military arm of the DHS, NORTHCOM.
They also have subscriptions to private information-broker services that keep records about Americans' locations, employment history, financial holdings, associates, relatives, firearms licenses and the like.
Some of these data-brokers, such as one in Maryland called Entersect, claim to hold records about 98 percent of Americans.
The Washington Post report also details how equipment developed for use against insurgents and fighters in combat situations such as in Afghanistan is now being employed by police and law enforcement agencies to collect information on the American people.
From military-grade infrared cameras, to hand-held, wireless fingerprint scanners, to facial recognition surveillance cameras, to license plate readers, to Predator drones along the borders – all are being used to snap pictures and video and record swathes of information. This will all then be fed into a giant database, cross referenced with every other piece of information collected, analyzed and stored.
This year for the first time, the FBI, the DHS and the Defense Department are able to search each other's fingerprint databases, said Myra Gray, head of the Defense Department's Biometrics Identity Management Agency, speaking to an industry group recently. "Hopefully in the not-too-distant future," she said, "our relationship with these federal agencies – along with state and local agencies – will be completely symbiotic."
The justification is, as always, the war on terror, but the targets of the information gathering are everyday Americans.
As the Washington Post report also notes, Homeland Security and its state and local partners have routinely targeted peaceful and lawful groups and individuals as part of its surveillance reporting.
As we have seen from the MIAC report, DHS spying on tea Party and second amendment activists in Pennsylvania and a host of other examples in recent years, the federal government has little interest in Muslim extremists and has instead targeted Americans knowledgeable of their rights and critical of big government as the primary domestic terror threat. The feds have defined "terrorist propaganda" as any material critical of the state. The Department of Defense characterizes peaceful protest as "low level terrorism" in its own report.
Over the years we have seen countless instances of unaccountable government and military programs that have been in operation for decades, all centered around covertly spying and gathering information on American citizens.
We have extensively documented such programs from COINTELPRO through to Operation CHAOS, the Defense Department's Counterintelligence Field Activity and the recent NSA warrantless wiretapping.
Large corporations such as Google, AT&T, Facebook and Yahoo to name but a few are also intimately involved in the overarching program. Those corporations have specific government arms that are supplying the software, hardware and tech support to US intelligence agencies in the process of creating a vast closed source database for global spy networks to share information.
We are now witnessing the coordination and mass consolidation of scores of these operations into one all encompassing panopticon program.
After 9/11 the work of 16 different intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the giant National Security Agency, which eavesdrops on international communications, as well as the Energy Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration was centralized under the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Why such rampant centralization? Why is the military now so intent on fusing itself with the federal government via Homeland security and through the FBI and why are the targets of their operations always American citizens?
We are constantly bombarded with the notion that the biggest threat we face is from those who reject and abhor western values, yet the government and military continue to relentlessly focus their anti-terror activity directly upon freedom loving American people, while telling them they would be completely insane to voice any concern.
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor at Alex Jones' Infowars.net, and regular contributor toPrisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
Stock up for the Holidays with eFoodsDirect and get FREE Shipping!
Sent from my iPhone 4
About this entry
You're currently reading "Monitoring America: The Government's Development Of A Vast Panopticon Spy Network | Washington Post reports on feds targeting all Americans as possible domestic extremists," an entry on Truth11
- Published:
- December 28, 2010 / 11:13 pm
- Category:
- 1. All Articles, Big Brother, Government, Surveillance of Citizens

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Star Intarsia Blanket
About the Brand
Susan White and Barbara Warren founded their eponymous cashmere brand back in 1997, with the goal of putting the luxurious material to use in ways that felt approachable and wearable. While Warren has since left the company to form her own activewear line (which we also love), White is still at the helm of their original venture. While they've since expanded into unbearably cute childrens clothing, they are still best known for their easy-going essential cashmere sweaters.


text:
I have never given a dime to the Campaign for Human Development. The always indispensable Father Neuhaus explains why here:
"Which brings me, finally, to another and related matter that will surely be discussed in Baltimore and deserves to be on the agenda. The Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) is an annual collection in parishes, usually on one of the last two Sundays in November. It used to be called the Catholic Campaign for Human Development but the Catholic was dropped, which is just as well since it has nothing to do with Catholicism, except that Catholics are asked to pay for it. Some bishops* no longer allow the CHD collection in their dioceses, and more should not allow it. In fact, CHD, misbegotten in concept and corrupt in practice, should, at long last, be terminated.
Ten years ago, CHD was exposed as using the Catholic Church as a milk cow to fund organizations that frequently were actively working against the Church's mission, especially in their support of pro-abortion activities and politicians. Now it turns out that CHD has long been a major funder of ACORN, a national community agitation organization in support of leftist causes, including the abortion license. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is under criminal investigation in several states. In the last decade CHD gave ACORN well over seven million dollars, including more than a million in the past year. It is acknowledged that ACORN, with which Sen. Obama had a close connection over the years, was a major player in his presidential campaign. The bishops say they are investigating the connection between CHD and ACORN. They say they are worried that it might jeopardize the Church's tax-exemption. No mention is made of abusing the trust of the Catholic faithful.
What most Catholics don't know, and what would likely astonish them, is that CHD very explicitly does not fund Catholic institutions and apostolates that work with the poor. Part of the thinking when it was established in the ideological climate of the 1960s is that Catholic concern for the poor would not be perceived as credible if CHD funded Catholic organizations. Yes, that's bizarre, but the history of CHD is bizarre. The bishops could really help poor people by promptly shutting down CHD and giving any remaining funds to, for instance, Catholic inner-city schools. In any event, if there is a collection at your parish this month, I suggest that you can return the envelope empty—and perhaps with a note of explanation—without the slightest moral hesitation."
* bishops in reference to the USCCB or the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops


text:
This post is in partnership with Consequence of Sound, an online music publication devoted to the ever growing and always thriving worldwide music scene.
"And it feels so good!" Alicia Keys initially exclaims over jazzy coats of instruments, courtesy of Jamie xx (who provides perhaps the most un-Alicia Keys-like platform for her signature stellar vocals), on "When It's All Over." The proclamation sounds like something you might hear the 31-year-old R&B queen say in an interview these days, like when she told NPR that her marriage to producer Swizz Beatz and the birth of their son Egypt (who adorably lends his toddler voice to the end of the song) helped her "arrive in her own space." The singer is, in a word, happy.
(MORE: Psy's 'Gangnam Style' Is Now the Most-Watched YouTube Video of All Time)
"It feels so good to sing it in this really high space, because it's like I'm screaming at the top of my lungs," Keys said of the album's title track. Said happiness washes over the arena-ready dance anthem "New Day," and what Keys calls the album's anchor, "Brand New Me". The latter of the two, one of several writing collaborations with British powerhouse Emeli Sandé, affixes itself to her piano but eventually detonates into a flaming bridge, during which Keys belts, "If you were a friend, you'd want to get to know me again / If you were worth the while, you'd be happy to see me smile." She might be all happy, happy, joy joy, but the gal's still got a past.
(MORE: Learning to Love Rihanna's New Album in Five Easy)
Frank Ocean collab "One Thing", a melancholy train journey about "the discovery of the one thing we're all looking for," and "101," a delicate piano track about coming to grips with a lover's past, halt the record's danceable tracks and allow Keys to work her voice and piano in the same way that made her a sensation back in 2001. This balance of radio-friendly R&B and piano ballads bursting with her irrefutable talent is a road frequently traveled for this singer, but it's oh-so-entertaining to watch her set the road ablaze.
Essential Tracks: "Brand New Me", "When It's All Over", and "101"
More from Consequence of Sound: Album Review: Rage Against The Machine –XX [20th Anniversary Deluxe Box Set]
More from Consequence of Sound: Watch ?uestlove's tribute DJ set to J. Dilla


text:
โปรโมชั่น การ พนัน ออนไลน์ ฝาก ขั้น ต่ำ 100
The Wild Rose is an extraordinary consignment boutique located in the heart of downtown Guelph, just below the beautiful Basilica of Our Lady Immaculate (formerly Church of Our Lady). The Wild Rose is 100% Canadian owned and is an award winning business. For over 25 years we have been proudly serving the Guelph community, offering women a place to buy fabulous brand name clothing and accessories without paying new retail prices. We are open 7 days a week and have evening hours to make visiting us convenient for you.
Inside the store, you will be greeted with an abundance of beautiful, quality items to tempt you. Our friendly staff is available to answer any questions about our inventory or consignment procedure.
Clothing is organized by type, color, and size which makes searching for that must have piece, easy and enjoyable. Whether it's that fabulous handbag you can't live without, or the entire outfit you want off the mannequin, you're sure to go home with a treasure, or two, or three!
Go Green
Consignment shopping is an easy and fun way to reduce the number of newly manufactured items we purchase and reuse items that have plenty of joy left in them. Consignment is good for your wallet and great for the environment!
Cleanse Your Closet
Turn your unwanted, quality clothing into cash! Clearing out pieces you no longer wear, simplifies your space and gives you extra money to buy pieces you actually love and use!
Our central downtown location on Macdonell Street is easy to find and just down from the iconic Basilica of Our Lady Immaculate, formerly Church of Our Lady Immaculate. There is ample parking all along the street, or on nearby Wilson Street.
Located In The Heart of Downtown Guelph
23a Macdonell Street,
Guelph, Ontario.
Phone: 519 763-2233
See Top of Page for Store Hours


text:
YouTube Won't Put Your Video Back Up, Even If It's Fair Use, If It Contains Content From Universal Music
from the that's-a-shame deptPatrick McKay, who has been a harsh critic of some of YouTube's failings when it comes to the DMCA process and various takedowns, has highlighted a very serious issue with YouTube that has received little attention. YouTube now admits that, when it comes to some videos that contain content from certain "partner" companies, it won't repost those videos, even if the video uploaders file a counternotice and show that they're relying on fair use. YouTube claims that it will still keep some of those videos blocked due to "contractual" obligations:
YouTube enters into agreements with certain music copyright owners to allow use of their sound recordings and musical compositions.If this sounds vaguely familiar to something in the past, you may recall that a few years ago, Universal Music and Megaupload got into a bit of a spat when UMG issued a questionable takedown of a song promoting Megaupload, which featured a ton of big stars singing the praises (literally) of Megaupload. Megaupload eventually sued UMG, but ended up dropping that lawsuit as a month or so later it had bigger legal issues on its hands, following the US's decision to shut down Megaupload. But, at the time, Universal Music made a strange claim that it had some sort of contractual agreement that allowed it take down videos like Megaupload's. YouTube quickly came out with a statement denying this, but the situations described in McKay's post certainly raise serious questions about this, and clearly suggest that YouTube has made at least some deals that effectively wipe out fair use for some users. I assume it will surprise next to no one that the key example that led McKay to discover this situation... also involved Universal Music.
In exchange for this, some of these music copyright owners require us to handle videos containing their sound recordings and/or musical works in ways that differ from the usual processes on YouTube. Under these contracts, we may be required to remove specific videos from the site, block specific videos in certain territories, or prevent specific videos from being reinstated after a counter notification. In some instances, this may mean the Content ID appeals and/or counter notification processes will not be available. Your account will not be penalized at this time.
As I noted at the time of that UMG/Megaupload spat that I believed the real issue might be YouTube's contract with Universal Music for Vevo -- and I suspect that's still the case now. As I said then, part of the "announced" deal was that as part of providing the backend for Vevo, YouTube would transfer over the videos of various UMG artists, such that they appeared exclusively on Vevo. I suspect that's the same thing happening here. Because part of the Vevo deal is a promise that Vevo gets exclusive rights to videos involving certain artists' works, it allows YouTube to simply ignore fair use claims from users on such content, and refuse to ever post them again.
Now, as McKay notes, this is (mostly) well within YouTube's rights. I remember, a few years back, seeing a discussion on some legal blogs about this question. The DMCA implies that if you file a legitimate counternotice following a DMCA takedown and if the copyright holder does not take further legal action, the service provider is obligated to put the work back up in no less than 10, but no more than 14 business days. But, to some extent, that seems questionable. After all, as a service provider, any site has the right to not allow certain content to be published if it doesn't want to. And yet, if read literally, some could make the argument that the DMCA obligates a service provider to put up content even if it doesn't want to. As McKay notes, in this manner, the only liability is to the person who filed the counternotice, and any such liability would likely be pretty limited.
Either way, there's no way to look at this that makes YouTube look good. Following so soon on our other story about YouTube taking down a video on a questionable "terms of service" violation and then refusing to repost the video, it's once again a situation where it seems like YouTube needs to do a much better job handling these situations. While we obviously don't know the details of the UMG contract, fair use rights cannot be signed away, especially by two third parties. It would be a shame if YouTube decided that it would arbitrarily give UMG the ability to deny someone's fair use rights in posting a video.
Filed Under: contracts, copyright, fair use, videos
Companies: google, universal music, vevo, youtube


text:
Services on Demand
Related links
- Cited by Google
- Similars in Google
HTS Theological Studies
On-line version ISSN 2072-8050
Print version ISSN 0259-9422
Herv. teol. stud. vol.66 n.1 Pretoria Jan. 2010
Religion in the public sphere: what can public theology learn from Habermas's latest work?
Jaco S. DreyerI; Hennie J.C. PieterseII
IDepartment of Practical Theology, University of South Africa, South Africa
IIDepartment of Practical Theology, University of Pretoria, South Africa
The complex and problematic role of religion in the public sphere in modern, democratic societies raises many questions for a public theology. The aim of this article is to contribute to the ongoing debate about the task and methods of public theology by asking what we can learn from the ideas of Jürgen Habermas. Habermas was a leading participant in the thinking process on the secularisation thesis in Western societies. His view was that religion will eventually disappear from the public scene due to the rationalisation of society. In recent years he seems to have changed this view in the light of new developments in the world. He now maintains that religion has something important to offer in the public sphere. Religion could thus participate in this public discussion, provided that it satisfies strict conditions. We argue that public theology can learn from Habermas's recent ideas regarding religion in the public sphere: attention should be paid to the cognitive potential of religion, especially regarding the importance of the lifeworld and the role of religion in social solidarity with the needy and vulnerable; hermeneutical self-reflection is important; a distinction should be made between the role of religion in faith communities and in public life; we have to accept that we live in a secular state; and we have to learn the possibilities and impossibilities of translating from religious vocabulary into a secular vocabulary in order to be able to participate in the discussions in the public sphere.
Keywords: religion; public sphere; public theology; Habermas; translation imperative
The role of religion in the public sphere is problematic. Religion has lost its taken-for-granted status in society and the public sphere. Charles Taylor (2007), in his monumental work A secular age, gives a cogent description of the withdrawal of a religious worldview from the public sphere and the dawn of a secular age. However, the predictions of secularisation theorists that the only remains of religion may be a totally privatised experience of it by a few (cf. Dekker, Luidens & Rice 1997), and that religion will be eradicated from public life, have proven to be wrong (Casanova 1994). Modernisation processes have not led to the eradication of religion from public life (Joas 2009). At the end of the first decade of the 21st century we can conclude that the privatisation of religion is not a historical trend or a normative condition for modern, liberal democracies, as once assumed.
Religion and religious issues still form part of the fabric of modern societies. The role of religion, religious themes and religious institutions in recent election campaigns, both in the United States of America (USA) and in South Africa, bear testimony to this continuing presence of religion. There even seems to be a renewal of the traditional bond between religion and nationalism in certain societies, and an increase in the kind of religious expression associated with fundamentalist and national religious expansion through religious communities catering for different racial, ethnic and social identities (Bosch 1991:476; To & Tulasiewicz 1993:178). Established democracies seem to struggle with this religious plurality in multicultural societies, as multiculturalism and religious diversity often go hand in hand. It is thus commonly accepted that religion has not disappeared from the public sphere.
Although religion still plays a role in the public sphere, the relationship between religion and public life is quite problematic. The debate in France about displaying religious symbols publicly is just one example of the problematic relationship between religion and public life (Mooney 2006:1457). There are many questions regarding the role of religion in the public sphere. Let us look at a few examples: How must we deal with the issue of religious education in public schools? How do we deal with different religious calendars in our business life? How should we view prayers at public gatherings? How do we deal with religious groups' petitions regarding the death penalty, abortion or same-sex marriages? How do we deal with the atheist's claim to freedom from religion? These examples clearly demonstrate the problematic presence of religion in the public sphere.
The role of religion in the public sphere also causes problems for theologians. It is possible, for example, to summarise broad patterns in Protestant theology in reaction to the Enlightenment and the loss of a religious worldview. Generally speaking, orthodoxy clings to its traditional theological positions; Pietism flees from rational criticism of religion to the safe harbour of the subjective religious experiences of the individual; liberal theology tries to reconcile the Christian message with the views of the Enlightenment by digging out the core message of Christianity from the Bible and building hermeneutical bridges for the understanding of the message by modern minds; and political theology accepts the principles of the Enlightenment and tries to show that the Christian faith is in line with this thinking if we understand it as realising the ideals of modern people: liberation from oppressive structures and political oppression, eradication of poverty and restoration of human dignity (cf. Jonker 2008:135-137). There are mixed models of these extreme positions in Protestant theology, but a brief overview of the theological reactions shows the intensity of the theological debate in its efforts to digest the radical cultural changes that have taken place in the church in the past three hundred years.
One of the tasks of a public theology is to reflect on the role of religion in the public sphere in modern or modernising democratic societies such as South Africa. Public theologians have to reflect on, amongst other things, how to deal with different religious claims in the public sphere. What is the task of a public theology when different religious traditions and communities hold different opinions about public issues, and when competing and conflicting religious claims enter the public sphere? To make it more concrete, what is the role and task of a public theology when we are, for example, confronted by opposing views on marriage, homosexuality, abortion, and so forth?
The complex and problematic role of religion in the public sphere in modern, democratic societies raises many questions for a public theology. The aim of this article is to contribute to the ongoing debate about the task and methods of public theology by asking what we can learn from the ideas of the German social philosopher Jürgen Habermas.
Why do we choose to engage with an agnostic and secular thinker like Habermas? Besides for the fact that theologians have engaged with Habermas's ideas for many years, we put forward two other, important reasons. Firstly, Habermas is one of the most important theorists regarding the public sphere. According to Calhoun (1992:4), Habermas had already expressed his interest in the public sphere as an important domain in modern democracies in a book based on his habilitation qualification ('Habilitationsschrift') Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft (1962), which was translated into English as The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (1989). Secondly, Habermas has in recent years paid much attention to the role and position of religion in the public sphere (Cooke 2006; Harrington 2007a, 2007b; Lafont 2007). This greater openness to religion has surprised many, particularly in the light of his well-known secular and agnostic approach to religion.
What can public theology learn from Habermas's recent work regarding the role and position of religion in the public sphere? In order to answer this question we address the following sub-questions: What is the background and context of Habermas's recent views on religion in the public sphere?; How does he view the role of religion in the public sphere in his latest work?; and, What can public theology learn from Habermas's view of the role of religion in the public sphere? The article ends with a brief conclusion.
In this section we focus on the background to Habermas's ideas on religion in the public sphere and the context that caused him to revisit the old themes of reason and religion. Habermas's views on the rationalisation of society and culture in Western Europe form the intellectual background to his views on religion in the public sphere. In this section we also briefly refer to the new context of cultural and religious pluralism in the Western world that seemingly caused Habermas to revisit his views on the role of religion in the public sphere.
A summary of Habermas's thinking on the rationalisation of society and culture
Jürgen Habermas did not accept the diffused and sometimes irrational mixture of ideas in the new spirit of postmodernism. He did not resign himself to a presumed eclipse of the ideals of the Enlightenment and modernity. On the contrary, he has devoted his life-long thinking to the reinforcement of those ideals, including their philosophical foundation (cf. De Roest 1998:48). His new initiative, which is about saving the project of modernity and the secularization of European society, was based on his concept of communicative rationality (cf. Habermas 1982a, 1982b). Rationality in the lifeworld, where people are involved in discourse on validity claims and where communicative rationality operates, has to be distinguished from instrumental rationality. Communicative rationality forms part of Habermas's complex theory of communicative actions. The problem of rationality must simultaneously be handled on a meta-theoretical, methodological and empirical level (Habermas 1982a:20-24). Rationality is not only a faculty of the mind, positioned in a subject, but something that can be traced in acts of communication. This new insight was possible because Habermas moved away from the Kantian idea that reality is understood by subjective interpretations and concept formulation by individuals (Van de Beek 2006:24). He has appreciated the turn away from the paradigm of the subject to the paradigm of language - from the philosophy of consciousness to the philosophy of language, a communication-theoretical paradigm (cf. Habermas 1982a:28, 367-452). This approach does not start with the knowing subject who can relate herself or himself to the world, but with an intersubjectivity established through communication (Habermas 1985:421-438, 1993:47).
There is a close relationship between communicative rationality and the lifeworld or Lebenswelt (Habermas 1982a:107-113, 1993:90-108). The lifeworld is not only the background to the communication process, but also the source from which the participants can draw common understandings and values. The concept of lifeworld is thus complementary to the concept of communicative actions. Without the background of a shared lifeworld, discourses about validity claims (truth, rightness, truthfulness) are impossible (Habermas 1979:118-120). Habermas (1979) writes:
... the rationalizable aspect of communicative action has nothing to do with propositional truth; but it has everything to do with the truthfulness of intentional expressions and with the rightness of norms.
(Habermas 1979:119)
The rationality of communicative action, orientated to reaching understanding, is about a subject truthfully expressing his or her intentions in his or her actions, and with the validity claims connected with norms of action (Habermas 1979:119).
The rationalisation of a society occurs by means of learning processes. Human beings pass through a collective learning process that Habermas calls rationalisation. People cannot help learning when they disagree on norms and values in communication processes and in societal crises, especially when they do not understand each other. The mechanism of social development is to be found in the ability to learn (Habermas 1973:27-29, 1979:121, 1993:108-109). Reflexive learning is learning-in-discourse, which is a strong stimulation in the process of rationalisation.
Formale Gesichtspunkte für die Abgrenzung verschiedener Niveaus des Lernens ergeben sich aus dem Umstand, dass wir in zwei Dimensionen lernen (theoretisch/praktisch), und dass diese Lernprozesse mit Geltungsansprüchen verbunden sind, die diskursiv eingelöst werden können. [Formal criteria for distinguishing different levels of learning arising from the fact that we learn in two dimensions (i.e. theoretical or practical) and that these learning processes are connected with validity claims that can be redeemed discursively.]
(Habermas 1973:28)
Habermas (1979) compares the learning process of societies to the learning process of an individual's progress of developing from childhood to adulthood.
Individually acquired learning abilities' and information must be latently available in world views before they can be used in a socially significant way, that is, before they can be transposed into 'societal learning processes.
(Habermas 1979:121)
To trace the rationalisation processes in societies, Habermas uses the concept of reconstruction in the social sciences (cf. Habermas 1976:191-204). Societies pass through collective learning processes in human discourses from one level to another. The patterns of rationalisation can be reconstructed afterwards. Therefore, the mechanism of learning sets social developments in motion. The effect of communicative rationality in the rationalisation of the public domain in European societies can be reconstructed. Since Kant, ethical rationalisation has been pursued in his philosophy of religion, and it has also been pursued in modern theology (Habermas 1973:166-167). Habermas mentions theologians such as Pannenberg, Moltmann, Sölle and Metz and reflects on the role of Protestant ethics in the rationalisation of society (Habermas 1982a:299-331). Ethical rationalisation goes hand in hand with cognitive rationalisation.
The transition to modernity through the process of rationalisation has also transformed the importance of power in the structures of communication. Communicative rationality is liberated from force (De Roest 1998:127). This transition to modernity brought about the secularisation of European societies. Max Weber's concept of Entsauberung, in terms of which religion no more is the social cement of societies, has been vindicated (Habermas 1993:8, see also Habermas 1982a:262-298). Bernstein (1989:195) agrees with McCarthy (translator of many of Habermas's books into English) that Habermas's multifaceted investigations derive their unity from a vision of humankind, our history and its prospects. The interpretations that Habermas develops in all of his investigations of the interrelated contexts of development are animated by a unifying moral-political intention, the desire to show that there is a telos immanent in our communicative action that is oriented to mutual understanding.
The idea of communicative rationality that functions in the lifeworld of rational citizens who are free to find mutual understanding in communicative actions is endangered by the colonisation of the lifeworld by the systems of economy and politics (cf. Dreyer 1996:184-208). In order for this influence to be decreased, communicative rationality and communicative action are dependent on critical communities in which the debate about a just arrangement of society is kept alive (De Roest 1998:138).
These ideas are important, as they informed Habermas's earlier views on the role of religion in the public sphere. Mendieta (2002:1-36) provides a very good analysis of Habermas's ideas on religion in relation to the above core themes of his theory. He argues that we have to understand Habermas's view on religion as a continuation of the 'critical tradition of Jewish utopian messianism of the early Frankfurt School' (Mendieta 2002:2). It is not our aim to discuss Habermas's earlier views on religion in this article. The main point here is that Habermas's statements on religion as set out in his Theory of Communicative Action and The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity led to the view, in Mendieta's (2002) words,
that Habermas has put religion to rest, and has pronounced its theoretical and social-developmental death. In fact, a consensus has developed around the notion that Habermas's theory of the 'linguistification of the sacred' entails the sublimation or Aufhebung of religion tout court.
(Mendieta 2002:11)
The new context of religious and cultural pluralism
At the beginning of the 21st century, Habermas seemed to revise his position on the role of religion in the public sphere quite dramatically. This change in his views was so remarkable that many scholars paid attention to Habermas's new interest in religion (Cooke 2006, 2007; Harrington 2007a, 2007b; Lafont 2007). This renewed interest in religion can already be seen in Habermas's speech at the prize-giving function of the German Peace Prize Commission a month after the attacks of 11 September 2001, in which he dramatically concluded: 'Aber am 11 September ist die Spannung zwischen säkularer Gesellschaft und Religion auf eine ganz andere Weise explodiert'[But on 11 September the tension between secular society and religion exploded in a different way] (Habermas 2001:9). Habermas's interest in religion can also be seen in his book on the ethics of cloning, The future of human nature (2001), his public dialogue with Joseph Ratzinger in January 2004 (Habermas & Ratzinger 2007), and especially his book Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion (2005, English translation 2008) (Harrington 2007b:45). Harrington (2007b) even asks whether Habermas has made a theological turn in his thinking:
Since the turn of the millennium Jürgen Habermas has been increasingly writing about matters of religious and theological relevance.... In his most recent work, by contrast, Habermas offers a considerably more sympathetic engagement with the arguments of theologians and, at least on the surface, a dramatic self-distancing from his earlier secularist advocacy.
(Harrington 2007b:45)
Before we engage with some aspects of Habermas's recent views on the role of religion in the public sphere, we will reflect briefly on the context that seemingly caused Habermas to revisit the old themes of reason, religion and the public sphere. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and elsewhere in the USA on 11 September 2001 were a dramatic announcement of political religion motivated by religious fundamentalism. This phenomenon is not only a feature of the Middle East, but appears all over the world amongst Christians, Jews and Muslims, in the Near and the Far East, in Africa and, surprisingly, also in the United States of America (Habermas 2001:10-11, 2006:1-4). If we want to escape from a struggle between cultures and civilizations, we have to rethink the borders and the dialectic of religion and reason. Habermas set out to do so in Glauben und Wissen and in Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion, the titles of two of his recent books on this problem (Habermas 2001, 2005).
During the 1980s, we were told by some of our Dutch colleagues that the far-reaching secularisation in the Netherlands was just the forefront of a movement that would engulf many other countries. In the meantime, the global migration of peoples of different cultures, religions and worldviews was at full speed. The Netherlands, Germany, France and Britain, to name a few, are now experiencing the new plurality in full force (cf. Reader 2008). Therefore, a new multi-religious and multicultural context is created in modern, secularised European countries (Grözinger 2008:16). The new context of religious and cultural pluralism has been the reason for new thinking on the theme of religion and its place in the public sphere. And, as indicated above, Habermas has taken a philosophical lead in this new form of thinking (cf. his latest publications of 2001, 2005, 2006, and together with Joseph Ratzinger 2007).
Habermas's renewed interest in the role of religion in the public sphere can be seen as part of a general trend to recognise the role of religion in the public sphere that started in the early 1990s (Hackett 2005). Two factors in particular contributed to the new context of pluralism and the resultant new thinking on religion and the public sphere. Firstly, the economic and political changes that took place in Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in a new experience of cultural and religious heritage, and was followed by conflicts (Danz 2007:9). Western Europe was suddenly confronted with different cultures and religions, and with the conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia.
A second factor was the worldwide migration of people due to economic globalisation. In the Western world, especially in Western Europe, people with different religions, cultures, ways of life and worldviews were mixing and living together with modern, secularised Europeans (Danz 2007:9). The conflict of civilizations meeting each other in the Western world was looming (cf. Huntington 2002). This religious and cultural pluralism has given rise to the question of how to deal with these different religious expressions and ways of life in a pluralistic context (Danz 2007:9).
It is in this context that Habermas refers to a post-secular society (Habermas 2001:13) and, following Peter Berger, mentions the desecularisation of the world as a major turn in our time (Habermas 2005:119). Habermas's views on the role of religion in the public sphere in a post-secular society are the subject of the next section.
In the previous section we argued that the new context of religious and cultural pluralism led Habermas to change his view on the importance of religion in the public sphere. Habermas's later works certainly show a renewed interest in religion. He also seems to be more prepared to acknowledge the role of religion in the public sphere than in the past. The question is how Habermas conceives the role of religion in the public sphere in these later works. But knowing that he is more open towards the public role of religion does not yet explain what this role is or should be. In this section we therefore explore Habermas's view of the role of religion in the public sphere in his later works, and in particular in the collection of essays published as 'Between naturalism and religion' (Habermas 2008).
In order to understand Habermas's new view of the role of religion in the public sphere, we first have to note that it is not an intellectual break with the past. We agree with Enn's (2007:893, n. 10) conclusion that 'Habermas does shift in allowing for greater input from religious beliefs but maintains the epistemic restrictions that ultimately undermine his project'. Furthermore, Habermas's new interest in religion is not in religion as such, but in the political role of religion. Habermas was not converted to Christianity or any other religion. In accordance with his theory of communicative rationality he is interested primarily in the cognitive potential of religion and in its contribution to a constitutional democracy and a democratic civil ethos. This is a continuation of his views on rationalisation, as discussed above. His renewed interest in religion is thus political and not religious.
In this section we briefly describe Habermas's recent views on religion in the public sphere, but in order to do so we first have to understand Habermas's view of the public sphere. This discussion is followed by a brief description of the conditions that Habermas set for religion to play a role in the public sphere.
The political public sphere
One of the enduring characteristics of Habermas's intellectual work is his engagement with and enduring interest in the 'public sphere'. In a recent article on the biographical roots of two motifs in his thought, Habermas (2008) wrote that
the public sphere as a space of reasoned communicative exchanges is the issue that has concerned me all my life. The conceptual triad of 'public space, ' 'discourse, ' and 'reason, ' in fact, has dominated my work as a scholar and my political life.
(Habermas 2008:12-13)
Habermas (2008:11-12) distinguishes between two types of public sphere. The first is the public sphere as publicity. The important characteristic here is visibility. This is the public sphere of the media and the world of celebrities and sport stars. However, this is not the public sphere that is central in Habermas's thought. The second type of public sphere is the one referred to in the quotation above, namely that of 'reasoned communicative exchanges'. In this type of public sphere the spotlight does not fall on persons, but rather on opinions. It is this 'public sphere' where opinions are formed that concerns Habermas when he considers the role of religion in the public sphere. The subtitle of his chapter on religion in the public sphere, namely 'cognitive presuppositions for the "public use of reason" by religious and secular citizens', confirms this (Habermas 2008:114). Habermas's interest in religion in the public sphere is not in religion as a phenomenon, but in the contribution that religion can make to forming public opinion and the public will. Furthermore, Habermas is particularly interested in the political public sphere. His engagement with the public sphere is from the perspective of political processes and institutions, in particular the constitutional state. This engagement with the political also has biographical roots, as the young Habermas's ideas were shaped by the struggle to achieve democracy in post-war Germany. One of the key ideas that shaped his intellectual career was that only 'a vibrant and, where possible, discursive type of public opinion-formation' could lead to a change in political mentality and to the establishment of a democratic order (Habermas 2008:21).
In order to understand the role of religion in the (political) public sphere, we also have to note a very important distinction that Habermas makes between the 'wild' and the formal political public sphere (Habermas 2008:131). With the 'wild' political public sphere Habermas refers to the informal public sphere with its 'Babel of voices' and 'informal flows of public communication'. In contrast to the 'wild' political public sphere, the formal public sphere is institutionalised. It is the sphere in which political bodies operate. Although it also includes the pre-parliamentarian domain, the parliament is a supreme example of the formal political public sphere. The reason why Habermas regards this distinction as important in relation to the public role of religion will become clearer in the following section.
Religion in the public sphere: the translation imperative
We now turn to the heart of Habermas's recent views on the role of religion in the public sphere. Habermas has always considered religion to be an important source of morality. In his earlier work, however, he maintained that religion would lose its role through rationalisation processes, as we discussed above. Modern societies, he said, would outgrow the role of religion. Reason would be sufficient to ground morality. Habermas shared in the expectation of many intellectuals in the second half of the 20th century that the end result of the secularisation of European society and culture would be the end of all religious faith (Habermas 1982b:140). However, with the eclipse of the secularisation thesis this idea has lost its credibility. The continuing presence of religion, also in the public sphere, and the new context of religious and cultural pluralism that we discussed above, have forced Habermas to revise the role of religion in modern societies. The old distinction between 'traditional' and 'modern' societies can no longer be upheld (Habermas 2008:116). The turn in his thinking on the role of religion in the political public sphere thus centred on the continuing contribution of religion with regard to morality. Instead of seeing religion as something to be outgrown, Habermas (2008:131) now writes that religious traditions 'have a special power to articulate moral intuitions, especially with regard to vulnerable forms of communal life'. In contrast to his views in his earlier work, Habermas now recognises the enduring (cognitive) potential of religion in (post)modern societies (cf. Outhwaite 2009:161). Religion is not something that will be outgrown as a result of modernisation and rationalisation. Religion, based in the lifeworld of its participants, is an important and enduring source of morality. This contribution is particularly important, as religion gives a voice to the marginalised in society, to the 'vulnerable forms of communal life' (Habermas 2008:131). In this regard, Chambers (2007) concludes that
Habermas is not asking why the others, those religiously-minded people, still need religion; he is asking what he as an agnostic secularist can still get from religion... What he comes up with are essentially moral experiences that require a religious idiom to be fully expressed.
(Chambers 2007:220)
Habermas thus seems to make much more room for religion to contribute to the public sphere than in his earlier work. Religious traditions contain a semantic potential that could contribute to 'social solidarity' and 'normative awareness' (Habermas 2008:111) in modern democracies. Due to the colonisation of the lifeworld by the market and by administrative powers, every resource that could nurture this social solidarity and normative awareness should be conserved by the constitutional state (Habermas 2008:111). Habermas also writes that, despite examples to the contrary, churches and religious communities in well-established constitutional states generally contribute to the stability and advancement of a liberal political culture (Habermas 2008:124-125).
This 'revisionist perspective' does not mean, however, that Habermas accepts the role of religion in the public domain unconditionally. Habermas argues that religion should only be allowed to partake in opinion- and will-formation in the public sphere if certain conditions are met. Most importantly, religious consciousness has to be transformed to meet the cognitive challenges of a liberal, post-secular society. Habermas (2008:111) writes that religion has to renounce the 'claim to a monopoly on interpretation and to shape life as a whole'. Religious people have to accept that their worldview is not the only possible worldview. They have to exemplify certain cognitive conditions and corresponding epistemic attitudes (Habermas 2008:119) before they can participate in the public sphere from their religious perspectives. They also have to accept the separation of church and state, the neutrality of public institutions towards religious communities, and the public use of reason. They have to distinguish between their role as a member of a religious community and that of a citizen (Habermas 2008:112).
Habermas thus refers to cognitive learning processes, new epistemic attitudes, a postmetaphysical mode of thought, hermeneutical self-reflection and so forth in order for religious people to partake in the political public sphere. The most important condition that Habermas sets, however, is that religious ideas have to be translated into secular language that is a 'publicly intelligible language' (Habermas 2008:111-113) once the threshold from the wild public sphere is crossed into the formal (institutionalised) public sphere. In the words of Habermas (2008):
Religious traditions have a special power to articulate moral intuitions, especially with regard to vulnerable forms of communal life. In corresponding political debates, this potential makes religious speech into a serious vehicle for possible truth contents, which can then be translated from the vocabulary of a particular religious community into a generally accessible language. However, the institutional thresholds between the 'wild' political public sphere and the formal proceedings within political bodies also function as a filter that allows only secular contributions from the Babel of voices in the informal flows of public communication to pass through.
(Habermas 2008:131)
To summarise, only secular language that is in agreement with the 'public use of reason', that is equally accessible to all persons (Habermas 2008:120, 122), can be allowed into the institutional public sphere. All traces of particularity of specific religions have to be filtered out:
In a constitutional state, only those political decisions can count as legitimate that can be impartially justified in the light of generally accessible reasons, in other words, that can be justified equally toward religious and nonreligious citizens and citizens of different confessions.
(Habermas 2008:122)
We argued above that Habermas has shown greater openness towards religion in the public sphere because of the new context of religious and cultural pluralism. We also briefly described Habermas's revised view of the role of religion in the public sphere. The question now remains what Habermas's new view of religion in the public sphere could mean for theology, especially regarding its public dimensions. What can we learn from Habermas's recent views on religion in the public sphere? Do his recent views on this role create new possibilities for a public theology? What are the challenges for a public theology that Habermas puts on the table? In the following sections we will first briefly mention some of the critical points raised against Habermas's views. This is followed by a brief reflection on what we see as the possible contribution of Habermas's ideas to a public theology, despite the limitations of his theory.
A critique of Habermas's recent views on religion in the public sphere
Habermas's recent views on religion have been strongly challenged. It is not the focus of this article to give an overview of the critique of his work. We only mention two aspects that are particularly important for us, namely Habermas's lack of dealing with plurality and his very narrow understanding of religion. His critics are quick to point out that his ideas are framed within an extremely rational framework, a heritage of his continuation of the ideals of the Enlightenment. In the end he does not really succeed to deal with the 'Other', despite the fact that his renewed interest in religion is partly due to the presence of 'the Other', as we indicated above. Harrington (2007b), for example, concludes as follows after his extensive review of Habermas's latest work on religion:
One might say that in its will to 'include the other', Habermas's thinking about religion has a paradoxical tendency to perform the thing it most seeks to avoid, namely to exclude the 'Other' or to exclude otherness. Its problem is that precisely in its will to universal accommodation, it may only end by immunizing itself against a challenge from something more profoundly outside of itself. Only when his thinking regains a commitment to expose itself to something more one-sided, to something more dangerously particularistic, decisive or excessive - perhaps with the consequence of failing, disappointing or even antagonizing certain people or parties - only then, one might suggest, will it have a chance of acceding to the universality it so passionately desires.
(Harrington 2007b:59)
A second major critique of Habermas is his very limited and idealised view of religion. He focuses on the rational aspects of religion, but this is a very 'thin' view of religion. Religion is much more than morality and cognitive content. Important aspects of any living religion, such as community, experience, tradition and ritual, are filtered out by his approach, with only a very rational view of religion that remains behind (cf. Braeckman 2009). Adams (2006:49) writes in this regard that Habermas is not really interested in religious life and thought for their own sake, nor in the 'messy particularities' of different religious traditions. Again we see how his preoccupation with a universal rationality leads him to ignore particularity, contextuality and the role of particular traditions.
The possible contribution of Habermas's recent views on religion in the public sphere to a public theology
Despite the above important points of criticism, we are of the view that Habermas has important contributions to make to public theology. The focus of this section is not so much on the limitations of his ideas, but rather on the possible contribution of Habermas's ideas to an understanding of the tasks and role of public theology. What can we learn from Habermas's recent views on religion in the public sphere? What challenges to public theology can be deduced from his work on religion in the public sphere? We will touch only briefly on these aspects.
The importance of communicative rationality
Religion should find a forum where a real, critical, cognitive debate on the issues raised by Habermas could thrive. That forum could be the centres of public theology such as those at the Universities of Pretoria and Stellenbosch. An important task of these centres of public theology could be to foster hermeneutical self-reflection and critical debate. Secular participants from the public sphere could be invited to participate in these debates. The issue of communicative rationality also challenges religious people to distinguish between different roles - acting as a member of a religious community and, on occasions of public debate, acting as a citizen.
Lifeworld and social solidarity
It is important that public theology should have a connection with the lifeworld. We differ here from Habermas in the sense that we must make room for the experiences and understanding of the lifeworld of different religious traditions in the discourses in the public sphere. Participants from different religious traditions can share ideas with participants from other (political) institutions on problems, projects on the ground, and the ideas and hopes of citizens who are in need. Religious institutions such as churches are busy with an immense task in South Africa regarding social solidarity and caring for the vulnerable. Through its centres of public theology, religion should bring to discussions in the public sphere its passion, mission, work and experience of social solidarity, and its caring for the vulnerable in society. This has always been the core of public theology. Habermas has an eye for this notion.
No religious claim to a monopoly of worldview
If we, as religious people representing the churches, want to join the public debate on the burning issues in South African society, we have to accept our secular state - our constitution with its liberal values of a modern state, and renounce any claim to a monopoly on the interpretation of reality, in the sense that we must leave the idea behind that we can only go into discussions with secular citizens with our own worldview as a premise. We have to come to a common understanding on how to operate in the role of members of a religious community and as citizens operating in the public sphere.
Habermas has challenged religion to translate our 'moral intuitions' into secular concepts and into language that can equip us to debate on an equal level with secular (political) society. This translation imperative is a major challenge for public theology. It raises the questions of what must be translated, how must it be translated, etc. This issue is so complex that we cannot address it here in full. In some aspects it is impossible to comply with Habermas's condition of translation. We will have to discuss this issue in depth in our public theology forums.
The above ideas open up a much greater role and vision for the centres of public theology at our theological faculties and for our connections with such international centres.
Habermas's openness to religion in public debate
Habermas's openness to the rational potential of religion is certainly positive. We agree with Habermas that religion in general, and our Christian tradition in particular, contains resources that could contribute to rational discussions in the public sphere. This is the basic point of departure for any public theology. Habermas challenges public theologians from all theological disciplines to be clear on the rational suppositions of their arguments. We certainly have to learn how to take part in discourses in a civil, rational manner. The time has past when theologians could enter public debates from a position of superiority or from a position of faith-based claims. The challenge is to go through the learning processes, to take rationalisation seriously. The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur writes in this regard, and particularly about the importance of integrating a critical dimension within religion: 'It is very characteristic of Judaism and of Christianity that they ultimately performed the difficult marriage of conviction and critique...' (Ricoeur 1998:133). This is an important part of the learning process, and of rationalisation.
How do we evaluate the translation imperative that Habermas sets as a condition for religion to participate in the discourses in the public sphere? This idea of translating religious ideas into a secular language is not something new for public theologians. Many public theologians have set this requirement for public theology. Kim (2007:1) writes in the editorial of the first edition of the International Journal of Public Theology: 'Public theology is a deliberate use of common language in a commitment to influence public decision-making, and also to learn from substantive public discourse.' Two examples from our South African context can also be mentioned in this regard. De Villiers (2005) writes:
The crucial question with regard to the effective promulgation of the Christian vision of a good South African society is: Should it be promulgated in the broader South African society in its distinctively Christian form, or is some translation of it needed to ensure its wider acceptance?
(De Villiers 2005:530)
De Gruchy (2007:39-40) formulated seven theses for public theological praxis. His second thesis is that
good public theological praxis requires the development of a language that is accessible to people outside the Christian tradition, and is convincing in its own right; but it also needs to address Christian congregations in a language whereby public debates are related to the traditions of faith.
(De Gruchy 2007:39)
The question is thus not whether we have to translate our religious ideas into secular language, but how this is to be done. Habermas's translation imperative filters so much of religion and religious life that we are eventually left with a very rational approach to religion. Here we would rather follow Ricoeur, who pleads for keeping the balance between critique and conviction (Ricoeur 1998).
This focus on the cognitive potential of religion in the public sphere is a typical liberal response to the problem of religion in the public sphere (Chatterjee 2006:59). In his discussion of Talal Asad's contribution to the debate on secularisation, Chatterjee (2006) says that this liberal response only allows for a particular kind of religion to participate in the public sphere:
The new claim that religious movements and parties may well have a legitimate place in modern politics 'if' they agree to confine themselves to rational debate and persuasion and not resort to intolerant and violent methods is, he shows, only a plea for a 'particular kind' of religion.
(Chatterjee 2006:59)
The secular paradigm actually forces religion to reform and to adapt to the secular world, rather than the other way round (Chatterjee 2006:60). Another problem is that this model of the secular state, in which religion is seen as an 'intrusion' into politics and public life, is not a universal model. In many parts of the world, especially in Africa and Asia, this view of religion and politics 'represents a normative project rather than a set of actually existing practices' (Chatterjee 2006:61). It is also important to note that even where this liberal idea of the rational contribution of religion is accepted, we see that religion is used in non-rational ways for propaganda purposes or to mobilise people on the basis of their desires and anxieties (Chatterjee 2006:59). The role of religion in the public sphere thus has to be seen in all its 'messiness', as it is in practice entangled in power games and coercive strategies. We will have to ponder the question: what are the implications of this for a public theology? We therefore also need to consider the differentiated thinking about 'public' (cf. Bezuidenhout & Naudé 2002).
Habermas certainly is more open to the contribution of religion in modern, constitutional states in his recent writings. He seems to accept that religion is not some kind of remnant from the past that will disappear because of modernisation and rationalisation processes. Despite the limitations mentioned we can conclude that public theology has much to learn from Habermas's latest work and the challenges that he poses regarding the role of religion in the public sphere.
Adams, N., 2006, Habermas and theology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [ Links ]
Bernstein, R.J., 1989, Beyond objectivism and relativism, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. [ Links ]
Bezuidenhout, R. & Naudé, P., 2002, 'Some thoughts on "public theology" and its relevance for the South African context', Scriptura 79, 3-13. [ Links ]
Bosch, D.J., 1991, Transforming mission: paradigm shifts in theology of mission, Orbis, Maryknoll, NY. [ Links ]
Braeckman, A., 2009, 'Habermas and Gauchet on religion in postsecular society. A critical assessment', Continental Philosophy Review 42, 279-296. [ Links ]
Calhoun, C., 1992, 'Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere', in C. Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the public sphere, pp. 1-48, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. [ Links ]
Casanova, J., 1994, Public religions in the modern world, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. [ Links ]
Chambers, S., 2007, 'How religion speaks to the agnostic: Habermas on the persistent value of religion', Constellations 14(2), 210-223. [ Links ]
Chatterjee, P., 2006, 'Fasting for Bin Laden: the politics of secularization in contemporary India', in D. Scott & C. Hirschkind (eds.), Powers of the secular modern: Talal Asad and his interlocuters, pp. 57-74, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. [ Links ]
Cooke, M., 2006, 'Salvaging and secularizing the semantic contents of religion: the limitations of Habermas's postmetaphysical proposal', International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 60, 187-207. [ Links ]
Cooke, M., 2007, 'A secular state for a postsecular society? Postmetaphysical political theory and the place of religion', Constellations 14(2), 224-238. [ Links ]
Danz, C., 2007, 'Religion zwischen Aneignung und Kritik. Überlegungen zur Religionstheorie von Jürgen Habermas [Religion between appropriation and criticism. Reflections on the religion theory of Jürgen Habermas]', in R. Langthaler & H. Nagl-Docekal (Hrsg.), Glauben und Wissen. Ein Symposium mit Jürgen Habermas, pp. 9-31, R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Wien. [ Links ]
De Gruchy, J., 2007, 'Public theology as Christian witness: exploring the genre', International Journal of Public Theology 1, 26-41. [ Links ]
De Roest, H., 1998, Communicative identity. Habermas' perspectives of discourse as a support for practical theology, Kok, Kampen. [ Links ]
De Villiers, E., 2005, 'The vocation of reformed ethicist in the present South African society', Scriptura 89(2), 521-535. [ Links ]
Dekker, G., Luidens, D.A. & Rice, R.R. (eds.), 1997, Rethinking secularization. Reformed reactions to modernity, University Press of America, Lanham/New York/London. [ Links ]
Dreyer, J.S., 1996, 'Habermas se kolonialiseringstese en 'n prakties-teologiese ekklesiologie [Habermas's colonisation thesis and a practical-theological ecclesiology]', in M. Nel (red.), Prediking. Kommunikasie in konteks, pp. 184-208, Makro Boeke, Pretoria. [ Links ]
Enns, P., 2007, 'Habermas, reason, and the problem of religion: the role of religion in the public sphere', Heythrop Journal 48(6), 878-894. [ Links ]
Grözinger, A., 2008, Homiletik [Homiletics], Lehrbuch Praktische Theologie Band 2, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Gütersloh/München. [ Links ]
Habermas, J., 1973, Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus [Legitimation crisis in late capitalism crisis], Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. [ Links ]
Habermas, J., 1976, Was heisst Universalpragmatiek? [What does universal pragmatics mean?], in K.-O. Apel (Hrsg.), Sprachpragmatik und Philosophie, pp. 174-272, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. [ Links ]
Habermas, J., 1979, Communication and the evolution of society, transl. T. McCarthy, Heinemann, London. [ Links ]
Habermas, J., 1982a, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns I. Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Zweite Auflage, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. (English translation, 1984. The theory of communicative action. Reason and the rationalization of society, Beacon Press, Boston). [ Links ]
Habermas, J., 1982b, Zweite Auflage. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns II. Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. (English translation of Volume II, 1989, The theory of communicative action. Lifeworld and system: a critique of functionalist reason, Beacon Press, Boston). [ Links ]
Habermas, J., 1985, Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften [On the logic of the social sciences], Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. [ Links ]
Habermas, J., 1989, The structural transformation of the public sphere, transl. T. Burger & F. Lawrence, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. [ Links ]
Habermas, J., 1993, Na-metafysisch denken [Post-metaphysical thinking], Kok Agora, Kampen/Pelckmans, Kapellen. [ Links ]
Habermas, J., 2001, Glauben und Wissen. Friedenspreis des Deutschen Buchhandels 2001 [Faith and knowledge. Peace Prize of the German book Trade in 2001], Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. [ Links ]
Habermas, J., 2005, Zwischen Naturalismus and Religion. Philosophische Aufsätze [Between Naturalism and Religion. Philosophical essays], Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Mai. [ Links ]
Habermas, J., 2006, 'Religion in the public sphere', European Journal of Philosophy 14(1), 1-25. [ Links ]
Habermas, J., 2008, Between naturalism and religion. Philosophical essays, transl. C. Cronin, Polity Press, Cambridge. (English translation of Zwischen Naturalismus and Religion. Philosophische Aufsätze. [ Links ])
Habermas, J. & Ratzinger, J., 2007, Dialektik der Säkularisierung. Über Vernunft und Religion [Dialectic of secularization. About Reason and Religion] Auflage 7, Herder, Freiburg-Basel-Wien. [ Links ]
Hackett, R.I.J., 2005, 'Rethinking the role of religion in changing public spheres: some comparative perspectives', Brigham Young University Law Review 3, 659-682, viewed 04 February 2010, from http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/2005/3/5HACKETT.FIN.pdf [ Links ]
Harrington, A., 2007a, 'Habermas and the "Post-Secular Society"', European Journal of Social Theory 10(4), 543-560. [ Links ]
Harrington, A., 2007b, 'Habermas's theological turn?', Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 37(1), 45-61. [ Links ]
Huntington, S., 2002, The clash of civilizations and the making of the world order, Free Press, London. [ Links ]
Joas, H., 2009, 'Does modernisation lead to secularisation?' in W. Gräb & L. Charbonnier (eds.), Secularization theories, religious identity and practical theology, pp. 25-34, Lit Verlag, Münster. [ Links ]
Jonker, W., 2008, Die relevansie van die kerk. Teologiese reaksies op die betekenis van die kerk in die wêreld [The relevance of the church. Theological reactions to the meaning of the church in the world], Bybel-Media, Wellington. [ Links ]
Kim, S., 2007, 'Editorial', International Journal of Public Theology 1, 1-4. [ Links ]
Lafont, C., 2007, 'Religion in the public sphere: remarks on Habermas's conception of public deliberation in postsecular societies', Constellations 14(2), 239-259. [ Links ]
Mendieta, E., 2002, 'Introduction', in J. Habermas (ed.) and with an introduction by E. Mendieta, Religion and rationality. Essays on reason, God, and modernity, pp. 1-36, Polity Press, Cambridge. [ Links ]
Mooney, M., 2006, 'The Catholic Bishops Conferences of the United States and France: engaging immigration as a public issue', American Behavioral Scientist 49(11), 1455-1470. [ Links ]
Outhwaite, W., 2009, Habermas: A critical introduction, 2nd edn., Polity Press, Cambridge. [ Links ]
Reader, J., 2008, Reconstructing practical theology. The impact of globalization, Ashgate, Abingdon/Alderslot. [ Links ]
Ricoeur, P., 1998, Critique and conviction. Conversations with Francois Azouvi and Marc de Launay, transl. K. Blamey, Polity Press, Cambridge. [ Links ]
Taylor, C., 2007, A secular age, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. [ Links ]
To, C.-Y. & Tulasiewicz, W., 1993, 'Conclusion' in W. Tulasiewicz & C.-Y. To (eds.), World religions and educational practice, n.p., Cassell, New York. [ Links ]
Van de Beek, A., 2006, Van Kant tot Kuitert [From Kant to Kuitert], Kok, Kampen. [ Links ]
Correspondence to:
Jaco Dreyer
Postal address: PO Box 392
Unisa 0003, South Africa
email: email@example.com
Received: 02 Mar. 2010
Accepted: 04 Apr. 2010
Published: 18 Oct. 2010
This article is available at: http://www.hts.org.za


text:
People assume that consumers are influenced by celebrities and high-status individuals, but according to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, it may be the janitor or the security guard who makes you want to run out and purchase the latest gadget.
"Consumers from a lower socioeconomic status are not usually considered ideal influencers for higher status customers. After all, people accept influence from those they identify with--those who are similar to them or people who they aspire to be like," write authors Edith Shalev (Israel Institute of Technology) and Vicki G. Morwitz (New York University). Because people usually do not aspire to obtain a lower socioeconomic status, it seems unlikely that people would become interested in the same products as people with less status.
However, the authors discovered that under certain circumstances higher status consumers are more likely to emulate the choices of lower status people, a phenomenon called the "low status user effect." For example, observing a janitor using the latest tech gadget may lead a person of higher status to question his own technological innovativeness. "This scenario might lead the observer to think: if a lower socioeconomic status person owns the latest tech gadget and I don't, what does this mean about my relative technological innovativeness?" The authors found that the low status user effect only occurs when the product symbolizes a clear and desirable trait and when the observer is unconfident about her relative standing on that trait.
One study found that research participants showed more interest in a sophisticated T-shirt when a grocery packer wore it than when a college student donned it. Another study found the same effect for a wireless charger (used by a security guard or an architect). But the effect was found only among participants who considered technological innovativeness to be an important part of their self-definition.
Other counter-stereotypical consumers may have influence in the marketplace, the authors explain. "A consumer who observes an elderly lady wearing professional running shoes might infer that people in general have become more athletic than before," the authors write. "In an attempt to restore a sporty self-image he may purchase new running shoes."
Edith Shalev and Vicki G. Morwitz. "Influence via Comparison-Driven Self Evaluation and Restoration: The Case of the Low-Status Influencer." Journal of Consumer Research: February 2012 (published online July 25, 2011). For further information, see http://ejcr.


text:
AGAINST FORGETTING: Voter Suppression: The "Schurick Doctrine" and the Unravelling of American Democracy
Republicans across the United States have passed a spate of voter suppression laws aimed at those most likely to vote for Obama. They are specifically targeting African American women who, in the past, created a gender gap that decisively elected Democratic presidents. America needs immediate international monitoring of its presidential election.
How will the American Presidential election be won in November 2012? By the Republicans buying the election? Perhaps. But money cannot always buy an election. That is why Republicans have spent the last 4-6 years passing a spate of voter suppression laws in "swing states" that will make it more difficult and costly for the young, the elderly, minorities, union members and single and elderly women to cast a vote for Barack Obama.
Although the Republican effort is not exactly a secret, few Americans are discussing it with the urgency it deserves. The nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law says that since the start of 2011, 16 states—which account for 214 electoral votes—have passed restrictive voting laws. Each law is different: some curb voter registration drives; others require new and costly forms of identification; and still others insist that voters produce government-issued photo IDs at the polls. The Brennan Center also points out that:
The Republicans argue they are preventing voter fraud. But is there a significant amount of voter fraud? Or is this a partisan effort to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? The Bush administration spent five years (2002 to 2007) searching for voter fraud and found only 86 cases. The Brennan Center for Justice, as well as the ACLU, have also found infinitesimal instances of voter fraud.
The sudden need for unexpired passports, the demand for government-issued photo identification, is simply a flagrant way of suppressing the votes of those who are more likely to vote Obama. The new identification requirements make it difficult, if not impossible, for some citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote. In some states poll hours have been expanded for likely Republican voters and decreased for probable Democratic voters. Many elderly people no longer have their birth certificates. Many minorities and young people don't own cars and therefore don't have driving licenses. Young people often don't have access to any of these records when they live far away from their parents. But those who vote by absentee ballot—suburban voters who tend to be independents or Republicans—are not required to have photo IDs. Ironically, this from a country that has consistently—in the name of liberty and freedom—refused to force its citizens to carry identifications cards.
What few critics seem to realize is that women—who constitute at least half of all these targeted groups and who vote more often than men—will be even more disenfranchised. Ever since 1980, African American women have been decisive in creating a gender gap that has helped elect Democratic Presidents. And in 2012, these women—in addition to single and elderly women—may be prevented from protecting Obama's signature health care program, women's reproductive rights, the right to abortion, funds for Planned Parenthood, and Social Security and Medicare—the very safety net that the Romney/Ryan Republican ticket has campaigned to eliminate or change in fundamental ways.
Consider the case of Viviette Applewhite, a 93-year old resident of Pennsylvania. She marched with Martin Luther King Jr. but cannot get a photo ID because all her papers were stolen from her purse. On three occasions she has tried to obtain a birth certificate from The Pennsylvania's Division of Vital Records. Although she paid the fees, she never received one. Now, a newly engaged lawyer has been trying, once again, to obtain her birth certificate. On July 25, 2012, however, the Pennsylvania court upheld the law that may very likely prohibit her from voting.
Republicans are thrilled by their successful effort at suppressing women's votes, particularly those from African American women. The conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said "When women got the right to vote is when it all went downhill because that's when votes started being cast with emotion and maternal instincts…."
Earlier, in 2007, the conservative Fox news guest and celebrity pundit Ann Coulter told the New York Observer, "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democratic president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."
Now her dream may be coming true. By choosing Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running mate, Mitt Romney has shown his true agenda. Although Romney has flip-flopped repeatedly on women's issues, Ryan is a standard bearer for a budget proposal that would ban common forms of contraception and eliminate abortion. He also voted to end funding for Planned Parenthood and against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 that promoted fairness in the work place for women. Both men have repeatedly said they are against Obama's affordable care health program. In addition, Ryan has repeatedly said he wants to eliminate Medicare, the popular medical insurance for the elderly, and Social Security—the country's only safety net for seniors without pensions.
Other Republicans have similarly gloated about how voter suppression will elect Mitt Romney. According to one news report, "Former Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer (currently under indictment for stealing party funds) acknowledged in a deposition that a 2009 Republican party meeting included discussions about 'voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting.'" The report also revealed that "In December, Paul Schurick, a top aide to former Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich, was convicted of election fraud for using automated phone calls to suppress the African-American vote during Mr. Ehrlich's unsuccessful 2010 bid." Entered into evidence was one consultant's memo that described a "Schurick Doctrine" to "promote confusion, emotionalism and frustration among African-American Democrats."
The Republicans know exactly what they are doing and they have been astonishingly successful at creating different ways of suppressing votes that might re-elect the President. In an August 16th editorial, The New York Times criticized a Pennsylvania judge for upholding a Republican-backed voter ID law "that could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor and minority state residents in November." The judge acknowledged that he "was aware of the remark made by Michael Turzai, The Pennsylvania House Republican leader, that the voter ID requirement would win the state for Mitt Romney in November" but then, in an outrageous defense of his decision, said that no proof existed that other legislators agreed with Turzai. The editorial ended with this ominous warning: "Many voters won't be able to participate in the democratic process any longer. Some won't show up at the polls, unwilling to leap the hurdles placed before them, while others will try to vote and find their ballots rejected. This lawsuit was an opportunity to sweep away barriers to full citizen ship."
This is hardly the first time the supposedly greatest democracy on earth has suppressed voting. After the Civil War, the South passed Jim Crow literacy and poll tax laws to keep African Americans from voting until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. The United States, moreover, is one of the few nations that prevents former felons, in some states, from voting for the rest of their lives. In 2004, 5.3 million Americans were denied the right to vote because of previous felony convictions. In the 2000 election, former convicted felons in Florida---disproportionably African American---were prohibited from voting. They would have put Al Gore in the White House.
Civil Right advocates rightly call this disenfranchisement our new Jim Crow laws.
Across the country, civil rights groups continue to sue states that have passed laws to suppress voters, something that still may surprise a great number of Americans, not to mention the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the election looms closer and people who cannot meet the new requirements get fed up, feel helpless, and are less likely to go to the polling place on Election Day.
So this is America in 2012, a democracy in rapid decline. On August 21, TalkingPoints Memo reported that:
It is not too soon to ask the international community to monitor the 2012 American election. This is an emergency.
This column originally appeared on Open Democracy.


text:
The Nature Conservancy Preserves Montana Land – Help One of Townsquare Media's Own With Fundraiser
One of our favorite members of the Townsquare Media digital support team in New York, Steve Frost plans to participate in a 40-mile bike trip in NYC to benefit The Nature Conservancy Organization – a group that has done a lot to preserve land in Western Montana.
The Nature Conservancy is an organization that sets aside land and water for future generations. They have been working in the Big Sky state since 1976, starting in the Black Foot River Valley and expanding to the Yellowstone River near Miles City.
The Nature Conservancy, with the help of other organizations, has protected over 182,000 acres from development on the Rocky Mountain front. They take pride that they work closely with landowners and communities across Montana to bring a scientific focus to protecting the land and resources.
With the help of other organizations they have managed to accomplish great things. While working with the Nature Conservancy Canada near the North Fork of the Flathead for the past 30 years, they have been working to end prospective mining on the western edge of Glacier-Waterton International Peace Park. They have paired with the Montana Legacy Project, where they worked with a wide variety of groups from loggers to snowmobilers to reestablish 310,500 acres of what used to be industrial timberland, into millions of acres of public land.
Their work on Montana's Northern Prairies has aided in the preservation of grasslands that are home to threatened birds,elk, pronghorn,swift fox, along with other prairie animals. They have made such a positive impact in Montana and all over the world.
Frost needs to personally raise $1,000 in order to secure his spot in the May 5 race. All of the donations will go to The Nature Conservancy and their efforts to keep our world a beautiful place for years to come. Help support a great man and an even greater cause by donating.


text:
How many times you have felt that there was some simple way to convert bash ansi escape sequences ( colors as well in terminal ) to html equivalent so that you can send the same as html report in email. Here is simple solution. One way is to use ccze if you are using this for logs – colorize your logs and for more generic solution.
dnf install python3-ansi2html.noarch
after this is installed, you can use something like this:
/usr/bin/python3-ansi2html -l -f 12 -i
You can see the help for ansi2html to see what parameters mean and which ones suit you best 🙂
Link to this post!


text:
Black Friday, traditionally the day after Thanksgiving, has been pushed up to save a floundering retail industry. (Getty Images)
There are certain rules that govern the holiday season.
Don't listen to Christmas music until after Thanksgiving. You could, but a friend/roommate/significant other will be along shortly to tell you to shut it off.
In the same vein, decorations shouldn't go up till after Thanksgiving, and for years, holiday deals didn't start till the infamous Black Friday- the Holy Grail of the retail industry.
CBS reports that this year, with a sour economy, retailers are thwarting the time-honored tradition of November's Black Friday in an attempt to reach consumers.
The first of such will begin this weekend with Sears' "Black Friday Now" promotion, the New York Times reports, with Amazon following suit Friday and Toys "R" Us on Sunday.
Sears will be offering its specials every Thursday and Friday from 9 a.m. to noon until Nov. 20, according to the Baltimore Sun, on items like Craftsman Power Land and Garden tools, Frigidaire washers and dryers, and televisions.
Target, the everything-you-need-plus-several-things-you-don't superstore, will be doling out deals a little late in the game this year, compared with retailers like Sears and Amazon. Target fans will have to wait till Nov. 21 to capitalize on sales, the Los Angeles Times reports.
While Black Friday has been creeping up earlier in the calendar for years now, the retail deals and steals have now pushed in front of Halloween.
According to the New York Times, analysts are claiming that this year's sales are breaking new ground: "the range of stores offering early discounts is wider, the discounts are steeper and sale periods longer."
Consumers can now find that $6 toaster starting in October, instead of waiting till after they've gorged themselves on turkey and stuffing.
Bargain hunters rejoice, Christmas really has come early.
Just don't start singing "Jingle Bells" quite yet.


text:
- Home
- Coronavirus
- About
- Contact
- Locals
- Publications
- Login
Abolish workfare - the Solidarity Federation's guide to the government's unpaid work schemes
Wed, 28/03/2012 - 20:50
Workfare is a term used to describe a range of schemes in which people are forced to work without wages in order to receive their benefits. After recent controversies the government has sought to obscure the nature of its workfare policies; this pamphlet will set out clearly and concisely the details of all the programmes and why we need to work together to oppose them.
If workfare was about getting people jobs, the government might have paid heed to its own research which states: "There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers."
Download the pdf below.
Recent articles
|"The Secretary of State may select a claimant for participation in a scheme" (posted 14. February)
|Workfare sanctions extended from today (posted 22. October)
|The Youth Contract: Rescuing the Work Programme (posted 16. April)
|Don't forget the Work Programme (posted 25. March)
|Sector-Based Work Academies - subsidising business with unpaid labour (posted 23. March)


text:
Long before Angelina Jolie became Brangelina, she lived in Beverly Hills with then-hubby, Billy Bob Thornton. While Jolie moved on to divorce Thornton (and get rid of his vials of blood she once hung around her neck) and to travel the globe with her growing brood of kiddos, Thornton apparently stayed put in the 90210 home he once shared with the actress, that is, until now.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Thornton just listed the nine bedroom Bev hills crib for close to $10 million. The luxe digs feature over 11,000 square feet, a grand two-story living room with beamed ceilings, a large formal dining room, recording studio, gym and library. Outdoor perks include a swimming pool, spa, fountains and a paddle tennis court.
Not only will future owners of the crib possess bragging rights that Jolie and Thornton once slept here, but they'll also be able to boast that former Guns N' Roses guitarist Slash owned the home as well. The LA Times reports that Thornton picked up the Spanish-style spread from Slash back in 2000 for $3.75 million.


text:
Last month two Wagner College freshmen — Nada Metwally of Tottenville, Staten Island and Adrienne Datta of San Diego, Cal. — were among just a dozen winners of a nationwide contest sponsored by Project Pericles: the 2014 "Debating for Democracy" Letter to an Elected Official Competition.
Since 2005, Wagner College has been one of the 29 colleges belonging to Project Pericles, a university collaborative dedicated to encouraging "social responsibility and civic concern" on campus, in the classroom and in the community.
Metwally and Datta were enrolled last fall, during their very first semester in college, in one of Wagner College's three-course freshmen "learning communities," which combine two linked classes from different scholarly disciplines with a "reflective tutorial," or RFT, focused on learning how to research and write intelligently about their coursework.
Their LC, "Emerging Global Health Concerns," was taught by nursing professor Annemarie Dowling-Castronovo and chemistry professor Nicholas Richardson.
"Annemarie had the idea of using the Project Pericles letter-writing competition as an assignment for our RFT," Richardson said. "And the subject of hydraulic fracturing was perfect for our LC: a health issue with a science overlap that was a hot public policy topic. After I gave a 30-minute overview of the science — as unbiased as I could make it — we told our students to research and write persuasive letters about their views on fracking, whatever those views might be."
"When the topic came up for discussion in class, we realized we had similar views and decided to work together on a letter," Metwally said.
"Being science-oriented students, we did see the benefits," Datta said. "We just want to see it done in a healthy way."
Datta is enrolled in Wagner College's physician assistant program, while Metwally entered Wagner as a pre-med student.
"Fracking might be great — with tighter regulations," Metwally said.
And that was the essence of their carefully researched, carefully balanced letter to New York State Senator Diane Savino, whose district covers the North Shore of Staten Island and part of Brooklyn.
"As Wagner College students who are very concerned about the potential adverse impact of hydraulic fracking on the environment and on the public health of our fellow citizens, we urge you take a strong stance in favor of increasing regulation on hydraulic facturing in New York State," the students wrote. "The economic benefits hydraulic fracturing could give the State are substantial, but they should not be at the cost of the health of our citizens."
A joint letter from Project Pericles executive director Jan Liss and assistant director Garret Batten congratulated Metwally and Datta for their winning letter.
"Once again this year, Project Pericles received excellent submissions, and selecting the six winning teams was challenging but highly rewarding," wrote the Project Pericles officials. "You did a fantastic job and we are excited about working with you and the other student activists as you develop your projects."
The $500 prize for each team in the letter-writing contest must be used to develop further programs to raise public awareness and persuade official decision makers on their chosen issue.
"We're glad we took this opportunity," Metwally said. "Not a lot of people get their voices heard."


text:
Priya Pappu
|Middle Distance
|Santa Clara, Cal. (The King's Academy)
2011 Track and Field: Finished eighth in the mile at the TSU Invitational (5:32.64s)... Set a personal-best in the 800m at the Spring Break Invitational, finishing seventh with a 2:18.37s mark... Finished sixth in the 800m (2:21.90s) and the 1500m (4:50.23s) at the Birmingham-Southern Invitational... Finished seventh in the 800m run at the A-Sun Outdoor Championships (2:18.52s)... Set a personal-best in the 1500m run at the Vanderbilt Invitational, finishing 14th with a 4:43.51s run.
2010 Cross Country: Had one top-five finish and added two other top-30s in five meets... Finished 22nd in the two-mile event in the Powerade Invitational in 12:18... Was third in the silver race at the Louisville Invitational witha 19:03 mark... Set a personal-best in the 5K at the Atlantic Sun Championships, finishing 27th with an 18:40.75 mark.
2010 Track and Field: Finished fourth in the mile run at the TSU Invitational (5:25.77s)... Personal-best 5:15.88s mile came at the Hoosier Hills, where she finished 17th... Picked up a win in the 800m run (2:20.69s) and a runner-up finish in the 1500m (4:48.29s) at the Austin Peay Spring Fling, both of which were season-bests... Finished sixth at the Tennessee Invitational in the 1500m run with a 4:55.64s run.
Prep: Ran for Laura Tompkins at the King's Academy… School earned team championships in cross country from 2005-07… Pappu was the individual league champion in 2006 and 2007… All-state in various capacities from 2005-08… School record-holder in the mile run and owns various cross country records… Competed in cross country, track and field and soccer in high school… Member of the National Honor Society.
Personal: Daughter of Pushpan and Aria Pappu… Father is of Indian descent, while mother is Finnish… Fifth of seven children… Plans to major in business at Lipscomb… Has been on several mission trips to India.