From the Personnel Policies Committee, Chair Pat Staley had nothing to report, but asked that Laurie Charest share a copy of the proposals passed by the State Personnel Commission as it becomes available. Laurie Charest agreed to do so.
Laresia Farrington reported there was nothing to report from the Faculty Council Committee on Legislative Affairs, but that she hoped to meet with the Committee and would soon present information to the Forum.
The Chair noted that the Forum has worked to compile responses on Employee morale. Given this information, she asked whether the Forum should form a committee or task force on the issue or do nothing at all. Marshall Wade recommended the Forum create a task force to address the issue. Mona Couts asked if the Employee Fair Booth data on morale had been compiled. The Chair replied that the data is still raw and needs to be summarized, and she hoped to have it in a presentable form for the September Forum meeting. Anyone willing to help summarize the data should contact her, she said. The Forum decided to delay decision on this issue until the Fair Booth data was available.
The most conclusive doctrine we have found against considering assignments based as this one is, is found in Hulst v. State, supra, which concludes with the statement, \"so there is nothing in the record regarding the statement said to have been made by the state attorney which this court can review.\" See also Brooks v. State, Fla. 1953, 64 So. 2d 914. In compliance with 924.32(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., we have read the evidence and do not find that the ends of justice require a new trial.
The first question which arises is whether they gave an opinion that the invention was patentable. As to this the presiding justice instructed the jury as follows: \"It is not a question whether the invention is patentable or not, but whether Messrs. Fish, Richardson and Storrow will say that it is in terms; and what they say, in substance, about it, as I construe it, is that this is a new invention, but that whether it is patentable or not depends upon certain practical things, the value of certain practical things, which they know nothing about; and if they are sufficiently valuable then it is patentable, and if not, then it is not. So they do not give, it seems to me, an opinion that the invention is patentable.\" There is little to be added to this brief characterization of the opinion given by Fish, Richardson and
The next question is whether there was error in the instructions in regard to the defendant's determining whether he would or would not purchase stock. The jury were instructed that there was nothing in the contract that required him to give notice to anybody whether he made that determination or not, and that \"it is not necessary that he should give an explicit notice, either in writing or orally, either to all of the signers or to any of them. It is necessary that, in addition to making the decision in his own mind, he should do something so that that might become properly known, and so that thereafter he could not dispute but that he had made that decision.\" He further told the jury that, if, deeming the opinion unfavorable, he decided in his own mind that he would not go on, and \"if, having come to that determination in his own mind, he did communicate that to Mr. W. H. Coolidge, and it came to the knowledge of Mr.
I can never forget his savage grin when at last he found my purse, and grabbing it, with another oath, pulled it out of its hiding place. I have already described that my coins were all in a little box hid away in my purse, hence, as soon as the robber had loosened the strings he took out the box, held it in his left hand, while with his right he kept searching in the inner folds of my long purse. While he was running his fingers through the tortuous purse, I slipped mine into his left hand, and, taking hold of the box, I emptied its contents into my pocket in the twinkling of an eye and handed it back to the robber. The Kurd incensed at finding nothing in the purse which he kept shaking and fingering, snatched the box from my hand, opened it, and finding it as empty as the purse, flung it away with an oath.
But soon there appeared a change in the leader and founder of the movement, and gradually also in the majority of his colleagues. The lecture on Atheism was withdrawn from circulation, and Dr. Adler began delivering addresses on immortality, and exalting the character of Christ in the fashion of Unitarianism. All lectures in criticism of the fundamentals of Orthodoxy were as much as prohibited. Orthodox leaders were invited to preach from the platform of the Ethical Societies, and it became the ambition of an Ethical lecturer to deliver only such lectures as no church-goer would object to hear. I do not mean that Orthodox doctrines were promulgated by the Ethical lecturers, but nothing was to be said against them, if nothing could be said in their favor. The aim of the Movement was now defined to be solely the improvement of the morals of its members and of the public, and therefore, like the church, it began to fight \"sin,\" studiously ignoring the debasing superstitions and the bondage of dogma which not only had bankrupted, both mentally and morally, whole nations, but which had also withered the greatest civilization the world had ever seen, and surrendered humanity to the keeping of \"the dark ages\" for a thousand years. This change in the program of the Ethical Societies greatly pleased the Orthodox world, and all fear of menace or danger to its theological interests from that direction was dissipated. Catholic and Protestant clergymen vied with each other in expressions of admiration for the work of the Ethical Societies, and all praised the tact which the leaders of the movement displayed in refraining from criticisms of the churches and their doctrines, to protest against the degrading effects of which, was the very object for which the Ethical Societies were organized in the first place. Thus it will be seen how completely the Movement came to abandon its original program. The Sunday lectures of the leaders of the Movement became, in time, so \"harmless\" that preachers recommended them to their flock, while the Ethical lecturers in return publicly declared that it was not necessary for a Trinitarian, a Papist or a Jew to leave his church before he could be admitted to membership in an Ethical Society. The Ethical Societies, in fact, did not encourage people to break away from their ecclesiastical connections, but indirectly, at least, advised them to support the new movement without withdrawing their support from the churches to which they belonged.
But, on the other hand, there were those among the preachers of freedom who were inclined to accept the slave-owner's proposition: \"We will come in and do what we can to educate and reform the people. We will say nothing to them about their slavery, or against your authority over them. All we wish is to make good men and women out of them,\" they said.
This is reason swallowed up in rhyme, or sense lost in sentiment. Why is the incoherent, instinctive exclamations of childhood, of bird and beast, sweeter than the ripened, rational, progressive, word of man Surely a bird is more innocent than a man, but a stone is even more innocent than a bird. The beast tears its victims to death, the tree feeds the worms; is not a tree, therefore, purer than a beast In all nature, there is nothing holier than man, for he alone can be holy. Browning seems to think that we were all so much better off when we were nearer the bird and beast, but evolution is our destiny, and only faint hearts cast wistful glances at the ages left behind.
There is no reliable record of God ever being seen by man. His voice has never been heard. His form and expression or whereabouts remain a mystery to this day. We have nothing but guesses as to the kind of worship he prefers, or why he should be praised. And yet, entire countries have been plundered, pillaged, and laid waste for no other reason than that they held different views from ours on the form or nature of a God whom no man has ever seen, heard or comprehended. Such is the extraordinary folly of man!
It is our purpose to show that neither gods nor revealed religions can be a proper subject of study, and what cannot be a subject of study cannot be an object of faith. We do not deny the gods, for we know nothing about them to be able to make any reasonable statement concerning them; we simply dismiss them from our thought.
But while the supernatural has no interest for the Rationalist, he is very much interested in the interpretations which men have given of it, and the manner in which they have built up a system of morals and a philosophy of life upon it. The great teachers and founders of religions are proper subjects both for criticism and commendation. Being men they cannot claim immunity from a free and fearless examination of their teachings. The more honest a teacher is, the more willing he is to be investigated, and nothing prejudices us more against a teacher than his refusal to be questioned. \"He who will have no judge but himself, condemns himself,\" says the proverb. 1e1e36bf2d