Gallaudet University (1864)

Washington D.C. 에 위치한 걀라우뎃 대학교를 방문하였다.

청각 장애에 대한 사회의, 구체적으로 한국의 인식은 다소 부정적이다. 일단 한국에서 장애 자체에 대한 인식은 부정적이다. 용어부터 살피자면 청각 장애, 라고 구분짓는 인구를 미국에서는 대문자 D 를 사용한 Deaf 라는 용어를 사용한다. 마치 American, Korean, Christopher 와 같은 고유명사인 것. 청각 장애라는 장애의 종류라는 개념보다, 하나의 독단적인 성격으로 구분되는 인상이다. 어려서부터 긍지에 대한, 자부심에 대한 교육은 중요시 여겨진다.

미국에서 장애에 대한 인식이 한국과 다른 것은 물론이지만, 세부적으로 Gallaudet University 의 인식과 개념은 한 번 더 다르다. 학교에서 모든 staff 들은 ASL (American Sign Language) 를 배워야하고 정기적으로 시험을 보고 통과해야한다. 중심 언어이니만큼 가장 중요한 것이다. 청각 장애를 비하하거나 그에 유사한 태도도 조심해야한다. 이 곳에서 만큼은 오히려 청인들이 소수이고 도움을 받아야하는 존재이다. 

Gallaudet University 는 Deaf 를 위한 세계에서 유일한 대학교이다. 유럽에도 세계 다른 어느 곳에도 Deaf 난청 청각 장애인을 위해 디자인 된 대학교는 없다.  물론 미국의 모든 대학교는, 청각 장애인 뿐 아닌 도움을 필요하는 학생이 입학 한 경우, 그 학생의 필요를 보조 할 수 있는 도움을 주기 마련이다. 하지만 Deaf 를 고려하여 프로그램 curriculum, 건물, staff, 등을 디자인 한 학교는 없다. 1864년 설립으로 역사도 제법 깊다.

<학교 웹사이트, 캠퍼스 사진들 http://admissions.gallaudet.edu/gallery/campusphotos.html >

학교 곳곳에 Video phone 이 설치되어있다. 음성만을 사용하는 전화기는 불편 및 불필요 함으로 비디오 전화기를 사용한다. 수화를 하지 못하는 사람과도 통화가 가능하도록 통역사에게도 연결이 가능하다. 

대표적인 비디오  전화기 제작사인 Sorenson 은 최근 Gallaudet University 캠퍼스에 건물도 지었다 (James Lee Sorenson). 건물은 듣는 것이 불편한 사람들을 위하여 섬세히 디자인되었다.

1. 건물 전체가 유리로 안과 밖의 사람들이 수화로 의사소통이 가능하다.

2. 청각 장애인들은 시각적으로 곡선을 선호함으로 건물 구조의 많은 부분이 각지지 않은 곡선이 많다. 이 밖에도 천정이 높은 등 시각적으로 편안한 부드러운 느낌의 실내구조가 인상적이다.

3. 둥그렇게 앉는 것이 수화로의 의사소통에 용이함으로 실내 대부분의 좌석들은 둥그렇게 디자인 되었다.

4. 수화는 눈으로의 의사소통임으로 걸으며 길을 보기보다는 서로를 바라보기 때문에 계단을 못 보는 사고를 예방하기 위해 계단들이 보다 눈에 띄게 디자인 되었다.

5. 등등 .. 아는 내용은 여기까지. sorenson 웹사이트, 비디오 전화에 관한 정보 http://www.sorensonvrs.com/ 

 

세계유일한 만큼 난청 커뮤니티에서는 선호되는 학교이다. 

학교의 위치는 수도인 Washington D.C. 라는 장점이 있다. 미국이라는 대표적인 나라의 수도이니만큼 사회적인 움직임이 분명히 느껴진다. 학교 자체는 관광지와 멀지 않지만 중심이지 않은 부근에 위치. Union Station 과 몇 군데의 대표적인 역에서 Gallaudet University 학교의 전용 셔틀버스 Shuttle bus 가 15 ~ 20 분에 한 대 씩 운행된다. 역까지는 D.C. 의 지하철이 제법 간단함으로 어려움 없이 도착 할 수 있고, 역에서  캠퍼스 내부까지 shuttle bus 가 운행되니 편리하다.

기이한 점이라면 기숙사에 학생 주방이 없단다. 아무래도 건물 구조상 어쩔 수 없었던 듯 싶다. 굳이 기숙사를 살지 않아도 되니 그만이지만. 

청각 장애인들의 공대로는 Rochester 에 유명한 대학교가 있다고 .. 자세한 내용은 차후에 정리. 궁금한 점은 댓글로 문의 해주시기를.

<학교에 대한 위키피디아 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallaudet_University >

Gallaudet University Mission and Goals

Mission Statement

Gallaudet University, federally chartered in 1864, is a bilingual, diverse, multicultural institution of higher education that ensures the intellectual and professional advancement of deaf and hard of hearing individuals through American Sign Language and English. Gallaudet maintains a proud tradition of research and scholarly activity and prepares its graduates for career opportunities in a highly competitive, technological, and rapidly changing world.

Approved by the Board of Trustees November 2007

Vision Statement

Gallaudet University will build upon its rich history as the world's premier higher education institution serving deaf and hard of hearing people to become the university of first choice for the most qualified, diverse group of deaf and hard of hearing students in the world, as well as hearing students pursuing careers related to deaf and hard of hearing people. Gallaudet will empower its graduates with the knowledge and practical skills vital to achieving personal and professional success in the changing local and global communities in which they live and work. Gallaudet will also strive to become the leading international resource for research, innovation and outreach related to deaf and hard of hearing people.

Gallaudet will achieve these outcomes through:

• A bilingual learning environment, featuring American Sign Language and English, that provides full access for all students to learning and communication
• A commitment to excellence in learning and student service
• A world-class campus in the nation's capital
• Creation of a virtual campus that expands Gallaudet's reach to a broader audience of visual learners
• An environment in which research can grow, develop, and improve the lives and knowledge of all deaf and hard of hearing people worldwide

Approved by the Board of Trustees, May 2009

Other Goals and Statements

Strategic Goals

1. Maintain and strengthen its unique position as a place in which higher education, research, and scholarly pursuits of all kinds are conducted in an inclusive environment where the ASL/English bilingual communication abilities and potential of deaf students are fully realized.
2. Enroll a diverse and talented student body by providing rigorous academic programs and an effective co-curriculum and services that support recruitment, retention, graduation, and life-long learning.
3. Create and sustain a climate that fosters respect among students, faculty, staff, and administrators for the full range of human diversity, educational backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives.
4. Conduct exemplary programs of research, scholarship, and outreach within the context of its visually-oriented learning environment and with respect to its unique service population.
5. Obtain the financial and other resources necessary to support excellence in its programs and uses these resources effectively and efficiently.

Rethinking"Gnosticism 카테고리 인문/사회 > 종교 지은이 Williams, Michael Allen (Princeton, 1999년) 상세보기

Most anyone interested in such topics as creation mythology, Jungian theory, or the idea of "secret teachings" in ancient Judaism and Christianity has found "gnosticism" compelling. Yet the term "gnosticism," which often connotes a single rebellious movement against the prevailing religions of late antiquity, gives the false impression of a monolithic religious phenomenon. Here Michael Williams challenges the validity of the widely invoked category of ancient "gnosticism" and the ways it has been described. Presenting such famous writings and movements as the Apocryphon of John and Valentinian Christianity, Williams uncovers the similarities and differences among some major traditions widely categorized as gnostic. He provides an eloquent, systematic argument for a more accurate way to discuss these interpretive approaches. The modern construct "gnosticism" is not justified by any ancient self-definition, and many of the most commonly cited religious features that supposedly define gnosticism phenomenologically turn out to be questionable. Exploring the sample sets of "gnostic" teachings, Williams refutes generalizations concerning asceticism and libertinism, attitudes toward the body and the created world, and alleged features of protest, parasitism, and elitism. He sketches a fresh model for understanding ancient innovations on more "mainstream" Judaism and Christianity, a model that is informed by modern research on dynamics in new religious movements and is freed from the false stereotypes from which the category "gnosticism" has been constructed. Reviews: "Rare is the book on gnosticism that is thoroughly grounded in the primary sources in the ancient languages, widely conversant with the secondary literature, controlled and sophisticated in its historical method--and still intelligible and interesting, not only for experts in its field, but also for religious historians and educated readers in general. Michael Williams's Rethinking `Gnosticism' is such a book. It is essential reading for scholars of ancient Christianity and for anyone who wishes to use the terms `gnostic' and `gnosticism,' but it can be read with profit by all historians concerned with issues of methodology in studying religious people of the past."--Church History "There can hardly be a category more misused in contemporary scholarly and not-so-scholarly discourse than `gnosticism,' so it was probably inevitable that a serious scholar would come along with an argument for the abandonment of the category altogether. In this provocative book Williams does just that."--Religious Studies Review Endorsement: "Michael Williams presents the first treatment of gnosticism in book form that endeavors, and succeeds, to get out of beaten tracks by questioning the very definition and description of this phenomenon. He conducts a detailed analysis of the clichés that have been in circulation for decades and shows convincingly how they have contributed to a distorted and biased approach to the sources. This book will be epoch-making for the field of gnostic studies and should attract a very large reading audience."--Paul-Hubert Poirier, Université Laval

 

Gnosticism:

Rethinking the Mother of All Heresies

 

Rethinking "Gnosticism":

An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category

By Michael Allen Williams

Princeton UP, 335 pages

 

If one seeks out a quick definition of ancient gnosticism, one is liable to get something like the following:

 

Gnosticism: 

 

A religious movement that flourished in the Roman Empire between the second and fourth centuries C.E.  Identified as heretical by both Christians and Jews, the gnostics taught that the world was created not by the true God but by a lesser, deficient being called the Demiurge, who ruled over his creation, our world, with the help of administrative powers called Archons.  The realm of the true God (the Pleroma, or "Fullness") lay beyond this faulty creation, and it was the goal of the gnostics to escape the trap of this world and return there. 

 

According to the gnostics, human beings contained a spark of true divinity that did not belong in this lesser creation, but would continually be reincarnated here unless redeemed by gnosis (the liberating knowledge of our true origins).  Human beings were divided into three types: the spirituals (those predestined for salvation), the psychicals (those who could attain a kind of salvation through gnosis and various purifying practices) and the materials (those who by their nature were permanently tied to the material realm).  Gnostic religion was thus characterized by a radical contempt both for the world (understood as a prison) and for the body (each individual's prison cell).  Ancient sources show that this contempt led in some groups to a rigorous asceticism, in others to an equally rigorous licentiousness (since the laws of morality were merely part of the trap created by the Demiurge, some gnostics taught that the spiritually liberated must demonstrate their liberation by breaking as many of these laws as they could). 

 

Christian gnostics understood Jesus to be a messenger of the true God, sent from the Pleroma to bring the liberating teachings of gnosis.  They rejected the orthodox doctrine that Jesus died to atone for the sins of men.  According to the gnostics, the evil in the world did not result from human sin, but rather from the Demiurge's faulty creation: i.e., the world was evil because its creator was evil.  Whereas orthodox Christians accepted the Old Testament as part of their sacred scriptures, the gnostics saw in the Old Testament God a depiction of the Demiurge.  Only Jesus was sent from the "Father," i.e. the true God. 

 

Given its rigorous contempt for the world and its concomitant rejection of social norms, most scholars understand gnosticism to have been a religion of radical revolt.  The Bogomils in eastern Europe and the medieval Cathars in the south of France are considered to be later incarnations of gnostic religion.  A buried collection of ancient gnostic scriptures was discovered near the Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi in 1945.

 

Here in a few paragraphs is an example of how gnosticism is typically defined in university classes and encyclopedias.  It is a presentation buttressed by such classic modern studies of gnosticism as Hans Jonas' book The Gnostic Religion.  Through force of repetition it has become more or less standard.  But is this definition really apt to the beliefs and practices of the ancient gnostics?  How appropriate is it to what we find in the Nag Hammadi texts?  After all, most of the elements of this definition were forged before the discovery of these writings.  With actual gnostic writings now available, scholars should be able to come to a more nuanced understanding of gnosticism than was previously possible.  Has their reading of the Nag Hammadi texts changed our understanding of this ancient religious movement?

 

In his book Rethinking "Gnosticism" Michael Allen Williams assesses the validity of such usual definitions and finds them seriously lacking.  To read his study is to realize to what extent this thing called "gnosticism" is an amalgam of modern scholarly caricature and uncritical reliance on ancient heresiologists like Irenaeus and Epiphanius.  Such reliance was maybe inevitable given the previous lack of original sources.  But now with the wealth of gnostic gospels and treatises uncovered in Egypt, things have changed.  Williams' work sets out to reveal the extent of the needed change.  

 

Williams' overall methodology is simple: take the current scholarly presentations of gnostic religion and compare them point by point with what we actually find in the gnostics' writings.  But also: take the ancient heresiologists' presentation of the gnostics and undertake a similar comparison.  Do the gnostics' presentations of themselves in their writings correspond to the doctrines attributed to them by Irenaeus?  Do they correspond to what we hear from the community of modern scholars?  If not, why not? 

 

If Williams is right, our idea of gnosticism as an ancient religion would not, in important respects, have been shared by the ancient gnostics themselves.  Our understanding of gnostic doctrines and attitudes (to the body, to society, to ethics) has often put the stress in the wrong place.  And our presentation of gnostic practices still relies on the heresiologists, even though their portrayals have been given the lie by the Nag Hammadi writings. 

 

For one, gnosticism is usually presented as a world-denying religion of revolt: a religion adopted by outsiders in a state of rebellion against social norms.  The gnostics were believed to have erected a barrier between themselves and the surrounding world by mechanically reversing dominant social values.  This notion of the gnostics undertaking a kind of systematic denial of everything society held sacred grew mainly from select observations of gnostic readings of Hebrew scripture (for example, they frequently understood the serpent in the Garden of Eden in a positive way, while Yahweh, understood as the Demiurge, was seen negatively).  But, as Williams points out, such instances of gnostic scriptural interpretation do not necessarily indicate a rebellious attitude to society at large. Using models developed from the sociological study of religious movements, Williams argues that in many cases the opposite was more likely true: that the gnostics were actually interpreting Judeo-Christian ideas of the divine in ways more in harmony with the dominant pagan society in which they lived.  Williams' argument here is convincing.  Our interpretation of the gnostic attitude as one of revolt against society has been foisted on us by the heresiologists, who themselves, for obvious reasons, sought to portray the gnostics as rebels against orthodoxy.  To claim the gnostics were radical social deviants is thus anachronistic.

 

Williams likewise takes up the question of "gnostic determinism": the oft-repeated modern assertion that the gnostics believed mankind to be strictly divided into different types (the spirituals, the psychics, the materials) or different races (the race of Seth, the race of Cain), and that the doctrinal upshot of such divisions was that each individual's potential for salvation was understood to be already determined at birth.  Williams shows that this modern notion of gnostic determinism is not supported by the original texts.  A careful reading of the sources shows that one is not "born into" the race of Seth: rather it is a status one may attain or earn.  The race of Seth is more a spiritual community than a biological "race" in our modern sense.  Likewise with the division into three types: one's status as a spiritual is seen to be linked to one's behavior: one may lose this status through abandoning the truth, and thus to be born as a spiritual is no guarantee of salvation.  The assertion that the ancient gnostics were elitists in the sense of believing themselves predestined to salvation (saved in essence) is misguided.  Williams demonstrates that there was at least as much flexibility in these gnostic notions as there is in more recent Protestant doctrines of the elect.

 

With these remarks I've only scratched the surface of this subtle and wide-ranging study.  Williams offers an important discussion of gnostic hermeneutics (their practice of Biblical interpretation) and reassesses gnostic notions of the body and how these might relate to the different doctrines of salvation.  One abiding concern of Williams' book--and I've maybe been irresponsible in skirting it until now--is the appropriateness of the term "gnosticism" itself.  On the basis of the many disadvantages Williams sees in the term--its vagueness as a category, the baggage it brings with it--he suggests scholars refer instead to "biblical demiurgical traditions" when discussing much of what is typically called "gnosticism."  He seeks to demonstrate that 1) the ancient people we refer to as "gnostics" did not themselves use this term, and 2) modern scholars have long had difficulty establishing a stable set of characteristics for gnosticism: i.e., we still cannot define clearly what gnosticism is.  The argument Williams finally puts forward is that the term has impeded our understanding of the ancient religious movements in question.  It has led generations of scholars to grapple with false problems and construct arguments on the basis of unexamined preconceptions.  This is a pretty serious charge to make.  Whether or not Williams is right in these assertions--something I'm in no position to judge--it seems obvious that his book has brought forth much that is new in the field of "gnostic" studies.  And it seems clear that many of his new perspectives on the "gnostics" grew directly from his attempts to think beyond the (academic or heresiological) category "gnosticism."  

 

Williams' book is not for scholars only, however.  Even a reader only slightly familiar with the Nag Hammadi texts can gain much from it.  He helpfully begins the book with a chapter summarizing the myths or doctrines of four important "gnostic" traditions: the myth from The Apocryphon of John; the doctrine of the Valentinian teacher Ptolemy; the myth taught by Justin the Gnostic; and the teachings of Marcion.  These four different examples are then referred to repeatedly in the remainder of the study in order to clarify this or that point.  Williams has structured Rethinking Gnosticism in a way that allows him to write both for fellow scholars and the general reader.  It is a successful strategy all around, one that makes the book fascinating reading for anyone interested in "gnosticism," the Nag Hammadi texts, or the history of Christianity.

 

Eric Mader

 

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2003.07.26

---

Karen L. King, What is Gnosticism?.   Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 2003.  Pp. 343.  ISBN 0-674-01071-X.  $29.95.   

---

Reviewed by Nicola Denzey, Bowdoin College (ndenzey@bowdoin.edu)
Word count: 2496 words

An unprepared reader might pick up What is Gnosticism? expecting either a primer or a definitive study of Gnosticism's nature and origins. But this book, written by one of the country's leading scholars of early Christianity, should not be mistaken for an introductory textbook. First of all, it never addresses what Gnosticism is. In a rather subversive move -- given the book's title -- King asserts that "Gnosticism" exists solely as a modern reification, a terminological construct deriving ultimately from an early Christian discourse of orthodoxy and heresy which has now taken on an independent existence. "My purpose in this book," King explains, "is to show how twentieth-century scholarship on Gnosticism has simultaneously reinscribed, elaborated, and deviated from this discourse" (54). The book assumes that readers will have at least a passing familiarity with the sources which have conventionally been called "Gnostic," as well as with contemporary terms of debate and prominent figures. This "ideal audience" of the learned and open-minded has much to gain from reading King's book. Casual readers, however, would likely find King's thesis -- like the book itself -- too sophisticated and too historiographically esoteric to sustain their interest.

Karen King taught at Occidental College in Los Angeles before moving to her current position as Professor of the History of Ancient Christianity at the Harvard University Divinity School. A highly respected scholar of Gnosticism, King's work has often focused on issues of gender. What is Gnosticism? is her second book to appear in 2003, taking its place next to her new translation of the Gospel of Mary (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2003). Here, King identifies her primary research interests as "early Christian identity formation and the critique of current scholarly categories of analysis" (vii-viii). This book has been at least twenty years in the making; we have had tastes of her critical acumen in a series of articles on the topic of Gnosticism and identity formation which she has presented to a variety of scholarly audiences since 1993. Why is a book like King's timely? The past fifty years have witnessed a series of dramatic paradigm shifts in the Academy that have called for the revision and re-articulation of our discipline. The first of these historiographical and hermeneutical shifts which King chronicles is the rise of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule as distinct from Theology with its interested, invested focus, its fixed canon, and its implicit Christian supersessionism. The second shift was initiated by the discovery of a cache of hitherto unknown ancient Christian texts in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt. Because scholars prior to 1945 had only a very limited number of primary sources which early members of the Christian mainstream had termed "Gnostic," the Nag Hammadi treatises have had a profound impact on our understanding of early Christianity as richly diverse in doctrine and praxis. The third and most recent shift has been the re-evaluation of the History of Religions School by postcolonialist and postmodern scholarship, which drew into question its implicit Orientalism and colonialist orientation. For these three reasons, the work of generations of Gnosticism scholars -- built upon a limited number of primary sources and the polemical writings of a few early Christian heresiologists -- needed to be reassessed. More often than not, this examination has called for substantial revision.

The scope of King's book is ambitious, but necessarily so. She recognizes that it is impossible to take on the conceptual and definitional problem of Gnosticism without tackling the conceptual and definitional problem of "heresy," which then draws into question Christianity's discourse of orthodoxy. She notes, "...a discussion of the discourse of orthodoxy and heresy needs to include polemics aimed at pagans and Jews as well" (21). King then dedicates the book's eight chapters to evaluating and critiquing "the discourse of orthodoxy and heresy" in ancient sources, in the work of early twentieth-century scholars, and in more contemporary scholarship. The book addresses the process of early Christian identity formation as a whole, with results both cogent and incisive. It is refreshing to read an approach that neither marginalizes Judaism or paganism, nor places Christianity in high relief against otherwise "insufficient" religious options in the ancient world.

In her first chapter, "Why Is Gnosticism So Hard to Define?" King outlines two overarching scholarly approaches to Gnosticism, one genealogical and one typological. The first approach locates the origins and developments of Gnosticism over time by looking to and comparing Gnosticism with so-called Oriental religions on the one hand and "Christianity" (i.e. "orthodoxy") on the other. The second approach draws upon phenomenological analyses of primarily literary material to develop a set of coherent and definitive terms, characteristics, and tendencies. Both approaches, King warns us, went considerably astray; most significantly, the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts rendered genealogical and typological analyses of Gnosticism largely moot. Central, too, has been the problem of Gnosticism's infelicitous relationship with Christianity as a whole. King observes, "the problem of defining Gnosticism has been and continues to be primarily an aspect of the ongoing project of defining and maintaining a normative Christianity" (18). In the final words of the chapter, King clarifies the task that lies ahead for the remainder of the volume:

My purpose ... is to consider the ways in which the early Christian polemicists' discourse of orthodoxy and heresy has been intertwined with twentieth-century scholarship on Gnosticism in order to show where and how that involvement has distorted our analysis of the ancient texts. At stake is not only the capacity to write a more accurate history of ancient Christianity in all its multiformity, but also our capacity to engage critically the ancient politics of religious difference rather than unwittingly reproduce its strategies and results (19).

Accordingly, Chapter Two, "Gnosticism as Heresy," focuses on the "rhetorical consolidation" of the broad variety of religious options available to individuals in the ancient world into three recognizable, mutually exclusive, and easily definable groups: Jews, Christians, and pagans (22). What was at stake, King observes, was the discourse of difference and sameness that was crucial to Christian identity-building. In order to exclude those Christians whom members of a nascent orthodoxy opposed, members of this group had to make their competitors look like outsiders; certain doctrinal or practical differences needed to be fabricated, just as real differences needed to be exaggerated. As part of the same strategy of distinction, similarities -- whether between Christians and Jews, Christians and pagans, or different Christian teachers -- were either suppressed or maliciously miscast. So successful were certain Christians in this endeavor, King notes, that even now the terms "heresy" and "orthodoxy" imply only difference, not similarity (23). These two terms are best understood as the consequence of an evaluative process that aimed to "articulate the meaning of self while simultaneously silencing and excluding others within the group" (24). King invokes the examples of Tertullian's Prescription against Heretics, and Irenaeus' Against the Heresies, in a set of rhetorical attitudes she categorizes as "antisyncretism." This discourse functioned to define and defend boundaries (34) and to contribute to the "master narrative" of Christian decline from a time of pure origins to the doctrinal divisiveness of the second century and beyond.

Chapters three and four are explicitly historiographical, as King works through foundational figures and movements of early twentieth-century scholarship on religion. Chapter Three investigates Adolf von Harnack, Chapter Four, the early History of Religions school. Here, modern readers owe perhaps the greatest debt to King, who provides intelligent and useful summaries and analyses of works which are infamously impenetrable and more often than not, only available in their original German. This extended examination of early twentieth-century historiography is central for King to prove her thesis: that modern scholarship has only served to reinscribe a discourse of orthodoxy and heresy established by certain Christians of the second and third centuries. King points out that as a theologian and scholar, for instance, Harnack was perfectly aware of the manifold forms of ancient Christianity, yet like his orthodox predecessors Irenaeus and Tertullian, he employed the term "Gnosticism" as a rhetorical tool to produce a normative vision of Christianity (68).

Chapter five, "Gnosticism Reconsidered," is devoted to a discussion of Walter Bauer --particularly his landmark study Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity -- and to Hans Jonas' Gnosis und Spätantike Geist. King paints Bauer as an innovator, the first to develop an alternative model of Christian historiography away from the master narrative of Christian supersessionism. Jonas, rather differently, was important for his typological reduction of Gnosticism to a series of qualities or characteristics. His work on the "Gnostic experience of self and world" (117) defined Gnosticism as a transhistorical religious movement characterized primarily by the experience of existential alienation and world-abnegation. Thus Jonas proposed seven qualities of Gnosticism: gnosis, dynamic character (pathomorphic crisis), mythological character, dualism, impiety, artificiality, and unique historical locus (120). King discusses each one of these in turn, pointing out their difficulties and shortcomings. The chapter ends with a discussion of the German History of Religions scholar Carsten Colpe. It is not clear what ties these three figures together, however; overall, the chapter division here -- as elsewhere in the book -- seems more arbitrary than seamlessly sewn together into one master narrative.

The last three chapters of the book discuss Gnosticism scholarship following the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts. Here, King spends some time discussing the various sources themselves, particularly the manner in which they defy the tidy systems of classification and categorization established by earlier generations of scholars. Indeed, King is quick to point out that even post-Nag Hammadi typologies of Gnosticism such as "Sethianism" and "Valentinianism" strain to maintain coherence when applied to the tremendous doctrinal diversity we find reflected in Nag Hammadi's forty-six texts. As King notes, "the problem with variety is not variety itself; the problem is trying to force multiform, irregularly shaped objects into square essentialist definitional holes" (168). These chapters are particularly enjoyable because they move away from historiography to the ancient sources themselves; however, it is difficult to assess how a reader not well-versed in the Nag Hammadi texts would follow King's summaries and arguments.

Readers will inevitably compare What is Gnosticism? to Michael Williams' Rethinking "Gnosticism": Arguments for Dismantling a Dubious Category (1996). Williams' provocative work -- which quickly became obligatory reading for all serious students of ancient Gnosticism -- calls for the abandonment of the term "Gnosticism" altogether, stating that it is best not to imagine that anything like "Gnosticism" or "the Gnostic religion" ever existed. Instead, Williams suggests that we remain cognizant of the many diverse groups and individuals that originally comprised Christianity before they were marginalized and de-legitimated by an emergent orthodoxy. It is obvious thatRethinking "Gnosticism" and What is Gnosticism? were written contemporaneously and that King and Williams were deeply engaged in dialogue with one another. They each carefully and graciously acknowledge one another in their forewords; it is clear that their connections have fostered genuine respect and mutual fondness rather than competition. Still, since Rethinking "Gnosticism" was first to appear, the problem for King is whether or not What is Gnosticism? sufficiently advances the approach both scholars bring to the fore, and whether or not she successfully treats the same topic in a way that complements, rather than competes with, Williams' book. As a partial answer to this issue, it is important to note that for all their topical similarity and virtually identical theses, What is Gnosticism? and Rethinking "Gnosticism" are very different books, because the two authors work very differently. Williams applies previously established typological categories of "Gnosticism" to ancient materials, thus highlighting their insufficiencies for understanding ancient materials on their own terms. King carefully builds a sort of historiographic genealogy and keeps her focus consistently on the last century's scholarship, telling the story of how the reification of "Gnosticism" came to be from within the broader social and intellectual matrix of twentieth-century interests and movements. The books differ, too, in their suggestions for future work. In place of "Gnosticism," Williams suggests we adopt when appropriate the more specific term "biblical demiurgical" (Williams, 265). But King rightly points out the problems with this term: it is cumbersome, and it persists in the same process of naming and categorizing she proposes we abandon altogether (168, 214-16). Still, she spends more time critiquing scholars and scholarship than she does solving the essential problem to which the book is devoted. Is there a future for studying Gnosticism without "Gnosticism"? She herself raises the question in her eighth and final chapter, but ends it reflexively: "It is important not so much to eliminate the term per se, but to recognize and correct the ways in which reinscribing the discourses of orthodoxy and heresy distort our reading and reconstruction of ancient religion" (218).

Ultimately, the reader of What is Gnosticism? is left questioning why King doggedly pursues Gnosticism' s historiographical genealogy. What precisely is at stake? And how well does she convey this? King states at the outset that she will reexamine how twentieth-century scholarship of Gnosticism has reinscribed a second-century discourse, but most of her detailed examples (Harnack, Jonas, Bousset, Reitzenstein, Bauer) harken from the first half of the century. The sole contemporary scholar of Gnosticism to receive a detailed discussion is Michael Williams, leaving readers with the impression that no one else is doing the sort of work King advocates. Because she withholds from the reader what the "state of the debate" truly is, she leaves the impression that hers is the sole clarion call for a new hermeneutic. This is misleading, because King's work not so much presents new material as it presents for a broader audience the methodological approach already well entrenched in the academy, certainly among specialists of Nag Hammadi and early Christianity. Perhaps, though, King would argue that there are only a few scholars who take this approach for granted, and this book is clearly not written for them.

While this book tears down the scaffolding upon which many earlier studies of Gnosticism have been built, King stops short of offering a concrete new direction, though her final chapter and "Note on Methodology" seems to suggest that such a direction lies in adopting postmodern and postcolonial reading strategies. It would have been enlightening and stimulating to see examples of what such a new hermeneutic, applied to the Nag Hammadi writings either individually or as a corpus, might yield; there are indeed recent articles and monographs out there from which to draw, but these are neglected. Because she does not address the work of modern scholars of early Christianity who likewise adhere to the New Historicism, King effectively flattens the background, placing her own methodological convictions in stark relief against a century's worth of essentially flawed scholarship. Still, as the only full-length study of the scholarship of Gnosticism that exists, there is surely a place for King's volume. Readers can follow the thread of a story ably told about a relatively new academic discipline now facing the challenge of modernity.

Focus On Gnosticism

Written by leading scholars, the Focus On essays are designed to stimulate thought and to explore in depth topics of interest in the field of Biblical studies. New essays on specific themes, with links to related content within the site for further reading, are published throughout the year. All visitors to Oxford Biblical Studies Online can access these essays, but related content links in Previous Features are available to subscribers only. Please visit the full collection of Focus On essays.

Update Alert Service: to receive an email notice and details when a new Focus On article or site update is posted, sign up for Oxford Biblical Studies Online update alerts.

• Bibliography
• Related Content

---

Gnosticism

Stevan Davies

Professor of Religious Studies
Misericordia University

Walk into any large bookstore and you will discover a few shelves of books labeled "Christian" or "Buddhist" or "Jewish" while next to them you will see several shelves with the vague label "New Age" or "Spirituality." Today many people have left the comfort of the churches or synagogues they grew up in and have decided to understand religion for themselves, to be "spiritual" rather than to be part of any organized religion, perhaps to combine ideas from Buddhism and Judaism and Catholicism into a new synthesis that they create themselves. In ancient times, mainly in the first through the fourth centuries, religious thinkers of this sort were called "Gnostics." In roughly 180 CE Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (now Lyon, France) wrote a long savage attack against the Gnostics entitled "The Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge (Gnosis) Falsely So Called," in which he says angrily that "since their teachings and traditions are different, and the newer ones among them claim to be constantly finding something new, and working out what no one ever thought of before, it is hard to describe their views." Irenaeus was certainly right about that.

Like today's New Age writers, ancient Gnostic writers delighted in coming up with new theories, highly variable creation myths, creative salvation schemes and imaginative descriptions of supernatural realms. Because the Gnostic texts contain such a diversity of ideas, scholars sometimes despair of ever coming up with a clear and useful definition of Gnosticism. Michael Williams has argued that the term "Gnosticism" is so overloaded with diverse meanings, so contradictory in the ways it is used by scholars, and so negative in its connotation when used by Christian clergy, that we probably should not use the label "Gnosticism" at all. I think that Williams is correct, yet I will continue on here to try and discuss Gnosticism in a meaningful way, while urging you to bear in mind that there is a great deal of variation in Gnostic thought that will not be reflected in the relatively straightforward account I will provide.

The word Gnosticism comes from the Greek word "gnosis," which means "knowledge." The reason that Gnostics made "gnosis" their primary category is that for them salvation depended on correct knowledge. One might immediately ask, "salvation from what?" and "knowledge of what?"

Gnosticism postulates that human beings have divinity within them because a divine soul or divine wisdom permeates us. However, they observed, hardly anyone seems to know this. To know that you are fundamentally divine reveals to you that you are also fundamentally trapped in a non-divine material environment filled with demonic forces. If people are inherently divine, and if our divinity is trapped within a world filled with demonic forces, the god who created this world cannot be the same God who is the divinity within us. There must be a higher God in a higher realm than this one. Salvation, then, is an escape from this world into the world of the God beyond the creator god and demons of this world.

In order to escape from this world to the realm of the true God we need to understand how that divinity got trapped here in the first place. This is the essential Gnostic "gnosis," knowing how it came to be that we are God trapped in this world. If we can understand the cosmic process by which we came to be here, we can reverse that process and go back to whence we came. Understanding that cosmic process is the fundamental point of Gnostic mythology, which is a mythology of creation that describes the devolution of God into us.

Many ancient Gnostic manuscripts depict this process, which Irenaus called their attempts to "work out what no one ever thought before." But there is one "locus classicus," of the Gnostic myth that is found in a book called the "Apocryphon Johannis" or, in English, "The Secret Book of John." The Secret Book of John was probably written by Jewish Gnostics in the first century CE, or even a century before. While it is critical of the Jewish God, its terminology and mythic motifs and biblical citations show that it comes from a Jewish cultural background. In the early second century CE Christians revised it slightly to make it Christian; Jesus appears at its beginning and its end and Jesus is now the name of the revealer of Gnostic truth. There are no fewer than four surviving manuscripts of the Secret Book of John, three found in the great collection of Gnostic texts called the Nag Hammadi library and one in what is called the Berlin Gnostic Codex. In addition Irenaeus includes a summary of it in his anti-gnostic tract. If there is a single basic Gnostic text, the Secret Book of John is it.

Here is a brief summary of the Secret Book of John. First we hear of an unimaginable, indescribable perfect God, the being (beyond being) called Brahman in Hinduism, or Ein Sof in mystical Judaism. The Secret Book of John goes on at some length to describe how indescribable God is. Second we hear about the mystical structures of the divine mind, how God's mind contains a central realm of providence called Barbelo, and four subordinate categories of divine activity—truth, incorruptibility, foreknowledge, and everlasting life—then how further subordinate categories of divine being, mainly mental, come into existence. The Secret Book of John's description of the mind of God, called the fullness or, in Greek, the "pleroma," is conceptual and therefore below the level of the indescribable God. Third, we are told that Sophia, the Wisdom of God, seeks to know God objectively. But this leads to crisis because God is purely subjective. God's Wisdom imagines God and, although an imaginary God is unreal, it yet takes on a kind of inferior illusory being of its own outside of God's realm. This lower god has the name Yaldabaoth and is to be identified with Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible. Fourth, Yaldabaoth, who does have a portion of divine spirit from his mother, Sophia, creates a universe populated by all sorts of demonic creatures when, to his amazement, the full mind of God reveals itself as a human being in the heavens. Yaldabaoth constructs a material version of the heavenly human being and puts the divine spirit into it to make it mobile. But, surprise! It was a trick, for now, if the human being can realize its divine origin and return above, the divine spirit will return with it and thereby the realm of Yaldabaoth will become devoid of divine spirit and cease to be. Fifth, in self-defense Yaldabaoth makes the human being ignorant of its origins. But the divine mind sends down a messenger (Jesus, in the Christian version of the tale) to give human beings true "gnosis" by which they can go back to the perfect divine realm.

Whew. The Secret Book of John may be bizarre (and there is a great deal more to it that I have left out here) but it is ultimately a negative reworking of the Biblical story of Genesis, taking the point of view that while the story behind Genesis is true, the version written into the Bible by Moses is mistaken. We hear several times in the Secret Book of John that we should understand that it was "not as Moses wrote," but as some other thing. Moses is taken to be a mistaken interpreter of the fundamental myth. For Gnosticism, the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15–17) was the tree of gnosis, and people should eat from it. Wicked Yaldabaoth forbade this and then walled off the garden and the tree after Eve did the right thing (led by a divinely empowered serpent) by eating from that Tree (Genesis 3:1–24). The story in Genesis is wholly reversed through Gnostic interpretation.

From the Gnostic perspective, Jesus is a divine being sent from the realm of the higher God into this world to inform the trapped divine elements within human beings of their true nature and origin. Accordingly, Jesus is from some entirely other world than this one and therefore the Gospel of John was particularly interesting to Gnostics because in that Gospel Jesus says repeatedly that he is not of this demonic world of lies but from another world of light and truth (Jn 12:44–46, 17:14–16). The idea of a revealer coming from a world above that is infinitely superior to this demonic world below makes the Gospel of John very open to Gnostic interpretation.

Some have said that the Gospel of Thomas is gnostic, but they are mistaken. They observe correctly that in the Gospel of Thomas Jesus sometimes says that people have divine light within them, e.g. "There is light within a man of light and he lights up all of the world. If he is not a light there is darkness," (saying 24) or "When you give rise to that which is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not give rise to it, what you do not have will destroy you," (saying 70), and certainly Gnostics would have agreed with those passages. But overall the Gospel of Thomas is not Gnostic because it affirms that the Kingdom of God is now and has been from the beginning spread out upon this world, although people do not see it (saying 113). While Gnosticism regards the world as an enimical place of entrapment and declares that God's kingdom is beyond this world, the Gospel of Thomas denies this by mocking (in saying 3) the idea that the Kingdom is in heaven (if so, "the birds will be there before you are!") rather than right here now. (For more information, see the new article on the Gospel of Thomas.)

The success of orthodox Christianity over Gnostic Christianity stemmed in part from its organizational superiority. In establishing an invariant set of beliefs through creedal conferences such as the one in Nicea (325 CE), the range of possible Christian ideas was pinned down to a defined set. Gnosticism's wild creativity worked against its success as an organized religion. Eventually orthodox Christianity defined Gnosticism as a heresy that first Roman and then medieval Catholic police power would work to exterminate. In 367CE the Egyptian bishop Athanasius of Alexandria ordered his monks to destroy "illegitimate and secret books" and so, in a Pachomian monastery near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, the monks took their library of Gnostic books and, rather than burn them all, buried them in jars. In 1945 CE those jars were unearthed and they have subsequently been translated and published. Anyone interested in Gnosticism can read a whole library of texts from 1,600 years ago (many of which were written a couple of centuries earlier still). Through these texts, and others, Gnosticism still lives today, and through the New Age movement and the Spiritual religion movement the creative impulses of the Gnostic thinkers persist.

Further Reading

• Brakke, David. The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2011.
• Davies, Stevan. The Secret Book of John: The Gnostic Gospel Annotated and Explained. Woodstock, Vt.: Skylight Paths, 2005.
• King, Karen L. What Is Gnosticism? Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 2005.
• Meyer, Marvin. The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: Revised and Updated Translation. New York: HarperOne, 2009.
• Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House, 1979.
• Williams, Michael A. Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Biblical Passages and Apocrypha

Genesis

Gospel of John

Subject Entries and Commentary

Gnosticism

Nag Hammadi

Mysticism

Apocrypha

Gospel of Thomas

The Apocryphon of John Collection
(The Secret Revelation of John - The Secret Book of John)

Gnosis Archive | Library | Bookstore | Index | Web Lectures | Ecclesia Gnostica | Gnostic Society

I have come to teach you about what is, and what was, and what will be
in order for you to understand the invisible world, and the world that is visible,
and the immovable race of perfect humanity. - The Apocryphon of John

Introduction

Among the several dozen ancient Gnostic manuscripts rediscovered in modern times, the Secret Book of John is generally agreed to be the most important. It has been called the locus classicus for the Gnostic mythological system – in sum, it is the preeminent “Gnostic Gospel”, a sacred reservoir for the defining essence of Gnostic myth and revelation.  It breathes with the life of vision that vitalized early Christianity, a life suppressed and then largely forgotten in later ages. From a modern reading of this crucially important and recently rediscovered "Gospel", we are granted fundamental insights into the lost foundations of Christian tradition.

Apocryphon Iohannis – the Apocryphon of John – is the title that appears on the original manuscripts, and by this title the text has been known in scholarly circles over the last fifty years. In Greek,apocryphon literally means “hidden” or “secret”, thus in recent popular literature the title is usually translated as either the Secret Book of John or The Secret Revelation of John.   

By its own declaration, the Secret Book of John is a sacred text intended to be shared only with individuals properly prepared to receive its revelation. In second-century Christian communions circulation of the text probably remained restricted.  Amazingly, despite limited circulation and  the effective later efforts by evolving Christian orthodoxy to destroy all such “heretical” scriptures, four separate manuscripts of the SBJ have survived into our own age. Three of these were found among the Nag Hammadi codices discovered in 1945, while a fourth copy was independently recovered fifty years earlier from another site in Egypt. All four versions date to the fourth century. Three of the four appear to be independently produced Coptic translations of an original text in Greek. Two of the four manuscripts (NHC II and NHC IV) are so similar that they most likely represent copies of a single common source.

To put in context the uniqueness of finding four complete copies of a document of this extreme antiquity, note that we possess only two fairly complete manuscripts of the canonical gospels of equal age (the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).  Only a few fragments of canonical texts with dates of creation earlier than the fourth century have survived. These four manuscripts of the Apocryphon of John represent some of the oldest known surviving books. From the ancient sands of Egypt, they come to our modern age bearing a timeless message.

The Secret Book of John is the one Gnostic text every student seeking to understand the roots of ancient Christianity must read.  At first reading it will seem unlike anything encountered in the New Testament -- excepting perhaps the Apocalypse of John. Like the Apocalypse, this too is a revelation text, a secret and sacred vision.  It is the story of God, and by reflection, the story of Humankind -- a penetrating psychological reflection on the source of consciousness and the existential predicament of an eternal light indwelling life. It is not an intellectual curiosity, nor is it a text to be "surfed", in the perverse sense of modern internet reading.  As Prof Karen King notes:

In antiquity, readers studied the Secret Revelation of John in order to perfect the divine image of their souls; it was composed, translated, and distributed largely to further salvation—or to refute its claims to aid in salvation. In the modern world, however, it has rarely been read with such goals in mind. It usually finds its place either in the theology of orthodox Christianity as a chapter on Gnostic heresy or in disputes about the historical origins and definition of Gnosticism. Within the academy more narrowly its value largely has to do with intellectual production and prestige, including concerns about tenure and promotion—salvation, if you will, of a rather different sort. As the Secret Revelation of John becomes known more widely, we may expect it to have new and varied impacts on early Christian historiography, constructive theology, and personal appropriation. In any case, modern readers do not stand outside the work's history, but take it up on a new historical stage. (King, p 23)

The resources in this collection are intended to assist study of the Secret Revelation -- the Secret Book, the Apocryphon -- of John, to help it become more widely known, to aid the "personal appropriation" by modern readers who now surprisingly find themselves part of its history. 

In addition to the materials presented here, we strongly advise serious students obtain two excellent books.  The first is Stevan Davies' superb new translation of The Secret Book of John.  Davies has produced a readable translation that is profoundly true to the source material:  it is both accurate and beautiful.  Davies' translation is accompanied by an excellent verse by verse commentary on facing pages.  For any reader, this is the place to start.  The second book is Karen King's The Secret Revelation of John.  This is an extensive and scholarly -- but still very readable -- study of the text and the cultural milieu that influenced and in turn was influenced by the Apocryphon Iohannis.

-- Lance Owens
 

What It’s Really Like to Work at Google

Sodom (Hebrew: סְדוֹם, Modern Sədom Tiberian Səḏôm, Greek Σόδομα Sódoma) and Gomorrah (Hebrew: עֲמוֹרָה, Modern ʿAmora Tiberian Ġəmôrāh/ʿĂmôrāh, Greek ΓόμοῤῥαGómorrha) were cities mentioned in the Book of Genesis and later expounded upon throughout the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and Deuterocanonical sources as well as the Quran.

According to the Torah, the kingdoms of Sodom and Gomorrah were allied with the cities of Admah, Zeboim and Bela. These five cities, also known as the "cities of the plain," were situated on the Jordan river plain in the southern region of the land of Canaan. The Jordan river plain (which correlates to the modern day Dead Sea^[1]) has been compared to that of the garden of Eden,^[Gen.13:10] being a land well-watered and green, suitable for grazing livestock. Divine judgment by Yahweh was then passed upon Sodom and Gomorrah along with two other neighboring cities that were completely consumed by fire and brimstone. Neighboring Zoar was the only city to be spared during that day of judgment.^{[Deut.29:23][Gen.10:19]}

In Christian and Islamic traditions, Sodom and Gomorrah have become synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God's wrath.^{[2][Jude 1:7]} Sodom and Gomorrah have also been used as metaphors for vice and homosexuality viewed as a deviation. The story has therefore given rise to words in several languages, including the English word "sodomy", used in so-called sodomy laws to describe a sexual "crime against nature" consisting of oral or anal sex, either homosexual or heterosexual.^[3]

Course Description:

Certain forms of religious expression from the early centuries of Christianity were eventually condemned by "orthodox" Christian authorities as "heretical." Among the earliest and most interesting of these were a variety of writers and movements who considered the creator God of biblical tradition to be a "lesser god," inferior to a far more transcendent and sublime divine entity. Original writings from such movements are preserved among the works in the important "Nag Hammadi Library," a collection of writings (gospels, revelations, treatises, etc.) discovered in the later 1940's near the Egyptian village of Nag Hammadi, and we will give special attention to this collection and related sources from the period. These often contain interesting and sometimes rather elaborate mythologies about the origin of the world, the nature of the true God and the lesser god(s) of creation, the origin of evil, and the nature and destiny of humanity. At a time when there was still no fixed Christian Bible or uniform organization, such elaborate myths of origin and eschatology constituted some of the earliest attempts at a systematic articulation of Christian doctrine in relation to Jewish tradition and Greco-Roman philosophy. The Nag Hammadi collection includes other writings that do not necessarily--or at least so clearly--involve these mythologies but do exemplify interesting "alternative" Christian literatures claiming to convey "secret" revelation of one sort or another. Fundamental features of what eventually became Christian orthodoxy were shaped through controversy over such doctrines and literatures.

https://catalyst.uw.edu/workspace/maw/23944/150927

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic

 

Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a scholarly term for a set of religious beliefs and spiritual practices common to early Christianity, Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism), and Neoplatonism.

A common characteristic of some of these groups was the teaching that the realisation of Gnosis (esoteric or intuitive knowledge), is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world. They saw the material world as created through an intermediary being (demiurge) rather than directly by God. In most of the systems, this demiurge was seen as imperfect, in others even as evil. Different gnostic schools sometimes identified the demiurge as Adam Kadmon, Ahriman, El, Saklas, Samael, Satan, Yaldabaoth, or Yahweh.

Jesus is identified by some Gnostic sects as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnōsis to the earth.^[1] Others adamantly deny that the supreme being came in the flesh, claiming Jesus to be merely a human who attained divinity through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same.^{[citation needed]} Among the Mandaeans, Jesus was considered a mšiha kdaba or "false messiah" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John the Baptist.^[2] Still other traditions identify Mani and Seth, third son of Adam and Eve, as salvific figures.^[3]

The Christian sects first called "gnostic" a branch of Christianity, however Joseph Jacobs and Ludwig Blau (Jewish Encyclopedia, 1911) note that much of the terminology employed is Jewish and note that this "proves at least that the principal elements of gnosticism were derived from Jewish speculation, while it does not preclude the possibility of new wine having been poured into old bottles."^[4] The movement spread in areas controlled by the Roman Empire and Arian Goths,^[5] and the Persian Empire; it continued to develop in the Mediterranean and Middle East before and during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Conversion to Islam and the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229) greatly reduced the remaining number of Gnostics throughout the Middle Ages, though a few Mandaean communities still exist. Gnostic and pseudo-gnostic ideas became influential in some of the philosophies of various esoteric mystical movements of the late 19th and 20th centuries in Europe and North America, including some that explicitly identify themselves as revivals or even continuations of earlier gnostic groups.

History of Gnosticism
Early Gnosticism
Syrian-Egyptic Gnosticism
Gnosticism in modern times
Proto-Gnostics
Philo
Simon Magus
Cerinthus
Valentinus
Basilides
Gnostic texts
Gnostic Gospels
Nag Hammadi library
Codex Tchacos
Askew Codex
Bruce Codex
Gnosticism and the New Testament
Related articles
Gnosis
Neoplatonism and Gnosticism
Mandaeism
Manichaeism
Bosnian Church
Esoteric Christianity
Jnana

Nag Hammadi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi
(Arabic: نجع حمادى‎, IPA: [ˈnæɡʕe ħæmˈmæːdi]), is a city in Upper Egypt. Nag Hammadi was known as Chenoboskion (Greek: Χηνοβόσκιον) in classical antiquity, meaning "geese grazing grounds". It is located on the west bank of the Nile in the Qena Governorate, about 80 kilometres north-west of Luxor.

It has a population of about 30,000, who are mostly farmers. Sugar and aluminium are produced in Nag Hammadi.

The town of Nag Hammadi was established by Mahmoud Pasha Hammadi, who was a member of the Hammadi family in Sohag, Egypt. Mahmoud Pasha Hammadi was a major landholder in Sohag, and known for his strong opposition to the British occupation.

Mahmoud Pasha Hammadi created Nag Hammadi for the indigenous people from Sohag who were forced to abandon their homeland by the British occupation. In recognition of this, the new town was given the name "Hammadi".

The Nag Hammadi Library

Main article: Nag Hammadi library

Nag Hammadi is best known for being the site where local farmers found a sealed earthenware jar containing thirteen leather-bound papyrus codices, together with pages torn from another book, in December 1945. The mother of the farmers burned one of the books and parts of a second (including its cover). Thus twelve of these books (one missing its cover) and the loose pages survive.^[1] The writings in these codices, dating back to the 2nd century AD,^[2] comprised 52 mostly Gnostic tractates (treatises), believed to be a library hidden by monks from the nearby monastery of St Pachomius when the possession of such banned writings, denounced as heresy, was made an offence.^{[citation needed]}

The contents of the Coptic-bound codices were written in Coptic, though the works were probably all translations from Greek. Most famous of these works must be the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete copy.

All the texts have been public since 1975, and are available online.

Codex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex

Christian Bible as codex

A codex (Latin caudex for "trunk of a tree" or block of wood, book; plural codices) is a book in the format used for modern books, with multiple quires or gatherings (sheets of paper or vellum in multiples of two which are folded and stitched through) typically bound together and given a cover.

Developed by the Romans from wooden writing tablets, its gradual replacement of the scroll, the dominant form of book in the ancient world, has been termed the most important advance in the history of the book prior to the invention of printing.^[1] The spread of the codex is often associated with the rise of Christianity, which adopted the format for the Bible early on.^[2] First described by the 1st-century AD Roman poet Martial, who praised its convenient use, the codex achieved numerical parity with the scroll around AD 300, and had completely replaced it throughout the now Christianised Greco-Roman world by the 6th century.^[3]

The codex holds considerable practical advantages over other book formats, such as compactness, sturdiness, ease of reference (a codex is random access, as opposed to a scroll, which is sequential access), and especially economy; unlike the scroll, both recto and verso could be used for writing.^[4] Although the change from rolls to codices roughly coincides with the transition from papyrus to parchment as favourite writing material, the two developments are quite unconnected. In fact, any combination of codices and scrolls on the one hand with papyrus and parchment on the other is technically feasible and well attested from the historical record.^[5]

Although technically any modern paperback is a codex, the term is now reserved for manuscript (hand-written) books which were produced from Late Antiquity through the Middle Ages. The scholarly study of these manuscripts from the point of view of the bookbinding craft is called codicology, while the study of ancient documents in general is called paleography.

carbon nation is a documentary movie about climate change SOLUTIONS. Even if you doubt the severity of the impact of climate change or just don't buy it at all, this is still a compelling and relevant film that illustrates how SOLUTIONS to climate change also address other social, economic and national security issues. You'll meet a host of entertaining and endearing characters along the way.

•   carbon nation is an optimistic, solutions-based, non-preachy, non-partisan, big tent film that shows tackling climate change boosts the economy, increases national & energy security and promotes health & a clean environment.
• Public opinion is sliding the wrong way - far fewer people are concerned about climate change than even a year ago. We’ve made carbon nation to give a majority of people an entertaining, informed and pragmatic primer about why it’s incredibly smart to be a part of the new, low-carbon economy: it’s good business.
• carbon nation's optimism and pragmatism are appealing across the political spectrum. While other good films have been about problems, blame and guilt, carbon nation is a film that celebrates solutions, inspiration and action.
  
  
   

quotes from carbon nation:

“Do I think man is causing global warming? No, but that doesn’t make any difference. I want clean water and I want clean air. And that’s so simple.” THE WILD ALASKAN

“Climate change in fact is a national security issue. This is no longer the purview of Birkenstock-wearing tree huggers. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” THE ARMY COLONEL

“So if you don’t give a damn about the environment, do it because you’re a greedy bastard and you just want cheap power.” THE BIOCHEMICAL ENGINEER

http://www.joongang.ca/bbs/board.php?bo_table=g100t100&wr_id=271

재외선거 국외부재자 신고 방법



선거일전 150일부터 60일까지 국외부재자신고서 제출


▶ 국내에 주민등록이 되어 있거나 국내거소신고를 한 대한민국 국민 중 외국에서 투표하려는 선거권자는 ‘국외부재자 신고’를 하여야 재외선거에 참여할 수 있습니다. = 외국에 머물거나 거주하는 재외국민 중 ‘국외부재자 신고’를 하고자 하는 선거권자는 대통령선거 또는 임기만료에 따른 국회의원선거를 실시하는 때마다 그 선거일전 150일부터 선거일 전 60일까지 『국외부재자신고서』를 공관에 제출하여야 하며(우편으로도 제출할 수 있음), 이 기간에 신고를 하지 않으면 해외에서 투표할 수 없습니다. 2012년 4월 11일 실시하는 제19대 국회의원선거의 국외부재자 신고기간은 2011년 11월 13일부터 2012년 2월 11일까지 입니다.

※ 국외부재자 신고기간에 국내에 머물거나 거주하는 선거권자 중‘국외부재자신고’를 하고자 하는 사람은 『국외부재자 신고서』를 관할 구.시.군의 장에게 제출하면 됨.(우편제출 가능)

▶국외부재자 신고시 기재사항 및 첨부서류는 다음과 같습니다. = 국외부재자 신고를 하려는 사람은 신고시 『국외부재자 신고서』에 ①성명 ②주민등록번호(주민등록이 되어 있지 아니한 사람은 국내거소신고번호를 말함) ③주소 ④거소(로마자 대문자로 기재)를 기재하여야 하며, 대한민국 국민임을 증명하기 위해 여권사본을 첨부하여야 합니다.

시민권자도 선거운동을 할 수 있나요?

「공직선거법」제60조제1항에 따라 국민이 아닌 외국인은 선거운동을 할 수 없습니다.

 

http://ok.nec.go.kr/global/cts/view.do?menuNo=2335&lang=ko

2012년 재외선거 주요일정을 알려주세요!

1. 재외국민이 투표할 수 있는 최초 선거는 2012년 4월 11일 실시하는 제19대 국회의원선거입니다.
• ※ 제19대 국회의원선거[2012. 4. 11. 실시]
  • - 재외선거인 등록신청 및 국외부재자 신고 기간 : 2011. 11. 13 ~ 2012. 2. 11
  • - 재외투표기간 : 2012. 3. 28 ~ 2012. 4. 2.
  • - 재외투표기간 : 2012. 3. 28 ~ 2012. 4. 2.
• ※ 제18대 대통령선거[2012. 12. 19. 실시]
• - 재외선거인 등록신청 및 국외부재자 신고 기간 : 2012. 7. 22 ~ 2012. 10. 20
• - 재외투표기간 : 2012. 12. 5 ~ 2012. 12. 10.
• - 재외투표기간 : 2012. 12. 5 ~ 2012. 12. 10.

재외선거인과 국외부재자신고인은 어떻게 다른가요?

1. 재외선거인

   - 국내에 주민등록이 되어 있지 아니하고 국내거소신고도 하지 아니한 사람을 말합니다.

2. 국외부재자신고인

   - 국외여행자, 유학생, 상사원, 주재원 등 국내에 주민등록 또는 국내거소신고가 되어 있는 사람 중 외국에서 투표하고자 하는 사람을 말합니다.

   - 재외선거인과 국외부재자신고인은 등록신청·신고 절차가 다르고, 참여할 수 있는 선거도 다릅니다. 참고로, 영주권자 중 국내거소신고를 한 사람은 국외부재자 신고를 하여야 합니다.

재외선거인 등록신청 자세히 보기 국외부재자 신고 자세히 보기

 

 

 

재외선거인 등록신청을 우편 또는 대리로 가능한지?

재외선거인은 본인이 직접 공관을 방문하여 등록신청을 하여야 합니다.

재외선거인 등록신청 자세히 보기

투표 시 지참해야하는 신분증명서는 여권만 가능한가요?

아닙니다. 여권뿐만 아니라 주민등록증·공무원증·운전면허증 등 사진이 첩부되어 본인임을 확인할 수 있는 대한민국의 관공서나 공공기관이 발행한 증명서 또는 사진이 첩부되고 성명과 생년월일이 기재되어 본인임을 확인할 수 있는 거류국의 정부가 발행한 증명서로도 가능합니다.

2012년 한해에 국회의원선거와 대통령선거가 잇달아 실시되는데 재외선거인 등록신청을 각각 해야 하는지요?

네, 재외선거인 등록신청을 각각 하여야 합니다.

출처 및 기타 Q&A http://ok.nec.go.kr/global/cts/view.do?menuNo=2335&lang=ko 

protesters in Alexandria

올 해 초 1월의 이집트 혁명을 기억하는가? 아 그 희열을 기억하는가. 사실상 이번 혁명 이전까지만해도 이집트에 대한 관심은 전혀 없었다. 하지만 그들의 움직임은 세계를 집중시켰고 한 나라의 정권을 그야말로 뒤집었다.
하지만 모든 이슈가 그러하듯 관심은 불같이 타오르고 쉽게 사그라든다. 나 또한 한동안 이집트의 모습을 찾지 않았다. 하지만 근래 다시 읽게되는 이집트의 기사들은 당시의 희열과 그들이 겪을 어려움에 대한 상당한 아쉬움을 일으킨다.


Hosni Mubarak 2009

2월 Hosni Mubarak 의 정권이 내려오고 정권은 Supreme Council of the Armed Forces 로 넘어갔다. 그렇게 나라는 6개월 후의 선거까지 military junta 에게 넘어갔다. 정권이 바뀐 후에도 시위는 계속된다.


2011 2 8 혁명자체와 시위들의 가장 중심적인 위치였던 Tahirir Square

카이로 Cairo 의 시위는 이 후 시민들의 자발적인 청소 "Friday of cleaning" 와 같은 선도적인 모습 또한 보여주었다.


wikipedia 에 상당히 유용한 테이블이 있다 -
시위의 요구와 그것의 수용 및 상황 Status

사회적 움직임이 이렇게도 빠르게 크게 momentum - 속도와 움직임을 가질 수 있다는 것이 놀랍다.
시작은 Canadian 캐나다의 activist 단체인 Adbusters 로 인해 시작되었다. 2011 9 17 뉴욕의 Zuccotti Park - 뉴욕의 Wall Street Financial district 의 모임이 첫 시위였다. 시위 목적은 사회와 경제적 불균형, 낮은 취업률, 욕심과 부패, 대기업 corporations 들의 부정적 사회영향 - 특히나 financial services 금융업과 government 정부에 대한 불만과 반감표현이었다.

시위자들의 slogal 문구는 We are the 99% 이었다. 이것은 자라나는 경제적 영향의 불균형 - 미국의 부유한 1% 층과 나머지를 의미하는 것.
이후로 이 시위는 영국의 British student protests of 2010, 그리스 Greece 와 스페인 Spain 의 anti-austerity protest of the 'indignados' (indignants), 그리고 중동의 Arab Spring protests 들을 prototype 견본으로 삼았다. 이 후로 Occupy Wall Street (OWS) 운동 - 이와같은 leaderless 주도자 없는 운동들이 미국의 다른 도시들과 세계 곳곳에서 일어나고 있다.
시위자 인구에는 liberals, political independents, anarchists, socialists, liberatarians, environmentalist 등 다양한 의견의 복합적인 모임이다.

 "A few weeks ago, the Alliance for Global Justice, a Washington-based nonprofit, agreed to sponsor Occupy Wall Street and lend it its tax-exempt status, so donors could write off contributions. That means the Alliance for Global Justice's board has final say on spending, though it says it's not involved in decisions and will only step in if the protesters want to spend money on something that might violate their tax-exempt status."^[

규모가 커진만큼 금전적 투자도 들어오는 상황.

내가 생활하는 Seattle 에서만해도 Occupy Seattle 이라는 움직임이 일어나고 있다. 오큐파이의 특징이라면 Camping. 텐트를 치고 한 지역이서 몇 주 씩 생활한다. 몇 주 전에는 Downtown Seattle 에 있는 protesters 시위자들을 체포하겠다고 Seattle 의 시장이 몇 번이나 으름장을 놓았다. 그 날 밤 모두를 체포하겠다고 시장은 선포하였던 어느 날 - 나와 친구는 Downtown Seattle의 지역으로 구경을 갔다. 경찰들이 오십여명, 시위자들 또한 오십여명 구경꾼들 오십여명 정도의 인구가 자정이 훌쩍 넘은 시간임에도 불구하고 모여있었다. 하지만 그 날 밤 체포는 일어나지 않았고 시위자들은 환호했다. 
이 후로도 시위자들은 계속 camping 을 지속했고, Downtown 뿐 아니라 Capitol Hill 에 들렸던 적에도 그들의 캠프와 텐트들의 모습을 볼 수 있었다. 참여 인구가 높고 꾸준한 운동이라는 생각이 든다. 
이에 대응하는 방법들은 주마다 법이 다르고, 시마다, 시장마다 다른 모습을 보여주고있다. 와중 관심을 많이 받는 주제는 use of pepper spray. pepper spray 의 사용이 unconstitutional 하다는 내용이 있었는데, 그에도 불구하고 경찰들은 이것을 사용한다. 이렇게 인권 문제와도 연관이 많이 지어졌다.

 
개인적으로 좋아하는 Naomi Klein 이라는 사회운동가 또한 이에 상당한 영향을 미치고 있다.

"This is a young movement still in the process of determining just how powerful it is, and that power will determine what demands are possible. Small movements have to settle for small reforms: big ones have the freedom to dream."

The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea commented that the Occupy Wall Street movement were "in protest against exploitation and oppression by capital, shaking all fabrics of society."

우리나라는 GATT(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade)와 WTO(World Trade Organization)로 대표되는 다자무역체제의 가장 큰 수혜국이며, 우리의 경제발전은 대외교역을 통해 성장을 이룬 전형적인 사례로 인용되고 있습니다. 또한 우리나라는 명실상부한 통상국가로서 지속적인 경제발전을 위해서는 교역의 확대가 필수적입니다. 요컨대 열린 세계시장이 우리의 경제적 생존과 직결되는 것입니다. 최근의 세계 통상환경을 보면, 자유무역협정(FTA: Free Trade Agreement)을 중심으로 한 지역주의(Regionalism)가 가속화되고 있는 상황입니다. 이러한 지역주의의 경향은 과거 GATT체제보다 현재의 WTO 체제에서 오히려 급속도로 확산되는 경향을 보이고 있습니다. 각국의 FTA 체결 경쟁은 현재 진행 중인 도하개발어젠다(DDA) 협상이 의미있는 합의 도출에 난항을 겪고있어 많은 국가들이 양자간 지역협정에 의존하는 경향이 더욱 뚜렷해졌습니다.

이러한 상황에서 우리나라가 적극적으로 FTA를 추진해야 하는 이유를 크게 둘로 나누어 말씀드릴 수 있습니다. 우선 1992년 EU의 출범과 1994년 NAFTA의 발효를 계기로 지역주의가 세계적으로 확산되면서 FTA 네트워크 역외국가로서의 피해를 최소화하고, 나아가 이러한 도전에 적극적으로 대응하기 위해 FTA를 추진하게 되었다는 점을 지적할 수 있습니다. 특히 우리의 대외경제 규모가 국내총생산(GDP)의 80% 이상을 차지하고 있는 점을 고려할 때(2010년 국내총생산(GDP)에서 대외교역(수출+수입)이 차지하는 비중은 87.9%), 주요 경쟁국이 FTA를 앞다투어 추진하고 있는 통상환경 하에서 우리나라가 기존 수출시장을 유지하고 새로운 시장에 진출하기 위해 FTA 확대에 전력을 다하는 것은 당연하다고 할 수 있겠습니다. 주요 교역국이 여타 국가와 먼저 FTA를 체결한다면 우리 상품은 고관세 적용에 따른 가격경쟁력의 저하로 점차 그 시장을 잃을 수밖에 없기 때문입니다. 따라서 우리 상품의 수출경쟁력을 유지하고 안정적인 해외시장을 확보하기 위해서는 주요 교역국가들과의 FTA 체결이 필수적입니다.

둘째로 보다 적극적인 측면에서, 능동적인 시장개방과 자유화를 통해 국가 전반의 시스템을 선진화하고 경제체질을 강화하기 위해 FTA 추진이 필요합니다. 우리 경제가 양적인 성장뿐만 아니라 질적인 발전을 통해 진정한 선진 경제로 거듭나기 위해서는 우리의 주요 통상정책으로 자리 잡은 FTA를 능동적·공세적으로 활용할 필요가 있는 것입니다. 전세계적으로도 각국은 산업경쟁력과 국가경쟁력을 신장시키는 주요 정책수단으로서 FTA 및 이에 수반되는 무역자유화(trade liberalization)가 효과적임을 깨닫고 적극적으로 FTA 네트워크 구축에 나서고 있습니다.

정부는 2003년이래 적극적으로 FTA를 추진해왔으며, 특히 거대경제권과 자원부국 및 주요 거점 경제권을 중심으로 전략적인 FTA 체결 확대 전략을 통한 FTA 네트워크를 구축해 나가고 있습니다. 동시다발적인 FTA 추진을 통해 그동안 지체된 FTA 체결 진도를 단기간 내에 만회하였으며, 현재 FTA 네트워크의 글로벌화를 위해 노력하고 있습니다. 이를 통해 우리 기업의 세계시장 확보를 지원하고, 동아시아 FTA 허브국가로 발돋음하려 합니다.

내용면에서는 FTA 체결 효과를 극대화하기 위해 상품분야에서의 관세철폐 뿐만 아니라, 서비스, 투자, 정부조달, 지적재산권, 기술표준 등을 포함하는 포괄적인 FTA를 지향하고 있습니다. 또한 WTO의 상품과 서비스관련 규정에 일치하는 높은 수준의 FTA 추진을 지향함으로써 다자주의를 보완하고, FTA를 통해 국내제도의 개선 및 선진화를 도모하고 있습니다.

이 모든 노력에도 불구하고 FTA가 성공적으로 추진되기 위해서는 무엇보다도 국민 여러분의 이해와 지지가 필요합니다. 이러한 인식 하에 정부는 2004년 6월 자유무역협정체결절차규정(대통령훈령)을 제정하여 FTA 추진과정의 투명성을 제고하고, FTA 추진과정에 각계 전문가와 업계의 이익을 최대한 반영하고 있습니다. 앞으로도 정부는 이해관계자의 의견을 구체적으로 듣고 이를 협상에 조화롭게 반영하기 위해 노력해 나가겠습니다.

정부는 세계적인 FTA 확산추세에 대응하여 안정적인 해외시장을 확보하고 개방을 통해 우리 경제의 경쟁력을 강화하기 위해 FTA를 적극 추진한 결과 칠레, 싱가포르, EFTA, ASEAN, 인도, EU, 페루 등 44개국과의 FTA가 발효되었고, 2011.7.1일에는 한-EU FTA가 잠정발효 되었습니다. 또한 2011.8.1일에 한·페루 FTA가 발효되었고, 미국과는 2007.6월 협정 서명, 2011.2월 추가협상 합의문서 서명 후, 장기간 지연되어 온 한-미 FTA의 비준을 위한 양국내 절차가 진행중에 있습니다. 또한 현재 호주, 뉴질랜드, 터키, 콜롬비아, 캐나다, GCC, 멕시코 등 12개국과 협상을 진행 중입니다.

FTA 종합지원포탈은 따로 있다 http://www.ftahub.go.kr/
농업의 피해를 예상하면서 국내지원대책 > 피해보전 아래에 걸린 분야들은
농업인
어업인
제조업 서비스업 경영인
근로자

피해 ... 후 퍼주기 식이의 정책이라는 의견이 있었다.

경쟁력 강화지원에 대한 내용도 제법 있는데 얼만큼 실현성이 있는 정책들인지는 의문.
해당 종사자 분들은 유용히 활용하시기를.



참여마당 Q&A 가 재미있다 http://www.fta.go.kr/new/community/qna.asp
답변이 올라오기는 하는 듯. 한 가지 담아오자면

Q: 처음 배너에서 한미 FTA에서 바뀌는 상황들에 대해서 보고 궁금증이 생겨서
글을 씁니다.
음... 장점만 쓰신것같은데
안좋아 지는 사항들에 대해서는 음.. 전혀 거론을 안해주셨는데요
궁금해서 그런대 따로라도 답글을 주셨으면 좋겠습니다.


A: 안녕하세요. FTA 민원 담당자입니다.

FTA가 발효되면, 농축수산업 분야에 일부 피해 발생이 예상됩니다. 이에 따라 정부는 기획재정부 주관으로 외교통상부, 농림수산식품부 등 관계부처가 한·미 FTA 타결(2007.4월)을 계기로 피해산업의 경쟁력 강화 등을 위해 2007년 11월 “FTA 국내보완대책”을 마련하여 2008년부터 착실히 시행하고 있습니다.

동 국내보완대책은 농수산업 분야에서 10년간(2008~2017년) 21.1조원 규모 지원과 제조·서비스 분야에서 무역구조조정제도를 통한 구조조정 지원을 포함하고 있습니다.

또한, 한·미 FTA 비준과 발효를 앞두고, 2011.8월 지원 규모 확대(1조원 증액), 무역조정지원제도 강화(피해기준 완화) 등 피해산업에 대한 보완대책을 개선하였습니다.


감사합니다.

FTA 비준안 강행처리

FTA 비준안 강행처리는 이번 정권의 5번째 강행처리:
1. 2008,12,13 새해 예산안처리
2. 미디어법 처리 - 대기업, 신문의 방송 진출
3. 2009.12.31 - 2010 예산안 부수법안
4. (박희태 국회의장 취임 후) 2010.12.08 새해 예산안
5. 2011.11.22 한미 FTA 비준안
해마다 예산안에 목숨이군 ..


일단 몇 가지 느낀 점
최루탄 - 장난하 ..
강행해야하는 이유?
3개월 후 문제조항 재협상을 주도 할 것인가 ?
검색하며 느낀 점은 구체적인 자료 찾기가 어렵다는 것 .. 흠 이것은 언론 및 전문가들의 부족함 및 나의 검색능력 부족함
농업 부문 숫자들 - 07년 숫자들은 몇 있었지만 자료가 쉽게 있지는 않은 듯
찾은 것이라면: 한미 FTA 상세 설명 자료 2011.7  (외교통상부) http://www.fta.go.kr/pds/fta_korea/usa/kor/2K_books.pdf
범위가 넓다 ... 링크 다수




한 미 자유무역협정 (FTA)에 대한 국회의 비준동의안을 강행처리
국회의장이 질서유지권을 발동한 가운데 직권상정
기자석 출입 봉쇄 - 언론 통제
"11.22 기습작전' - 4분의 어메이징 스피드
체결되면 영구 협정
2008년 금융위기 후의 상활 고려 부족
민주당 책임론

ISD 투자자국가제소조항
국가 정부의 조치 vs 기업적 손실이득
ex (호주) 정부 금연유도 법안 - 담배값 특정 디자인 의무화 vs Phillip Morris

'근본적으로 미국이든 유럽연합이든 수준이 너무 높은 나라들하고 자유무역협정을 맺어버리면 결국 우리나라가 장기적으로 발전하는 데 손해를 본다는 생각 ... 지금 개방을 완전히 그쪽들하고 해버리면 현재 우리나라가 세계적인 수준에 올라가 있는 자동차, 조선, 전자 이런데서는 어느 정도 효과가 있겠지만 우리가 앞으로 개발해야 될 산업들, 결국 우리가 개발 못한 첨단산업들은 결국 개발을 영원히 못 하게 되는 것' 이라고 주장
'지금 국자투자자소송제 ISD 에 너무 초점이 맞춰져 있는 것 같다. 더 큰 문제를 못 보고 지엽적인 문제를 가지고 싸우는게 아닌가 ... 지금 WTO 도 있고 다 있는데 왜 우리나라가 나서서 국제다자간 질서를 먼저 흐리고 다녀야 ... 이렇게 양국간 자유무역협정을 하는 것은 순수한 자유무역이론 입장에서 봐도 맞지 않는 것... 후진죽하고 하면 우리한테는 사실 이익이다. 자유 무역이라는 게 수준이 비슷한 나라들끼리 하면 서로 자극도 되고 시장도 넓어지고 아주 좋은데 수준이 안 맞는 나라들끼리 하면 후진국이 장기적으로는 손해'

장하준 교수 인터뷰 중

글로벌 불균형을 수출로 풀려고 하는 것은 당연하지만 왜 미국의 수출 경쟁력이 약해졌는지, 글로벌 불균형의 진정한 원인이 무엇인지 살펴보아야한다 ... GE 같은 제조업체도 GE 캐피털과 같은 금융업으로 대부분 이익은 금융에서 난다는 것... 그래서 GE 의 경쟁력은 형편없어졌다. 손쉬운 자산투기, 소매금융업의 이익률이 더 높다면 제조업에 힘을 기울일 이유가 없다.
... 내부의 개혁없이 수출을 늘리려면 다른 나라에 압력을 가할 수 밖에 없다. 중국에 대한 환율 압력이나 한국의 자동차 규제완화를 요구하는 것... 최근 경기부양을 위해 대대적으로 착수한 양적 완화 Quantitative Easing 은 미국 통화를 증발해서 다른 나라의 통화를 평가절상 시키겠다는 것.
정태인의 '모지리의 경제방' khan archive

 전반적인 내용이지만 ... :


고도로 발전된 기술과 자본, 글로벌 환경하에서, 글로벌 대기업들의 투자가 국내 일자리를 늘린다는것은 어쩌면 환상에 가까운 일이다. 기업의 투자가 기계의 자리는 만들지라도, 사람의 노동가치를 올려주지는 못한다고 본다.
일정수준까지의 노동집약적 산업은, 투자는 곧 일자리 창출을 의미하지만,
선진국, 특히나 글로벌 기업들의 투자는 그것이 곧 일자리 증가를 의미하지 않는다.
공장자동화를 추진할수도 있고, 혁신적인 기술과 경영을 통해서 오히려 인력을 줄이고 그에 따라 비용을 줄이는 방식을 추구하는것이 자본의 논리다. 그것은 산업사회 내내 진행된 사안이고, 정보화 사회에서는 더욱 가속화 되는 문제라고 생각된다.
열사람 백사람의 노동력을 대신해주는것이 현재의 기계화 정보화가 담고 있는 혁신적 생산기술의 발전이라고 본다.
누가 삽들고 땅파는 50~100명의 노동력을 원하겠는가, 차라리 잘나온 굴삭기 한대가 훨씬 일도 많이 잘하고, 부리기도 쉽다. 수많은 사람을 관리 감독하는거보다, 말잘듣는 기계한대가 훨 편한거다.
누가 사무실에 흰셔츠에 넥타이 맨 고학력자 수십명을 모시겠는가?
잘 갖추어진 사무자동화 시스템이 훨씬 경영자 입장에서는 편리하고 쉬운것이다.
그런 생산의 현장에서 사람의 역할이란, 기계와 시스템이 이루어놓은 많은 일들의 뒷정리와 조정만을 하는것이다.
단순 반복적 기술은 기계에 의해서 대체된다. 또한 단순 반복적 기술이 아니라고 여겼던 부분들도 , 정보기술의 발전속에서 기계에 의해서 대체된다.
기업, 사회 자체가 그런 단순 반복에 대해서 극도의 알레르기 반응을 보이고,
창조적 지식인을 예찬한다.
하지만 필자가 생각하기엔, 그런 창조적 지식인예찬 자체가 사람을 더 이상한 방향으로 이끌고 있다고 생각한다. 반복 속에서 인간은 지식을 얻고, 그러한 반복속에서 얻어진 경험과 지식속에서 새로운 발견 발명이 있다고 생각한다.
(인간이 무언인가를 창조할수 있다고 하는것은 어쩌면 오만이라고도 생각한다. 단지 존재하는것을 발견하고 응용할 뿐이라고 생각한다. 존재하지 않는것을 인간이 만들어낸적이 단 한번도 없다고 생각한다. 단지 존재하거나, 존재 가능한 부분을 인간이 발견하고 응용한 것이라고 개인적으로 생각한다.)

자본과 기술의 발전은 점점더 인간을 노동으로부터 유리시키고, 더하여 그것을 막을 방법은 없어 보인다. 아무리 수백자루의 삽을 들고 가서 포크레인과 땅파기 시합을 해도 이기기 어려운 것이 현실이다.
보다더 중대한 문제는 이러한 기술과 사회의 진보에 대해서 인류가 어떻게 받아들이고 그에 맞게 구조를 갖추어가는 것인가 라고 본다.
"자본주의"라는 경쟁의 지표보다도 더 상위의 개념이라고 필자는 생각한다.
본질적으로 경쟁이라는 것도, 사각의 링이든, 필드이든, 구장이든, 혹은 시장이든, 그 바탕에 경쟁을 할만한 구조와 요건이 갖추어져 있을때 하는것이다.
링도 무너지고, 심판도 떠났는데, 그위에서 권투시합을 하겟다는것은, 경쟁을 하겠다는것이 아니요, 죽고 사는 막싸움을 하겠다는 셈이고, 인간이 아니요 우리는 동물과 다를바 없다고 자임하는것이나 다름없다.
자본의 한계란것은, 양극화속에서 시장의 수요가 지극히 하강되어 더이상의 구조자체가 유지 될수 없음에도, 이익 중심의 경쟁만이 살길이라고 부르짖는것이다.
경쟁이 결코 그러한 경쟁을 가능케하는 제반조건의 상위개념이 아님에도 말이다.

최근에 미국에서는 오바마의 개혁에 대한 급격한 제동이 걸리고, 또한 의보개혁, 언론의 공격, 부당한 월가의 행위에 대한 제재의 반발등도 이어지고 있다. 필자로선 납득할수 없는 부분이다.
지금까지의 상황으로 보건대, 미국이란 나라는 극도로 금융자본의 이익만 치중하고 제조업 중산 서민엔 무관심한 나라였고, 이것의 결과는 전세계를 미국의 자본이 지배하다 시피할정도로 금융자본은 막강하지만, 제조업 중산서민층은 부실하다. 쌍둥이 적자와 소비를 통해서 미국의 중산서민층을 부양해 왔지만, 이제는 그런 방향이 가능하지 않을만큼, 전세계적으로 달러가 많이 풀렸다.
필자는 지금의 금융위기에서 유로화에 대한 우려는 착시일 뿐이고, 본질은 달러의 신뢰성, 기축통화로서의 지속 가능성이라고 생각한다. 그런 본질적 문제엔 손도 못대고 있다고 생각한다. 각설하고...

MB정부가 아무리 대기업에 일자리를 늘려달라고 해도 대기업은 그럴 능력이 없다.
기업이 자본주의 논리의 일방주의로부터 탈피해서, 사회적 공헌을 늘려간다면, 달라질수 있겟지만, 본질적으로 경쟁의 논리에선, 더 적은 몸집으로 더 높은 효율을 추구할수 박에 없는것이 기업의 생리라고 생각한다.
때문에, 아무리 각을 세워서 대기업에 일자리 만들라고 해봣자 공염불이라고 생각한다.

오히려 세금 제대로 잘 거두어서 그 재원으로 중소기업을 지원하고,
보다더 근본적으로는 붕괴된 내수 시장을 살릴수 있는 소득 재분배 정책이 뒷받침 되는것이라고 필자는 생각한다.

한토마 개시글 작성자 ksisdn

미국으로써는 현재 수출상승 고용회복이 현재 절실할 것이다. 하지만 사실상 미국의 대부분 이익창출 기업들은 outsourcing 을 통해 해외운영된다. 미국이 할 수 있는 중요 한 것 중 중국과의 원만한 관계일 것이고 그 과정에 한국이 있다 - 자동차 및 전자 등을 이용한 모델 테스팅이랄까. 아, 위험하다.


농업 (1차 산업) 을 찾아보니 ..

1500여개 모든 농산물 개방
현재 정부 농업 대책 중 하나는 FTA 로 농가소득 줄엇을 시 지원
폐업이나 전업 시 지원
영농업자 폐업이나 전업에 대한 피해 보전 받지만 농어촌 자체파괴가 문제
축산업자의 투자만큼 영농, 축산 그만두면서 지원 받아가게된다면 농어촌 경제는 정부 의지와 반대방향, 국고낭비
자립기반 및 연구개발 기술지원 필요
일단 대책 자체가 소잃고 고치는 negative 대책 임으로 불합리적

FTA 외국산 농산물과 축산물로 인한 가격경쟁 - 이에 따르는 품질변화
미국등 외국 농산물 정부 보조로 생산될 경우 국산품보다 상당히 저렴
캐나다 인삼의 경우 수출을 위해 다량 재배 및 수출

이미 현재 국내, 칠레산, 중국산, 호주산 농산물들이 넘쳐남
농업시장 위험


이에 따라서 우리나라가 쿠바 Cuba 의 이바나 처럼 '전체 농업 생산을 유기농으로만 경작하도록 입법해야 한다' 는 의견이 있었는데, 실현 가능성이 의문. 물론 국가 사서 고생하는 것 아닌가 싶기도하고. 물론 환경도 고려한 이상적인 제안. 이외 구체적인 FTA 전재하의 농업 경제 촉진 제안들이 있음. http://blog.paran.com/guamcafe/46107008 


미 정부 홈페이지에 - "FACT SHEET: Increasing US Auto Exports and Growing US Jobs Through the  US Korea Trade Agreement'
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/fact_sheet_increasing_us_auto_exports_us_korea_free_trade_agreement.pdf
미국이 미국민을 위하여 작성된 것이니 만큼 상대입장이기도 한 나로써는, 흠.
일단 훑어 보자면 몇 가지 흥미로운 것은 ..
자동차의 경우 환경관련 법들에 있어 미국의 것을 더 고려 할 것 - 미국 측의 비용감소
세금 감소 가능성
car tarrif elimination
truck tariff elimination
tariffs on electric cars

이 외에도 .... 미 정부 홈페이지 "FACT SHEET: The US Korea Free Trade Agreement; More American Jobs, Faster Economic Recovery through Exports'
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/fact_sheet_overview_us_korea_free_trade_agreement.pdf

제목이 급하군 ..

The Agreement would eliminate tariffs on over 95 percent of industrial and consumer goods within five years.

이외 일자리 창출, 감세 및 면세, 자동차, 제조업, 서비스, 농산업, 금융업, 투자, 노동법, government procurement, 환경 등등........ 특별히 세부적인 사항은 아니지만 전반적 내용.

'FACT SHEET: Economic Value of the US Korea Trade Agreement' 도 있음.
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta

USDA 에 가니 ..... Foreign Agricultural Service 밑에 US Korea Trade Agreement (Obama 의 Speech 비디오도 있음)
http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/us-koreata.asp
여기도 FACT SHEET 따위가 있었으니
http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/KoreaTA/KORUS%20One-Page%20Fact%20Sheet%2003-11.pdf

한미 FTA 상세 설명 자료
2011.7
http://www.fta.go.kr/pds/fta_korea/usa/kor/2K_books.pdf

의약 분야내용은 천천히 보기로 ..


이외에,
육류 평균 세율 25% , 높게는 40~70%
낙농품 40~80%
과일 과채류 ~45%
채소인삼 특수작물 130~ 평균 200~300%
미국산 곡식들의 관세가 현자로써 상당히 높음 (300~800%)
이것들이 10년에서 15년 안에 철폐 ....... 영원히 흠

우리나라 대미수출 30개 품목 관세 즉시철폐
라면, 배, 조제식품, 주류, 음료 등.
http://blog.naver.com/xodrho?Redirect=Log&logNo=20142321719

몇 가지 부문적 정보:
Negative list
개성공단
의약품 분야 허가, 특허 연계제도
스냅백 snapback
에 대한 전반적 설명 
http://euteamo84.blog.me/150124830955




경향신문 한미 FTA 아카이브 - 실시간 업데이트 및 자료 http://fta.khan.kr 


한미 FTA 비준 국회 표결자 의원 명단 및 지역 - 이걸 숨기려.. http://v.daum.net/link/22756862?CT=RIGHT_READ 



기타 자료 출처
http://blog.daum.net/mifaff/13429922
http://pressgom.tistory.com/380
http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201111222133215&code=990101
http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201111221308511&code=920100

article from http://alisina.org/einstein-and-islam/

In a debate with a learned mullah from Iran my opponent quoted a passage that he claimed is from Albert Einstein.

“Quran is not a book of algebra or geometry but is a collection of rules which guides human beings to the right way, the way which the greatest philosophers are unable to decline it.”

I made as search and found that this passage is quoted in many Islamic sites. However, the passage is falsely attributed to Einstein. Einstein’s views of God and religion were radically opposed to Islam. In the following passage he explains his beliefs.

“The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive form — this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men. I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after his own — a God, in short, is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear of ridiculous egotism.”

Clearly, Einstein did not believe in a personal god that rewards and punishes, neither he believed in the afterlife. These concepts are fundamental to Islam. Without a personal God and without the Day of Judgment, a lustful paradises and a tormenting hell Islam becomes meaningless.

Islam is entirely based on fear. No other words are repeated more frequently in the Quran than “hell” and “Day of Judgment.” I have debated with thousands of Muslims, some very educated, and some not. The undertone of all these debates was the punishment of God that awaits me. It’s this fear that has paralyzed Muslims and has made them helpless. As long as this fear persists they will not doubt Islam and will not be able to set themselves free.

Einstein believed religion is the product of ignorance and fear. Those comments about Islam are falsely attributed to him. But that does not surprise me. Almost everything Muslims say is a lie. It’s unbelievable that one cannot find a word of truth in this religion.

What surprises me is that this erudit mullah in his previous message to me had posted a long list of all the quotes from several anti-Semites such as Gustav Le Bon and others, to portray that Jews are the most wicked and evil people in the world, utterly dehumanizing them and demonizing them. Le Bon’s theories about race and crowd control greately influenced Hitler in writing his Mein Kampf and it is said the Musolini kept Le Bon’s book by his bedside.

This educated man even believes that Allah transformed the Jews into pigs and monkeys. It’s amazing what Islam does to human brain. And when I tried to prove him wrong, reminding him of all the great things the Jews have done for mankind, he said, aha! Now we know that you are a Jew. Yet among all the people, he picked Albert Einstein, a Jew, to falsely attribute those words of praise about Islam to. If Einstein is racially inferior, as Le Bon says, and as wile as the Quran says, why quote him? If as a Jew he is not worth anything, why should his opinion about Islam matter? The absurdity of the Muslim mind never ceases to amaze me.

To fully comprehend the delusional mind of the Muslims I’d like to inform the reader that the mullahs in Iran claim that Einstein had converted to Shiite Islam. The government controlled site SobheSadegh.ir says that according to an unnamed cleric delivering a sermon at a mosque in Tehran, the nuclear physicist Albert Einstein allegedly converted to Shi’a Islam through the efforts of Grand Ayatollah Boroujerdi, who also had urged Einstein to keep his conversion secret in order not to be assassinated.

However, far from converting to Islam or praising it, as a Jew, Einstein had distinct views on Jesus. Below is a clip of an interview from the Saturday Evening Post, October 26, 1929: “

“To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?

As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.

Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?

Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot [a witty remark].

You accept the historical existence of Jesus?

Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

These Islamic sites post several quotes from famous personalities such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Gandhi, Leon Tolstoy, Bernard Shaw and others that praise Islam. Quoting the opinions of famous people as the evidence of the truth of a religion is a logical fallacy. Even famous people can be wrong, but the fact that none of these people were scholars of Islam or had read its holy book or its history makes their opinion about Islam worthless. Hitler also praised Islam. Hitler’s opinion is the only one that matters because he understood Islam. Would others have still praised Islam had they known that Muhammad was a raider, a mass murderer, a slave maker and a rapist? These facts have come to the public attention only during the last decade or so. When I started writing about them no one believed me. I sounded like a lunatic to them. It just made no sense that a man literally worshipped by 1.5 billion people could be a despicable criminal. But that is the fact the world must come to terms with and it is coming to term with.

These famous people, who have spoken loftily about Islam, have spoken from the position of ignorance. Praising Islam makes Muslim very happy. Muslims constantly seek approval from people in authority and for the unwary people it seems to be a cheap way to endear themselves with Muslims. Sadly, these approvals compound Muslims’ ignorance and make them more fanatical and as the result more violent. The essence of the message of Muhammad is jihad. If you approve Islam, you validate all its evil teachings including jihad and encourage terrorism. Now that the truth is out, no one should ever praise Islam to appease Muslims. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Praising Islam is treason to humanity.

Another authority quoted by Muslims is the Russian Novelist Leo Tolstoy. He is claimed to have said, “Quran contains clear realties and tenets and human beings can utilize it generally.” As usual, no reference is given. Assuming these are the words of Tolstoy, he has also thought that Islam has become currupted beyond redemption. He has also praised Bab and Baha-u-llah, the twin founders of the Bahai Faith . These prophets are denounced by Muslims. A few months before his death Tolstoy wrote:

“I have known about the Bábís for a long time, and have always been interested in their teachings. It seems to me that these teachings, as well as all the rationalistic social religious teachings that have arisen lately out of the original teachings of Brahmanism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam distorted by the priests, have a great future for this very reason that these teachings, discarding all these distorting incrustations that cause division, aspire to unite into one common religion of all mankind.

Therefore, the teachings of the Bábís, inasmuch as they have rejected the old Muhammadan superstitions and have not established new superstitions which would divide them from other new superstitions (unfortunately something of the kind is noticed in the exposition of the Teachings of the Báb), and inasmuch as they keep to the principal fundamental ideas of brotherhood, equality and love, have a great future before them.”

Muhammad Ahmad al Mahdi

Tolstoy mentions the Ahmadiyah movement in Lahor and the Mahdi movement in Sudan and says,

“Both these religious teachings contain nothing new, neither do they have for their principal object a changing of the outlook of the people and thus do not change the relationship between the people, as is the case with Babiism. I therefore sympathize with Babiism with all my heart inasmuch as it teaches people brotherhood and equality and sacrifice of material life for service to God.

The teachings of the Bábís which come to us out of Islam have through Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings been gradually developed and now present us with the highest and purest form of religious teaching.”

So I’d like to ask the Muslims who quote “authorities” to prove Islam is true, why they ignore the same authorities when they praise other faiths, specially the Babi and Baha’i faiths that Muslims regard heretic? If Tolstoy’s opinion about Muhammad is valid, so must be his opinion about Bab and Baha-u-llah.

Relying on “authorities” as evidence of the truth of any proposition is a logical fallacy. It’s called argumentum ad verecundiam. The truth of a religion can be only determined by analyzing its teachings and its author or as Jesus said, by their fruits ye shal recognize them.

When we analyze Islam, we find it to be a religion that promotes hate, spreads through deception, advocates violence, and encourages fighting and bloodshed. When we observe its followers, we see they are backward, violent, ignorant, and uncivilized. These are the bitter fruits of this tree from hell.

Einstein was an atheist Jew and a Zionist. He was everything Muslims hate. Despite that Muslims feel no shame in cashing on his popularity, even through lies. Einstein did not believe in a personal god. His thoughts were diametrically opposed to Islam. He did not convert to Islam and he did not praise it. He had a lot of respect for Jesus, but not for Muhammad. Muhammad deserves no respect. By virtue of how he lived and the legacy of destruction that he left behind he deserves our scorn.

음, 친구가 Hanford Site에 대해서 이야기를 해 주어 찾아보았다. 본 지역은 맨해튼 프로젝트의 일부로써 당시 프로젝트에 상당한 기여를 한 것으로 보인다. 현재로써 상당한 radioactive 오염 물질들이 - 간단히 지하에 묻혀있다. 2차 대전과 냉전의 마무리와 함께 방치되었던 물질들은 비교적 최근에 들어 환경 운동가들의 움직임으로 청소작업에 들어가 진 것으로 보인다. 하지만 후쿠시마에서도 볼 수 있듯이 - 아직까지도 우리는 방사능의 영향을 충분히 이해하지 못하고 상당 부분의 선택들과 정책들은 추측에 기반한다. 현재로써 Hanford Site 의 청소작업은 갈 길이 한참 멀고 작업의 안전성 또한 보장되지 않는 것으로 보인다. 이러한 굉장한 프로젝트가 - 지금까지도 이어지고 있고 나와 가까운 곳에서 일어났다는 것에 상당한 놀라움을 느끼는 바이다. 어메이징 !

Hanford Site
also known as Hanford Works, Hanford Engineer Works, Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Hanford Project.
1943 Manhattan Project 의 일부로 설립
중남부 워싱턴 주에 위치
최초 full-scale plutonium production reactor 가 있던 곳
본 위치에서 제작된 플루토니엄으로 최초 원자폭탄이 제작되었고 Trinity Site 에서 폭탄이 시험되졌다.
일본 나가사키에 떨어진 폭탄이 시험됨.
냉전당시 프로젝트는 9개의 원자 reactor 와 5개의 큰 플루토니엄 processing complex 로 확장되었음. 본 위치에서 미국의 60,000 원자 arsenal 의 대부분 플루토니엄이 생산되었음.
Hanford Site - Rhode Island 의 1/3 크기 정도로 1,518 km²
현재 대중에게는 열려있지 않음. 사막의 기후에 가까움. Columbia 강이 지역의 북 동쪽을 따라 흐름.

Manhattan Project 당시 - 1942년 9월, Army Corps of Engineers 는 본 지역을 넓고, 외각진, 인근 1000명 인구의 도시가 없는, 깨끗하고 충분한 수력 자원, 큰 전력 자원, 무거움을 지탱 할 수 있는 지형 - 을 고려하여 본 위치를 선택.
1942년 3월 Hanford Engineer Works 의 설립이 시작되었고 근 50,000 명의 노동자들이 공사지역에 생활하면서 건축을 진행하였음. 1945년 8월 2차 세계대전이 끝나기 전 Hanford Engineer Works 는 Hanford 에 554개의 건물과 3개의 원자력 reactor 와 3개의 플루토니엄 processing canyons 를 지음. Radioactive waste 를 받기위해 'tank farms' 탱크 농장들 - 64개의 홑겹 지하 처리 탱크 - 를 설립.
Manhattan Project 당시 상당히 짧은 시간 동안 많은 연구와 발견들을 하였음. 당시 누구도 산업 스케일의 원자력 reactor 를 지은 경험도 없었고 - 과학자들 또한 얼만큼의 열과 에너지가 생성 될지 알 수 없었다. 안전을 유지하면서 최대의 연구를 얻으려 하였음.
엔지니어들의 난재 중 - radioactive contamination 원자력 오염을 어떻게 처리 할 지가 강권이었음. 기계들이 radioactive 되어 사람들이 가까이 갈 수 없을까 또한 문제였음. 따라서 원격으로 조정 할 수 있는 기계를 만드는 것 또한 목적이였음.
1946년 9월 - General Electric (GE) 가 Hanford Works 의 management 를 받음. 냉전이 시작되면서 소련 원자무기 프로그렘에 대응하기 위한 새로운 작전들을 만듬. 1947년 8월 Hanford Works 를 새로운 무기들과 reactors 와 연구를 위한 자금 계획을 발표 - 이로써 Hanford 는 새로운 번창의 시대를 맞음.
1963년 - Hanford Site 는 9개의 nuclear reactor 를 Columbia River 에 따라 건설, 5 processing plants, 900개 이상의 건물, 과 radiological 연구소를 설치함. 추가적인 건설과 수정이 본래 2차 세계대전 reactor 들에게 실행 되고 177개의 지하 waste tank 가 만들어짐. 1956 에서 1965 년 사이에 가장 많은 건설과 제작이 있었음. 총 40년 이상의 진행 동안 - 본 지역은 63개 정도의 short tons (57 t) 의 플루토니엄을 만들었고 - 미국 arsenal 의 60,000 의 무기의 대부분 플루토니엄 필요량을 충족하였다.
대부분의 reactor 들은 1964과 1971년 사이에 닫았다. 가장 최근까지 작동한 reactor 는 1987년에 닫았음.
현재 지역은 관광객들을 위한 관광을 허용하고 있음.
1988년 6월 - Hanford Site 는 4개의 지역으로 나누어져 National Priorities List에 올랐다. 1989년 5월 Washington Department of Ecology와 the federal Environmental Protection Agency 와 Department of Energy 는 Tri-Party Agreement 에 들어갔으며 - 그것은 Hanford의 환경적 치유의 법적 틀을 제공하였다. 본 사들은 세계의 가장 큰 환경 관리 사들이며 - 기술적, 사회적, 정치적, 법적, 그리고 문화적 관심과 문제들을 상대하고 있다. 청소작업은 3가지 결과에 집중하고 있다 : Columbia River 의 복구, 장기 쓰레기 처리장 / 보유장으로써의 개선, 그리고 미래를 위한 준비. 현재 정부는 매 년 $2 billion 정도 Hanford project를 위해 투자하고 있다. 11,000 명의 노동자들이 지역에서 청소와, 쓰레기 처리, 오염된 건물, 과 오염된 토양을 관리하고 있다. 본래에 30년 내에 완료되기로 한 청소는 2008년 반을 채우지 못하였다.
1970년 대에 radioactive material 의 생산음 멈추었지만 Hanford Site 의 상당부분은 심히 오염되어있다. 대부분의 지역은 위험히 오염되었으며 - 오염된 지하수가 Columbia River 에 끼칠 영향이 상당히 우려되고 있다. 또한 노동자들의 건강과 안전 또한 우려된다.
현재 지하에 묻어진 177 개의 지하 쓰레기 탱크들은 토양과 물로 세고 있으며 - 2008 년 이후 대부분의 오염물질들은 두겹의 탱크들로 옮겨졌으나 10,600 m³ 의 액체 오염 쓰레기와 100,000 m³ 소금 오염 쓰레기는 홑 겹 탱크에 남아있다.


자료 출처 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
Hanford Site 공식 정부 웹사이트 http://www.hanford.gov/