“As the case stands.”

[David, Brooks, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/379yqbvk.asp?pg=1, 48 Hours, Weekly Standard, March 17, 2003, May 24, 2011]
2000s

Lecture II, "Circumscription of the Topic"
1900s, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902)
Context: When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill.

Remarks to Lord D'Abernon (17 October 1922), quoted in W. M. Knight-Patterson, Germany. From Defeat to Conquest 1913-1933 (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1945), p. 327
1920s

Orot Yisrael, Ch. 5, article 10, p. 156; as quoted in &quot;The Distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Torah&quot; by Rabbi David Bar Chaim http://www.daatemet.org.il/articles/article.cfm?article_id=119&amp;lang=en <br class="br">Variant: <br class="br">The dissimilarity between the Jewish soul, in all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing vis-à-vis the soul of all the Gentiles — on all of their levels — is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal, for the difference in the latter case is one of quantity, while the difference in the first case is one of essential quality <br class="br">As quoted in &quot;A British Synagogue Bans a Famous Hassidic Text!&quot; (February 2010) by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel http://rabbimichaelsamuel.com/2010/02/2744/#_ftn1. <br class="br">Orot

Source: Fang

"Fooling the People as a Fine Art", La Follette's Magazine (April 1918)

Sir R. Megarry, Arabinesque at Law (1969)

The Law of Mind (1892)
Context: A difficulty which confronts the synechistic philosophy is this. In considering personality, that philosophy is forced to accept the doctrine of a personal God; but in considering communication, it cannot but admit that if there is a personal God, we must have a direct perception of that person and indeed be in personal communication with him. Now, if that be the case, the question arises how it is possible that the existence of this being should ever have been doubted by anybody. The only answer that I can at present make is that facts that stand before our face and eyes and stare us in the face are far from being, in all cases, the ones most easily discerned. That has been remarked since time immemorial.

Speech on the Copyright Bill (5 February 1841)