The population question
We move into this New Year of 2012 laden with intractable problems, the most immediate being the financial meltdown but including climate change, overconsumption, underregulated pollution, income polarization and poverty. Least addressed is world overpopulation, and its sister, reproductive choice.
There is a very real question of where the human carrying capacity of this one earth lies and whether we are not already in population-consumption overshoot. The film “Mother: Caring for the 7 Billion” will be shown at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 17, at the First Unitarian Church in Rockland, and 6 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 18, at the Belfast Free Library. Please come and share in the discussion.
Reproductive choice for all is a possible and relatively economical precautionary measure. Surely we have the courage to begin to address this issue.
Beedy Parker
Camden
Leadership by example
Forty years ago students at a local high school told their science teacher they had seen a Maine State Trooper discard trash. The trooper made light of it when asked if he was littering: an illegal act and a poor example to set for young people. The students retrieved the litter, which was boxed up and sent with a letter to the head of the Maine State Police, who soon called the teacher to ask what action he wanted taken.
A talk with the offending officer by his superior would be enough. It was also suggested that the incident provided an opportunity to teach future cadets that all their actions would be observed by others, especially our young people.
The Army demands leadership of its military police because there is no second option.
The Maine State Police should feel pride in the example shown by the troopers who arrested Sgt. Parker for OUI, and the letter that Sgt. Parker sent to his colleagues, owning his mistake. All involved should hold their heads high at the level of leadership being displayed. There is no doubt that the state police and our court system will continue to deal with this incident in a highly professional manner and that will provide lessons for future law enforcement candidates. We learn from our mistakes.
Richard N. Bedard
Columbia Falls
Myths about atheists
In his OpEd “Is it the atheist’s moment?,” Paul Tormey tries to dismiss atheists by falling back on two common myths.
The first is that atheists are really just failed monotheists who have rejected God out of fear, egotism, laziness or for some other reason. It’s not that complicated. Atheists simply see a universe with out a God element. God is not rejected, just unnecessary.
The other is that atheism will lead to a life of self-centered hedonism. Humans will not love each other unless they are instructed to do so by some external entity.
Compassion, respect and gratitude are the natural result of the awareness that all beings and all things are inextricable connected. Jesus did not invent the idea of loving your neighbor, he was just stating the obvious. Love is not a function of following orders. It is a function of seeing clearly. This insight is available to atheist and theist alike. It works with or with out a God.
Norman Mrozicki
Surry
Collins’ wind work
Backed by Sen. Susan Collins’ unwavering support and federal dollars, researchers and graduate students at the University of Maine’s Advanced Engineered Wood and Composite Center continue to push the technology envelope in the areas of renewable energy, transportation and defense. One hopes, in the near future, some of these cutting-edge research projects will generate commercially viable products for the untapped, deep-ocean renewable energy sectors off the coast of Maine and unfulfilled transportation infrastructure markets.
Sen. Collins is to be acknowledged for her efforts in organizing and securing grants, earmarks and in-kind donations totaling $25 million from the departments of Commerce and Energy, the 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report, the 2009 ARRA stimulus package, the University of Maine and 30 other public and private partners.
As a result of the senator’s effort, this past November the University of Maine Engineering School opened a 37,000-square-foot Advanced Structures and Composites Center Lab in Orono. The lab facility was built to test blade design, fabrication methods and tensile strength for wind turbine manufacturers. The $12.5 million lab will compete with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s $30 million Wind Technology Testing Center in Charlestown, Mass.
Remaining portions of the $25 million were used for the purchase of lab testing and robotic manufacturing equipment, and employing research and development personnel, along with administrative and lab staff and faculty support positions.
The center will hold a benefit for the senator later this month.
Mike Turcotte
Bangor
Almost famous?
I really enjoyed Emily Burnham’s story, “The Many Stars of Maine.” And contrary to what some of my friends might think, I’m not writing to complain that I wasn’t on the list.
However, I was hoping to get an “honorable mention” for a few people I don’t believe were included. The include:
• Steve Zirnkilton: Steve is the voice of the Law & Order TV series. He lives full-time in Maine and his voice has been used on Jay Leno, CNN and King of the Hill.
• Jimmy Howard: NHL goalie for the Detroit Red Wings, he summers in Hancock County with his wife and is a UMO graduate.
• Howie Carr: Best-selling author and syndicated radio talk-show host, a Portland native, he has a summer place in our state.
• Dana White: The Ultimate Fighting Championship president is worth a reported $150 million and owns property in Levant.
• Joey Gamache. The Lewiston native is the only two-time world champion boxer in the state’s history.
And while I’m sure there are others, I wanted to at least give a shout out to those five. Thanks again, Emily and the BDN.
Chris Greeley
Levant
Canadian pellets, not Maine’s?
I was at a house yesterday where the residents were receiving fuel assistance from a community action program in the form of wood pellets. The pellets that were delivered were Canadian-made, even though we have at least two companies in the state that make them.
Way to go, whoever is in charge of this. Let’s send taxpayer money to Canada instead of helping out companies right here in our state. This is another example of the government fleecing the taxpayers. Way to go, Mr. LePage; you deserve a raise.
Eugene McCrossin
Washburn
“What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.” ― Stephen Hawking
But what if we understand the creativity of the Cosmos to be God? Somehow the cosmic creative process brought forth life itself. That is a gift, an unexpected gift. I consider the gift of life to be a sacred gift. And so I look with awe and see holiness in everything around me, especially in the faces of other people, other living creatures, and the incredible beauty of the natural world. God to me is the Cosmic Creative Process (Whitehead and Hartshorne), the Way and Power of the Universe (Laozi), Being-Itself (Tillich), the Source of Human Good (Weiman), and Love (1 John). I appreciate Hawking. We learn much from science, and we should; yet science is only one area of human understanding.
You are free of course Penzance to understand the creativity of the cosmos in terms other than (or in addition to) physics. Just as others are free to see the existence of humans in terms other than biological or the apparent place of the earth in terms other than cosmological. There will always be things we don’t know or fully understand. It is a mistake I think to see that lack of knowledge as an open invitation to insert gods and goddesses into that gap. You seem to be saying that since we don’t know how the universe could have created life therefore you know how the universe created life. It was a gift you say. Sacred and holy no less.
As you say science is only one area of human understanding. However it still seems to be the best way to find out how the world works. As long as we’re asking biology questions or physics questions, I’m comfortable waiting for the answers consistent with those disciplines. I think that poetry is best used to enhance the discription of the findings and process of science (think Carl Sagan) rather than as a substitute for the answers we haven’t yet discovered.
Eugene McCrossin, I hate to get you all wound up again, but the majority of the #2 fuel oil and kerosene sold in this state is refined at the Irving refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. The majorit of our electricity is generated out of state. Virtually all of our LNG is comming from the Maritimes.
I would like to see a refinery and an LNG facility in place in this state but I highly doubt that the NIMBY’s would ever allow it.
You want one in your town? The noise, the pollution the depressed property values? If you are not in a town that can be threatened by these multi-national corporations who make zillions of profit and leave the citizens of small Maine towns with their filth then you have very little standing to speak about this.
I applaud any effort to increase wood products for heating homes and other buildings, quite frankly we in Maine should have a higher percentage of them because we have this renewable fuel in abundance. Wood is renewable and its cost has stayed steady for the past seven years. We spend too much on experimental wind projects( with thirty per cent effieciency ) and not enough on making wood burning boilers and stoves the essential part of heating costs in Maine.
Wood smoke is very carcinogenic.
What if, instead of throwing up our hand in despair and shouting NIMBY because of pollution and decreased property values, we made manufacturers, refiners, power generators and mining corporations respect the air, land and water by developing processes that pollute as little as possible, establishing their operations with enough surrounding land so they don’t make life miserable for others, pay for and clean up their messes and become good neighbors.
We could then enjoy the benefits of their productions. Would this cost the consumer more? Sure, but we would be paying the real cost of the product instead of subsidizing a companies profits by letting them pollute.
We try to make manufacturers, refiners, power generators and mining corporations respect the environment but then a Republican comes along and claims that we are anti-business and then tries to lessen or get rid of regulations that protect the environment.
Depressed property values? You could buy the entire city of Calais for the price of a couple of condos in Manhattan. The only way you can sell property in most of Washington County is to vitually give it away.
Where is the polution from hydro/wind/solar gerneration?
We don’t spend enough of experimental energy generation. The fact is that there is a finite amount of fosil fuels on this planet. When we run out of fosil fuels, are we supposed to clear cut the forrests of the earth to generate heat and electricity?
I also would like to see a refinery and an LNG facility here in Maine. There is no reason why they couldn’t be required follow the safety and environmental laws that would make them good neighbors. Other people seem able to live in close proximity with not only these facilities but also windmills, factories, shipyards, pharmaceutical plants, paper mills and lumber yards without becoming completely debilitated and distraught or having their property values reduced. What is the problem with so many Mainers that they can’t survive progress.
BEEDY,
If you can’t pay then you can’t have. A permanent fix is the only answer.
RICHARD,
I’m not quite sure what your point is, but the trooper should never work in Law enforcement again. The trooper made no mistake, but a conscious choice to drive intoxicated and he new what the consequences could be.
NORMAN
Were your heading for your after life is no myth!
EUGENE,
If the pellets are cheaper from Canada then buying Canadian is the right choice, especially with my tax money.
Good ad for literacy volunteers.
If you had been born in ancient Greece, you would have worshipped Zeus and Appollo. If you had been born in China, you might be worshipping Buddah. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would be worshipping Allah. If you had been born in India, you’d probably be a Hindu. If you had been born Jewish, you would not believe Jesus was the Messiah. If you had been born Native American you might be worshipping the Great Spirit. And you would argue the “truth” of any of these. And all these factions are constantly arguing over who is right and who is wrong about these mythologies, sometimes to the point of war. More wars in human history have probably been fought over religion than anything else. It is absurd. This is 2012. There is no evidence whatsoever of these superstitious entities anymore than there is of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Nor is there the remotest evidence of heavens or hells or any of these fairytales. Human morality and ethics transcend irrational beliefs in such mythology. It doesn’t take such irrational beliefs to be a very good, loving, moral person. As to what happens after death, simply a lack of existence as it was prior to having been born. And that wasn’t so bad was it? This is where all this religion malarkey comes from in the first place. People fearing natural death. What is to fear? It is as natural as birth, and no different than one’s place prior to it: nothingness. So what is there to worry about?
Whadya mean there ain’t no Easter Bunny? Darn.
Well said, but you’ll never convince a religious person with this argument because of their concept of “faith”. I believe faith is one of the most dangerous and easily abused notions ever concocted by humans, because it is deliberate non-thinking. It is belief “just because”. With this powerful tool, the masses can be convinced to accept ANYTHING on “faith” by those who wish to manipulate them with religion. Like suicide bombing. Or shooting doctors that perform abortions. Or slaughtering “heathens”. There is no other part of life where people so willingly abdicate all rational thought: it’s no wonder the despots have cleverly used religion for their own purposes for ages…
There is a difference between faith and religion. The latter carried to extremes produces the most problems.
There is a big difference. However, anything carried to extremes produces problems. And that includes religion, liberalism, conservatism, big government, monopolies, patriotism, anarchism, politics, love, hatred, greed, power, laziness, etc.
EJ, I agree.
The latter could never be carried to extremes (or exist for that matter) without the former. It is faith (mindless acceptance) that allows for the abuse of religion.
No, it is not faith; it is fanaticism.
Fanaticism is only possible with faith.
Not so. Remember the crowds when the Beatles sang on the Ed Sullivan Show? They were fanatics. Remember the stampede at the Who concert where people were trampled to death? They were fanatics. What about people that charge onto the field to pull down the goalposts? And that’s just for starters.
Fanatics are delusional and, many times, dangerous.
So are the religious.
Let’s be fair. Not all religious people are “fanatics.”
No they aren’t but they let the fanatics tell them how to live and think, and at times who to kill.
EJ, I see a difference between faith as belief, and faith as trust. When the Paul speaks of faith, I understand him to be speaking primarily about trust, and not primarily about belief.
I recommend Eric Hoffer’s 1951 book, The True Believer. Hoffer saw all mass movements — Christianity, Islam, Communism, Nazism, etc. — as essentially interchangeable. Their most fanatical followers, given the right circumstances, could easily be converted to a different — and supposedly opposite — mass movement. They all drew their early followers from the same kind of mind-set. It is the fervor or fanaticism they have in common, and the doctrines are of less significance.
The problem is not with religion — the problem is not with Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Hinduism, etc. The problem is when religion slides downhill into fanaticism.
For 300 years the Romans said that Christians were “atheists” because they didn’t believe in the Gods and Goddesses of Rome, Greece, and Egypt. There were occasional sporadic persecutions of Christians.
Then the Emperors became Christians — and abolished all religions except one form of Christianity, their own denomination. They closed the ancient Temples and made it a crime to worship in them, or to worship in any non-Catholic Christian Church. They closed the schools and academies of the ancient religions, and a Christian mob burned the great library in Alexandria because it contained the writings of pre-Christian scholars.
And of course, Christians persecuted Jews for a couple thousand years, culminating in the horrors of the Holocaust.
In 1492, Columbus sailed to America, where the priests would torture the Native Americans to force them to convert; and in that same year all Jews and Muslims in Spain were given the choice to convert to Catholicism, go into exile, or be executed.
Religious intolerance is nothing new!
There are two things to worry about
Wether you are healty or sick
If you’re healthy you have nothing to worry about
If you’re sick you only have two things to worry about
Wether you get better or die
If you get better you have nothing to worry about
If you die you only have two things to worry about
Wether you go to heaven or go to hell
If you go to heaven you have nothing to worry about
If you go to hell you’ll be too busy shaking hands with old friends to have time to worry
So your solution to overpopulation is only wealthy families can have childeren. Where is that in the constitution? How the hell does that fit into your republican ideology?
and PS, if Norm is headed where you think he is headed I’m sure you will be there to greet him when he gets there ; )
There is nothing sadder than someone who sits in judgement of unbelievers in this life, making plans for a fantasy ideal of eternity that keeps them from enjoying what we actually have before us here and now.
It’s a childishly trusting concept isn’t it: life here is miserable, it will only be good when you die.
I’m a Christian who is essentially agnostic about what if anything lies beyond this life. Let’s do the best we can with the one life we know we have, and let’s do our very best to not judge others, especially those we disagree with.
It’s only the “sitting in judgment” I object to. But as long as they keep it to themselves I’m fine with it.
Amconservative, anything to do with the afterlife is a myth made up by superstitious, poorly educated people.
Mike Turcotte, good letter. I an anxiously awaiting the anti-wind crowd to come down on anything like this. They seem to feel that fosil fuels will last forever and that it is impossible to gernerate electricity with any new means of generation.
While the wind crowd continues to roll in taxpayer largess when we could have 10 times the amount of power at 25% the price if we would just build a few hydro dams.
Richard N. Bedard, I too have great admiration for the MSP. I do wonder if this trooper who was caught for OUI will suffer the same fate as any truck driver who gets an OUI.
Beedy Parker, good letter with very valid points. I believe that if you check world population booms, they are concentrated in some of the most poverty ridden countries with the least amount of rights for women.
Thanks Mr. Mrozicki. The fact is in the U.S. we have freedom of religion and freedom from religion, and we can all thank the people who wrote the Constitution of the United States for it.
Great letter Norman.
One of the best arguments for atheism was posted by a christian in a forum I was reading. The writer made the point that he couldn’t understand how a person could be an atheist when 97% of the world believed in some sort of god.
I thought, that’s exactly why I am an atheist.
To me, his statement said less about the validity of any god and more about how gullible people are. He made a great point about peoples’ needs to believe in something, anything, that can calm their fears of mortality…their need to know that an afterlife exists, that what we have now isn’t all there is.
And there are plenty of other people more than willing to sell them a story. For money. For control. You don’t have to look beyond the Taliban to see how dangerous religion can be. Or beyond Tim Tebow to see its arrogant side.
I’m not about to state as a fact that there is no god. I don’t know what’s out there, where we came from or where we’re going. I simply look at the evidence at hand and see no credibility to tales about a supreme being. My guess is that we will continue to have more questions than answers for a very long time.
It’s worth bearing in mind that of all the religious beliefs, only one could be true. But all things considered, it seems most likely that none of them is correct.
Choose your mental comfort food wisely…
Well written.
I think that Mroziciki misunderstood the article he is referring to. The author of the article did not make, to my memory, the statements Mroziciki attempts to refute.
That said, I respect the honesty and straight-forwardness of atheism. The late Christopher Hitchens (subject of the article in question) was articulate and witty and made many good points. Unfortunately, however, Hitchens was often rude, sometimes crude, and came across as a verbal bully.
His anti-theism was a kind of fundamentalism of the left. Rev. Jerry Falwell understood God to be a supernatural Old-Man-In-the -Sky. Hitchens accepted the same definition, and then attacked it. They both accepted the idea of God we had when we were in elementary school, and then came down on opposite sides of this childish definition. The two men were mirror images of each other, a fundamentalist of the right and a fundamentalist of the left. Hitchens was unwilling to concede that there were other legitimate (and, I believe, more mature) ways of understanding God.
Curious penzance; just what is this “legitimate …and more mature way of understanding God” that Hitchens didn’t address?
It means nothing to be open to a proposition we don’t understand.
[Carl Sagan]
You ask, “what is this ‘legitimate …and more mature way of understanding God’ that Hitchens didn’t address?” Good question.
Children think in literal terms — either a story (like King Arthur or Oedipus) is true or it is false. Either God is the Old-Man-In-the-Sky or God does not exist. When we become adults we are capable of seeing subtleties that we could not see when we were children — there problaby was a real King Arthur, but he was also probably unlike the familiar stories about him. The story of of Oedipus may not be factual, but it tells us truths about the human condition (true but not factual).
So Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) saw God as being essentially the same thing as nature (pantheism) — or perhaps more accurately that nature is God, and yet God may be more than the sum total of all that is in the natural universe (panentheism). Thomas Jefferson believed God created the universe and established the laws of nature, yet God does not suspend those laws to interfere “miraculously” in the world. Ralph Waldo Emerson (who used the term Transcendentalism) spoke of God as “the Oversoul,” and said that if you want to see a miracle, feel the blowing wind, look at a flower, and hold a baby in your arms. Albert Einstein spoke of God, but certainly not of the Old-Man-in-the-Sky. Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne understood God to be the creative process of the Cosmos (process theology). Theologian Paul Tillich said that God is not a being, but is being-itself, the Ground of Being. In the 1920s Rev. John Haynes Holmes (a co-founder of the ACLU and NAACP) wrote, “When I say ‘God’ it is poetry and not theology.” And the Epistle 1 John says “God is Love.” Theologian Sallie McFague says that the most effective theological language is always metaphorical or poetic, not literal.
These are just a few of the ways we might think of God that do not limit us to the literal “Old-Man-in-the-Sky” that Jerry Falwell accepted and Christopher Hitchens attacked. Hitchens and Fallwell limited themselves to the same definition of God we had in childhood. But there are more mature options, and some are suggested above.
Thanks for the reply penzance. Although I’m familiar with many of the attempts you cite to redefine the childlike god concepts embraced by most believers, I fail to see them as represnting a more “mature option” as you suggest. Instead, the effort to find that god is poetry or love or nature seems to me to be at the very least unnecessary. This amorphous god concept has not been unaddressed by the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins of course. But the most danger to us today is obviously from the fundys of whatever religious persuasion and and I’m sure that accounts for the focus by them on that group. The ongoing tragedy in my opinion is the reluctance of the more mainstream/liberal religious people to do (theological) battle with those literalists. I hope that in the near future many more of the religiously inclined can be comfortable with the idea that god is just another word for love or nature.When this happens, there will be much less room in the world for a god of judgement and condemnation. We’ll all be better off when that day comes.
Too bad the reptilian brains of Republicans will only allow their own Taliban version of Christianity, their old-white man-in-the-sky, and that they want more than anything to force their idiocy on the rest of us who just want to live a decent, good life and keep them out of our lives.
Note that the word “god” appears nowhere in the Constitution, but it does prohibit any religious test for any office.
A hard, sometimes impossible, concept for the religious right to acknowledge.
How so?
All that means is that the government in an official capacity cannot prohibit someone from taking an office because of his/her religion.
Of course a private person can choose to vote or not vote, endorse or not endorse a person or be totally opposed to a person being elected for elective office as the choose for whatever reason they choose. .
The Constitution defines what the government can do and not do. NOT what a private citizen person can do. Re: Bill of rights
The religious right falsely claims that we were founded as a Christian nation. Note that an amendment to the Constitution expressing this claim was proposed in the 1790s and never got very far. Yes, some one can vote for only Southern Baptists for political office; but that voter cannot claim that such a result (only Southern Baptists being elected) is what the Founders intended.
Understood.
You are mistaken. We Christian righties claim that America was founded on Christian principals.
Yeah, the Native Americans sure felt the love of those Christian principals. As did the slaves. As did the women.
Yes, I agree that one can vote for any candidate based on what we understand that candidate’s principles to be, including religious principles. Yet the authors of the Constitution consciously left out “God,” establishing the union of the states on the basis of the right and power of “we, the people” to establish a government. It says there shall be no religious test for holding office. It makes the oath for the president religion-neutral (the president can “swear or affirm”), and the very first amendment says that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Jefferson called that “a wall of separation between church and state,” and Madison called it “a complete separation of all things governmental and ecclesiastical.”
The Founding Fathers were, for the most part, religious men. Most would have called themselves Christians if asked (there really was no other acceptable option in those days), and yet many were unorthodox in their faith. They wanted to protect the rights of every person to follow his or her own conscience.
True, some (like Sam Adams) thought Catholics shouldn’t be allowed to vote, and others bore ill-will to Quakers or to Unitarians, but for the most part they were a tolerant lot. We should be, too.
Odd then that they have all been white, male Christians. With one exception, of course. (I know a Deist managed to slip in here and there, but there are fundies who will deny that.) If religion is taken out of the equation, then it’s easy to see the dominant factors.
Jefferson was a deist; Lincoln was likely a deist and clearly had no formal affiliation with any church; both Adamses, Fillmore, and Taft were Unitarians who, by definition, reject the notion that Jesus was divine. Thus we have six non-Christian white males who served as President and one African-American male who has served as President.
Good concise summary. It’s good to see someone knows history!
Beedy Parker – How about we impose the China rule of one child per family. Then we get rid of all handicapped, imprisoned, mentally disturbed, and elderly. After that, lets kill off the bald people that wear glasses. How about a man-made plague or two? Just think of the possibilities.
Eugene McCrossin – This surprises you? Not me.
Ms Parker in no way suggested the “China Rule” nor did she think we should euthanize the handicapped. What a mindlessly stupid interpretation of a perfectly reasonable suggestion that looking at overpopulation might be a sensible idea.
You may comment on my posts if you wish. But I will no longer comment back to you as long as you continue to call names and insinuate that you know everything and I know nothing. Your anger and hatred of everything Christian and conservative saddens me.
And before you get on your high horse about me being an Obama hater of Progressive hater, I don’t hate anyone, I just disagree with their motives, beliefs, and actions. I wish no one any harm; not even you.
EJ this is the third time you’ve stated you won’t respond.
EJ, your willful misinterpretation of Parker’s letter simply makes you look foolish.
It was sarcasm. I’m sure you recognize sarcasm. Lighten up.
Lightening up is a problem. You so often willfully mis-interpret and extend arguments to illogical conclusions that it’s hard to know when you are being sarcastic. Since we are not the ones that frequently condemn others to a certain hell for their beliefs we are not the people that need to lighten up.
Sorry, but I don’t have the power to condemn anyone to Hell. And even if I did, I wouldn’t.
OMG Foolisher and foolisher. You really should quit digging.
Maybe you feel you don’t condemn anyone directly, you sure do imply it, on numerous occasions. Check back on the condemnations by you and others any time something on Unitarian/Universalism comes up.
I did not condemn the UU church. I simply pointed out that the UU does not follow the Bible in that it accepts the person AND the sin, and the UU allows its members to believe just about anything they want to believe. It’s more of a social club than a church.
“Come on in and have a seat. Don’t worry; we’re not gonna talk about God or sin or anything that might make you feel uncomfortable. We’re all friends, and we’re here to help one another get through this thing called life.”
It all sounds good on the surface, but it won’t get you where you need to go.
You don’t understand very much about the UUs. You are stereotyping. Don’t criticize what you don’t understand.
Actually, I got my information from the Rev. Gunn’s blog. Everything I’ve said, she’s written about.
“The trouble comes when those that we are witnessing to reject us and Christ in favor of their sinful ways, ……………. we believe in Heaven, Hell and eternity. ”
Sounds like eternal condemnation to me. If it’s not what do you mean?
Do you not agree with your old-white-man god who supposedly DOES condemn people every minute of every day to hell? Wow, that kinda surprises me.
Nope, I don’t agree. My God isn’t an old white man. And He doesn’t condemn; we condemn ourselves.
“willful misinterpretation”? I guess that means that if I don’t say things the way the opposition wants to hear them, than I’m misinterpreting on purpose. What ever happened to freedom of thought, belief, and speech? Oh, I forgot, that’s not the Progressive way.
And I guess I can’t throw a little sarcasm into the mix. Funny, but it gets thrown at me every day by several in these threads. Good old liberal double standard at work.
OK EJ let’s assume your post was simple sarcasm. What were you being sarcastic about? Do you think overpopulations is not a problem, so you were being sarcastic about silly topic for discussion? Did you think Ms Parker was being facetious so that an appropriate answer was sarcasm? Did you think a discussion about population was a malicious code word for ethnic cleansing and deserved biting sarcasm to highlight it’s lack of humanity? Were you trying to be hatefully sarcastic because you think population control means something against your values.
Sarcasm has to have some point. What WAS your point?
Whenever EJ says something really stupid, and gets called on it, he tries to wiggle out by claiming he was just joking (Herman Cain used that poor excuse, too), or he was just being sarcastic, and says we should “lighten up”. But then he can’t explain what the joke was, or what he was being sarcastic about.
You do all right when you speak for yourself. But you fail miserably when you speak for me. Stick to what you know.
Way to go off the deep end EJ, you never disappoint.
Just trying to be more like the lefties.
Well that’s it man, you’ve gone so far right that you’re actually coming around to the left. You’ve done a complete loop ; )
Complete loop. Says it all. LOL
The man made plague is ready to go. Sitting in a lab, funded by the taxpayers of the US waiting to be released. Good luck everyone.
The question I have for Paul Tormey and his ilk: why do you care what I believe? Why does atheism bother religious people so much?
Oh, and Eugene did you know Efficiency Maine is now run by a company in Massachusetts? The money is flowing out of the state at record speed.
Eugene McCrossin- We now have a $350 billion, or 350,000 million dollar deficit with the communist Chinese every year and as a result we now owe them over $1 trillion and climbing. I would not worry about how much money we send to Canada. While we are on the subject of wood pellets, why are we not using firewood and pellets made right here in Maine to heat every public building instead of sending millions to Saudi Arabia every winter? We could put thousands of Mainers back to work and stop supporting terrorism.
Mr. McCrossin you would do better directing you congratulations to Dale McCormick of the Maine State Housing (MSH). They control LIHEAP, the fuel assistance program. MSH is not under the direct control of state government. How did LIHEAP come under the direction of MSH? Dale McCormick when she was a legislator along with Sharon Treat and others led the drive to close the Division of Community Services and transfer most of their programs to MSH.
the recipients direct where th payment goes.
You have to use approved vendors. Not every supplier can provide fuel under LIHEAP.
If the Canadian pellets are cheaper, buy them. I am not sure why you blame the governor for this. I am not a supporter at all, but in this program, I believe the State provides a check to whomever the person recieving the assistance currently gets fuel. If they use Webber, it goes to Webber, if they use a company that sells Canadian Pellets, it goes there.
It would make more sence to try to get cost savings from one provider based on volume, but I doubt there is one oil company that covers the whole State. What the State should do is put out for bids in regions the various fuels based on the budgeted amount for that area, to hopefully get a discount. I don’t think somethat is receiving the fuel cares where it comes from, especially if it might mean a few gallons or pounds more.
They don’t care where it’s from as long as it’s FREE FREE FREE.
Just slide your EBT.
Eugene McCrossin as a user of wood pellets I know from personal experience that at least one of the three Maine companies producers sub par pellets more often then not. Of the other two I have experience
Norman Mrozicki, great letter.
It always puzzles me that people think atheism = amorality. There are bad people of all faiths, just as there are good people with no religious faith.
The people who think atheists are amoral also think of themselves as the only moral ones. They revile all religions (and non-religions) other than their own. It has little to do with “good” or “bad,” but more with whether or not you are a member of the club. Otherwise, they would have no rationale for trying to control everyone else’s lives. (With underlying greed as its basis, of course.)
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” — Napoleon.
And, of course, Napoleon was a great authority on religion.
:-)
Let’s
see what history has to say about comparing the evilness of religion to the
evilness of non-religion or Atheism:
Deaths attributed to Christianity:
-Salem witch trials, America, 1692-1693: 35 dead, 150 incarcerated;
-Joan of Arc, Europe,
1431: burned for witchcraft-1484-1782 Christian church executed 300,000 for
witchcraft (World Book
Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia
Americana)-1017 &
14th century Inquisitions: Approximately 3,000 people killed-Crusades
(there were actually 7 different crusades that were an attempt to free the
Holy Lands from Muslim usurpation) tens of thousands died.
Sources:
World Book
Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana .
You can also read in Newsweek ,
August
31, 1992
Deaths attributed non-religious ideals:
-1949-1965, Mao Tse Tung killed 32 to 63.7 million Chinese
(according to Figaro magazine, 11/5/78)-10/1917-12/1959, Lenin, Stalin, & Khruschev killed
66.7 million (estimated by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, USSR Nobel Peace Prize
Winner)-1975-1975, Cambodian Holocost: One third of the entire
country was put to death under the rule of Pol Pot, the founder of the
Communist Party of Kampuchea. Deaths in the Tuol Sleng interrogation
center in Phnom
Penh,
which is the capitol of Kampuchea, reached 582 in a day (according to
the Khmer Rouge foreign minister).-1210-1219 & 1311-1340: Mongolian invasion of northern
China, estimated 35 million dead.-1643-1647, bandit leader Chang Hsien-Chung (Yellow Tiger)
killed approximately 40 million in the Szechwan province.
None of these involve religion. And all but
the very last actually assert atheism.
Source: The Guinness Book
of World Records. Category “Judicial”; Subject
“Crimes: Mass Killings”.
Seems to me, many more have been
killed in the name of Atheism than any religion, especially Christianity. Based upon this information, the real ones trying to control others and those we should be scared of
are those who do not subscribe to any religion at all.
Saddle: you don’t understand why Catholicism was so opposed to Communism but not Fascism,do you?
Sorry, I don’t believe in Catholicism so it makes no difference to me what their reasoning is.
Your premise that atrocities not related to religion were committed “in the name of atheism” is absurd.
Those were not my words, they were the words of the Guinness Book of World Records. Please take up your complaint with them.
Please provide the link.
How many people throughout history have been duped into going to war in the name of one god or another?
How many Christians have been more than glad to kill other Christians in the name of one ism or another.
How many Muslims have done and are still killing fellow muslims all the time praising Allah.
How many Hindus and Muslims died in their particular power grabs.
Has anyone kept a score card in the so-called Holy Lands? I would think it must run into the millions over the last 5 to 10 thousand years.
I for one hope there is a heaven and a hell. I have no proof of it. If there is, I would hope that all the power grabbers of whatever religion that used religion as an excuse to kill others, wind up in hell.
Here’s your scorecard:
Deaths attributed to Christianity:
•Salem witch trials, America, 1692-1693: 35 dead, 150 incarcerated;
•Joan of Arc, Europe, 1431: burned for witchcraft
•1484-1782 Christian church executed 300,000 for witchcraft (World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana)
•1017 & 14th century Inquisitions: Approximately 3,000 people killed
•Crusades (there were actually 7 different crusades that were an attempt to free the Holy Lands from Muslim usurpation) tens of thousands died.
Sources: World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana . You can also read in Newsweek , August 31, 1992
Deaths attributed non-religious ideals:
•1949-1965, Mao Tse Tung killed 32 to 63.7 million Chinese (according to Figaro magazine, 11/5/78)
•10/1917-12/1959, Lenin, Stalin, & Khruschev killed 66.7 million (estimated by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, USSR Nobel Peace Prize Winner)
•1975-1975, Cambodian Holocost: One third of the entire country was put to death under the rule of Pol Pot, the founder of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. Deaths in the Tuol Sleng interrogation center in Phnom Penh, which is the capitol of Kampuchea, reached 582 in a day (according to the Khmer Rouge foreign minister).
•1210-1219 & 1311-1340: Mongolian invasion of northern China, estimated 35 million dead.
•1643-1647, bandit leader Chang Hsien-Chung (Yellow Tiger) killed approximately 40 million in the Szechwan province.
None of these involve religion. And all but the very last actually assert atheism. Source: The Guinness Book of World Records . Category “Judicial”; Subject “Crimes: Mass Killings,”
For those wishing to attribute the Aztecs, Incas, and Native Americans genocides to Christians, while tragic, the numbers still do not add up to the non-religious numbers. I can’t in all honesty say that all Indian genocide can be attributed to Christians either, but I don’t have exact numbers on that horrible history.
Not listed are the millions killed in South and Central America and Mexico by Pizarro and the following Spanish invasion. There was an estimated 5-10 million natives who were murdered for their gold with the excuse they were not christian. Their written records were then destroyed because the Spanish thought they were the work of the devil.
The list also leaves out the murder of the “heathen” indians throughout the US, ostensibly because they were not christian, but in reality it was a land grab.
Yup, there is bad on both sides. However, the overwhelming majority of deaths reside on the non-religious side. One thing we also must remember; just because someone “claims” to be a Christian, does not make it so. Many so-called Christians have no clue what it really means to be a Christian or walk the talk. Claiming something doesn’t make it so.
Thank you for your letter. Atheists actually have less fear than Christians. Christianity is a fear based religion. I have nothing against it as I feel everyone has the right to believe but they also need to do as the Bible says and lead by example, love their neighbor, and tell someone if they are doing something wrong but not degrade them to the world.
Not all of Christianity is fear-based. Neither are all Christians fearful, just the more conservative ones.
Very true.
Agreed.
Actually, Christianity is a love based religion. We are to have a healthy fear of the Lord, but that type of fear is translated as a sense of awe due to His power over us. It is not a scared type of fear.
Christians are supposed to live lives that are examples for others and are honorable to God. We do love our neighbors to the point that we bear witness to the One and Only True and Living God, the need for salvation through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and the need to repent from our sins. The trouble comes when those that we are witnessing to reject us and Christ in favor of their sinful ways, then turn the tables on us and try their best to make us out to be the the bad guys; intrusive, intolerant, etc.
Still, we are commanded to spread the Word, and that’s what we should continue to do, no matter the consequences. After all, we believe in Heaven, Hell and eternity. And no one should spend eternity in Hell.
Nobody has to pretend about the intrusiveness and intolerance of some brands of Christianity. They are. The very words describing the interaction between believers and non believers is intolerant and intrusive. And condemning, to boot.
If those who you witness reject you, as you say, then it would be common courtesy for you to respect their right to their own religious beliefs.
It is fear-based even though Jesus was all about love. Too many christians I know are really, really afraid to die. That’s not so true of atheists. I find that ironic since heaven awaits the christians. Why are they so afraid of death?
Eugene, you need to inform yourself more about pellets. Having burned pellets for many years, I can tell you the Canadian pellets are the best bang for the buck. Maine pellets have more softwood, provide less heat and create much more ash. So, if my money is going to heat I want my money to go to Canadian pellets until Maine companies can improve their product….just saying
Good letters all.
Note that the word “god” appears nowhere in the Constitution, but it does prohibit any religious test for any office
Canadian pellets, not Maine: While I burn only locally processed firewood and Maine pellets, I don’t see those on LiHeap converting over from oil, which people buy to supply terrorists and oil exec (if there is a difference) with money to attach all Americans. As to Canadian pellets, I would rather my tax dollars go to New Brunswick than Tehran or Damascus.