Tank supports Maine’s future
DCP Midstream proposes to expand the industrial port at Mack Point, Searsport. The port already has an active tank farm. Ships and barges bring heating and jet fuel, salt and asphalt, raw materials for the paper and cement industries, gasoline and other essential products. For over a century, Mack Point has been a central resource for Maine.
These activities support Maine’s economic future. The port means jobs for truckers, sea pilots, stevedores, chandlers, airports, tug companies, insurance agencies, heavy equipment companies and more. The companies attracted to Mack Point offer employee health insurance and retirement plans. The port has a solid safety record.
Companies looking to grow in Maine require a good transportation system and a mix of energy resources. Mack Point has a good transportation system. A mix of energy resources is possible.
LPG, liquid propane, is used to heat schools and hospitals. It is the fuel in gas grills in our backyards. LPG is transported and used safely worldwide.
It is difficult to understand DCP opponents’ real motivations. It’s a good thing the opponents were not around when Bath Iron Works, Bangor International Airport and Eastern Maine Medical Center were constructed and expanded. Everything now said in opposition to DCP’s plan for Mack Point could easily have been used to oppose them.
It is discouraging to realize how many people believe Mainers would be better off with a job at a gift shop selling T-shirts, or at a gas station, renting out 30-pound tanks of LPG for summer cookouts.
John Worth
Belfast
Work for all Maine people
What can you say about a governor who boasts about the largest tax cut in Maine history, which mainly benefits the wealthy, and then turns around and tries to make up for some of the resulting shortfall in the state budget by proposing to cut 65,000 of Maine’s most vulnerable citizens from medical coverage under MaineCare? In the first instance, I say he is out of touch with the true financial needs of the state and in the second instance, I say he demonstrates an appalling disregard for the health of some of Maine’s neediest citizens.
Without a doubt Gov. Paul LePage’s first year in office has been an administrative disaster. Hopefully, a good businessman like himself will learn from his mistakes and start to do better.
Unfortunately, I don’t have much hope that this will happen. He seems to make all his major decisions on the basis of his ideologies, rather than a goal to make the state government work better for all the people.
George Elliott
Bangor
Religion and politics
Have you noticed a steady increase in broad expressions of evangelical Christian faith in our nation? Formal national and state “days of prayer” are augmented by more religious television stations and programs, and full-page newspaper ads calling for salvation.
And now we have Tim Tebow, the Denver Broncos’ quarterback, sinking to one knee to pray, a position known as “Tebowing.” The fundamental flaw in such public prayer at any sports event is that it represents an unrealistic, self-oriented behavior pattern that assumes God will hold the opposing team in disfavor.
At a recent New Year’s television broadcast over 22 million people heard a lead vocalist change the words of John Lennon’s “Imagine” from “… and no religion too” to “… and all religion is true.”
And, lastly, when we are sworn in to count votes in a local election, the formal oath ends in “so help me God,” which violates the Constitution’s right not to state a religious belief to serve in public office or function in a public service.
Another development that is truly disturbing is the declaration by four recent or current Republican presidential candidates that they were recruited by God (Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain). Each of them have detailed stories of where they were and what they were doing when God gave them the nod.
What kind of game is “God” playing here? Some time ago, distinguished psychiatrists and psychologists concluded that it’s perfectly normal for people to pray and talk to God, but when you hear God talking to you, you need professional help and possible institutionalization.
Richard E. Faust
Surry
Christmas is over
“When is too long, long enough”?
Here we are into the second week of February, and as I drive through Brewer, Bangor, Orono and Old Town, I am amazed to see that people still have their Christmas wreaths hanging up on doors, windows and on the side of buildings.
When are you people going to take them down as they are turning orange or with no needles on them at all? I saw last year several wreaths still hanging up in May and June. Please don’t let this happen again this year. Throw them away!
Mary Henderson
Brewer
No handout for Vigue
In a time of government austerity, why are taxpayers being asked to pay for private projects? This should have been the question that legislators on the Transportation Committee asked before they approved a resolution that would fund a new feasibility study for the fabled east-west highway with $300,000 from the state’s highway fund.
According to Rep. Richard Cebra, Maine taxpayer dollars need to be spent because investors in the proposed road “deserve a study they can have confidence in.” Really? The proposed toll road will be privately owned. The revenue generated by the toll road will also be private. The prospective investors in the road are private. So why are taxpayers being asked to pay to make these investors more confident their money is safe?
There is no evidence that the road will result in sustainable economic growth for our state, so why are we already being asked to pay into it? In a period of economic recession, when budgets are being cut and the governor insists that we spend even less, it is hypocritical to start sponsoring private ambitions with public funds. If Peter Vigue, the mastermind behind the newest east-west highway plan, wants to make his investors feel more comfortable, he should pay for the study himself, not ask for a government handout.
Peter McGuire
Farmington
Great letter from Peter McGuire. Peter Vigue is a very successful and very shrewd businessman, always portraying his projects as almost altruistic in nature rather than as, in truth, for profit for Ciambro. Let Ciambro pay the $300,000, chump change for that otherwise highly regarded company.
Don’t forget that part of the feasibility study is government regulations that would need to be sorted through including state environmental regs. Who is best equipped to handle that?
Would you stop stealing my comments? Sheeeesh…..
Why would any group of private investors be willing to put their money into a project that the state could stop dead in its tracks? The state feasibility study is simply seeing if there would be any legal hindrances that would require action by the legislature to such a route across Maine.
Why are Mainers so afraid of success and prosperity??
Sorry, Won’t happen again. …. Maybe :-)
Decorating with evergreens is a pagan tradition expressing the hope for spring during the darkest time of winter. Evergreens were removed when spring came and homes were cleaned of the winter’s accumulation of debris. So, dictator of decorations, those leaving up their wreaths and boughs are simply following tradition and waiting for the first day of Spring to take them down.
Bet she hates that person on Hancock Street at the end of Somerset in Bangor who leaves this year’s wreath up until it’s time to put up next years!!!
I am tired of this endless war on the Winter Solstice celebration, begun when Christians moved Christmas to December. Christ was born during lambing season in the spring (when shepherds would be watching their flocks by night); let’s get Christmas moved to the week before Easter and leave the Winter Solstice festival alone!
Yes, I can take a joke. Of course I know you don’t take either observation seriously.
The second observation is a matter of historical accuracy (as is the likely birth of Jesus in 4 B.C.). The first is a tongue-in-cheek response to the silliness of Faux News campaign about “The War on Christmas,” which is only designed to distract the Faux audience from the very real war on the middle class that Wall Street has been waging since 1979.
Everyone knows he couldn’t have been born B.C.! That’s like saying he was born at 13 O’Clock!
Think of him as a man ahead of his times.
LOL Thanks for the chuckle of the day!!!!
Always glad to amuse.
Yes, there is a paradox in the idea that Jesus was probably born “Before Christ.”
I know there’s corruption on Wall Street. But not everyone there is corrupt. I doubt however those who are corrupt and greedy on Wall Street are at war with the middle class any more than the common thief who robs the neighborhood store.
With that, I doubt there is any relationship between the campaign about “The War on Christmas” and those corrupt Wall Street investors, except maybe incidental ones.
In 1979, Wall Street lay behind the slow abolition of usury laws in all 50 states, which helped burden the middle class with exorbitant credit card interest rates. It has fought adjustment of the minimum wage to inflation, which has helped impoverish the working class. It wants to pay workers as little as it can get away with and has succeeded to liberalizing our trade laws to facilitate outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs overseas. As the Bible specifically condemns usury and urges help for the poor, I am surprised that you are so content with the money changers who sit so close to the heart of our temple of democracy.
Don’t misinterpret me. I believe people who commit crimes should be held accountable. I just don’t believe in throwing away the baby with the bath water because there is no widespread conspiracy on Wall Street to keep the middle class down as some would have it. Liberalizing our trade laws has in fact been a good thing for many under-developed countries including India. Right now in order for this country to be more competitive globally, we need to make sure we are playing on a level field. This means the US needs to ensure there are adequate employee safety gurards and acceptable pollution standards in those countries it trades with. As far as employee compensation goes, this will go up as it has in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and other places. To assume our laws were designed specifically to ensure outsourcing of our jobs and technology is ludicrous. I don’t know of any politician in his right mind who would do that.
There is a difference between intent and effect. The effect of the trade deals is to undermine our manufacturing base. Germany has been much smarter about this and has preserved its high wage manufacturing base
Those financiers who sold America the happy myth of free trade intended that they could outsource; the politicians who went along believed the happy myth that free trade worked for the more developed country.
Credit card interest rates are an outrage. They were capped for most of the 2oth century and, when the caps were lifted beginning in 79, the rationale offered was that inflation and the discount rate were too high to make credit cards profitable. As inflation was squeezed out of the system under Volcker’s federal discount rate increases and the resulting 81-83 recession, the credit card rates stayed high and have never gone down. Congress even agreed to make it more difficult to discharge credit card debt in Bankruptcy Court under Bush II.
The new assault on the working class, underwater mortgages, could have been stemmed by letting bankruptcy judges write down mortgages; however, Wall Street screamed about that and it has never happened.
Money owes no allegiance to any country. It seeks its highest rate of return. It has found astonishingly high rates of return in selling credit cards without limit and, in the last decade, pushing variable rate mortgages. Every generation since the Depression, until ours, recognized that there should be some basic limits on what banks could do. We bought the deregulation myth and have paid a steep price.
You know, in your case against high interest rates – that you call “usury” – you place all the blame on the lender and not on the borrower (credit card user) who knows the game yet willfully and freely enters into it. I’ve been using a credit card for over two decades and have had no complaints about it. In fact it has been a convenient asset for me time and again since I don’t have to worry about losing cash from my pockets. It’s funny how people who don’t pay their debts like to blame others for their irrisponsible failures. It’s almost equally amazing how morgagees who don’t pay up their monthly premiums on time like to blame the lenders. In both cases the would-be borrowers are not in a bind. They can always look for cheaper rates or find alternatives to borrowing. No one is left starving or homeless in this country if they are determined not to be.
We as a society called it usury. We called it loan-sharking. We recognized it as inherently disruptive to the functioning of our society. By making loan-sharking legal when performed by the banks, we lowered the bar for acceptable behavior and created a magnet for the best and the brightest to go into banking and finance rather than making better products. Yes, there are irresponsible borrowers, but many of those credit card debts were run up by people paying medical bills or dealing with emergencies. Credit card companies don’t want people who pay the balance due every month. We are “deadbeats” to them.
If you don’t have money to pay for medical bills you should not being using a credit card. Besides, no one is forcing you to use the credit card.
I had mistaken you for a religious man who took seriously the Bible’s condemnation of usury. Am I mistaken? Why should we not cap interest rates at the discount rate plus a defined per cent? Were our parents that mistaken to think that loan sharking was inherently wrong?
Were you personally there? How do you know these “facts” for sure. Sounds like you have made a deduction based on one verse of a book you disdain and do not believe in in the first place. Is it sound logic to make a deduction based on a fact out of a book you proclaim is a lie?
A lot of people believe the Bible is imperfect — for instance, it supports slavery, which most people understand to be a sin — but it is still “the Good Book.” It doesn’t have to be perfect in order to be good.
And it contains many parables which were not meant to be taken literally — parables can be true without being factual. So to say the Bible is imperfect and contains many metaphors, parables, hymns and and poems, along with history, wisdom literature, epistles, and testimonies of faith, is very different from saying that everything in it is a lie. I can’t speak for chenard, but I understand the Bible to contain the writings of many different authors who wrote in various styles and genres, and not all genres are meant to be taken literally. When the Psalms call God a “rock,” I don’t take that literally — but that doesn’t mean the Psalmist was a liar, just a poet.
I agree with you completely on this issue. chenard likes to challenge conservatives on what in his opinion is the slightest inconsistency of logic, left out minor fact, or word not fitting his strict definitions. I was just tweaking him with some of his own medicine. LOL
HumptyDumpty, as the post above proves it is not I who has been illogical.
Ah, Humpty Dumpty, you assume so much and know so little about me. Point to a single one of my posts that has proclaimed the Bible a lie. There are none.
I do not believe the Bible to be either infallible or the transcribed words of God. I do beware a man who reads only one book, be it the Koran, the Bible, or the Torah.
The Bible contains a great deal of wisdom. Proverbs 15:1 tells me that “a soft answer turneth away wrath,” so I will be as gentle as possible.
If you do some cursory research you will discover that Christians did not begin celebrating Christmas in December until the 4th Century A.D. That choice corresponded with the pagan Winter Solstice festivals.
No one can say with certainty when Christ was born, but in December in Palestine one does not leave one’s sheep in the fields at night. The period that shepherds would possibly be in the field at night would have been spring to early fall. Lambing season as the birth time of Christ has always appealed to biblical historians, perhaps because he is also called the lamb of God.
Finally, the monk who calculated backwards to determine the birth year of Christ got it wrong and Christ was born some time between 2 and 7 B.C. We know from contemporaneous Roman records that King Herod died before the traditional birth of Christ in 1 A.D. (The concept of zero wasn’t part of Western culture at the time the concept of Anno Domini began, so there is no 0 A.D.)
Dear chenard, our avatar of pomposity and condescension. LOL
First you declare as fact that Christ was born in the spring. Now you hedge your bets and give it anytime from spring to early fall. I do not claim to be all knowledgeable as you do, and I certainly am no expert on the Bible. However, I only remember one passage in the bible referencing shepherds tending their sheep when Christ was born. Seems to be mighty slim evidence to base a conclusion on. And on top of that you now purport to be an expert on sheepherding 2000 years ago. As well as being an expert in biblical history. In fact, there seems to be nothing you do not claim to know everything about.
The more you write, the more I laugh.
Humpty Dumpty, Christ’s birth in the spring is the best estimate of a majority of biblical scholars for the reasons I have stated. No other book of the Bible places Christ’s birth in a particular season and we know, from other accounts in what were very literate times, what the habits of shepherds were over 2000 years ago. Those habits remained unchanged into the early 20th Century. I am simply telling you what any more seasoned biblical scholar would tell you.
Do not let the fact that your prior jousts with me have left you feeling wounded interfere with your ability to absorb new information. Ask your pastor Sunday what his opinion of the season and birth year of Jesus was and he will likely agree with me. The more I write, the more you will learn. I see you have learned not to throw the words “socialist” and “fascist” around like so much seasoning at a barbecue. I will take credit for that.
Jesus is the Lamb of God, so perhaps he was an Aries (the Ram), born in March or April.
Perhaps. He was surely not a Capricorn.
Have you read the characteristics of Aries people. He’s not an Aries.
Some of my favorite people are Aries! What other signs have you ruled out?
Don’t have a very good handle on Astrology. I just know he’s not an Aries.
I know it’s silly to try to defend Aries people here and I won’t try, but why in the world do you say that?
You’re an Aries. I’m an Aries. Jesus doesn’t fit the Aries mold.
I’m not an Aries, my mother, husband and daughter are. They are all loving, kind, intelligent, insightful, empathetic, and creative people.
No, probably not, considering that “separating the sheep from the goats” thing.
Is Ron Paul a Capricorn? He surely is the most goat-like among our current flock of candidates.
Actually, no one knows when Jesus was born, neither the year nor the month. So it can be celebrated whenever we wish.
There is an old tradition that Christmas wreaths get taken down on Ash Wednesday (tomorrow) when Lent begins. The wreaths are not the problem — and I think it’s fine that the wreaths and “Christmas” trees are Pagan, and not Christian, in origin. Some folks celebrate both the Solstice (the true New Year’s festival) and Christmas.
The problem is not the wreaths — it is the months of soulless commercialism that lead up to Christmas.
Agreed.
September 11th, 3 BC, some time in the evening before actual nightfall.
It is the only date that lines up with all the information given in the bible as being Jesus’ birth, from our current time dating backwards. This date also lines up with the Jewish Jubilee prophetic calendar, which in the book of Daniel gives us the date of Jesus’ birth by the decree to rebuild the temple going forward to Jesus’ birth.
(In reply to penzance, below) – Herod died in 1 BC, scholars are now saying this. The overview of evidence contained in the following link is a good source to start on, and cites written works and other such stuff you might find interesting:
http://www.hope-of-israel.org/herodsdeath.html
If Jesus was born in 3 B.C as you claim (were you there?), the the two nativity stories in the Bible are both wrong, because Herod died the previous year.
The Gospels are not historical documents, they are testimonies of faith.
The two navitity stories in Matthew and Luke contradict one another to such an extent that we have to admit that we know hardly any of the facts about the birth of Jesus, including whether there were visits by shepherds or magi. We can only guess at the approximate year.
There is no reliable information about the month, because the nativity stories were not written by eyewitnesses; they were written about 75 to 80 years after the events they recount. If the biblical accounts are in any way accurate, your date in 3 B.C. is not.
I regard the nativity stories as truthful parables, not factual accounts. They tell us truths about the birth of Jesus, about his family and his mission; they are truthful without being factual.
Thanks Miz Sally. I was just about to dash outside to take in my wreath! (not!) I wonder why anyone would write a letter to the editor trying to shame people into taking their wreaths down.
{Have you noticed a steady increase in broad expressions of evangelical Christian faith in our nation? Formal national and state “days of prayer}
Talibangelicals!
I’m sorry, at what point in American history did the government start beheading people for not believing in Christianity?
Evangelical Christianity- Sharia/Taliban ….. Apples to oranges
I have not checked on the history, but at one time it was illegal to be a Catholic in Massachusetts and some other states. I do not know what the penalty was, but assume it was at least imprisonment. We have executed on a massive scale native Americans for not being christian. This was a nation wide effort backed by the secular and religious powers. Of course the truth is that their lack of christianity was used as an excuse to grab land, but that is usually the case where religion is the basis of discrimination.
Absolutely true, that was how the Maryland colony started. The Massachusetts colony came out with a law making catholics illegal, they had a certain period of time to leave, or be hanged.
Remember, these people only illustrate the history that they feel benefits them.
Another case that glares with religious persecution were the Salem witch trials. Again, I am not sure of the history as I haven’t read anything in years, but in Europe the accuser and trial judges got to divide up the property of of the convicted. It was a way to seize property under the guise of protecting the Christian religion. In the case of the witch trials and the slaughter of American Indians, it was primarily non-Catholics involved, as there was a great deal of prejudice against Catholics in the US.
I am glad that you admit that “Christianity” was used as an excuse for a land-grab. One step closer to seeing the trees from the forest!
Organized religion has always been an effective tool to motivate people to go to war. Note that I am not condemning the individual’s right to believe what they want. Many of the founding fathers, while religious in their own ways, held a disdain for organized religion for that reason.
Yes, I agree. Jesus was also against “organized religion,” in the sense that people only looking out for themselves (wolves in sheep’s clothing) eventually work their way into the system and take the reins and lead their congregations into the ditch.
Kinda like government… Sounds great on paper, horrible in practice when corruptible people run it.
Yes, even Samuel Adams, one of our Founding Fathers, thought Catholics shouldn’t be allowed to vote or sit on juries. So he didn’t just make beer.
Salem witch hunts. They weren’t beheaded but they were drowned, burned and otherwise just as dead.
Yes, and Quakers were hanged on Boston Common.
Christians Americans did that to Native Americans.
Slightly funny though nonsensical .
Formal national and state days of prayer are not mandates. They are simply days of observations. Historically government has always seen and advocated the practice of religion. Yet I don’t see a Taliban-like government to this day. Your rhetoric is overblown.
It is humor, lighten up.
The poster is engaging in religious bigotry as he has often does in this forum. It may be funny to you but it’s not to people of faith who are being constantly attacked and vilified in the press and in this forum. In fact, your own statement in response to Dlbrt confirms that:
“I LOVE YOUR HUMOR. IT IS CLOSER TO THE TRUE THEN MOST PEOPLE WANT TO ADMIT. KEEP IT UP!!!!!!!!!!! ” (vhiwater)
When religious politicians try to pass laws which infringe on my rights, telling me who I can and can’t
marry and eliminate a woman’s right to choose then it is time to call it quits. Yours and any religion have religious liberty but don’t try to impose your beliefs on me or my family by passing
laws which foster your believes. Seperation of church and state remember that.
It is humor for gods sake lighten up!!!
If it’s all humor, then why did you bring in the serious discussion concerning gay marriage? Are you telling me now you are not for gay marriage by making a silly argument in favor of it? If you are serious about not being able to marry who you want to marry, why don’t you try getting married to someone of the opposite sex. This way you can bear children and fulfill the ultimate purpose for marriage. Also, if you are serious about keeping it legal for a woman to kill her unborn child, why not extend that right for her to kill her 1-year old child that cries and keeps her awake at night?
Humor is amusing when it is good-natured and is intended to make everyone feel good.
By definition, the ‘unborn’ is not a child. To use your own words: “Your rhetoric is overblown.”
To some, the unborn is not a child. But, it is a life. And it should be protected.
The unborn life form only contains half of the mother’s DNA, therefore it is not part of the woman’s body. The woman, in fact, is a host to the unborn life form, and has no moral right to rid herself of the host responsibilities, especially when she, the mother, chose to risk the formation of the unborn life form by engaging in an activity she knew could result in impregnation.
Besides, abortion is murder, plain and simple.
Well, you floated that theory, and it bombed.
I disagree with you. So does the Supreme Court. Women have a right to their bodies’ integrity. They don’t need a man telling them what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. I am glad that they have a choice within certain limits. The day you can bear a child is the day you get to decide if you want to. Otherwise it is none of your business.
If life was so sacred to you, you would be anti-war.
EJ would also approve Pre-Natal care, WIC and other programs for the health of children. One more… he would also be against the death penalty.
I have no problem with programs to help the child progress and survive. The death penalty, however, is for the guilty. The unborn child has done nothing to deserve death.
Neither has the chicken sandwich.
Big difference between a chicken and a human. If this doesn’t convince you, then you should have your closest friend play Russian roulette in tandem with a chicken until one dies or both die. In this game both competitors have an equal chance of survival.
I hope you realize I was being somewhat facetious — however, when anti-choice people say “it’s a life,” I wonder what kind of life? A lot of things are living — trees and flowers are living, and so are horses and cows. Yes, they are alive, but are they human beings?
The important question here is, at what point does the human fetus become a human person? We celebrate our birthday, not our conception day. “Unborn child” is an oxymoron which has been chosen by anti-choice groups to confuse the dialogue.
Human life develops gradually in the woman’s womb. Since the beginnings of Christianity, Catholic theologians and popes for over a thousand years thought abortion was permissible until the mother could feel the baby move in her womb, the time of quickening. This was seen as the time of ensoulment — when the fetus got a soul and became a person. After that, abortion was not permissible.
And that’s pretty much were my theology is today. I oppose abortions late in pregnancy, but do not oppose them if they are early. Nonetheless, I also oppose abortion as a method of casual birth control. Yet I want to keep government out of it as much as possible, and leave the decision up to the woman in consultation with her physician and her family.
The product of human conception is certainly not an elephant, or a tree, or any living form other than one that will eventually develop into a human adult being with its own self identity. The adult form to which it eventually develops is determined at conception by the set of DNA molecules it acquires then. It is a very unique set, so much so that it will never be replicated and have the same self identity. Therefore, if it is destroyed at any point after conception it will never be brought back to life as the same biological being with the same self identity. Had your mother aborted you while you were still in the womb, you would obviously not be living and breathing. The term “unborn child” is not an oxymoron any more than the term “infant child”. Both terms represent human beings in different stages of development.
As to the Church’s historical stand on abortion, your statement is demonstrably false. Even the earliest Church catechism, the Didache, a church document from as early as the turn of the first century, condemned abortion specifically at a time when the point of the origin of human life was only a matter of speculation among theologians. With the growth of understanding in human biology we now know that life begins at conception.
It’s amazing in some respect that you should leave the decision of abortion, the right to end an innocent human being’s life in the womb, up to a women. That same reasoning was used not so long ago when a young child was abused by its parents. No one was willing to intervene because the matter of raising the child was entirely left to the parents. We now have a different perspective on this issue.
Since the legalization of abortion nationwide, how has abortion served women? We know it has taken the lives of at least 54 million human beings in the womb. A human being as early as 12 weeks in gestation can be observed resisting the suction device used to end its life by trying to avoid it. Have you ever seen photos of fetuses even younger than 12 weeks from conception after an abortion has taken place? Try doing a web search to see what an abortion does to them.
Again, how has legal abortion served women? We now know that more than half of all aborting women regret their abortions. Many today are rising to testify against it, each implying they only wished abortion had not been legal at the time of their abortion.
We also know most aborting woman felt pressured into having an abortion by a boy friend, a father who happened not to be a boyfriend, a relative, a friend, an abortion clinic worker, a child rapist, or a combination of these. Given these facts alone, are women well-served by abortion? Clearly the facts speak for themselves. Moreover, abortion has scarred women, many for life, even those in denial. I know first hand because I’ve seen the tears of regret that has no end.
Of course the product of human conception is not a tree — but that living zygote may or may not become a fetus which may or may not become a human baby. The question is: At what point is it a human baby? Until it becomes a human being, abortion is permissable.
I oppose abortion late in pregnancy, as I have said.
The Didache was not an early chatechism, and it was not universally recognized by the Church — in fact, it was rejected for inclusion in the New Testament.
The “54 million human beings” mantra is a lie. A fetus is not a human being unless and until it becomes a baby.
Yes, if you scare women enough, and tell them they’ve murdered a baby, then they may have tears of fear and regret. Women who have lost a potential baby deserve support, not the scorn heaped on them by anti-choice zealots.
The innocent, unborn child doesn’t have a voice. Therefore, it is my right and my business to lend mine.
At we speak, more than 54 million babies have died as a result of legal abortion in the US. In more than half these cases woman regret their abortion. Also, in even more cases women felt pressured into having an abortion by her boyfriend, relative, friend, an abortion provider, or a combination of these. “Free choice” after all is not a free choice for most women who abort. Historically it has not served women well, not to speak of the millions of innocent human lives sacrificed in the name of “free choice”.
If they haven’t been born, and are not naturally viable outside the woman’s womb, they are not babies. So to say “54 million babies have died as a result of legal abortion” is simply a falsehood.
” In more than half these cases woman regret their abortion”
I can’t find this statistic anywhere, other than in your post…..
Until men can carry a baby to term they should not be the one’s deciding what a woman can do with their body.
If you are so concerned with savinglives why not make it mandatory that all people are organ donors? Why should you decide whether or not you need both kidneys?
The unborn life form is not part of her body. It could only be part of her body if the DNA were identical. And it’s not.
Since it is not part of her body then she can decide to have that foreign object removed.
Why should a person be required to keep something in her body that is not a part of her?
So it’s an alien parasite. Anyone with an alien parasite should be allowed to remove it if desired.
A pregnant women who carries to a baby to term does not have to give up one of her vital parts such as a kidney. If she decides to abort her pregnancy to get rid of the child forever she in effect trumps the RIGHT to ABORT over the RIGHT of the child in her womb to its very LIFE in contradiction to the self-evident truth “That ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are (note the succession) Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” (The Declaration of Independence). If a woman can do as she please with her unborn child, why can she not do as she please with her infant child?
So should a woman be charged with endangering her fetus if she does not take care of herself while pregnant? Should it be a crime for a woman to smoke, drink, do drugs or engage in any dangerous activities while pregnant? Should we place all women in “protective custody” to ensure that the fetus gets the best medical care possible because after all the fetus is more important then the woman carrying it?
Criminalizing those types of harmful behaviors is probably not the best option for pregnant women. They can certainly be encouraged to lead a healthy life. Most pregnant women would be very receptive of that I suspect.
I doubt too that I would favor sentencing women who abort. Instead, it would be better to penalized those who assist, especially abortionists.
But by your stance the woman is just as guilty, maybe more so, because she is the one requesting the service not the “abortionist”.
I have yet to hear of abortions legally being performed on women who do not want them so if there is not a demand for abortions, there would be no “abortionists”.
I didn’t address the issue of guilt or blame a woman must be brought to bear for having an abortion. Also, feeling pressured to have an abortion and yielding to this pressure is a very common occurrence. I’m just simply stating facts here without making any judgements.
Opinions. You meant opinions.
No, I meant “facts”. Do the research. I am not your water boy.
You should be all for contraception then. If a woman is able to take effective affordabel contraception then their would be a whole lot less abortions but instead you do not want contraceptives to be available at all.
Why do so many on these comment threads assume they know what another thinks or believes? Is their argument so weak that they have to attempt to speak for someone else?
I have no problem with contraception. But, those that are engaging in sex should be responsible enough to get their own contraception and not rely on the government to force groups that oppose it to fund it and/or supply it. On the other hand, if a group wants to supply contraception, then they should be allowed and not mandated.
Let me interject here. People with a contraceptive mentally actually do resort more to abortion than people who don’t. When the use of contraceptive fails to attain the desired goal of preventing pregnancy, abortion ends up being another alternative.
People with a ‘contraceptive mentality’ do not want to have children so by definition they would resort to more abortions than people who want children. Taking away the ability to use contraception, and I believe the ultimate goal of the ‘Pro-Life’ movement is to make contraception illegal, will not result in less abortions but more.
Last time I checked women who want to be pregnant do not have abortions unless the fetus is severly defective or their life is in danger.
There is absolutely no truth in the claim that pro-lifers are trying to do away with contraceptives except for those that cause abortion like the drug named Ella. Since I’ve been in the movement since its inception I can vouch for that. Besides there is not one iota of evidence to support that claim.
Again, the claim that women do not have abortions unless the fetus is deformed or their life is endanger is FALSE. I don’t know where you get your information lately, but it does not match up to reality.
PS: I just checked the facts concerning abortion involving “hard cases”. Included in the category of hard cases are rape and incest, life endangerment or physical health, and birth defects. Hard cases make up about .7 percent (less than one percent) of all abortions, that is, less than one in every 143 abortions.
Mississippi Pro-lifers tried to get an amendment to the state’c constitution that would have defined personhood as beginning at the time of conception. Fortunatley this was stopped but it could have lead to making most forms of contraception illegal, including the Pill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mississippi-anti-abortion-personhood-amendment-fails-at-ballot-box/2011/11/09/gIQAzQl95M_story.html
Notice that COlorado has twice tried to pass a similiar constitutional amendment.
South Dakota is a battleground state for another amendment that would define personhood as beginning at the time of conception. The Pro-life movement’s goal is to have 17 states with amendments like thse that could outlaw most kinds of contraception.
http://personhoodsouthdakota.com/
The point is that the woman should not be having sex unless it is for the purposes of having a child. And then, of course, in a heterosexual marriage only.
Jesus loved sex. Baby-making, or for fun. Jesus didn’t discriminate.
Well sure, EJ, a chicken is a life, and so is broccoli, but I eat them. Eating a chicken sandwich “is murder, plain and simple,” to use your logic.
But if you’re talking about a human life and a human soul, that’s different, and there’s plenty of room for debate there.
St. Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century said that the soul didn’t enter the fetus until between forty and ninety days after conception. In roughly the same era Saint Jerome emphasized human shape: “The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external
appearance and their limbs.” Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the greatest Roman Catholic theologian, agreed with Augustine. Pope Innocent III, in the same century, agreed that that abortion before quickening — when the mother first feels the fetus move — was not murder. When Pope Gregory XIV affirmed the quickening test for ensoulment in
1591, he set the time for it as 116 days into pregnancy, or the sixteenth week. The great reversal of Catholic doctrine on abortion occurred in the 19th century under Pope Pius IX in 1869. Current Catholic doctrine dates to the precedent set by Pius IX, but this is a new doctrine, not what the Church taught in previous centuries. Most Protestant churches say that the sould develops gradually, and the fetus, as it develops, gradually becomes a human being. You know that I have the biblical texts to support this position.
God has a plan for a person even before that person is conceived. We have no right to intervene in His plan.
By the way, your comment did more damage to your case than good. It would seem that no one knows for sure when the soul enters the picture. No one but God.
And God provided us with chickens and broccoli to eat. Too bad for them.
My rule of thumb is this — the fetus is a baby when it is naturally viable outside the woman’s womb. When it starts to move in the womb, that is a sign. I oppose most third-trimester abortions.
And no, God does not have a plan for every person, despite what “Christian” on-line dating sites advertize.
Yes God does indeed have a plan for every person, even for you.
Wrong.
“God” planned for that piece of trash in Dexter to kill his estranged wife and children? “God” planned for Ayla Reynolds to have terrible parents? You can’t be serious…. I hope you’re not serious….. Do you really think “God” plans all the garbage that happens in this world? Just to mix it up a little? Did “God” plan on you misinterpreting his words? Please, don’t say, “‘God’ gave everyone free will”……. That is the polar opposite of planned. I really want to understand you. I’m not trying to insult you. Truly. I want to know, like you “know”.
Just a slight correction if I may: The reference to “unborn” means an unborn child, that is, a child still in the womb. The mother’s unfertilized egg is half a cell (not yet a child) containing half the normal amount of DNA as you correctly pointed out. Our concern is about the fertilized egg at conception (the beginning of life) that contains the DNA from a sperm (another half cell) and DNA from an egg (ovum). From that point, this one-cell entity develops into a form that looks more and more like an adult. It’s development is strictly determined by its DNA makeup and not the living environment provided in the host mother’s womb that provides shelter and nourishment it needs for survival. Because the DNA in each and every cell of a person is the same throughout the body, human life has its origin at the moment of conception in the form of a single cell that multiplies into two cells by splitting in two, then into 4 cells when these two cells split in two, then into 8 cells when these 4 cells split in two, and then on and on until this process of splitting produces a full size adult. Actually, the process of cell division is a little more complex than described because for one, cells don’t all multiply at the same time, and two, at some early point in the developmental stage, they begin to specialize into different forms and functions.
If it’s “unborn,” it isn’t a child. “Unborn chid” is an oxymoron.
The press does not vilify nor does the world attack you for your religion. Snarky remarks and religious word plays get made because people get oh, so tired of being told how sinful we are, where we can expect to spend eternity, how we need to accept your Jesus, honor your god, obey his rules, show deep respect to you and your religion and keep quiet while you use the political process to make your religious beliefs into laws.
If you want the jokes and disrespect to stop show some respect for others, practice your religion quietly as your god suggests and for heavens sake try to act a bit more sophisticated about religion. Sheesh.
I don’t see anyone being attacked for their religious beliefs only when they try to force their beliefs on others. They do get attacked when they start stating that their belieifs are more important then others or that they are the final arbitor of what is right and wrong.
Like every human person you obviously have a particular set of beliefs you choose to defend. Tell me, why do you defend them if you don’t think they are not more important than other sets of beliefs? Obviously you defend them because you actually do believe they are more important.
Your conscience is the final arbiter of what is right and wrong! Yet we can differ and even argue over ethical or moral views without the need to put each other down. For instance, when a topic of discussion is gay marriage, I will give my reasons for being against it. This is not a personal attack on anyone who has an opposing view if it is intended to persuade and not to ridicule or humiliate – or “force”, if you will – anyone into submission. So why should anyone take offense when another person argues in that fashion?
No, it’s not humor. Humor has to be funny.
All in the eye of the beholder. Funny to me.
It’s funny !!!!!!!
It is a slippery slope.
I LOVE YOUR HUMOR. IT IS CLOSER TO THE TRUE THEN MOST PEOPLE WANT TO ADMIT. KEEP IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!
Please stop yelling at me. Thank you.
Are you operating as Dlbrt if so I apologize,as it was directed to him, not anyone else.
Still, anyone can read it, and capital letters are the web-page equivalent of shouting.
When you use all caps, you are yelling at everyone.
George Elliott–You say of governor LePage : “He seems to make all his major decisions on the basis of his ideologies”
I think it is more accurate to say that he makes all his major decisions on the basis of what best feathers his own nest. His puppeteers at ALEC and MHPC will reward him well for his efforts in handing over the henhouse to the foxes.
What’s funny is those that complain about theocracies in the middle east and the coming of sharia law are the same ones pushing their religious agendas on others here, they’re the same ones who screech about a “war on Christmas” and that Obama’s agenda doesn’t adhere to the Bible. It’s laughable and hypocritical. We’re a secular nation and that’s one of the reasons why we’re the greatest nation, because we have that freedom.
Look we can argue all you want about whether we’re a secular or religious nation. Actually we’re secular in one respect and religious in another. But regardless of what you think, Obama’s insurance mandate is a gross violation of religious freedom guaranteed under the first Amendment. This freedom is not just restricted to churches as the Obama Admin. is claiming. (Reread the 1st Amendment itself) If you fear Sharia law, something similar to it, or government by the state – not the people – continue to advocate violation of the 1st Amendment. By trampling on one freedom Obama’s mandate endangers all our basic freedoms.
Seems like if it was a real issue, you know, for the 2% of woman who haven’t used contraceptives, it would have been brought up during the health care reform debates that lasted over a year. But guess what, it wasn’t. Republicans were too busy with their made up complaints, such as death panels, socialism, etc.
First of all the 2% you cite is not an accurate stat. It was taken from a bias pollster that promotes the right to an abortion. Check it out for yourself.
Second, it doesn’t matter how few women use contraceptives because Obama’s health care bill violates the 1st Amendment Right of religious freedom by restricting that freedom to churches only. There is no precedence anywhere at any time in US history for such a restriction. The reason for that is that the 1st Amendment guarantees religious freedom without qualification. Reread it and you will see what I mean.
We passed a law that determined a minimum standard for it that must be adhered to. There was an accommodation and they aren’t being forced to pay for it, so what more do you want? For religious institutions to have the freedom to deny their employees contraceptives?
There are plenty of things that our tax dollars go to fund that individuals find morally questionable, but that’s just a fact of life. It isn’t tantamount to religious oppression — no way, no how. These institutions are still free to preach and believe that contracts aren’t inline with their teachings, their employees can believe these things as well. But, since we’ve established a standard, women who do wish to use contraceptives can and they’ll have it covered by their health care (directly or indirectly).
If that’s not enough, then get out of the business of providing health care.
There was absolutely no accommodation. I must ask, where do you get your information from? Don’t be so blind-sided by politics and stick to the truth if the truth still matters to you. Yes, absolutely yes, all health insurers are being forced to pay for contraceptives, abortion inducing drugs, and sterilizations even if they are opposed to this for reasons of conscience.
Now you say, ” There are plenty of things that our tax dollars go to fund that
individuals find morally questionable, but that’s just a fact of life.”
Now let’s start with that statement. NAME OF OF THOSE THINGS.
Yes, there was an accommodation and a quick one at that. Initially, only churches were exempt, but not religious institutions such as a Catholic hospital for example (they employ individuals of all faiths) and that’s where the controversy arose. The compromise has the insurance companies provide the contraceptives directly if the institution objects to. I think that’s pretty fair. We have a standard, what you’re asking for is the right for an employer to provide a sub-standard version of that care. Well, now they can, but the health insurance company itself will fill the gap.
And name one of those things? You have to be kidding. How about war for a massively huge example.
No, the so-called “compromise” is not a real compromise because it still makes the objecting religious institution complicit for the distribution of contraceptives. The religious institution is made to pay for such a service whether it gives it direct or indirectly.
Yes, you are right: Citizens under certain circumstances may be exempt from military conscription on conscientious grounds when those grounds are rooted in one’s religious beliefs against wars.
But can one refuse his child from receiving a life-giving blood transfusion on religious grounds? The answer is no because the right-to-life takes precedence over the 1st Amendment Right to freedom of religion. In all other known cases, the religious exemption must apply.
That’s why the Constitution states, “Congress SHALL make no law (like the provisions for contraception in Obamacare with a narrow exemption)….prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” People or establishments mandated by the government to provide insurance coverage for an objectionable service on religious grounds are being prevented from freely exercising their religion.
Kind of reminds me of Voter ID laws. The contraceptive laws, You can be exempt, but the insurance company will do it. You have every right to vote, but need an ID to do it.
Complicit, how? Because the health insurance company (instead of the institution) is providing for the contraceptives? That doesn’t add up to me. You have to realize not everyone agrees with your characterization that this prohibits the free exercise of religion. I actually find that kind of laughable. It seems more a control issue to me, similar to the gay marriage debate. Being able to marry means the world to a gay couple, but do those against it, it impacts them very little. To me, this is more of trying to force others to adhere to your personal beliefs as opposed to being denied the right to worship freely.
I don’t know if you and I are communicating on the same level. Anyway I will attempt to clarify my position once again.
The mandate requires employers to provide health insurance to their employees with coverage for contraceptive, abortion inducing drugs, and sterilizations against their own conscience. They are in essence paying for something that they themselves consider wrong for reasons of conscience. If they refuse to accede to this mandate they are subject to hefty penalties that will cause them to go out of business. So who is being forced to do what here? Obviously it’s the providers. What you seem to not realize is that there is more to religion than worship. There are tenets of belief adherents must comply with.
Now, tell me how the refusal by some insurance providers to comply with a provision of Obamacare forces others to adhere to the the provider’s personal beliefs? It simply doesn’t.
You can clarify all you want, but that doesn’t make your inaccuracies correct or your opinions universal. The accommodation is for those institutions that object. Instead, the insurance companies will bear the costs and the premiums for the institution will not go up.
It would have been a moot point had there been a public option. Many would LOVE to leave the restrictive and controlling atmosphere at their place of employment where their employer pays the bulk of the insurance and thus is able to exert control over the lives of the employees under the threat of financial penalty.
Allowing the sinful gays to marry destroys the meaning of what marriage really is. While Don and Betty may not actually know any gays who are married, the fact that they are getting married is enough for them to worry about a decline in marriage among straight people, thus reducing the birth rate of straight people, thus changing society forever from the normal and commonplace Father at work, Mother at home, and Son and Daughter growing up normal. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
It wasn’t an accomodation; it was a different version of the same edict issued without Congressional approval.
Made up complaints? They ration health care anywhere it has been “socialized.”
Healthcare is rationed in this country as well.
Just ask someone who needs an operation but the insurance company says no or someone whose doctor has requested a test and then the insurance company refuses to pay for it.
Sounds like rationing to me.
I’m not denying that health care is rationed without nationalizing it, I’m just saying that it isn’t any better if it is nationalized.
I stongly support the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. They are to me close to being regarded as “sacred texts.” And I think that while President Obama stumbled a bit on this one, he made a nice recovery and came up with the proper mix.
Churches themselves were not, and are not, expected to have insurance coverage for anything that conflicts with their religious beliefs. That was never an issue.
Church related hospitals employ and serve the general public, so they are in a different category. Under President Obama’s revised plan they will not have to directly cover anything that conflicts with the beliefs of their parent organization; however, because they employ and serve the general public, insurance companies will do so.
Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Association say this is a fair compromise. Yes, I know the Catholic Bishops are still unhaappy.
The president has to find the correct balance between the public’s right to be served by hospitals that treat the public, and the church’s right to follow the dictates of their doctrine. I wish the president had gotten this right the first time, but I believe he got it right on the second try. Churches do not have an unlimited right to do whatever they want — just think of 19th century polygamy and the Mormons, or a pastor who swindles money from a parishioner and claims that it’s a religious matter (freedom of religion does not cover fraud).
There are certain limits to all Constitutional freedoms. Most NRA members would probably agree that the Second Amendment doesn’t give everyone the freedom to own their own atomic bomb.
If we’re such a secular nation, why is Christmas – a purely religious holiday – an official state and federal holiday? Hannukah isn’t. Kwanzaa isn’t. The Day of Ashura isn’t. The solstice isn’t. Just Christmas.
We are not a secular nation. We are not a religious nation We are a nation with a secular government and without a state religion.
There are more important things to worry about Mary.
GEORGE,
What he doesn’t want is to be the governor of another Greece. A report out today shows a staggering number of people going from two years of unemployment benefits directly into the SS disability system. Just what does it take to make a liberal understand that most people are just scamming the system?
RICHARD,
God talks to me all the time, but there’s for sure no such thing as a distinguished psychiatrist or psychologist.
PETER,
You are correct, they can use their own money.
When God talks to you what does she say?
He speaks a language only those who pay him homage understand. It seems very few people want to do that since they consider themselves the only gods.
Theater of the mind. Sad part is, the admission ticket is pretty steep.
You have little idea of what poster amconservative was talking about. You see, there is truth and there are lies. What amconservative is talking about is the truth. God does indeed make his presence known, but you will never know unless you are willing to submit yourself to Him.
Ever ask yourself what you have in common with the billions of other “people of faith” around the world? Here’s what: you believe what you’ve been told to believe. You follow ancient…and in some cases, not-so-ancient…writings by other men who claim to have spoken to some higher power.
You let all of that into your head and think you’ve got some great and real connection going on with some “almighty”.
You. And billions like you. All around the world. So many different paths to the “hereafter” being walked.
What makes you think you have the correct answers and that everyone who doesn’t share your faith is wrong? Has it not occurred to you that it may just be all “theater of the mind”?
Ever ask yourself those questions? You really should some day. The answer could be your ticket back to reality.
“What makes you think you have the correct answers and that everyone who
doesn’t share your faith is wrong? Has it not occurred to you that it
may just be all “theater of the mind”?”
Sounds like you are describing progressives and their “worship” of and devotion to Karl Marx and FDR. Or environmentalists and their worship of Al Gore and the earth.
Do you not understand the difference between agreeing with someone on the subjects of politics (although you’re stretching it with the Marx reference) and science, and thinking you’re having a tete-a-tete with the creator of the universe?
Do you not understand that once any belief system is accepted with blind faith and revered as the “truth” with no compromise for different world views or opinions that it is effectively a religion.
Christians have a religion. Muslims have a religion. Environmentalists have a religion. And Progressives have a religion.
And the hard core of all of these are immune to logic, science, or facts.
While I agree that there are boneheads in all areas of enthusiasm, people who believe in gods do not lightly allow those beliefs to be challenged.
I consider myself to be in the environmentalist camp, though not an activist. I’m also progressive in my political views, though not a zealot.
I welcome challenges to my thinking. I look at all sides before taking a position.
People who think they talk to a god are pretty much immovable when it comes to questioning their beliefs. That’s a danger when it moves into the realm of government.
It is my understanding that a religion by definition must have at least one deity.
Actually Buddhism considers gods or God to be irrelevant. The Buddha was — to Buddhists — an enlightened teacher, and certainly not a divine being. Most people think Buddhism is a religion nonetheless. Taoism (Daoism), at its core, also requires no God or gods.
Unitarian Universalists are non-creedal, and so some UUs also find God to be an irrelevant concept (although to many other UUs God is very important, even central, to their religious understanding and practice. Most Unitarians around the world believe in God).
Still, I think GovernmentIStheproblem is generalizing too much. Environmentalism is a movement mostly based on good science. Socialism, progressiveism and liberalism are, like libertarianism, conservativism and fascism, political movements. That’s not to say they never have religious elements, but GovernmentIStheproblem is overreaching and exaggerating (in order to make a point, I suspect).
You got it.
There are extremists in all these groups, an actual deity is not needed. In the extremist’s minds they have adopted a person or an idea effectively as their “deity”. Someone or something that they believe in. That they have blind “faith” in. ( I have often said that faith should be considered a four letter word. Let me tell you THAT statement has got me in hot water more than once.)
I think you and I are in agreement here!
Or Republicans and their worship of Mammon.
Or Democrats and their worship of government.
That depends on the type of government.
Funny for you to mention progressives having a devotion to FDR and Karl Marx — as I’m a liberal who thinks FDR saved us from Karl Marx. FDR made the U.S. safe for capitalism.
You are clearly overreaching and wildly exaggerating when you talk about “environmentalists and their worship of Al Gore and the earth.” Come on, let’s be at least a little bit serious! If you said that environmentalists point out that we have only one inhabitable planet, then you’d be getting to the truth.
A discussion of FDR and how he started us on the road to our present problems would be long and arduous. I would suggest you look at many of his programs instituted during the great depression and their implementation. Many of these eliminated real competition and were based on progressive ideas of the time. Many of those progressive ideas can be traced directly back to Karl Marx and other icons of the far left. You and I may have quite different definitions of capitalism.
About the environmentalists. Think Earth First, earth liberation front, or many who actively worship the earth as Gaia.
My definition of capitalism is simple: “Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned by individuals or corporations; free enterprise.” Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned, as by cooperatives or by the state. I’ve never heard of any knowledgeable definition that disagrees substantially with this.
FDR made capitalism work — the only real alternatives were do-nothing Republicanism, right-wing fascism, or left-wing socialism. FDR mixed some elements of socialism into our capitalist economy to be sure — what capitalist economy doesn’t have some socialism? Public highways are “socialist,” and so are public police departments and fire departments. The Conservative Party of Britain might reform the National Health, but would never consider getting rid of it.
Norman Thomas, a Presbyterian clergyman, was the 1932 Socialist Party candidate for President. He received nearly 885,000 votes. Yes, there were real Socialists in the U.S. in those days, not the imaginary socialists of today’s Faux News rants.
As for environmentalism, you apparently choose to consider the radicals to be the only environmentalists. Those who see the earth itself as sacred — and there’s nothing wrong with that — are a relatively small group.
The Gaia Hypothesis, of course, is a scientific model that sees the earth as a living system — reminding us that we are all dependent on one another.
Your definition of Capitalism is extremely broad. It would even technically include Fascist Italy and Germany. Your definition of Socialism is extremely narrow. Both are relatively simple dictionary definitions. In the real world capitalism and Socialism embrace a wide range of actual political, philosophical, and economic ideas.
I agree with the Greenwood Encyclopedia that has the widest and most applicable definition of socialism. Socialism is “an economic and political theory or system which advocates heavy regulation of economic and political affairs with the fundamental aims of more equality in wealth distribution and ending class distinctions and privileges.” It goes on to say “Few if any modern socialists entirely reject private property.
Yes, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany maintained crony capitalism, heavily regulated by the state. I think my definitions of socialism and capitalism — which you admit are what most dictionaries say — are accurate. I think you are looking for a definition that fits your ideology — you think regulation is socialism — Marx, Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas would certainly disagree. And they should know.
All loving God, Unless you don’t submit, then burn in hell. Doesn’t really seem that loving now does it?
Yes, that kind of theology is “bait and switch.” I’m referring to the idea that God “loves” you and offers you “free” grace, but if you don’t agree to the correct belief about the nature of God, or don’t participate in the right sacraments, or don’t say the magic prayer “I accept Jesus as my Savior and want a personal relationship with him,” God will torture you in hell not just for billions upon billions of years but for all of eternity. That’s divine child abuse! If any earthly father behaved like that we would send him to prison. Why do so many Christians think that God is less loving and less moral than we are?
By the way, I’m a Christian — just not the kind that believes God created a Hell to torture us in, and then created us so flawed that we have to be sent there for eternity.
LOL “Bait and Switch” religion. Never thought of it that way, but, you hit the nail squarely on the head.
I understand what you are saying. Some Christians, arguably Jehovah’s Witnesses, believe one has to have the right magical formula in order to be in God’s good grace. Your point clearly illustrates a loving God could not be that stringent and uncompromising. No, I think what God wants above all else is an open heart seeking to be one with Him. I think the God of Christianity fits that bill perfectly.
Yes, and I would not limit my comment to just the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Hey quit knocking Jehovah’s Witnesses. They aren’t pushy about their religion. They at least have the decency to ask if you are interested in hearing their good word and leave nicely if you aren’t.
Okay, if you say so. :)
That reminds me of the analogy: God is the potter, we are the clay. The clay doesn’t tell the potter what to do. Rather it is the potter that forms the clay. The clay, if you will, is at the potter’s mercy just as we, the created ones, are at God the Creator’s mercy.
Yes, Scripture tells us there is an eternal hell where “fire” cannot sufficiently purify the soul for it to enter heaven where nothing “impure” can enter it. Of course an impure soul is one that is not fully consummated by the love of God. Hell is a state where souls have consciously totally rejected God, at least that’s my understanding of Hell.
On a more positive note, what good father would want his child to get burned by a stove? The father will do everything he can to train the child not to touch the stove, especially when it is searing hot. But if the child is stubborn and believes himself smarter than his dad, he will touch the stove to his own detriment, perhaps even in defiance of his father. In contrast, if the child obeys and trusts his father, the child is spared and protected from the danger posed by the stove. Our relationship to God the Father whom Scripture says is the source of all love is similar to the good father and child in this illustration. God wants us all the be under his care and protection.
Well by using your analogy, Why the heck is god creating bad people? where is he getting the clay from? Its funny, you can live a horriable life, full of crime, as long as your repent before you die you can go to heaven. However if you live an honorable, just life but don’t repent you are going to burn in hell, that does not sound all that loving, actually it makes no sense. I am sure you loving and all forgiving god can look past that and let the good ones in based on how they lived there life, not on what they believe to be true. Basically you can be as bad and horriable as you want until right before you die, then truely repeant and you are going to heaven. Also with the stove analogy…What? What you are asking is blind obediance, ohh don’t do that trust me. How would we learn anything? What if the stove has been cool for a while now, but each father and son just passed it down anyways, no one was actually checking the stove any more?
God doesn’t create “bad” people. Rather people choose to do bad things. like horrible crimes. I believe there is a day of reckoning for all our actions, especially those that deliberately ignore God Himself. Therefore, holding out to the end to reconcile ourselves to God is foolhardy. For one, no one knows with certainty when his or her final hour will occur. And, even if they knew and managed to reconcile in timely manner, they will still face the prospect of the day of judgment. (see the last part of Matthew Chapter 25 concerning the last judgement).
Faith in God is not blind judgement any more than the faith of the little child in his father’s benevolence. I would agree however that if the child’s father could not be trusted, then the child would indeed be acting blindly – or be displaying blind faith – by being compliant to him.
Whawell, it’s disappointing that someone with a sane world view would throw their lot in with someone using religion to justify a narrow and vindictive world view. You are a deeper and more honest thinker than that.
To be truthful I don’t subscribe to the religious views of every Christian. No one has a perfect understanding of God or the revelation of Himself in Scripture. So, I have to be forgiving by not condemning others for “their lack of understanding” just as I would hope they would do the same for me. :) If you want a more complete sense of what my beliefs are I would suggest you read my response to posters penzance and moro818’s responses to my preceding comment.
What does knowing God have to do with his statement: “there’s for sure no such thing as a distinguished psychiatrist or psychologist”?
She used to speak to me in Aramaic, but now we find it easier to talk in Esperanto. She tells me that President Obama will be re-elected. What does he or she tell you?
You are obviously referring to a god who is not the God of Christianity. I do not know your god, let alone know much about your god.
The First Commandment tells us that there is but one God. Are you not a Christian?
She tells me she is not interested in politics and could care less who is elected. She leaves all that nonsense to us lowly created folks. She is more concerned with the falling of the waves on the shores and the whisper of the winds through the trees; on sunshine and starshine and the return of green things growing.
She is apolitical as well, but does not mind telling me what is self-evident to any sentient observer.
But maybe if the GOP will pray hard and Tebow enough, she will intervene? We’ve all got to believe in something :)
They need to listen to Dylan’s “With God On Our Side” first. That might give them pause.
LOL
He says he’s in favor of the propane tank in Searsport.
She tells me that she has never cared much for Tim Tebow. He missed that part about praying a private setting.
God tells me to stop reading the comments on BDN articles. Wish I were more obedient.
She will forgive you.
You are mostly right except that roads and bridges are nearly as important as police and fire fighters. Roads and bridges are used by everybody that is important to a strong economy and the cost to build them should be shared by all income tax payers.
You’re really proud of your silly ignorance, aren’t you?
Should be an interesting day. Many here jump at the chance to bash Christianity, LePage, and Christmas. But, all on the same day!!! Wahoo!!!
How about trucking in the materials for the tank on Vigue Highway, christening the finished tank with non-alcoholic sparkling grape juice and a Christian prayer, allowing LePage to speak at the christening, and filling the tank with Christmas cheer? I like it.
They could have the Thatcher or Reagan rest stops and could name the Toll Plazas after prominent tax hikers. The Ayn Rand Plowing Co
Don’t forget today is President’s day (Obama’s last one as President) Don’t forget the party at the white house too.
In your dreams only, really look at the clown show he will be running against, think about it who wouldn’t want to run against any of them.
Anyone is better than the incompetent nincompoop we have now.
He leads against all the Republican challengers and most of the country does not even know them yet.
Are you better off today than you were 3 years ago? There is going to be a whole lot of water go over the damn between now and November. Based on spending by the President the debt ceiling will be reached again. Benefits will be threatened for seniors…one whole voting block. Young voters unemployment rate stands at over 20%…another whole voting block lost. Gas prices will go over $4 and another whole block of middle to lower income voters will be lost. Last year at this time the economy appeared to be improving. By the end of spring it was up in irons again. Economists are predicting this will be as bad if not worse if oil prices skyrocket. It is not just Obama…it is all of Washington that has failed us and I will not vote for any one of our Senators or Congresswomen who are in office. When have they stood up for America and Maine over the past 2 years.
If only the Republicans will hit hard with that message of ” are you better off today than you were then” then they will prevail. If they allow Obama to sidetrack into the GOP is keeping women from using birth control, and giving tax cuts to the rich, etc…well, we’ll be in for four more years of Obama. This election should be easy for the GOP–why do I feel so down about it? The GOP needs some new leadership.
They better not go with the “Better off” theme. They will get whipped. Better stick with something they know. Sex and religion. Banning one and force feeding the other.
do you really think, the mess, of 2008 could be turned around in 3 years? with the 11% approval rating of congress, I think most people know who’s to blame in this mess, don’t you?
Dow hit 13,000 today. First time since Bush was in office. I guess Obama’s work is finally showing-it DOES take a long time to undo the mess from the prior administration…
The influence of the government on Wall Street is minuscule. Obama can’t take credit for that. But he will try.
Yes, we are better off than we were three years ago. You Republicans ran up the debt, started wars, cut taxes, drove the economy to the brink then packed up and left and now you’re mad that the Democrats didn’t get the mess cleaned up the first day in office. You guys have the patience of a 2 year old.
National debt up by 6 trillion.
Gas prices doubled.
Actual unemployment over 12%.
Health care in shambles.
Weakness on the foreign front.
Military morale way down.
More and more jobs going overseas.
Oil production on the decline.
Bankruptcies on the rise.
Foreclosures on the rise.
Freedoms and liberties being taken one by one.
Immorality running rampant.
Increased government intrusion.
Sure, we’re a lot better off.
By the way, nothing on this list can be blamed on Bush. It’s Obama’s ball game now.
“Gas Prices Doubled”…I remember paying over four bucks a gallon for gas in the last year of the Bush Presidency.
“Actual unemployment over 12 %”…. more than three million new jobs created by American businesses in the last year and a half.
“Weakness on the foreign front”… who killed Bin Laden and presided over the disposal of khadafy? Compare Obama’s leadership in foreign affairs to his predecessor, who strutted around like a dime-store cowboy and said “I’m gonna git Osama, dead ‘r alive,” but then failed to git Osama while starting wars that made America hated in the world.
“Military morale way down”… who says? The troops are coming home. That’s not likely to result in low morale.
“Oil production on the decline”… oil production is actually higher under Obama than it was under Bush.
“Foreclosures on the rise”… Mitt Romney says Obama should just let the foreclosure cycle take its course so the homes can be bought up by investors and rented out. But no, that darned Obama is slowing down the foreclosure process. Who does the President think he is trying to keep people in their homes?
EJ, get your facts straight.
So you are the opposite of Ronald Reagan, you think it’s sunset in America, and the lights are never going to come back on. That’s pretty optimistic!
Opinions are like rear ends everyone has one, yours is wrong as far as I am concerned and you will be joining a few others come Nov. 6th in licking your wounds.
Don’t Christians bash everyone else? You guys are the ones trying to force everything on to everyone else.
I have to say that there are some Christians who make it their mission to make other’s conform to the way they think lives should be led and sometimes that can be pretty harsh. However, I know plenty of unassuming Christians who keep their faith private and don’t judge others (nor make a spectacle of prayer).
I think the complaint about the Christmas wreathes is less about “bashing” Christmas and more about someone not minding her own business. I bet she’d say the same thing about Halloween decorations left up “too long.”
You have a point. But, then, why didn’t she?
To me the issue is the commercialization of Christmas. It should not be a three-month-long excuse to get everyone to buy more stuff. I’ll bet that’s something most Christians, Jews, agnostics and atheists can all agree on.
Wreaths? No big deal.
Maybe she did but it wasn’t printed.
I leave my wreath up until Lent begins (tomorrow).
Thanks for the laugh! :-)
Peter McGuire, You can darn well bet that property for the toll road will be taken by eminent domain “in the economic interest of the state”. Personally, I find it offensive and an unwarranted intrusion on our rights and our constitution. It is the job of the federal government to create post roads. Look at some of the states that have sold their toll roads to private firms. Without taxpayers having any say in the process. Yet it was those very taxpayers who had bought and paid for the roads and they will keep paying and paying the corporate piper.
Unlike Maine who turned the toll road over the a Dem hack who made it his private fiefdom.
George Elliott
Government is not there to service the people.
It’s has become the millstone around the neck of Americans and is there in spite of the people.
Mary Henderson, If I leave my wreath up until it gets brown, that’s my business. also if I knew it upset you, I might just leave it up longer. Believe when I say, there are much more important things to worry about.
I like to leave mine up until June at least but my wife takes it down when I’m not looking….
My partner gave me clear instructions to have them down by Valentine’s Day. I took them down on 2/12-just in the nick of time!!
Mary: there are other things to be concerned about besides a wreath still hanging on a door.
Richard: Tim Tebow is not an exhibitionist, and he is not implying that God is only on his team’s side.
He lives his belief in Christ and is not ashamed to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Really? Why doesn’t he drop to his knee when he messes up?
I was watching the Patriots vs Broncos during the regular season and the camera cut to Tebow sitting on the bench watching the game until he noticed the camera on him, it was on him about 4 seconds before he noticed). He then started to pray. He is not as sincere as he would have you believe.
Richard, it is already quite clear that Dem’s side with Bill Mahar and the rest of the non-believers and conservatives will stick with Jesus.
Is that why G.W. Bush went into Iraq, because Jesus told him to go there and kill people?
I’m a Christian and a liberal — there are such people. Richard Faust is a fundamentalist atheist — there are such people as well.
What is a fundamentalist atheist?
I define a fundamentalist as someone so wrapped up in his version of the truth — the fundamentals of his understanding of reality — that he has no ability to see that someone else might also have a piece of the truth. He can’t see the trees for the forest.
There are fundamentalists of the right and fundamentalists of the left. Some atheists are just too arrogantly sure of themselves. I much prefer to talk with someone who says, “This is my position, although I’m willing to listen to what you have to say.”
None of us has a 100% understanding of all truth, but some people talk and act as though they do. Mr. Faust is, I believe, a fundamentalist of the left when it comes to religion — a fundamentalist atheist, unable to see that his position might have some weaknesses, and unable to hear that other people might have some ideas worth listening to.
Why do you consider Mr. Faust a fundamentalist atheist? I can’t see where he even comes close to qualifying as one from anything in his letter. He certainly feels strongly about the issue of church-state separation but so do many religious people.
I answer your question below in answer to luvGSD — I must have posted it around the same time you were repeating luvGSD’s question. I know Richard Faust, and so it’s not just his many letters in the BDN and Ellsworth American that I’m referring to. i agree with his basic points about separation of church and state. I’m just not nearly as hard-left as he is when it comes to religion. He leaves no room for discussion.
By the way, from a couple of weeks ago — I do not believe in a “God-of -the-gaps” as you suggested (I couldn’t reply because time had elapsed). You misunderstood my post on that.
I too know Dick Faust and can’t agree that he “leaves no room for discussion”. I certainly do agree that such a sentiment would qualify one as a fundamentalist. Fortunately it is not an attitude I often find among those of us who are not religious. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between someone who is 99% sure there are no gods or goddesses and someone who is 100% sure.
As to the “god-of -the gaps ” comment from earlier I’m sorry to have misunderstood you.
Well, it’s nice of you to be generous to Dick. He’s a good guy in many respects. I just find him to be completely inflexible when it comes to religion — that’s why I used the term “fundamentalist.”
An east-west highway should have been built years ago. That it hasn’t been done is one of the contributing factors in the poverty that pervades Washington and Piscataquis Counties. The road should be built with federal money. Just like the rest of the Interstate system.
Mr. Vigue is taking the once proud Cianbro construction company and has now started to grovel for taxpayer dollars. They’re looking to do a joint venture with the French family in Danforth that would errect a bunch of grid scale turbines all along Greenland Cove Ridge that directly abutts and overlooks East Grand Lake. Clearly a copy cat effort to glom onto millions in Federal tax payer dollars as a wind power developer.
Now Mr. Vigue is pleading for more taxpayer involvement in funding a study for this proposed toll road. Sure, Mr. Vigue, what’s $300k among friends! When owned and managed by the Chianchette’s this was a once proud company.
Mr. Faust, anyone who has to take an oath for a public position, or testify in court, can arrange for an alternate oath.
You are right. I’ve had to make the request myself. The point is why should a non-religious person performing a secular duty in a secular government have to request a non-religious oath?
Good grief, Ms. Henderson! It’s their door, their wreath, and their property! If you don’t like it, don’t look at it!
Wish christians would do the same thing with Gay Marriage.
Many Christians already do that. Please don’t generalize and let all Christians get a bad rap because of the vocal ones.
Well written John! This area needs real jobs that pay a liveable wage. Sprague, Irving and GAC have all coexisted with the tourism industry here in town and everyone has got along fine. DCP Midstream coming to town won’t change that at all.
Mary Henderson, there is an old tradition of leaving Christmas wreaths up until Lent begins — Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent, is tomorrow.
Re: East/West Highway: I’ve never seen an honest discussion using real facts and realistic financial analysis on how an east/west highway would benefit Maine, what development it would initiate and how much revenue it would generate. All I’ve ever seen are booster type speculation about how great it would be.
Every time the great development possibilities for a Maine east/west highway comes up I think of the history of NYS Rt 17. A state senator had a dream of making this modest 2 lane highway into Interstate 89 which would then bring tremendous development to a poor region of tiny and isolated villages. The highway got built: 4 lanes, limited access. That was 30 years ago. It’s one of the least used Interstate roads in the US and it is still a poor region of tiny villages.
Build it and they will come is not always the best policy when discussing highways
Peter….This road should have been built years ago during previous administrations and it’s possible that jobs and business that have been long gone may have persevered and still be in operation today….and who can fully project the growth and impact such a road will have on the economy and business without a study?? The whole of “us” will benefit if one or more businesses are created or keep going because of this road….and for me as a taxpayer, the $300,000 of state monies is a good investment to study the proposal and it’s benefits….
Mary….If you are driving by my house and see something unpleasant, then turn away and go about your own business….
Richard….God does not play “games” and God left us all a very clear and precise message in His written words…..if you are not hearing Him speak, He is not the problem…..
George….MaineCare and our state’s welfare programs are being abused daily and it is due time for addressing the problems on all levels….these programs became a “disaster” long before Gov. Lepage took office…..
Letterreader: Guess you missed Tim Tebow dropping to his knee when his team lost–
Yes, we did. A small favor, for which I fervently thank god.
I’m so glad you have a sense of humor!
First Ammendment: ……”The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, [prohibits]impeding the free exercise of religion,”…….. and so on, as well as freedom of speech!
Mr Faust, our First ammendment to the US Constitution prohibits the establishment of a “state religion” and also clearly prohibits “impeding” any one of us from practicing our religion as we see fit, including speaking and acting on it publically, including those running for political office. You have the same right to proclaim your lack of religious belief, as and where you wish!
As wise friend once said: It means “Freedom OF religion, not Freedom FROM religion.
Freedom of religion means freedom to believe as you wish. That includes the freedom not to believe in any religion. That means freedom from religion: freedom from your god’s rules and the freedom to call the public braying and praying of conservatives, politicians and sports figures what it really is: manipulative, self serving, sanctimonious religiosity.
Of and from are synonyms, as in I am the man from La Mancha, vs. I am the man of La Mancha.
Of and from can be used as synonyms, but they are not always. Freedom of religion has a different meaning than freedom from religion.
Not as far as I’m concerned.
Article VI of the Constitution states
….The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,
to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
….
John Worth: “It’s a good thing the opponents were not around when Bath Iron Works, Bangor International Airport and Eastern Maine Medical Center were constructed and expanded. Everything now said in opposition to DCP’s plan for Mack Point could easily have been used to oppose them.”
Except for the part about where it could blow up and destroy everything around it.
Check your facts there, buddy. The oath is just a ceremony, not a prerequisite of service. You don’t have to participate or say all of it if you don’t want to.
Article VI of the Constititutio states
…The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,
to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Yes, and the (often unnoticed) mention that “Oath or Affirmation” may be used, is intended to make it religiously neutral — those who object to swearing an oath may simply affirm.
Re: Christmas wreaths – I enjoy seeing Christmas lights past the Christmas season. Maybe there is a reason not to, but I like them! I’d say by April 15 is probably long enough.
The 12 Days of Christmas are quite sufficient. At least for me.
You just have to love the “world” according to sally, luv and penzance. You three definitely provide entertainment every day.
Your Bible says everything you want it to say doesn’t it. Everything else is just a bad translation.