History and contraception
In his Feb. 12 letter, William Slavick claims his Doctrine of Reception requires that a teaching be accepted to be valid. That certainly is not the teaching of the Catholic Church nor of Jesus Christ.
At first Jesus was not accepted by a majority, even claiming in John 7:7, “The world hates me because I bear witness concerning it, that its works are evil.”
From the beginning, the Catholic Church condemned contraception. From the Reformation onward, all Christian denominations condemned contraception until the Lamberth Conference in 1930, when the Christian teaching of 20 centuries was broken.
In the 1500s, Protestant theologian John Calvin declared that “Birth control was the murder of future persons.” In the 1700s, John Wesley declared that “taking preventive measures was unnatural and would destroy the souls of those who practiced it.” Martin Luther declared “that birth control was sodomy.”
In his 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae,” regarding the grave consequences of contraception, Pope Paul VI warned: “How wide and easy a road would thus be opened towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality …. Man may finally lose respect for the Woman …. considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment …. let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.”
With divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, sexually abused children and women, pornography, complications from steroidal contraceptives and abortifacients in epidemic proportions, Pope Paul VI was indeed a prophet.
Robert Garrett
Sidney
‘Takings’ concept too broad
A “takings” bill (HR 1810) now before the Legislature should get the scrutiny of landowners and nonlandowners alike. This bill provides that when a regulation reduces the market value of property, a landowner would be compensated. It sounds like a great idea, but its time has not come.
Constitutionally and historically, sovereign “takings” of land consist of a physical and legal transfer of all or part of a landowner’s property for public purposes to the state. The landowner is entitled by law to “just compensation,” not necessarily its fair market value (a floating matter of opinion).
It seems to this non-lawyer that the concept of “takings” relates to the denial of physical usage of land, not what it theoretically might sell for as a result of any negative regulatory impact.
Yes, landowners are at great risk that legislation will economically depreciate the value of their land, but I doubt if this condition can be corrected by state statute. I believe a federal constitutional amendment to the Fifth Amendment is required to limit the scope of “public purposes” and to expand the scope of “takings” to include those caused by state law and regulations, and to compensate all qualifying “takings” at the landowner’s tax cost for computing capital gains and losses, not at “fair market value.”
Carle G. Gray
Sullivan
Return Fethke to board
On March 6, the residents of Searsport will vote for two selectmen. We are most fortunate to have five candidates vying for these two positions. It is gratifying to know that there are people who are willing to devote their time to a demanding and sometimes thankless job.
All five candidates deserve our thanks for their willingness to run for this office.
One candidate, Aaron Fethke, deserves special recognition for the outstanding job he has done the past six years. He has been the board chair for the past five years and has served on the Board of Appeals, Gateway One and Comprehensive Plan committees. He re-wrote the Board of Appeals ordinance to make it fair and thorough. Aaron also helped re-write the Land Use Ordinance.
Aaron has worked very hard to present a town budget that is realistic in these difficult economic times. He is approachable and listens carefully to residents’ concerns. And, he possesses common sense, the sense that is not common. Searsport is fortunate to have had Aaron Fethke as a selectman for the past six years. It certainly would be advantageous to the town if we continued to utilize Aaron’s expertise and dedication by re-electing him as selectman.
Marjorie Knuuti
Searsport
Public purposes. Like Shaw’s taking a business, houses and land by eminent domain. A sign corporations are in control. The wealthy will rule over the poor.
Just like the last 5,000 years of recorded history. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Mr Garret,
Since catholics don’t get divorced, use birth control, or certainly never sexually abuse young boy’s you should be proud to be among the moral minority holding up the last vestiges of decency in the human race.
Robert Garrett claims to be quoting Protestant leaders Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley by putting statements he attributes to them in quotation marks, but the quotations are obvious fakes. If someone asks a church leader today, “What is your position on contraception?” no one says (in past tense) “Birth control was the murder of future persons.” Why would you answer in past tense? Why not say “it is the murder…”? These so-called quotes are obviously not quotes Luther, Calvin or Wesley. No one speaks in past tense the way Garrett claims — the statements would be absurd. More likely, he is quoting an interpretation of what those leaders said, not their actual words. And where would such an interpretation of their words come from? Probably from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Carle G. Gray
To this non lawyer (proud to say), takings could just as easily mean taking the usage of a part or parcel of land by regulation, and therefore should be compensated for.
It’s time to put a stop to the rampant enviromentalist industry’s agenda.
The first step is to put a price tag on what these ecoterrorists are trying to do to private citizens and their property.
This bill does just that.
Carle Gray, this Takings bill seems like an open invitation for those wealthy enough to buy lots of water front acreage and then claim they didn’t know they wouldn’t be permitted to build within 250′ of the high water line. Then getting the tax payer to reimburse them for loss of investment. The proposal seems to be wide open for corruption.
Once again, you have taken the words right out of my mouth! lol.
I believe that was the purpose of the proposal.
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/02/29/opinion/takings-bill-was-carefully-crafted-to-help-small-landowners/
Large landowners would not be compensated. Just small ones in the formula proposed. Why do you always adopt a position for government control and that punishes the little guy?
“Small landowners” … define that term. 1 acre, 5 acres, 25 acres or under 250 acres ? All are small compared to major landowners like the paper companies and R Quimby. But take even 1-25 acres on the waterfront and then while the land may meet the legal definition of “small” the value is not … for instance, 10 waterfront acres in Georgetown….
Read the link. note the formulas.
Why? Because it has been my experience that bills like this are written to benefit the well heeled. With a House and Senate filled with ALEC/MHPC/Tea Partiers that have a history of focusing on taking from the lower echelons of the economic scale, I find it hard to believe that they are all that worried about those of the lower tier.
Look at the formulas for compensation. Read the link.
Robert Garret, I believe that if you visit much of the third world, you will find what you are looking for. Women are kept just the way you like them. Bare foot and pregnant. Where virtually every resident would leap at the chance to emigrate to Europe, Canada or (god forbid) the USA.
Perhaps you would enjoy Sharia Law as it pretty much follows your way of thinking.
Robert: Every “evil” you listed has been going on for THOUSANDS of years, so stop with your “The olden days were wonderful because the Catholic Church decreed it” foolishness. Apparently your religion not only denies science, it is busy rewriting history as well. Care to tackle English and math while you’re at it?
When will you get the fact that you can drag out all the quotes you want from long dead leaders of an organization whose members were deeply rooted in pedophilia, I’m still not going to listen?
The so-called quotes from Luther, Calvin and Wesley are obvious fakes — no one, when asked about contraception, would speak in the past tense and say what it “was.” They would say what they think it “is.” Luther did not say, “Birth control was Sodomy” — if he believed that he would say it “is,” not it “was”. The quotes come from some secondary source, like the Catholic Encyclopedia, and are someone’s interpretation of those leaders’ opinions, not actual quotes from Luther, Calvin and Wesley. Don’t be fooled by the misuse of quotation marks.
I’m trying to figure out how anyone might arrive at the conclusion that birth control is sodomy. I could see it the other way around, but it would still be a stretch.
Martin Luther was a certified loon. He also wrote a book entitled “On the Jews and their Lies”. Why anyone follows teaching of a man who would write such a thing is beyond me…
Yes, Luther was an anti-Jewish bigot, and was praised by Hitler for it. Luther was right about some things, wrong about others. He was right when he said that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt, right that priests should marry, but wrong about predestination (he was for it), and wrong when he said the German princes should crush rebelling peasants and show no mercy. An intelligent but very flawed human being.
Luther drank.
LOL. Nice one. :)
Pedophilia has also been going on for thousands of years. The Catholic Church, despite its mishandling of sex abuse cases, has no more predilection for pedophilia than the general public, or other faiths. I suspect the real reason you won’t listen to the Catholic Church is because you don’t agree with their worldview. The great thing about America is you don’t have to live by their dictates.
‘Despite its mishandling of sex abuse cases’ . That says it all does it not ? Who would in good conscience agree with their world view.
“The international numbers get
higher as courts order release of documents in American and European dioceses.
“The percentage of paedophile priests is 20 to 200 times higher than the
incidence found in the secular population,” according to a report by Vania
Lucia…”
I bet that if he went to some dirt poor third world country he would be crying to be flown home faster than superman. families with way too many children to feed, well those that live to be fed anyway. disease, poverty, filth. Yup sounds great.
I would like to see some quotes from Jesus about birth control. I really don’t care what those other men had to say.
Guess what? There are none!
msally, you are correct! Jesus never said anything at all about birth control — or same-sex marriage. For that matter he never mentioned Original Sin or the Doctrine of the Trinty, and he never so much as even met a Christian. Would he want to be one today? Maybe not.
Robert Garret, you do realize that every quote and example you used was from a man speaking about a woman’s issue right?
The issue of the birth of children should be a societal issue where the dignity of the woman’s ability to conceive and nurture a new life are respected and supported. When I get pregnant, I don’t do it alone. And I would probably scalp my husband’s little bald spot if he told me that the pregnancy was my issue and he wasn’t going to say anything or do anything concerning it. To pretend that a pregnancy and birth only affect a woman so only a woman can speak about it just isn’t realistic or logical. We all have a stake in the birth of children.
We are speaking about contraceptives not the birth of a child.
And he wasn’t actually quoting Luther, Calvin, or Wesley, even though he claimed he was. Look at the use of the past tense in the quotes. Nobody talks that way. If you ask, Mr. Luther, what do you think of birth control? He would not say, “That birth control was Sodomy.” Why “was”? Why not “is”? Why begin with “That”? Because it’s not a real quote from Luther. It probably comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia putting words into Luther’s mouth.
I don’t suppose anybody cares to remember that contraception was covered by the health care bill is because the use of contraceptives gives the biggest health care bang for the health care buck. Insurance companies wanted it in the package. Unwanted pregnancies cost them money. Statistically, the children resulting from unwanted pregnancies are much less healthy and more apt to need significant medical and psychological services in the future.
If the insurance companies want birth control included in every policy, they can write it in themselves. I think the bigger issue is that an insurer didn’t want to lose the Catholic Church’s business, so they called their lackeys in the Obama administration and asked them to require it. Keep on supporting those insurance companies.
yes, by all means let us leave our health care decisions up to the insurance industry
The Blunt Amendment failed. Apparently the religious conservatives don’t have as much control as they thought they did.