We are Americans
Messrs. Heath and Madore have announced their No Special Rights PAC. Mr. Madore, in his gentle Christian way, will “take off the gloves.”
“It’s going to be a fight,” he said (BDN, March 21).
Aside from their crusading PAC, they both could do well to study both the citizens’ initiative language and also the U.S. Constitution.
First, marriage is a legal, civil contract entered into between two consenting adults that meets the statutory requirements of the state in which they reside. The contract’s foundation is the lifelong commitment of two people for each other. Attendant to this contract are approximately 1,300 protections and responsibilities at the federal and state level.
Banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory to about 10 percent of the U.S. population. The U.S. was founded on the ideals of equality for all citizens. This right is explicitly stated in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This legal contract of marriage is administered by the state in which a couple resides. It is completely separate from any religious affiliation, the same as our federal and state separation of church and state.
The 2012 citizens’ initiative, in which 105,000 registered Maine voters signed in support, is simply asking Mainers to allow same gender couples to establish a family, protect themselves through the same laws and statutes as other couples and share in life’s responsibilities, love, happiness, disappointments and challenges — all that we call life.
We want to live and love just like the other 90 percent. We are Americans.
Chris Dorion
Orono
Trees are gold mine
Has Rep. John Martin been in politics too long? Trees, of which Maine has a bundle, are a valuable and natural resource. Paper is only one of many useful and marketable products derived from trees. Maine businesses should put available trees to work creating needed and marketable products. Trees are renewable over and over again, a natural resource “gold mine.”
Richard Mackin Jr.
Millinocket
Loony story
The March 16 BDN article, “Mercury causes ‘foggy headed’ loons to fail as parents,” is beyond belief. The amount of supposition, guesswork, scare tactics and pure “green garbage” science boggles the mind of this reader.
For example, the writer states: “nobody is really sure how many loons there are in Maine, because the annual bird counts don’t include lakes and ponds in the northern half of the state” and “unscientific data Mainers do have show puzzling oscillations.” The writer also asserts, “uncertainty surrounding loons, and data used to analyze their health as a species” and “loon count could be heading for a cliff.” Enough already?
And this one: “If loons are not able to at least replace themselves in the population, they’re going to drop off,” Fecteau said. “It’s simple math.” Yes, if a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump its bottom when it jumped.
Others have some difficulty with the article: “The reason Mower is conflicted is that, despite that reasoning, the loon population in Maine seems to have grown significantly over the past several decades.”
But the drumbeat goes on: “The population of Maine loons is just a tower of cards; big, but fragile, and in danger of collapse,” and “Maybe they’re not successful because they’re high in mercury,” “Maybe they’re not successful because they don’t have room.” Maybe the total loon count has never been taken.
I don’t see a loon in my backyard, maybe they’re extinct.
Jim Miller
Pittsfield
The root of violence
In the recent BDN article, “Waldo County women living in Kenya …,” we were told of the burning of a man’s house and tribal unrest as seen by two Belfast women in Kenya. The article says that Stone, a 62-year-old Brooks woman running a nonprofit in Kenya wants to get the word out about the violent problems happening in that region. The women have been gathering information about the ongoing killings, looting, burning and other troubles they say are politically motivated.
What they aren’t saying is that the practices such as “early forced marriage, female genital mutilation and girls being taken from school at a young age” are all tenets of Islam. Women are treated this way throughout the 1,400-year history of the religion. Women are treated as property and every woman must have an owner.
No doubt these two Belfast women feel sorry about the injustice and people being murdered and homes being burned. But there is an explanation. If America would just listen to people who are trying to educate us on the subject rather than being swayed by the multicultural, politically correct narrative then their efforts might not be in vain.
Brigitte Gabrielle of ACT for America is one such a source. I read her two books “Because the Hate” and “They Must be Stopped” and had my eyes opened.
Beverly Cowan
Rockland
Taxes and life
I have questions about the right to life, “thou shalt not kill” proponents’ confused and misguided outrage at the federal government ordering people to pay for something that violates their conscience — birth control, in this case.
For me, that violation of conscience by my government demands that I pay exorbitantly for another kind of killing that even staunch “right-to-lifers” patriotically and abstractly refer to as war.
I have long wondered why the outrage over killing of the unborn is not also extended to the killing of the already born, those respectfully and reverently referred to as soldiers by both sides; and worse, the innocent civilians regarded as “collateral damage.”
Where is the outrage by the “righteous right” that 59 percent of our tax dollars are spent on past, present and future wars?
In the church I grew up in, the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” was never qualified by, “except if they have different skin color, speak a different language, practice a different religion or live in a different country than you do.” Not even, “unless they threaten to kill you first.” It was always clearly and simply, “Thou shalt not kill.”
And why is it the same people who are adamant about women not having access to birth control, and birthing every baby they conceive, also are adamant about minimizing government-funded social services for those same existing and yet-to-be-born under-supported dependents? If you don’t believe in birth control or family planning, don’t use it; but don’t infringe upon somebody else’s access to it.
Kathy VanGorder
West Tremont
Kathy VanGorder–Excellent letter. I also have often wondered how anyone can be anti-choice and pro-war without being conflicted by the hypocrisy. The cognitive dissonance created by such self-exclusive ideas should be enough to render total psychosis in a person. Any rational explanation of how this mindset is so common today is extremely depressing to contemplate.
It’s a false comparison to make. I am prolife, and consider myself anti-war as well. But the issues surrounding a nation’s entry into war need to be taken into account. Looking back, how many people would say it was wrong to enter into WWII? What if your nation is warred upon–should you not defend your citizenry? In addition, the US currently has an all-volunteer military. Those who serve do so knowing they may be called upon to kill or be killed.
In addition, I do not know very many pro-life people who want to deny women access to birth control, nor do I know many who are not compassionate to all people. It’s completely false to assert that only through support of government programs for the poor and needy can compassion be shown.
It seems that virtually all the powers that be in the Catholic Church would deny access to birth countrol.
I am pro-choice for the simple reason that I am not a woman and don’t feel that I have any say in a womans choice.
If Roe v Wade is repealed it will bring us back to the days when poor women have to go to back alley abortionists for the same services that the wealthy women get by going to their gynacologist for their ‘female problems’ and getting a nice clean D&C procedure.
The Catholic Church does teach that birth control is an intrinsic evil. But, the last I looked, this was the USA,not the Vatican.
I am pro-life for the simple reason that I am a woman, and I know first hand what a sacred trust is given to women to nurture and birth new life on this earth. It should be honored, not treated as a disease, or problem.
I am not interested in seeing Roe V. Wade repealed necessarily. I am interested in seeing women being respected as women, not as spayed sex objects.
I totally agree that women shouldn’t be disrespected. I do believe that there are probably circumstances where a woman makes a choice not to give birth. That decission is for that woman to make.
If you were genuinely interested in honoring women then you would not be interfering with the free legal choices that they make for themselves. Whatever your life experiences or observations that have led you to characterize women as spayed sex objects you really have no business imposing your prejudices on them. In my opinion you are insulting women.
I know an entire party (with the exception of Senator Snowe) that wants to deny women access to birth control via the Blunt Amendment, which would allow any employer to refuse to cover contraceptive coverage if the employer was “morally opposed” to contraception.
Once you have outlawed abortion do your really think it will come to an end? Would you not prefer that it be safe, early, and rare?
I don’t see a party that wants to deny anyone access to contraception. I do see a party that does not want to use the coercive power of government to force employers who have a religious opposition to contraception to pay for someone else’s pills or implants, or patches, or shots.
Perhaps males should be outraged that they are not allowed a ration of condoms payable by their health insurance plan. It is, after all, the only effort they can make at this point toward birth control.
Three points. The Blunt Amendment went to “moral” as well as religious objections. Premium costs go down once contraceptive coverage is mandated, as the cost of unwanted pregnancies far outweighs the costs of contraceptive coverage; therefore, no employer has to pay for this as it is reducing its premium. Men are already covered for the cost of what is likely non-procreative sex, as Viagra is covered for all but the co-pay.
Three counterpoints: Moral or religious objection–who cares? Nobody should be forced to directly purchase a product that violates his or her conscience.
The cost of an unwanted pregnancy is not always the cost of prenatal care, birth and post partum care. Unwanted pregnancies are very often ended in abortions, which, if they are covered by insurance run in the hundreds of dollars and, if not, cost the insurance nothing–either way it is far less than a year’s scrip for birth control pills, and equivalent to an IUD placement. In addition, you are assuming that people will not use birth control if it is not covered by their insurance. Yet the vast majority of sexually active women use birth control. The issue is not the cost of the policy, but the content of the policy.
Viagra is not birth control. Condoms are birth control.
How about that we just make it illegal? That way people won’t all believe the fairy tale that if something is legal, it must be morally OK, too. Abortion is always immoral, always evil. Let’s make it hard to have one, because no one should be having one, for any reason. It is not the part of the human being to be playing God.
The fairy tale is that making it illegal would end the practice. History shows otherwise.
Do you propose prosecuting the pregnant mother for murder?
Since you probably claim that human life begins at the moment of conception, do you prosecute the woman when that “human life” fails to implant itself in the uterine wall?
Once you begin drawing lines and stop mouthing slogans, you might begin to understand the issue’s complexity.
At common law in this country and England, the time of quickening was when the state first claimed to have an interest in regulating pregnancies. More than ninety per cent of abortions performed legally in this country occur before quickening.
You are playing God.
wandini, I have come to respect you and appreciate your willingness to engage in intelligent and courteous discussion.
Of course some religious groups such as the Friends (Quakers), Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites, have consistently opposed war, including World War II. Many see this as a question of individual integrity — if I believe that murder is wrong, can I participate in murder simply because others are doing the same thing? If I am called upon to love my enemies, can I go half-way around the world to kill someone I don’t know and have no quarrel with? Is murder okay if the government endorses it? Should I participate in atrocities because the other side is also committing atrocities?
I also see the other side — Germany and Japan were aggressors, and the vast majority of Americans felt the need to defend their homeland. A few may have fought because they understood something of the evil of German and Japanese atrocities.
Second, while you use the term “pro-life,” I have never known anyone who was anti-life. One would have to literally be suicidal if one was anti-life. The question, of course, is when does a fetus become a human person? I believe a fetus becomes a human person when it is naturally viable — viable without medical intervention. After that point in pregnancy is reached I oppose abortion in almost all cases.
You may be right that most anti-abortion people are compassionate, although it seems that a growing number on the religious right are not. True, compassionate programs on the part of the government are not the only way to help the poor and needy, but the government can act on a scale and with a measure of effectiveness that individuals and charities cannot. If I had a catastrophic illness and was uninsured, my church could not afford to pick up the tab. It would bankrupt the congregation, and then when the next person got sick the church wouldn’t be there anymore. The government can do things that individuals cannot do.
A good reasoned reply penzance.
I mostly agree with you on the abortion issue. But I find myself increasingly uncomfortable with what I believe are frivolous reasons for having an abortion. Women who simply cannot be bothered to use birth control for instance. I believe that abortion is morally justified in the case of severe genetic abnormalities. Downs syndrome, huntingtons, etc. But I also have understanding for those who oppose that practice for moral reasons. I do worry about the slippery slope of such allowances. How long before abortions are done commonly because the sex of the fetus is not what the parents want or even hair color, etc?
But there is also another side to your argument that a fetus becomes a human person when it is naturally viable — viable without medical intervention. It becomes a short path to applying this same standard to premature births. This has already happened im many European countries where premature infants under a certain birth weight or number of weeks gestation are routinely only given palliative care. And since they were never considered viable or infants in the first place they are not even included in infant mortality statistics. Making that guideline for quality of medical care completely irrelevant when comparing to the US.
The statement that “The government can do things that individuals cannot do.” is absolutely true. It ignores the question of if it is appropriate for government to do any particular action. You also said that “the government can act on a scale and with a measure of effectiveness that individuals and charities cannot.” I would strongly dispute the effectiveness part of your argument. Government almost always is less efficient and spends more money less effectively to do anything. In many cases when a program is first started it may work well. Inevitability government programs become bureaucratic and have “mission creep”. The same reasons we oppose private monopolies should be considered for government programs as well.
But the real problem is that the same limitation you ascribe to your church actually applies to government as well. Government does not have an unlimited pocketbook. While government has no problem affording the tab for one, or even a hundred, persons catastrophic illness the same does not hold true when you try to extend this to the entire population. At some point some form of rationing will happen. It happens now in every country with universal coverage. The real question that should be asked is in what form in each country does that rationing occur and who makes those decisions. One of the major objections I have to the ACA is not just the mandate to purchase, (which I do oppose), but that the mechanisms to decide who will get what medical treatment and what treatments will be allowed are to be left up to bureaucracies. (I believe about 150 of them) All the while leading people to believe that EVERONE will get EVERYTHING, unlimited, top quality care.
Imagine if you had to build your own highways without government intervention. I would suggest that the government — all of us together — can do it on a greater scale AND more effectively than you can.
As for rationing in health care, we have it now. A lot of people don’t go to the doctor because they don’t have insurance, and so they don’t get timely medical care — and/or they clog up the emergency rooms and get the costliest care (paid for the hospital) because of lack of insurance. We have a different kind of health care rationing than Canada, England or France has, but we do already have rationing.
Of course, when the Republicans came up with the idea of the individual mandate, it was an attempt to preserve a capitalist system that sent the business to the insurance policies. Obama followed this model, and the Republicans have decided that since a Democrat got it passed, their capitalist plan is now socialism.
I agree with you that abortion should not be used frivolously and should not be done as a substitute for birth control methods. Yet would you limit, say, the right to bear arms just because some guys buy more weapons than they need? Would you limit the right to get married just because some people divorce and re-marry too often? So, while I know some women abuse the system, I believe women must have the right to make their own decisions and control their own bodies.
A 100% anti-war stance would be hard to maintain. What if nobody was willing to fight against an aggressor? I would willingly lay down my own life rather than kill, but I can’t say I could sacrifice others because I was unwilling to kill an aggressor. Somebody needed to wage war to stop Hitler’s Germany.
I believe life starts when the genetic plan has been conceived for a new human. That is at conception. I think that our reaction to things such as miscarriages reveal that most people understand this. A baby may miscarry in the first trimester, and, to most people, that is considered a loss. However, I am not interested in seeing abortion outlawed–I am interested in seeing people’s hearts change when it comes to pregnancy and birth. I am interested in seeing respect for the sanctity of the full spectrum of life–from conception to death–not because people are forced to by the law, but because people appreciate the value and dignity of all life.
I understand the concept that government can do some things that individuals cannot, but I know that societies that stop acting on an individual level, relying on government to care for the less fortunate, become overall less compassionate. It is easy to vote for the candidate who will support increased spending on the poor. It is much harder to actually help your neighbor yourself. But, a person who votes for a candidate feels they have done something good, while a person who actually offers help to another knows they have done good.
Insurance used to be something that was reasonably priced and was there to pay for a catastrophic type illness or medical emergency. Then it branched ever more into offering preventative care, under the guise of lowering overall costs. But costs are not lower and I’ve yet to see an analysis done on how much we are really “saving” through covering things such as contraceptives, Viagra, various screenings, routine doctor visits etc…
Thank you for your reasoned reply.
First, no one at all is saying that only through government programs can compassion be shown. But the government is US, and for someone to claime he/she is “pro life” yet fully condones using the government for endless political wars (not the same as WW2) and a bloated militiary industrial complex without batting an eye but is all for cutting education, Head Start, WIC, and on and on which support the very children they don’t want aborted is utter HYPOCRISY and you darn well know it. Right wingers are walking hyprocrites. Right wingers are the very first to screech and whine when THEIR government programs and services are cut. They love THEIR Medicare. They love THEIR Social Security. They love THEIR police, fire, and ambulance services. They love THEIR workman’s comp and unemployment insurance. They love THEIR water and sewer systems. They love THEIR neighborhood public schools and the public teams THEIR kids play on. They love THEIR local, state, and national parks. They love THEIR mail delivery. They love THEIR roads, sidewalks, bridges, arenas, rec centers, baseball and football fields and running tracks and use them ALL THE TIME. So enough of the LIE about how much right wingers don’t like “government” because they ADORE government and use it constantly and as much as anyone else. And as to being “pro life”, you also need to end the utter hyprocrisy and be pro-ENTIRE LIFE. Ya, you are all for “protecting” the fetus, and then once the fetus is born you people write it off as a “lazy piece of riffraff being raised by some useless welfare queen”. You are then all for cutting and gutting any service or program that might help that child have a more successful life. Pro life? What a LIE !
Peace will not reign until Christ returns–simple as that. Wars have been the natural element of nations, and we will hear about “wars and rumors of wars” until His return.
It is not hypocritical to consider that over 54 million unborn children have been given a death sentence since 1973, but those who have volunteered for the military and have been involved in the wars knew and accepted what might take place as the result of their service to our country, thus protecting the freedoms that we have.
Some people just do not make any sense when espousing their thoughts on the issue. Many would say that also believing in capital punishment is hypocritical of some pro-lifers, but those who have committed the crime must suffer the consequences.
Christ has returned and he is running for President. His name this time is Rick Santorum. Prepare for your rapture.
split my tea…. thanks needed the laugh.
So, when your Messiah comes back he will be pro-war, pro-fetus, pro- one man one woman marriage, pro-death penalty, and ready to condemn everyone that hasn’t taken him as their personal savior. Nice guy. What happens if the Messiah comes and She is for peace, for forgiveness, for post birth children, for love no matter who you choose, for tolerating other religions, for minding your own business and doesn’t give a rat’s patooti who you marry just so long as you love your neighbor. What then?
Some fundamentalists seem to think Jesus will come from the heavens with guns blazing!
Rabbi Lawrence Kushner (not related to Rabbi Harold Kushner) writes that when he was a child he asked his mother “What should I be when I grow up?” and she said, “Be the Messiah!” Today he thinks that what she was telling him is that it is up to all of us to “save” the world, to leave the world a better place than when we arrived. We should all be the Messiah — we should all work to make the world a better place — and not wait for a Messiah to do it for us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/weekinreview/wrath-and-mercy-the-return-of-the-warrior-jesus.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
You obviously don’t have firm knowledge of, or a very good relationship with, the Messiah. God is loving, but God is also just. He will punish all those who disobey him and do not repent of their sins.
Well for one thing if you believe “She” then you do not believe in the Bible.l
Hmmm. God probably has no gender. Any male terminology is probablybecause of trying to comprehend the mystery, from a patriarcal society no less.
You can explain that to Him.
“You can safely
assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God
hates all the same people you do.”
Anne
Lamott quotes (American best-selling author)
Eagles are a big reason the loon count may be down. Same with the cormorants. I spend lot’s of time on lakes in Maine and always see loons.
Raccoons are another major predator of loons eggs.
I think Republicans are eating the eggs and selling them too.
LOL. Well yeah get rid of those eggs. Loons are the avatar of liberals and saving them is a commie plot. It would be funny if there weren’t so many political loons to deal with.
Loons are evil minions of Satan which is why they have red eyes.
so isnt heavy rains and lake levels rising more than 6 inches in may
Chris Dorion, great letter.
Reason and compassion for one another are always a better route than the divisive scorn Mr. Heath spreads.
I am hopeful Mainers will join together to support all Maine families who wish to enter into civil marriage. All Maine children deserve to be protected by the benefits civil marriage give their families.
Reason clearly dictates two people of the same sex should not marry, compassion dictates we can love you despite your immoral lifestyle.
I hope you haven’t been eating shellfish lately, as to do so is an abomination. Leviticus 11:9-12. If you have, repent. We love you despite your immoral lifestyle.
Lobsters should be subject to a sin tax.
The theocratic punishment for violating the Bible’s bans on eating shellfish should be a public humiliation such as confinement to the stocks, a few hours at the whipping post, or perhaps being mounted on the pillory. Think of it as tough love for cp444.
Does his moniker suggest that he is member # 444 of the Communist Party? If so, we had best get Larryincamden on the case.
I think it might only mean that he is 222 shy of 666.
LOL.
Now that’s funny!!!!!
Keeping slaves, on the other hand, is okay according to Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5, Titus 2:9-10, and other biblical passages.
“Give me that old time religion! Give me that old time religion! Give me that old time religion! It’s good enough for me.”
So is having a concubine if your wive is barren.
I’m betting that cp44’s temple doesn’t have the correct number of tassels nor does it have silver hooks on his brass pillars. Tsk! His lord is not going to be pleased with this either. LOL
Don’t worry, EJP will surely chime in soon with his bend-over-backwards inconsistent logic in order to explain why they can freely have shellfish feasts and ployblend pants, but gays still ought to be stoned (or whatever).
As Dylan explains it “everybody must get stoned.”
Or I hope he is only wearing clothes from the same material.
Please, share what reason our government should have to deny civil marriage benefits to same sex couples in Maine. So far I have yet to hear anything except “because it’s just wrong”… and that’s not a very defendable attitude.
…crickets…
“Reason clearly dictates two people of the same sex should not marry”.
And that “reason” would be?
I think you might amend that to say “my opinion clearly dictates….”
What is your rational argument for this? You know, one that will stand in court?
Your opinion of “immoral” will not stand in court, as shown in Lawrence v. Texas. It’s your opinion, and has no rational basis.
So… tell us what your rational argument is.
What reason should same sex partners not get married? Because some religious people don’t want them too?
And don’t say because they can’t have children. Not all people who get married today get married to start a family.
Who’s reason dicatates this? Not mine! Since when has loving someone become immoral?
How “Christian” of you. How do you assume that this writer is looking for a SSM?
Immoral according to whom? What business is it of yours? Stop kidding yourself with this nonsense and enter the real world. These folks already live together, share expenses, raise kids, and on and on just like any other family even without a piece of paper saying they are “married”. Therefore “reason dictates” that they SHOULD be allowed to legally marry. You claim to be a “conservative” right? That very philosophy “dictates” that the government is not supposed to interfere in PRIVATE freedom and intrude in people’s PRIVATE lives and decisions right? So butt out and leave grown adults to make their own decisions on this matter and stop interfering in people’s PRIVATE lives. It is none of your business. And furthermore, right wingers need to stop being such cowards and grow a spine. Admit it. Right wingers are AFRAID of same sex marriage the same way they are AFRAID of “liberals” and “minorities” and all the rest. Right wingers were AFRAID of ending slavery, AFRAID of cleaning up factories, AFRAID of giving women the right to vote, AFRAID of allowing African Americans in their schools, AFRAID of allowing workers to have some rights, AFRAID AFRAID AFRAID. And AFRAID because they hated change and didn’t want to lose a cent of money or power on which they thrive. And they base their lives on irrational fear, as if the world is going to end with any progressive chance. Well I have news for you, in all the states that allow same sex marriage, the world has NOT ended. So you can stop living a life of fear.
My reasoning says that your comments are immoral.
Beverly Cowan & Kathy VanGorder,
Great letters. They both kind of hit on the same subject, but from a different view point: What happens when religious extremism gets involved. But Islam is a special circumstance. Jesus would disapprove of both Islam and most “Christian” churches spouting off militarism. If what Mohammed said about Jesus is true, then Muslims must acknowledge that Mohammed said that he was a sinful man, and Jesus was (supposedly, I’m assuming this according to the bible) without sin… Then you must know that when Jesus told us not to do violence to one another, he meant it.
Denounce religion all you like, yes I agree it is a man-made system easily corruptible, just as easily corruptible as government. If it was made by man, then it’s probably doomed to fail. But Jesus showed us a better way, and if what the bible says about him is true, then please don’t throw out that message when you bash religion. I’m with you on the religion bashing, I really am, but let’s not confuse what Jesus said with what other people say about what Jesus said… If that makes sense to you, lol bit of a tongue twister.
What Beverly said about Islam is simply not true. Genital mutilation was practiced long before Islam ever existed. It is practiced by some Christians, some Jews, and some Muslims, but no religion requires it — it is cultural, not religious. Most Muslims in the world do not practice it. Some Islamic scholars have issued fatwas against the practice. Let’s not spread ignorant prejudice about Islam.
Jim Miller, the biggesgt danger to loon population is a rise in lake levels after they have laid their eggs. Due to the loons nesting so close to lake levels their nests can easily be swamped by wakes from speeding boats, or sudden high water due to heavy rains or man damming the outlets of some lakes.
So, now the percentage of homosexuals is 10 percent. A decade ago it was between 1 and 2 percent. At that growth rate, we’ll all be homosexuals in the next 50 years. Guess that’ll take care of the population boom.
As far as wars are concerned, I do believe there have been wars for quite some time. Most of the wars in recent years have been waged in the name of religion, particularly in the name of Allah. However, using wars as an excuse to provide free contraceptives or kill innocent unborn babies is quite lame. By the way, there is no way we spend 59 percent of our tax dollars on past, present and future wars. Nice try.
For decades the figure used was 10% because it was purely statistical guesswork.
In the last 10 years, they’ve tried a more scientific approach resulting in the 1-2% figure, but how can a realistic figure be determined when few are willing to go on record in a poll?
I remember my mother saying “there always has been and always will be wars and rumors of wars” (something like that).
Knowing her, it was probably some quote from the Bible.
As Americans, it should not matter how great or small the numbers are– it is simply the right thing to do, to offer civil marriage protections to same sex couples building families together here in Maine.
Civil unions, not marriage. And same-sex couples cannot build families without outside assistance.
Come on EJ… stop.
Procreation is not a requirement for marriage and you know it. How the family is built is not the issue here.
I was addressing the idea of “building families”.
Well, the issue at hand is civil marriage, so why don’t you stop changing the subject and address why gays should be barred from a civil institution. Please explain clearly the rational basis for denying gays and please explain why you feel it is all right to hold them to a higher standard than those straight couples seeking marriage licenses.
We build famillies no differently than infertile couples, or couples who remarry. Adoption, IVF, and step-children are no less a part of our families than those who currently can marry.
Civil marriage is a civil union. Procreation isn’t a requisite for a civil marriage either. Keep trying to come up with your non-arguments to justify your pushes for codified discrimination, but it’s useless.
First, civil unions are not equal to marriage. Separate but equal are never equal.
Second, Maine does not even offer civil unions.
As for building families, many married couples cannot conceive without outside assistance as well. This does not invalidate their marriage.
Then eliminate civil marriage altogether, and give civil unions across the board. That would be a fine solution to me, I’ve always stated such.
Regardless of how families are built, they are still families, and deserve our support and protection.
Why is it more moral for us to have civil unions. We are still here? How does that help anyone? So God will like America better if we are less than? I am a proud, tax paying, educated, hard working woman raising beautiful well adjusted happy children and I am gay.
My wife and I can’t either without outside assistance. guess we should not be married.
Many heterosexual couple cannot build families without assistance.
EJ, when it happens, and you know it will, you will not be harmed and you know this.
You may be right. It may happen one day. But, that’s because the country is falling further and further away from God and down into the pit of immorality. You know I respect you, Ted, and that we’ve had a lot of back-and-forth on this issue over the past several years, but you also know that I firmly believe that the lifestyle is a choice and does not deserve to be treated as worthy of intruding on the God created institution of marriage. You’ve also, in the past, agreed that civil unions equal to marriage would be good enough for you. Shouldn’t that be the area in which you put your effort?
Your god does not matter. It is your choice, and is not enforced as civil law.
the concept of marriage is older than your religion. Simple fact.
And sure, I’ll take civil unions myself. I don’t care what it is called. However, as long as religious leaders stand against civil unions and domestic partnerships, as we saw most recently in IL, then tell me: why should we compromise for the sake of people who want nothing but to harm us as citizens? I’m fed up with promoting compromise, just to have religious fervor stand against me.
I see no point in continuing.
You hit the nail on the head. There is no room for compromise. And both sides have taken that stance. Therefore, even if SSM is granted, it will be shunned by many, and it will only be a stepping stone to the next issue on the homosexual agenda. There is no middle ground, and that is the problem.
But, then, that’s the way the country is moving. There is no longer a middle ground. Good and evil are at the point of no return. It’s sad.
And what about your nefarious agenda? Seems bigoted to me. You can try and claim a high ground all you want, but just like those pushing discrimination in the past, there shouldn’t be a compromise. The Jim Crow Laws were considered a “compromise”, the 3/5th person was a “compromise”, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was a “compromise”.
On some issues, there is right and wrong. Please point to a time in history when treating another unequally or as less of a person was the right thing to do.
EJ’s conservative “Christian” agenda
1. Defund safety nets for children and women
2. Defund Planned Parenthood
3. Ban abortion
4. Ban contraceptives
5. Rescind the women’s voting rights
6. Re-enstate women as property
7. Establish male dominance as a sacred right
LOL
Yeah, all modeled after Jesus, who was a wealthy corporate person who open carried while railing against union thugs and threw job applications for McDonald’s at the poor.
LOL good one!
This explains, EJ Parsons, amcon, thegreatwandini, cheesecake and larryincamden.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101718445
Great video and so true!!!
Do they apply if I’m not a christian?
Ha ha ha…..I just saw that you tagged me here too! Awesome. Seriously. Only a true liberal could conceive of a group of people being so consistently hypocritical because they measure by their own standard!
Maybe you should understand that people are individuals, not a herd of cloned sheep.
Well, you had one point right.
I’m guessing I got #7 right. AHAHAHAHAH!!!!
OK EJ I’ll bite… what is this “next issue on the homosexual agenda” that I’m supposed to be pushing?
In other states there have already been law suits for marrying multiple partners, forcing churches to perform SSMs, and new discrimination laws that force services be provided by business owners that oppose SSM.
And have any of these supposed horrors against your christianity been made into laws; or are you just hyperventilating over something that has no remote possibility of being made legal in order to keep you steamed up over the gay issue? Geesz EJ don’t waste so much energy over stupid stuff.
Stepping stone to the next item on the agenda. That sounds very sinister and conspiratorial EJ. Want to tell us what that horrible homosexual agenda is or are you just up to your usual ranting again?
I could care less if the concept of same sex marriage is shunned by many. It is my life to live.
I care how my government treats me, not you.
But to portray my sincere desire to honor the institution of marriage by affirming the life I share with my partner as evil is ridiculous.
This isn’t about good vs. evil, this is about resistance to change vs. acceptance of love.
Unfortunately, you are correct in your assumption that many will shun SSM after it is made into law. The same way that people pulled their kids out of school when the were integrated. The same way inter-racial couples were not accepted even after these marriages were made legal in every state.
It takes time for some people to accept the things that they have for so long felt strongly against, and even longer for this to become something not only accepted, but not thought of as unusual at all. Most people today would not think twice at seeing blacks and whites in the same classroom, or children of different races playing on the same baseball team. It wasn’t always that way.
Curious, what exactly is this ‘homosexual agenda’ that you speak of?
Yes, narrow minded bigots do beget evil.
Whose God? Whose morality? Whose institutions?
EJ you are acting more respectful today. I can tell you, with personal experience, it is not a choice and I tried desperately to be heterosexual but from age 9 I knew I was different. I just knew and no one told me. I didnt know gay people. I didnt know what gay was. I just knew I didnt want to be with boys and then not with men.
When I finally came out to my mother, she not only accepted me with open arms, but confided that she had suspected I was gay since I was 7.
It is a part of who we are, like being left-handed. The only lifestyle choice is whether to live an unhappy life in deceit and isolation.
Ahh, yes. At many points in our nation’s history, groups have come forward seeking equal treatment by our government. And every step of the way, people have pointed to those new groups and said that extending equality to them would bring the downfall of our nation.
And every time, we have extended equality, and our nation has failed to self-destruct. In fact, we are stronger as a people the more true we hold to the important guidance our US Constitution gives us.
This is just one more of these cases. Same sex couples will receive equal treatment in civil marriage, and our nation will be better for it. And you will hopefully live long enough to see that your fears of our country falling apart are for naught.
Then why does the The Netherlands have peace and prosperity and gay marriage since 2001? Why didnt they fall?
And they were never a world power. Where is Greece? Where is Rome? They accepted open immorality, lust, and selfish endeavors and collapsed from the inside. And America is heading down the same road.
You make one statement that I agree with…the gay lifestyle is a choice. Can’t argue that.
A gay person, such as myself, can choose to be who he or she is, happy with a partner and not ashamed to be seen in public as part of a gay couple.
Or a gay person can cower to the conservative bullies and live in the closet, longing for what straight people take for granted.
The choice is ours to make. I choose to be out and happy with how nature made me. It’s just a shame that the current social climate forces so many people to hide who they really are. That will change with time.
Estimates about the percentage of the population that is gay/lesbian vary. The number hardly matters, because legal discrimination based on prejudice and fear-mongering is wrong. Everyone should be treated equally and fairly under the law. Your prejudice, EJ, is immoral.
Of course, there have always been gays — the Roman Emperor Hadrian, King Richard the Lionheart, and King James I (who gave us the KJV Bible) are a few historical examples.
Second — most war in recent times, you say, have been waged in the name of Allah? Well, since “Allah” simply is the Arabic word for God, and is the word for God used by Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews as well as Arabic-speaking Muslims, you may not be completely wrong — just generally off the track. The current war in Syria is a civil war about a dictator, not a religious war, and the same is true for the recent civil war in Libya. The recent civil war in Sri Lanka between Buddhists and Hindus was more about economic discrimination and cultural differences than it was about religion. Our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, we insisted, were not about religion, but were about fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, and looking for non-existent WMDs in Iraq. Most of the wars in Sub-Saharan Africa seem to be about ethnic rivalries. The same was true in the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1980s. MOST recent wars are about Allah/God? Probably not.
Which proportion of the population will satisfy you EJP? Also, could you please tell us which part of the Constitution places numerical requirements on the protection of our inalienable rights?
The Pope says it is 10% It really always was but they werent counted in the census. Now that the census counts us it is more well documented. It has always been around according to cave drawings and Egyption drawings. There has never really been a pop problem.
Bev Cowan – Rockland: Best address this letter of yours to Barack Hussein Obama. I remember very well when I was at the New Hampshire campaign drive when Obama was there and about to give his campaign rhetoric, he was interrupted by a call on his Blackberry from relatives in Africa. These relatives, according to a now-buried (but retrievable) CNN and France 24 news story that the relatives Obama were speaking to for one and a half hours were his terrorist cousins who committed atrocities, genocide and attempted but failed to overthrow governments in African nations. Could be they are hooked-up with Kony. Who knows? But with the millions upon millions of US Dollars being poured into African nations – only to be corrupted and stolen by their national leaders and organized criminal units and terrorist cells, it is no wonder Africa cannot get out of the rut it is in, resplendent to your letter. Maybe with better government and less overseas flagrant spending by the US Government, supported by US Taxpayers, can progress be made. You see, it could well take a reversal of policy and thought to fix things. Money talks in many ways; the lack of it as well as the supply of it!
Chipi: Do you have a focus to your post??????
I am familiar with this poster. He has been away for a while, but now that he’s back prepare yourself for a lot more of this, and I mean a lot.
Goodness, the poor fellow needs to pull his thoughts together in some organized way. It’s very poor quality conservative ranting. Can’t even give him a B- for effort. LOL
Have you been watching these comments for very long Miz Sally? Do you recall a fellow from a couple of years ago who used to call himself John in the Philippines? Posted endless drivel and nonsense ad nauseum. Comes and goes under different bizarre handles every few months because he gets kicked off every time.
Now your comment is odd and really not true at all. Really do not know just who you are talking about but not one little townie is going to get me off, and from what I understand, very few (yes, there were some of you) who got “kicked off” the forums yourselves. This came to me from research at the newspaper in your city. I may be here to stay. Listen, you folks up in your area even hit on newcomers when they relocate from anyplace else, comment in this forum, of even come to enjoy their summer vacations. This does not surprise us at all. Cannot some of you in here let things alone and allow others to enjoy commenting? Some of you do not “own” this forum, so get it understood.
You get it understood brah. You’re not fooling anybody.
It is ok, Annie(AKA loveGSD) is obsessed with people who post here. Just ignore her.
Isn’t very poor quality conservative ranting de rigeur for this site?
LOL
Yes, and this is what I have been told to enter and see for myself. It is proving true.
Just follow the bouncing ball over the words and you will understand.
Sorry, but I’ve never been in here. Someone referred me to BDN website for a review of out-of-the-ordinary news, events and comments. Seems like this one of mine above touched into that out-of-the-ordinary comment realm.
Yes. Seems all candidates that are running for office seem to have skeleton’s in their closet. It is just unfortunate that Obama seems to have more skeleton’s over the others.
Now that you’ve explained it, your original post still seems pointless.
Without anything to back up your blatherings, all I hear is blablablabla……
Then, “blab” to CNN and Obama to prove this fact. I’m just saying…
Call him a “terrorist,” call him a “Marxist,” call him a “fascist,” call him “Kenyan born,” call him a “Muslim,” and call him a “socialist.”
We will call President Obama “our re-elected President” and will call you a “nut-job.”
Nobody called the President anything, ‘chenard’. Just mentioned his relatives as a factual report which was aired on CNN. That was not my error nor dream scheme. Best check with CNN for the rest of that report.
You’ve said he was in close contact with “terrorist cousins” who may be affiliated with Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army and have referred to an apocryphal news report for which you give no link. That is guilt by association, as old as the Inquisition.
As a news junkie I know a pack of insane lies when I see them. In reading your first post I have seen them.
Never accused anyone, but the CNN report was true and valid. No links to this report were given because after-the-fact, it was heard on CNN news. I have no idea if this report was entered to broadband computer outlets or not. Please check with CNN to archive this story. Insofar as Obama being in close contact (with his terrorist cousins), that also is fact, but I never mentioned “close contact” anywhere in my original comment above, just that he received a phone call from them verified by his staff and by several national news organizations. Furthermore, I never mentioned those two organizations you referred to which are apparent newbie organizations established by Kony or someone else. Please, in the future, don’t add words and accusations to comments made by me and carefully refer back and forth to comments before you write your comments. Just wastes my time in trying my best to enlighten people like you to news stories and events.
Nice handle LOL…….
It’s one of the Mayan “Gods” of heaven, earth and water, I guess. My husband came across it and mentioned it to me, Stevie.
??????????????????????????/
Once again I ask:
Do those of you against same-sex marriage have a single rational argument in your defense that will stand in a court of law? If so, please share it with everyone, as we’ve been waiting for years.
but you ask a question that has no answer because the courts have never ruled in Maine that same sex marriage is a right and the supreme court has never said it is a constitutional right. If they had there would be no need for a popular opinion vote or you rhetoric.
It has been a right granted by the vote of legislatures and the people and it can be voted in affirmative or not today or tomorrow and then voted on again and granted or taken away in the future. The only way it can be a Constitutional right and not subject to the whim of popular opinion is for a federal mandate or constitutional amendment.
Legality and morality are not equitable. This is not a legal issue, nor is it a political issue (although it has been fabricated as one). It is totally a moral issue, and we will all have to answer to Jesus Christ as to how we stood on the issue when we die. Those who are not Christian may have a hard time to comprehend this, but it is a truth we will all face. And if you believe that you are a Christian and that same sex marriage is OK, then you really are not a Christian. The primary duty of a Christian is to show other people the way to the salvation of their souls. If you approve of same sex marriage, you then approve of homosexual acts, and homosexual acts are seriously sinful. You can’t be a Christian and approve of sin. It’s not logically possible.
Wrong on all counts. Marriage is a legal contract which may or may not be sancitioned by a church. Saying SSM is OK and legal does deprive one of being a Christian. Of course, with your narrow definition, it may be. However, by making these unilateral decisions you could be accused of playing God.
I’m not a christian and the law of this land protects those of us who are not from you and your ilk establishing your theocracy.
Maybe Jesus was gay. He never married…
Hello He — I agree that “You can’t be a Christian and approve of sin. It is not logically possible.” I don’t approve of the sin of prejudice. We learned in the 1860s that slavery was a sin, and in 1950s and ’60s that prejudice based on race is a sin — and today we are beginning to understand that prejudice based on sexual orientation is also a sin.
I know, some people went to the Bible and said that the Bible says slavery is just fine (see Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5, Titus 2:9-10, and other biblical passages), but the Bible is simply wrong on the issue of slavery. Owning another human being is a sin, even though the Bible appears to say otherwise. The Bible has not changed since 1865, but the way we interpret it has changed.
Likewise, in the 1950s many people said that the races had to be kept separate because God put blacks on one continent and whites on another continent, and black people have “the curse of Ham” (Genesis 9:20-27) and therefore they have to go to separate schools, eat in separate restaurant seating, use separate bathrooms, etc. The Bible hasn’t changed, but today our interpretation of the Bible has changed.
Likewise, today some people misinterpret the story of Sodom, which is not about gay love, but is about the attempted rape of two male angels — rape is an act of violence, and is always wrong, whether same-sex or opposite-sex. Again, some people look at the Levitical laws that disapprove of men having sexual relations — and also, just as strongly, disapprove of men shaving their beards, people getting tatoos, and people eating pork or shellfish. Most Christians have rejected the Levitical Law Code since Paul said it has been replaced by the law of love (see Romans 10:4 and 13:8-10, also Galatians 3:23-26 and 5:14). Conservative Christians are being inconsistent when they reject every part of this legal code except its condemnation of homosexuality.
Again, in Romans 1:26-27, Paul writes about men and women who “exchange normal intercourse for one not normal.” This is the ONLY mention of lesbianism in the entire Bible! (There are 31,163 verses in Protestant Bibles, and only ONE mentions lesbianism, making it the SMALLEST issue in the entire Bible!) We must remember that Paul’s main focus here is not sex. When we read the entire passage, and not just the one or two verses the fundamentalists quote out of context, it is clear that Paul is stating that ALL people have fallen short, and that we all stand on the same footing with God. His real concern here is the fallen nature of ALL people. And still, he does not use the term “sin” here — that word does not occur until Romans 2:12, when it is used in general, and not referring to any sexual activity.
Is Paul talking about people who are by their nature homosexual, or just people who are naturally heterosexual but engage in some homosexual activity? In another context Paul writes, “I know I am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean” (Romans 14:14).
Again, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul used the Greek words “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai.” Although some Bible translations translate these words as “homosexual,” we really don’t know what these words meant to Paul or his readers. Malakoi literally means “soft.” It is used in other places in the New testament to refer to people lacking in self-discipline. it really does not seem to mean “homosexual” at all. Arsenokoitai literally means “male-bed.” Some Bible scholars believe Paul was criticizing men who exploited male children, or men who worked as male prostitutes. He is NOT writing about mutual, loving, adult male relationships.
Jesus himself said noting about homosexuality but he told us to welcome the stranger, to judge not lest we be judged, to not throw the first stone unless we are sinless, and to take the log out of our own eye.
Again, remember that there are over 31,000 verses in the Bible. Maybe six of them are about homosexuality — and almost all of them are doubtful. Homosexuality is one of the SMALLEST issues in the Bible. Just because the fundamentalists quote the same verse or two over and over doesn’t make it a major issue in the Bible.
So, as a Christian, I try to avoid the sin of prejudice. As far as gays and lesbians are concerned, it is my job to welcome the stranger, and not judge lest I be judged.
Chris: thanks for that. Personally, it is a sad time for those of us in love who just want to celebrate that love with a wedding and a marriage to the person of our dreams, only to be ranted and raved at by people who call us perverted and immoral. I don’t lie (ok, the occasional fib) cheat or steal and I certainly don’t know what is perverted about being in a loving committed relationship with the one person who accepts me, faults and all.
Ms Cowan: “Because They Hate” is a screed
against Islam and Muslims. Brigitte Gabrielle, a militant Christian from Lebanon
calls that countries civil war a religious war. It was not. There were
Christians and Muslims on both sides of that civil war.
Blaming female circumcision and ownership of women
on Islam is as ignorant as it is hateful. Up until the 19th century
women were considered chattel in most cultures and circumcised females have
been found among Egyptian mummies. Herodotus (c. 484 BCE –
c. 425 BCE) referred to the practice when he visited Egypt.
Ms Gabrielle’s American Council for Truth (ACT) is nothing more than a hate group against Muslims in the US. Her organization along with Pamela Geller’s Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), David Horowitz’s Freedom Center and Islamofascism Awareness Week, Terry Jones’ Dove World Outreach, P. David Gaubatz’s Society of American National Existence (SANE), Bill French’s Center for the Study of Political Islam are all on the watch list for hate organizations.
Something tells me you will blindly support Muslims until the day they impose sharia law. But what will you do after that day….
You apparently blindly support Ms Cowan, Ms Gabrielle,Ms Geller and other anti-Muslim hate groups that believe it is OK to deny American citizens their constitutional rights simply because they are Muslim. That is the definition of intolerance. I don’t support Ms Cowan’s call for intolerance in the United States. I do not support terrorism, racism, intolerance in any religion or country.
The boogie man of Sharia courts isn’t nearly as scary as you like to think it is. Stop dragging it around like those stupid old men standing on street corners twirling rubber fetuses around their heads and shouting “Sin and Damnation”. We already have specialized courts in the US. You won’t even notice when a Sharia court is set up. It’s a straw man, not even a very good one at that. You sound paranoid
I was right.
I’m betting you will notice Sharia law when they order women to wear burkas. When women are no longer educated, cannot drive, or are once more made property of men. Or how about when honor killings are accepted? Or killing homosexuals?
You claim to not support intolerance. Coming from you, that is a joke. LMAO
You haven’t the faintest idea what a Sharia court is, do you. You really shouldn’t talk about things you know nothing about. Especially when it’s about people you apparently and unreasonably hate.
maybe you should actually read up on Sharia law and about Sharia courts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8686504/Sharia-a-law-unto-itself.html
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2425/belgium-islamic-sharia-law-court
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/16/english-citizens-increasingly-turning-to-sharia-court/
Ah yes, those are really neutral unbiased sources of information.
And your Muslim friends are really neutral unbiased sources of information. LMAO
I think I will stick with established historical facts.
Well, of course you are. Why would you want light to penetrate your teeny tiny little dark world. LOL
I am not the one embracing the darkness of Islam.
I am not embracing fundamentalist terrorism in either Muslims or Christians. To call one religion all evil and deem another all enlightened is to ignore the history of both and is ignorant.
Each of those sources indicate that if and when Sharia courts have become a problem in the community or have tried to supplant the laws of that country people are prepared to take action. How does this translate in your mind to the usurpation of US law and the Constitution?
I don’t hate Muslim people. I do detest their cult.
Right, reminds me of that terminally bigoted phrase used by conservative “Christians”, love the sinner hate the sin. You do not know anything about Islamic culture, religion, art, music, poetry, history, politics, faith or beliefs other than what you read in anti-Muslim propaganda.
Islamic culture = Medieval, dark ages; encompassing most of the detestable aspects of that period of history. A period western civilization has renounced and progressed beyond.
Islamic religion = See above on Islamic culture.
Islamic art, music, poetry. Effectively does not exist or is outright banned.
Islamic history = Blood soaked repression.
Islamic politics, faith, beliefs = See above on Islamic culture.
Point of fact, it was Islamic culture which helped us recover from the dark ages. Muslim concepts of mathematics brought us into the modern age.
I am with you that Middle Eastern countries run as Islamic theocracies have terrible practices of civil rights abuse and women in particular fare poorly (as do Christians and homosexuals).
But today’s islamic fundamentalists are a poor stereotype for muslim culture overall, and portraying the historical role Islam played in the world as ‘encompassing most of the detestable aspects of that period of history’ is woefully ignorant.
It would be like looking at Fred Phelps and his church picketing military funerals and thinking it represents Christianity.
I believe you should differentiate between Arabic and Islamic contributions to both culture and mathematics. Much of what Europe learned from the Muslims came originally from the far east. The middle east was indeed a great source of knowledge and advancement prior to the rise of Islam. Once Islam became, or becomes, dominant what most consider as progress in science, culture, almost everything, becomes stagnant at best.
We will have to disagree on the historical role of Islam.
Ottoman Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
You don’t have a clue, do you?
Islamic culture = Islam flowered while Christian Europe rotted in the barbarism of the Dark Ages. Islamic cities had universities, great art, poetry, good food, sanitation, etc., while Christian Europe had serfdom, ignorance, and barbarity. Islamic culture gave us algebra, the Arabic numerals that we use today (they replaced Roman numerals), and preserved the learning of the Greeks and Romans.
Islam was tolerant of Christians and Jews in the Middle Ages, and many Jews fled from Christian attacks and intolerance to seek protection in Islamic lands. Christian “heretics” fleeing religious persecution in Europe also sought refuge in Islamic lands.
When the Muslims took Jerusalem they entered the city peacefully, and guaranteed religious freedom to the Christians.
When the Christian Crusaders re-took Jerusalem they slaughtered all of the Muslims, Jews and their fellow Christians that they could find. One Crusader sent a letter home bragging that the blood was up to the knees of his horse.
Islamic religion = Too big a subject to address here. Let’s just note that I’ve read the whole Bible and the whole Qur’an, and the Bible is far, far more violent.
Islam teaches that no one is a believer until he desires for his neighbor what he desires for himself — and that there shall be no coercion in religion. Islam honors Moses and Jesus as great prophets, saying that Moses and Jesus taught the truth but their followers misunderstood them , and so, through the angel Gabriel, God gave the Holy Qur’an to Muhammad in order to set the record straight. Adam, Jonah, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad are all revered as prophets of God.
Islamic art and music = They continue to flourish, regardless of your stunning ignorance of them.
Islamic history = As interesting and varied as the history of Western Europe. Islam has seen the rise and fall of many great empires. It is a record of good and bad, like any human history. Throughout most of Islamic history, Islam has been a more tolerant religion than Christianity has been.
In the 19th and 20th centuries most Islamic lands were conquered by better armed Western colonial powers. This caused soul-searching among Muslims. Many Muslims reacted by adopting Western ways, ideas, technology, and dress. For instance, in Turkey, women were forbidden to wear head scarves. Today, many Muslims are trying to adopt Western-style political systems — representative democracy.
Other Muslims said, “We have been conquered because we have not followed Islam closely enough. We should return to the practice of Islam exactly as it was in the prophet’s time.” So, like American Christian fundamentalists, they tried to get back to what they thought were the fundamentals of their religion. The religious right in America and the religious right in Islam (think op the Taliban in Afghanistan) are much the same.
I was too dismissive of Islamic contributions to civilization. However, you give them far too much credit. Islamic culture did not invent algebra or Arabic numerals. Sort of like Columbus getting credit for discovering America.
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~sxw8045/history.htm
You do remember that those “Islamic lands were conquered by better armed Western colonial powers” in the 19th and 20th centuries were lands earlier conquered by Muslims. Islam was primarily spread in the middle east and Europe by conquest. And yes, the Islamic conquerors were tolerant of their subjects provided those subjects submitted to rule by Muslims. Not that much different from other great empires such as the Roman empire. Practicality in ruling a huge empire demands similar practices or the local population may well revolt. and even a great empire can only subdue so much at any one time.
I don’t hate Christians. I do detest their cult. So….maybe we have something in common.
All genital mutilation should be illegal. Genitals belong to the owner. This includes christians and jews as well. Hence: leave the clam necks on the clams.
So now we’re going to fight over what percentage of the population gays are? Who cares and what does it matter? We know that left handed people are only a small part of the population and they were discriminated against in the past (hmm, by the stringently religious too, interesting), but somehow we don’t use their numbers to determine whether they’re worthy of rights or not. This should be no different.
Why should we fight over it? There are more gay citizens in the USA than Jewish citizens per the 2010 census. The idea that the size of a minority is somehow important is ludicrous.
The 14th guarantees equal protection under government to all law-abiding citizens, not just some of them.
Beverly Cowan,
I would advise you find another person to look up to, rather than Brigitte Gabrielle. She is a radical Islamophobe, and is the founder of two well known anti-Muslim organizations. She incites hate and fear with her sweeping generalizations.
A quote from the ACT! for America website;”Tens of thousands of Islamic militants now reside in America, operating in sleeper cells, attending our colleges and universities, even infiltrating our government. They are here — today. Many have been here for years. Waiting. Preparing.”
LOL My Muslim friends at the university are going to be astounded to learn that they have infiltrated, they thought they were studying for a degree in Engineering.
Well, it’s a comforting thought that if we ever run out of loons we can always fall back on anti-gay, anti-contraceptives, anti-women, anti-children, anti-education anti-Muslim, anti-abortion religious loons.
I don’t know—that sounds like an extremely rare breed…..
Speaking of loons, has anyone else noticed that white painted industrial turbines don’t show up when pics of them are printed on mimeo paper?
Mimeo paper? Like from the 1960’s?
right now you’ve got a bunch of 20 somethings that are reading this and going “Huh?” well, the ones that aren’t watching “Jersey something or another”
I think the 21st century doesn’t show up when printed on mimeo paper, LOL.
(no, I had not noticed that :)
Chris Dorion,
Great Letter!That was as well stated an argument as I have heard or read.
Personally, I just don’t see how who I marry could hurt anyone or any institution.
I have been married over 30 years. How would anything in the world be different if I had spent those years with a man instead of a woman?
And really, why do they care who I marry?
Chris Dorion,
I wish you happiness, good health, a long life and all the freedoms to live your life to the fullest.
Chris Dorian, Kathy VanGorder: Good letters.