Bond agreement
I agree totally with Gov. LePage’s stand on bond issues. Some are needed and some are not because of timing. I find that sometimes it’s just another way to spend taxpayers’ money in the future.
Our debt on bond issues is surprisingly high, and when bond issues come before the voters the cost should always include at least an estimate of the total, including interest.
Carl Savage
Eagle Lake
Free speech zone
Barbara McDade and the Library Board of Directors should be congratulated and thanked for assuring that the library and its grounds are free speech zones. Without open and often difficult discourse, societies like ours wither and perish.
Perhaps some city leaders, do not like the politics or message of the Occupy Movement, but as a resident of Bangor it is my hope and expectation that the right to free speech will be defended and that those who support it will not be threatened with fiscal consequences. That just isn’t right.
Robert Q. Dana
Bangor
Rights of the governed
In reference to “Constitutional Rights” (BDN, April 23), the basic foundation of the U.S. Constitution comes from divine principles, truths and revelations embodied in the Judeo-Christian faith system. Rights of the governed are divine, inalienable ones. Any perceived rights contrary to our moral nature are not true rights. All human rights set in law originated with our creator.
Gay rights are contradictory to our nature. Why? Against the author of life. See Romans 1:18-32. Also, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Government authority is of God: Romans 13: 1-10. Yes, we are free moral agents, but totally morally responsible to our God. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).
So, this unholy, unauthorized, ungodly living arrangement between same gender as husband, wife is certainly to be avoided.
We have our choices to make, but may we do so wisely, because eternity cannot be stopped or avoided if we make the wrong choices.
Elmer Morin
Limestone
Library shining light
The Bangor Public Library is a shining light in Bangor, providing public access to information through books and computers, not to mention all the programs, children’s activities, art exhibits and community meetings it offers.
I don’t like to see it threatened with loss of city funding because it stood up for free speech last fall. Information and free speech are absolutely essential to democracy — priceless. For that reason, I support the library 100 percent.
Christina Diebold
Bangor
Concert free speech
The BDN Editorial stating that to protest Ted Nugent’s comments it suffices to not go to the show presumes the false limiting premise that only fans of Styx, REO Speedwagon and Mr. Nugent have just cause and standing to register opposition to Nugent’s statements.
Given Bangor’s close association with the concert series, the larger Bangor community has cause to be concerned and a rightful expectation that their city will not be associated through silence or otherwise with such repugnant statements.
While Nugent’s statements were determined to not cross the criminal line, these same statements necessitated criminal and threat level inquiry. In other words, on their face these statements gave rise to the reasonable inference that violence may have been intended against the President of the United States. That is of course not the only possible inference that Nugent’s statements gave rise to and that may be one of the reasons why the appropriately high criminal standard cannot be met in this case, but he has criminal line chalk on his shoes.
The City Council should promulgate a resolution clearly stating that Bangor is a city where incivility and insinuation of violence is not welcome.
Mr. Nugent is not the only one with freedom of speech; the City Council speaks for the city of Bangor. The council should make clear that the Bangor community is not to be mistaken by association to approve of Nugent’s statements. Styx, REO Speedwagon and Ted Nugent fans would then be left to make their own decisions about whether or not to attend the show.
Patrick Downey
Bangor
Occupy Bangor
I am troubled by Cary Weston’s opposition to the Bangor Public Library’s tolerance of the Occupy protesters.
It was a free speech issue. Those of us who found nothing of value in the gathering believe those people had the right to peacefully gather.
The library’s respect for that principle likely accounts for its quiet end when the protesters were informed of the library’s liability concerns.
Mary Lingley
Bangor
Recruiting foreign students
The Bangor Daily News published a front page article on April 6 about a group from a public school going on a recruiting trip to China in hopes of recruiting 20 students to come to Maine. Was this recruiting trip paid for by the public school funds or privately funded?
Was this trip made due to the problems that particular RSU is experiencing? Is this really a good fit for high school-aged students to be housed on a college campus? How does the high school handle the students who come from abroad and wish to play varsity sports? Will the MPA investigate their recruiting practices?
What about the “local” kids who cannot play a varsity sports because a foreign student has taken his or her spot? How will your school handle finger pointing and blame aimed at the students from abroad by the parents of the offended student? Will your neighbors embrace your attitudes toward foreign weekend guests?
If the influx of new students and money can cause better academic offerings and the local students can embrace the idea that they may have to practice harder to excel, this may work to the school’s and the students’ advantage.
Hopefully, everything works out, if not a few private schools that have been successfully building their international programs and educating foreign students, will be left trying to put the pieces back together. Good luck in your endeavor. I sincerely hope the students are the winners in the end.
Len Saba
Lee
Wealthy residents?
RSU 13 board puts $250,000 back into budget (BDN, April 25).
Once again, the RSU 13 board is under the illusion (or I should say delusion) that Rockland and the other local communities in RSU 13 are full of wealthy taxpayers such as those who inhabit the affluent communities of Scarsdale, N.Y., Greenwich, Conn., or Wellesley, Mass.
Richard W. Sykes
Rockland
Elmer Morin, If you believe it is a sin to live against ones’ nature then I agree that you should live your life as a Heterosexual not as a Gay man if that is your true nature. For too long people who are Gay or Lesbian have had to live in silence, fear,shame and in relationships based on lies, therefor living against their true nature. I know you believe in your interpretation of the bible, but I believe in a God that created each of us as unique individuals and loves each of us equally, even if you do not agree with some of His creations. So let people live and love their true nature as even you said that God does not want us to live a life “contradictory to our nature”.
Elmer this country no longer cares what God wants and I’m thinking God no longer cares about what this country wants.
So you have God’s cell phone number and are knowing what he wants? Cool, but implausible
God, by definition, don’t need no stinkin cell phone.
LOL
what makes you think god loves the USA more then, any country? and we wonder why other hate us.
I don’t wonder why they hate us, and unlike our present commander in chief I make no apologies for it.
We have no right, to go around the world lording over others. We have treated other countries badly, it is cowardly, not to admit wrong doing. Sometimes saying I’m sorry is the only way to get something we want like maybe PEACE.
Pizzing on dead people is wrong! Period!. Burning, holy books is wrong Period, having your picture taken with dead humans is wrong Period. I could go on and on, this country is not favored, by god over any other. We got to were we are through hard work, and treating other as we would want to be treated, and not stooping to the levels of others.
Every one of those humans that where pizzed on was someone child, how would you like it if someone pizzed on your dead child, two wrongs never make a right.
Spare me the drama. No country is perfect, including us. There never has nor will there ever be peace on earth. It’s nothing more than a liberal dream that will never happen. That being said, I can think of no other country that I would rather have has a super-power than the United States. We have always been a compassionate, forgiving nation. Wonder if that has something to do with our Christian roots :)
We as a people have been compassionate but our government has not always been compassionate or forgiving.
Ask any citizen of any Central American or most South American countries how compassionate our foreign policy has been towards them and their country.
Ask any Central Asian or southeast Asian citizen how copassionate our governmdent has been towards them and their country.
How about the Reagan Administration’s defense of Aparteid or the so-called Banana Wars for two examples of our country’s compassion.
I love this country and would die to defend it but that does not mean I will not try to stop my country from doing things that I believe are wrong for this country or humanity.
I don’t find Christians compasionate.
We got where we are through World War 2 – and now the Empire is collapsing. It was a short run.
Which countries has the US treated badly? Germany? Japan? those countries that support terrorism?
As to two wrongs making right? no but it is human nature but not really a national disgrace.
I’m sorry but I don’t see it that way, we are suppose to be better than that. I expect better than that. We all should be outraged by the treatment of the dead by this counties armed forces.
We should express displeasure that the service members have gone beyond the bounds of decency, but was hardly criminal. But as I said the service members only succumbed to human weakness.
regretable but somewhat understandable.
Man created national borders, not God.
You are absolutely wrong. This country better care what God thinks of USA. You can say there is no GOD, but that changes nothing. God will not be mocked. You better be thankful he is slow to anger, and is full of Grace. Make no mistake sin is sin. The Bible say’s “only a fool will say there’s no God”.
Well of course the bible says only a fool says there is no God. It’s a book by God promoting God. What did you expect? A paeon to atheism? LOL
I like what you said a book about God promoting God.
Look at the stars in the sky, they cry there is a creator.
To think some people think it was an explosion from nothing. It takes allot more faith to believe in the big bang than a God who created it all.
I look at it this way If I wrong I will lose nothing. If I am correct I gain everything. Pretty simple. That’s me.
So you’re hedging? I think your god can see through that…
You don’t have to speak out loud for their god to hear. He/She/It hears our every inner murmur.
I’ll take my chances, thanks…
Your choice not mine. I have everything to gain and nothing to lose. How about you?
I have nothing to gain because god is a figment of your imagination. I have my reason to lose…
Pushing people to the fringes of society is a sin as well, one no greater or lesser than any other sin.
Sin is anything GOD wouldn’t Do.
I’m interested to know what in your mind you think God wouldn’t do, particularly since she by most accounts is not a terrestrial being.
God is in three parts. God the Father (Spirit), God the Son (Jesus) God the Holy spirit . They are all one and the same, but three distinct missions
I believe in God, but not your Christian God/s.
Okay, but you didn’t answer the question.
We are on the same side of this issue, you misunderstood my post.
Does god take care of all the planets? Do you know how many planets are in the universe? Do you really, truly think that he/she/it watches over each of us and listens to our daily prayers and swears?
Now that new universes have been discovered, does God watch over all of them too, or is there one God for each universe? (Discuss amongst yourselves.)
I think God wants us to love one another, and not judge.
Are you saying I was wrong in teaching my children not to lie, or steal etc?
Please show me a religion that condone’s those actions.
Buddhism? Islam?, Hinduism?, Daoism?, Wicca?
Christianity is not the only moral compass on the planet, all religions strive to provide a moral framework for their followers.
And in providing that moral framework they are making a judgement as to what is right or wrong which was my point.
Perhaps, but Christians don’t “own” morality. Legal and moral codes were in existence long before Judaism and Christianity.
Lying isn’t against the law. Neither is disrespecting your parents, adultery, divorce, blasphemy, I could go on. And on.
Lying or stealing is not judging people based on a lifestyle they choose that does no harm to you.
Lying and stealing has been considered bad in all societies including those societies that believed in plural gods, nature or your god.
But doesn’t he care about the high school football games? There’s so much prayer that goes on before a game. I’ve always wondered how god chooses who wins and who loses. Maybe Tebow can help me out with that.
(snicker)
Patrick Downey, I agree completely! The Bangor community and her leaders should always defend the freedom of speech, but always make it known it will not promote speech that incites harm towards fellow citizens.
As you point out in this post, the right to speak is not absolute, and are subject to rules.
The rules are still that encampments are not allowed. If you disagree with that law change it. Break it only if you are willing to accept the consequences such as jail, fines, property confication …
Elmer Morin: We are not a Christian nation. Neither our mottos nor our Constitution are based on Christian philosophy or on the Bible.
The great seal of the United States says “E pluribus unum”. That’s a Latin political idea meaning “Out of many, one” It is not a Christian idea nor biblical phrase.
Our country was established durning the Greek Revival era. Our founding fathers based our
Constitution, our mottos, our form of government on Greek political writings
and Roman political structures.
The archeticture of the capitol buildings and monuments are based on
Greek principles of archeticture.
The decorative motifs
were taken from Greek and Roman art.
Neither the bible nor the Christian religion had any part in this Greek
Revival period of art, architecture, politics, fashion and political thinking.
The framers of the constitution were well versed in Greco-Roman
history, confederations of European nations and republics from history. They
used these historical references to support their arguments during the
proceedings of the convention, sometimes delivering long lectures on the
subject. The leaders of the country that wrote the Constitution derived their republican theories from reading Cicero, Livy, Tacitus, Aristotle,
Polybius, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, and Plutarch.
Mr. Morin: Were we a Christian nation, it might not be your brand of Christianity. Worse yet, your brand might not be tolerated in a Christian nation. So rejoice: you are free to worship in your stunted way because we are not a Christian nation.
It’s beginning to seem as if some Christians are against freedom of religion.
Beginning to seem ..????????? Beginning???? They’ve been fighting freedom all along. Especially, women’s freedoms.
No, no, this brand of “Christian” is not against freedom. They want to take us back to those days when we were a nation of moral men dedicated to the ideals of freedom. Like at the founding of our nation.
Oh wait, isn’t that when people could own other people; people could not vote based on the color of their skin or sex? I guess that can’t be it then.
Possibly it was right after the civil war when people couldn’t own others anymore. But, then again, we still had laws that prevented people from voting based upon race and sex, we were also taking the indiginous populations lands by force. So, it can’t be then.
Perhaps it was the turn and early part of the last century. Yes, race and sex no longer kept citizens from voting. But, wasn’t there nearly slave labor in factories and didn’t we have that ol’ “separate but unequal” thing?
Maybe the 50’s, we got Brown v. Board of Ed. But, we still had laws that prevented interracial marriage, so, it can’t be then.
Yeah, I’m having a hard time finding that moment of perfect freedom that this country enjoyed and they want to bring us back to.
I did have a great weekend in July a few years ago, I wouldn’t mind if they brought us back to that.
Nope, let’s not go back to anytime. Lets keep moving forward until we create that society that our founders described but never lived up to. Only when we see people and can drop the labels will we truly be “free”.
Great post. Thanks
But essentially nillist.
If you mean nihilist, I disagree. I believe that social values and the basic, underlying truths that make up our Constitution are well-founded. They are merely unrealized. I point out in my post serious flaws in the application of the freedom we should all enjoy then transition to when those were realized but others were left unaddressed.
We have made huge strides in refining society to conform to the notion of liberty. My point is that there is more to be done. We don’t need to go back, we need to stand on the shoulders of those that have come before us and make our mark for civil liberty.
Make no mistake, I am proud to call myself an American and to have just completed my 19th year of active military service. I am no nihilist, I’ve sworn to protect our freedoms and have gone to war to fulfill my vow. Now, let’s realize the dream!
Thank you for your service. Yes I meant nihilist.
Yes there have been great strides in our society, and there is more to be done. But much of what needs to be done is to see that some of the “strides” made have been less than sucessful, and need to be gotten rid of, they can’t be fixed.
In your experience, is there a better way that the US could have better fought the terrorism coming out of the Middle East? Since I am no longer in the military and therefore immune to being given a less than honorable discharge, I can say that the war(s) we have been fighting for over a decade was and is stupid. I have what I think would have been a better response.but just like the conflicts in Vietnam and the Middle East The population of the US does not have the backbone to follow through with what needs to be done.
I was at an anti-war demonstration in DC in 1969. One of the speakers, a radical transvestite, told me later that I would never be free until I had the “Freedom to wear a dress.”
I never took him up on it.
Just because you didn’t take him up on it does not mean he was wrong. You would be free to either wear a dress or not to wear a dress depending on your desires not the desires of society.
I don’t think anyone is preventing anyone from wearing a dress. In fact I wish some people would wear a dress rather than the pants and shirt too tight and the fat just rolling out over the belt line. But then again nobody is asking me to be a fashionista:)
Naaah I’m with you.
Why are you going to Cicero, Livy, Tacitus, etc? Why not stay with the laws of the United States. How about the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, which was unanimously ratified by the Senate and signed by John Adams. It reads in relevant part:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries
But Adams didn’t just sign it, he included the following signing statement:
Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.
He confirmed every clause and he, and the Senate at the time, were the founding fathers. No need to reach back to ancient democracies in far away lands. Our own framers said it as plainly as possible. This might be a nation of mostly Christians, of which I am one, but it is not a Christian nation.
I was responding to Mr. Morins statement that “the basic foundation of the U.S. Constitution comes from divine principles, truths and revelations embodied in the Judeo-Christian faith system”
I should have also quoted John Adams . Thanks. Next time I will.
Nor do we have any indication that anyone in government had any objections to this treaty or its language!
While I mostly agree with the gist of your post I disagree with the meaning you attached to ” “E pluribus unum” “Out of many, one” in Seal refers to the many “States”.
“We the people” (kcjonez reference) “formed a more perfect union” again (of the states). I know that progressive rewrites of history say this isn’t true, but you forget what the founders were trying to do.
People in those days identified with their respective states and unifying symbology was important in binding those states together.
You are disagreeing with something I did not say. Pluribus was translated only as ‘many’. Who or what was not referenced.
My apologies. I may have been too quick on the trigger. I have seen progressives like yourself make a false argument on that topic before. If you are not among them I apologize.
Elmer Morin–Wrong! The basic foundation of our constitution is “We the People”. The government that you are thinking of is called a theocracy. Check out Iran or Malaysia or Yemen to see how theocracies work.
Our governmental system is called a democratic republic. That means if we the people say it’s not ok to treat gays or anyone else unfairly, it is so.
I will be voting with Jesus this November for love and fairness, not with your church for hate and inequality.
Robert Q. Dana & Mary Lingley the opposition to the OWS movement has nothing to do with Free Speech. The opposition to OWS was due in large part to a group of people occupying public property and denying free access to other people to enjoy that same piece of property. The second problem was the OWS movement refusing to obey local laws and ordinances that every other person that wished to use the property had to obey.
Um, did someone block your way into the library? I saw people freely going in and out. There was no ordinance. It was vacated by a judge. And, the issue of free speech, 24/7, WAS the core principle upon which OccupyBangor based its occupation. When the city issued its final decision OccupyBangor moved out and cleaned up. When the library issued its final decision OccupyBangor cleaned up and moved out. Your issue is?
OWS the Bangor Edition occupied city property (Peirce Park) without obtaining the proper permits. They refused to comply with local ordinances surrounding over night camping. They refused to remove tents, tarps, tables, campfires, etc…in Peirce Park. No ordinance was “vacated by a judge” and eventually OWS the Bangor Edition stopped camping over night. But the tents remained in violation of city ordinance. It took several days before Peirce Park was “cleaned up” and the same for the Library. Did OWS the Bangor Edition ever re-seed the grass that was damaged by the tents?
But what does all of this have to do with the library? Cary Weston pooh-poohed the library for allowing the protesters to set up shop overnight on its property.
“There was no ordinance. It was vacated by a judge.”
What are you talking about?
Simply the judge was wrong. He or she took it upon him/her self to vacate the law for this one instance not declaring the law invalid in all instances. If another instance of a movement that the judge does not support arrises will that same judge vacate the law again?
Bangor’s parks ordinance was never challenged in court. What are you guys talking about?
“The opposition to OWS was due in large part to a group of people occupying public property and denying free access to other people to enjoy that same piece of property. The second problem was the OWS movement refusing to obey local laws and ordinances that every other person that wished to use the property had to obey.”
First, what evidence do you have that the protesters ever denied anyone access to the library or the library’s grounds?
Second, no city ordinance or local law prohibited the library from keeping its lawn open to public use 24 hours a day.
Ryan I already clarified my comments some 13 hours ago below.
Three to none. Would say the Bangor Public Library is supported by its citizens and at least one city councilor is not. Nice to see that in a day when cynics seem get more press.
Or I suppose three to everyone else?
Sinners we all are. Otherwise we would not need Jesus, yes?
Elmer Morin, like so many others who demonize gays, falsely claims to understand the foundations of American government. Let him cite passages from the Founding Fathers–not selected Biblical passages– if he is so sure that they, like he, were right-wing evangelical Christians. And let him argue his stance before professional historians who have actually studied the past, not distorted and misunderstood it. He would fail any serious American history class outside of Liberty University and a few other schools.
For all of you that are banging the drum for freedom of speech, bang on. But, while you’re banging for freedom of speech for the OWS movement, don’t forget to bang the drum for Ted Nugent’s freedom of speech. And while you bang the drum for Bill Meyer’s freedom of speech, don’t forget to include Rush Limbaugh. And while the President gets to demean, deceive, and mislead in his speeches based on his freedom of speech, don’t forget to defend those that oppose him when they take the microphone.
You see, freedom of speech is an all or nothing freedom. It would seem that many on the left and the right forget that fact.
I didn’t realize that you are a fan of the ACLU. Good for you.
LOL Now that’s funny! (note: this comment is in response to patom1 first response to EJ)
I’m a fan of freedom of speech. As for the ACLU, I’m not a fan of any organization that bases themselves on the Communist Manifesto. And, yes, that’s how they started out.
I don’t know about them basing themselves on the Communist Manifesto. That’s a new one on me. To my recolection they seem to have fought for both sides in the fight to protect free speech. Therefore I assumed as you were such a fan of free speech that you would be a supporter of the ACLU. I’m sure that they would go to bat for you if someone suppressed your right to free speech.
The ACLU picks and chooses which cases they go to bat for. Of course, they choose cases on both sides in order to maintain the illusion that they are fair, but if you really research them, they choose far more non-religious left wing cases than those on the religious right. And, yes, their first charter was based on the Communist Manifesto.
I seem to recall them going to bat for the KKK. The KKK has a requirement that you be white, anglo-saxon, protestent to become a member. They are not only anti black but also anti Catholic and Jewish. I wasn’t over joyed to see them do that but their point was that they were defending the US Constitution in regard to free speach. I think they have even come out in defense of that hate cult from Kansas that is led be some guy that calls himself Reverend (?) Phelps. All in the name of defending free speech.
I have no fear of the Communist Manifesto because there has never been a country that has followed Communist Doctrin. Human nature being what it is communism really doesn’t work.
They also came out to defend Rush Limbaugh when he was on trial.
Actually, the ACLU filed a “friend-of-court” motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe. That’s a little different from defending him. But, his case was a good opportunity for the ACLU to protect the confidentiality of private medical records.
Please, you claim there is a war on Christiman when someone says “Happy Holidays” and now you’re going to suddenly become a huge free speech advocate?
There is not a war against Christmas when people say “Happy Holidays” but when the phrase “Merry Christmas” is banned? Is that a form of war?
If a Synagogue wants to put up a menorah, or a organization wanted to put up a seasonal display depicting Kwanza along with a display of the Nativity on public land that should be allowed, but to ban any of these for political reasons is wrong.
It’s wrong, but it’s not a form of war. The point is that EJP behaves the same way as the people he complains most about and sometimes EJP does it even worse.
So much vitriol and hatred in your comments. If I upset you that much, then why do you bother to read my comments? And why do you insist in calling me names and twisting what I write? I’m just exercising my freedom of speech.
I think that a case can be made that it is a psycological war, and I can see where it could become violent. There have certainly been enough wars over religion.
The phrase Merry Christmas has never been banned. Period. And even if it was, that is not war, war is killing people and taking over land.
Businesses, you know those entities that wish to make profits from all including non-christians, decided it was best to say Happy Holidays because there are 3 major religious celebrations at or near the same time and not all shoppers shopping at Christmans are Christians.
I don’t think any religious displays should be put up on public land. There is plenty of private property or religious properties to put up all the religious displays anyone should need or want.
Actually, over the past decade, Wal-Mart, Lowe’s, Home Depot, Target, and several other large chains have told their employees that they could not say “Merry Christmas” to their customers, even if the customer say it to them first. Of course, the backlash has cause the majority of businesses to retract their misdirected directive, but not until their bottom line was threatened.
They ask them to say “Happy Holidays” to include everyone who celebrates during the month of December not because it’s against the law to say the other. It’s about including all.
Walmart and all other businesses are in the business of making money. They doi not want to alienate any customers that is why most of their clerks say ‘Happy Holidays”. If they could make more money telling their clerks to say “Happy Presents Day” they would.
Merry Christmas has not been officially been banned by the government, true. But it has been banned through the “political correctness”, and “I am offended” movements.
I can only think of two major religions celebrating a holiday at the winter solstice Hebrew and Christian. Of those there is only a tradition of spending too much money during the period, Christians. which celebration should the major retailers be catering to, obviously Christmas. It is where the money is.
Should the religious displays be on public land? I don’t see any harm, and for the most part the displays are pretty and festive.
But for some, such as Pagans, the winter solstice itself is a holiday.
Pagans, Wiccans, Druids and so forth are hardly major religions which was the statement I was responding to.
Christians stole Christmas from Pagans celebration of the Solstice. The birth of Jesus was most likely late spring early summer based on the discription of the night sky
It would hardly make sense to travel in the winter either, so what.
Merry Christmas has not been banned by “political correctness”. You can say Merry Chirstmas to your hearts content and suffer no ill will nor any harm. I still have store clerks say “Merry Christmas” t o me every year. The so-called “War on Christmas” is a bogus conservative rallying cry, that is all.
what’s even funnier is that so many people celebrate Christmas without knowing or caring what the true meaning is, or they blatantly don’t believe in the true meaning of Christmas but want to celebrate just to share gifts. such a lost world.
Elmer Morin – It has been several decades since our schools taught the link between the Christian beliefs of our Founding Fathers and the Christian beliefs that they injected into the founding documents. It’s no longer politically correct to teach the true history of the manner in which America came into being. One will even find it difficult to find any evidence of the many links in most of our university history courses. But, we know the truth.
LOL The secret knowledge of right wing bigots. LOL
When I went to school, as part of American History, we learned of the direct effect that Christianity and the beliefs of the founding fathers had on the creation of this nation. No bigotry involved.
No bigotry involved I am sure. Just misinformation and lies. The primary architects of our country and our government were diests, who advocated for free worship for all. Not all Christians. Not all Muslims. Not all Atheists. All. They believed that although rights were inalienable, they never attempted to define whose version of a creator was correct. In fact early in our countries history we signed a treaty that stated that we were not, nor were we ever a Christian nation. Our country was founded on the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment, which specifically rejected religion and superstition. Prominent figure of this belief system included Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Paine, and of course Locke. To after the fact claim that we were founded on Christian ideals when the entire movement that spawned it was anti-religion is historical revisionism.
You have learned the revised version well. Unfortunately, the revised version is wrong.
I am so surprised that you would not understand the basis of our country. Totally shocked. You should really look into the underpinnings of our founding documents and research the Age of Enlightenment. I am sorry that you went to school at a time when Christianistas were trying to force their version of History on the country and thus have a really poor idea of what our Founders originally intended for our country.
I went to school during that same era. Old Miss Grant, our history teacher stuck to the facts. EJ’s nonsense doesn’t come from school.
Yes, I just wrote the same thing – my education never, ever indicated we were founded as a christian nation. Revisionist history he calls it. What utter nonsense.
Reminds me of how what was once is then placed in the memory hole to be replaced by what they want to be now. And that is how it always was, of course.
Reminds me of how what was once is then placed in the memory hole to be replaced by what they want to be now. And that is how it always was, of course.
Reminds me of how what was once is then placed in the memory hole to be replaced by what they want to be now. And that is how it always was, of course.
Apparently you flunked comprehension. Go back and re-read my comments. Don’t believe I said we were founded as a Christian nation.
We were founded as a nation with no specific religion.
Correct. That isn’t the point I am trying to get across.
LOL So sayth the bible thumping christian wing of the Loonycon Republicans.
Prove it. This time use facts and not your opinion.
I believe that many of the founders were Christians, but in order to not force a official religion they created a deist country. One that believed in god or creator but not necessarily God of the judeo/Christian/Muslim religions.
I got this from Wikipedia (I realize not a totally accecpted source)
Some deists rejected miracles and prophecies but still considered themselves Christians because they believed in what they felt to be the pure, original form of Christianity – that is, Christianity as it existed before it was corrupted by additions of such superstitions as miracles, prophecies, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Some deists rejected the claim of Jesus’ divinity but continued to hold him in high regard as a moral teacher (see, for example, Thomas Jefferson’s famous Jefferson Bible and Matthew Tindal’s Christianity as Old as the Creation). Other, more radical deists rejected Christianity altogether and expressed hostility toward Christianity, which they regarded as pure superstition. In return, Christian writers often charged radical deists with atheism.
Being a deist does not preclude being Christian.
And how did your history book deal with the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries”Hmmmmm?????
There is a big difference between being “founded on the Christian religion” and injecting Christian beliefs into the creation of this nation. One really has to be an anti-Christian zealot to honestly deny the facts that 52 of the 55 founders were active in their churches, believed strongly in God, but just chose to ignore all that they believed when forming this country. And you would have to be voluntarily ignorant to ignore all the personal writings that the founding fathers left behind that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt of how important their beliefs were and how important it was for their beliefs to direct their paths through life.
“You can’t have national Morality apart from religious principle.” George Washington in his farewell address.
Being a deist does not mean that you are not a Christian, but many diests reject the Christianity of Churches devised by humans ie. Catholicism and its derivitaves.
“One really has to be an anti-Christian zealot to honestly deny the facts that 52 of the 55 founders were active in their churches” at a time when almost 100% of people went to church and to not go to church could be dangerous to your life.
I am 60, elementary school in the 1950’s in Ohio. I never, ever heard anything about our “christian” roots. Freedom of religion yes. Freedom FROM religion, yes. And I was a good student (loved American history, loved civics). Where did you go to school?
We are NOT a christian nation. Get over it,please. Let those who want to worship, worship. Let those who do not, not. There are really important issues to solve in this country as we look into the future. Continually wrangling over this christian nation thing is something that should be done with. Move on and help out.
Did I say “Christian roots”? No. I said that the Founding Fathers were a majority Christian, and they injected their beliefs into the founding documents and their written words. They did not want a theocracy, but a land where religious freedom reigned supreme. Still, 52 of the 55 FF were strong in their faith, and there is a mountain of evidence to back that up. The trouble is, the modern-day educators are no longer teaching the link between their faith and their faith’s part in creating America.
Well EJ,
If you went to school prior to 15954, you will remember that the original pledge of allegience, had NO mention of diety in it. As you know christian revisionists added it during the cold war.
Our founding fathers were very much Humanists and Deists in both their actions and principles.
I think we all went to school prior to that year! LOL
Yeah, that’s really ancient history. LOL
Ever heard of John Locke or other political philosophers? And that the Founding Fathers were well arware of the down side of State Churches?
There is a definite and undeniable link between the Christian beliefs of our Founding Fathers and the Christian beliefs that they injected into the founding documents. History backs it up over and over. And I didn’t say anything about a state church.
But they were smart enough to mention no particular religion in the Constitution. They did not want a state sponsored religion so were very careful not to create one.
Exactly. They were smart enough, because they didn’t want a state church or a state supported religion. But, that does not negate the fact that many of their beliefs were injected into the founding documents. And their beliefs are proven through thousands of pages of their personal writings. The revisionists have tried in every way to spread the lies about the majority of them being Deists or non-believers. It’s simply not true.
You’re the revisionist. You’re the same person that would scream about the coming of Sharia Law, but at the same time, willing to force your own religion on others. That’s called hypocrisy.
I think more accurately you might call it “unprincipled behavior.” He truly doesn’t seem to understand that the term “religious freedom” is meant to apply to everyone.
Being a deist does notmake one a non believer. Almost of all of our founders were Christians (followers of the teaching of Jesus) but not the teaching that came after him that became the churches of Europe, and the majority of Christian churches of today.
Correct.
Larry, I’m not sure I understand what you just wrote. Are you saying the Founders were Catholics?
God forbid, we were fighting to break from the churches and institutions of Europe.
I believe that in many ways they were taking their Christianity back to the first century AD and putting the stuff that was added to “christianaty” by the secular and religious rulers of Europe.
The Puritans came here to escape the Church of England in the early 1600’s. The signers and authors (aka the Founders and the Framers, two distinct groups) of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, respectively, drafted and ratified those founding documents well over 100 years later. That’s a lot of water under the bridge.
Many Native American beliefs were also injected into the founding documents as well. It really doesn’t matter what religion they belonged to or what they believed, they KEPT RELIGION OUT of the founding documents and the Constitution. It seems like you are the only one trying to revise our history.
LOL, good one. History is finally being told from a perspective other than told by white males and you call it false. Love it.
Although history can’t be changed, the truth of our history can be revised, hidden, or taught piecemeal. And that’s what’s happening in our schools and universities.
So why are you trying to rewrite history?
Clarify, not rewrite.
What makes you the authority on the subject? Have you received advanced education in history? Have you written papers on the subject? If so,please post them. Have lectured, or taught history? Have you credentials which show that you are an expect and your word is the only word on the subject?
Up until recent decades, the truth of our history was kept from us because of the white, male, Christian influence historically over what was taught, and because the history that we learned in school was written solely from that perspective.
What is happening now is that the truth of our collective history is being revealed, not revised.
History that has been suppressed by the dominate race/religion for centuries is now able to come forward. White, Christian males weren’t the only keepers of American history.
Each culture that came to this country have their own stories. Now they are allowed to tell their stories to reveal the truth instead of continuing to teach something based on influence and not reality.
Point to anything in our Constitution that is specifically Christian, that is not also found in any other civilization regardless of their religious belief.
You know that the Founding Fathers made sure there were no direct references to Christianity in the Constitution. That was done on purpose, not to hide their beliefs, but to make sure the Constitution remained neutral. Your challenge is worn out.
If it’s neutral then it is not Christian.
You just said it yourself. “to make sure the Constitution remained neutral”. Neutral for all – christians and non-christians alike.
You really have to have some flexibility in your logic in order to remain so rigidly opposed to the equal treatment of others.
Doesn’t matter what motivated them. They have since passed away and we only have the Constitution, as written, to guide us. This debate as to what beliefs were in the hearts of the Founding Fathers is pointless.
If you ignore what was in their hearts and minds, then you are ignoring the truth of what lead them to create the greatest nation on earth. But, that’s what the revisionists want you to do; make the Founding Fathers pointless.
But apparently they are all dead so they can’t tell us what was in their hearts and minds. And I will say ANY attempt to read their long departed hearts and minds will only be an exercise in futility or simply reflect the feelings and agenda of the reader. I say this for both sides of the debate.
They left behind thousands of documents, books, letters, and other writings that allow us to see into their hearts and souls. And their own words don’t lie.
How many times have those words be translated and then translated again?
Our founders based this country not on Christianity, but the beliefs that were shown by Christianity. They did not want to create a theocracy or allow the Federal government to establish a manditory religion. BUT they could not imagine a nation that did not allow religion either. They also did not expect that one’s religious beliefs would be subjugated by the God of nonreligion.
I believe that this is why the term “creator” is used and not God. They could conceive of a people that did not believe in the Christian/ Jewish God, they could not conceive of moral people not believing in a creator from which all morals and rights enjoyed by humans came.
Humans or their governments could not give you rights they could only steal them from you.
“Rights” granted, not afirmed, by governments are not rights, the SJC notwithstanding.
You can’t know what the Founders did or did not expect. No matter how you might justify that opinion, it can only be speculation. What is the SJC?
I can not know what the founders expected, true. But I can read their written thoughts, and extrapolate what I think they would support, or not support. It is my opinion, sure, but I contend that is as valid as other’s opinions.
The third branch of the Federal Government is commonly known as the Supreme Judicial Court
Oh okay. That would be the Supreme Court of the United States, or SCOTUS.
Thank you. That’s what I’ve been saying. But, the hard left knuckleheads that comment on here simply for the purpose of arguing are unable to comprehend my comments. I never said anything about making America a theocracy. I never said other religions were not included. I never said that any religion would trump the law or the direction of the nation. I simply said that the Founding Fathers didn’t just turn their backs on their beliefs when they created this nation. But, for some odd reason, some can’t seem to handle that truth.
You were not trying to say what Larry posted.
You said, ” It has been several decades since our schools taught the link between the Christian beliefs of our Founding Fathers and the Christian beliefs that they injected into the founding documents.”
I’m sorry, but what “beliefs” in our founding documents are exclusive to Christianity?
—–
entertaining mix of letters. Some complaining that free speach is limited in Bangor, and some complaining that Ted Nugent should not be welcome here in Bangor for exercising his free speach. Keep up the good work uncle Ted most mainers agree with you and love your way of life
I believe every body believes he should be able to exercise his freedom of speech. However, we should be able to exercise ours and say that we do not welcome the racist into our city. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.
Now he’s a racist? That’s a real twist.
He has a history of making racist remarks. In fact he once disparaged the entire continent of Africa, said that he was glad that “there are a lot of white people here” at an event in Iowa, was booted from a radio station after using racial slurs against Asians and Blacks (lot several gigs for this in 1993), called a document Mexican an “illegal,” and various other things. These are just some of the overtly racist things he has done. There are more. There are also a lot of borderline racist things he has done. He is most definitely a racist and it doesn’t take any twist to see it.
could it be that there is something that you do not know…
why would you call him a racist, he never mentioned race. Why is it that you liberals always play the race card if someone does not agree with your agenda?????????
I called him a racist not because of his political idealolgy, but because he is in fact a racist. In 2003 several concerts of his were cancelled after he used racial slurs against blacks and asians on the radio. He states that the entire continent of Africa is a dark place with no civilization. He is a racist. I didn’t say that he was a racist because he threatened to kill the president. Although let’s be honest, if you believe Obama wasn’t born in America you are either a racist or insane.
“Although let’s be honest, if you believe Obama wasn’t born in America you are either a racist or insane.”
Such generalizations are usually just wrong. There are many reason why people might believe this, some of which include the two reasons you’ve listed, sure. But not the only ones.
Statements like that only serve to inflame, not to debate.
“Although let’s be honest, if you believe Obama wasn’t born in America you are either a racist or insane.”
Such generalizations are usually just wrong. There are many reason why people might believe this, some of which include the two reasons you’ve listed, sure. But not the only ones.
Statements like that only serve to inflame, not to debate.
is africa not called “the dark continent”. The standard of living and civilization is far behind ours, what is wrong with stating the facts.He also did not threaten the president, if he had made a death threat, the secret service would not have dismissed it. The liberals dragged out the Obama born in the US longer than anyone else did because it took the focus off the nonsense he was trying to pass.But in my opinion if you can prove something true or untrue by presenting a simple document you would do it quickly and remove all doubt
Robert Dana, Christina Diebold; good letters.
Elmer Morin: this is not a theocracy.
Thankfully it’s not a theocracy. When I hear people saying we’d all be better off with more religion, I hear them saying I’d be better off living with more of *their* religion…the same thing the Muslim Brotherhood says.
Elmer Morin, you completely mischaracterize our constitutional system of government. There is nothing in our laws that are inherently of any particular religion. Of the 10 Commandments, the only ones we enshrine in law are those common to all civilizations– prohibitions on theft and murder.
The truth is that civil marriage is a secular, government matter, and you insist on applying your religious texts to the issue, as if we live in a theocracy like Iran.
Even worse, you misinterpret the Bible to fit your agenda! Nowhere in the Bible does God condemn the commitment and love two people have for each other– in all cases, god condemns violence and rape, not support and commitment.
God clearly condemns homosexual behavior, quite clearly. He even goes so far as to describe it in Romans, not only does He describe it He gives the reason for it.
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it
turns out that your God hates all the same people you do.”
Anne Lamott quotes (American best-selling author)
You’ve used that quote what, about a hundred times already. Read the quote carefully then go look in the mirror. You will clearly see you’ve created your very own god.
Great quote isn’t it. It bears repeating every time a religious bigot starts telling us what God thinks.
But, it might be true and not go far enough. Assuming that divine condemnation for sin is “hate” as Anne Lamott is using it, then if God is willing to condemn all sinners, then God may “hate” all the same people you do. But, since we are all sinners, then God’s hate (condemnation) exceeds your own and includes the “you” Ms. Lamott is referring to.
In any event, divine condemnation has no rational relationship to the civil institution of marriage or the tax structure or our local land use regulations or the myriad of other things that help organize and administer civil society.
I’m a believer in God. My God might condemn the people in these relationships. But, we’ve all earned God’s condemnation and we don’t deny civil liberties because of it.
I wish we could all get off the “love/hate” bandwagon and recognize that these relationships exist. There are children and estate issues involved and marriage is the only real mechanisim that society has for dealing with them. That includes when they go badly.
Let’s leave condemnation issues to the Kingdom of Heaven, that place we go to when we die. Let’s leave the orderly functioning of society to the State of Maine and the United States of America, that place where we live.
“I wish we could all get off the “love/hate” bandwagon and recognize that these relationships exist”
Excellent suggestion. Who’s going first? LOL
The train is leaving the station, sister. I’ll save you a seat.
I’m in. What about the bible thumpers? Can you see any of them hopping on?
Any time a bigot of any stripe decides that their yhoughts are gods, even the god of athiesm and it’s sibling communism..
There are Maine families here today that need the very real protections of civil marriage. They are not going away regardless of how you interpret your bible.
Extending civil marriage to same sex couples is the right thing to do.
My interpretations of the writings in Romans is that God was condemning the rape that was condoned in roman society, which we should always condemn. God does not stand against love and commitment.
First, I’m going to vote to extend the civil institution of marriage to same sex couples. There is no way that the passage that is referred to in Romans in anyway supports your position. From the English Standard Version:
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
The entire section is dedicated to God’s wrath on the unrighteous. Those who know God but reject God and all the ways they debase themselves. To say that civil society will exend its protections and benefits to the citizenry based upon their membership is a proposition I support. I reject turning biblical passages into something they are not.
Perhaps God will condemn homosexuals, whether they love each other or not. If God considers it a sin, then that is for God to decide. Of course, we are all sinners. We don’t withhold civil protections to everyone else based upon violations of God’s law and I won’t single homosexuals out. But I also won’t subvert the Bible. This is God’s word and the Book of Romans does not support your statement.
You really should reach further back than the English Standard Version text if you want to tell me I am mischaracterizing the bible.
That said, THANK YOU for your support on the issue of civil marriage; we can disagree on the intentions of biblical text, but I’m glad we agree on the need for civil marriage in our state laws.
The word Marriage has specific conotations and many people want to keep those conotations. Why not allow civil unions to be non religious (civil) and have the word union used in place of mariage in all laws? There is no reason to have to find every place that the word marriage is used in law, just pass a blanket statement that any law prior to the passage of this law the word marriage is modified to be civil union.
Unless there is some other alterior motive to the issue, I can not see a rational reason this would not be acceptable to both sides of the issue.
specific connotations to some, why should they own the word marriage which has great meaning, or for that matter deny others the joy of a marital union….
Same way they own the word christian and patriotism. It’s amazing isn’t it?
yep.
As I have said many times in the past compromise is not an option. Keep the issue alive and on the front burner, people from won’t see the other hand.
That ship has sailed long, long ago though. We use the term civil marriage for the civil contract that our government extends to couples wishing to join their lives together.
I have stated many times that I am absolutely fine with what you propose here– changing the contract to civil unions for all couples, gay and straight, who wish to marry.
However, we would see just as much opposition to civil union laws such as this. We only need to look at other states that have been subjected to the National Organization for Marriage’s antics to see that they fight just as hard against “marriage by any other name.”
So far I have yet to meet anyone who is truly, honestly hung up only on the use of the word marriage. There is always some other reason they simply don’t choose to give voice to behind their opposition.
CP, You are free to worship your god in the way you believe is right. For that you have the Constitution to thank. However, you do not have the right to impose your miserable, intolerant god on other people. And we thank the Constitution for that.
He also condemns wearing cloth from two different fibers among other things that we no longer seem to wory about.
Romans was written by Paul, not God.
Well, I don’t think the god of the old testament – you know, the one with the long white beard (and white skin) denounced violence and rape. There are plenty of god-approved instances of violence and rape in the old testament.
The God of the early bible (the first five books) seems to condone violence, but not murder.
Until Jesus came along not much was said about loving each other, but not doing evil was and was deemed wrong.
The bible does not discourage love, but does seem to discourage forms of sex for instance sex with animals and men having sex with men. I don’t know what that means for women .
Well, we aren’t seeking civil marriage for the sex.
Mr. Morin-the state is not run by the Bible. This is not a theocracy.
But WHOSE religious principle? President Washington did not say did he? So now it’s up to YOU to tell us. Just WHO are we all supposed to worship? Your god right? Your god only.
What a crock of nonsense. What makes America great – or did – was freedom from a state religion, freedom from worshipping anything or anybody at all. FREEDOM not YOU MUST WORSHIP MY GOD.
Excellent letter, Mr. Downey. Simply not going to the concert is not particularly effective speech for most of us who wouldn’t go anyway. Taking a stand through a resolution would strengthen freedom of expression and register appropriate opposition to violent and hateful speech.