Define religious
Regarding, “ Got Faith?” in the BDN weekend edition, perhaps it’s not so much that people are dropping religion, but rather that we have internalized the education. We no longer seek it, because we are the teachings and live them out everyday.
For example, it has been implied by acquaintances that because I don’t attend a church, I’m “not religious.” But the fact is, I pray for advice and give blessing and thanks almost every morning and generally throughout the day. I try to make all of my decisions based on love and the responsibility that entails. I may not tithe to a particular church, but 10 percent of my income is set aside for charity, in which religious organizations or activities are sometimes included. I tell our children God made everyone unique and that regarding organized religions or even atheist perspectives, each has gifts for humanity. It’s our job to sift through the various philosophies and practices to find the jewels that apply to us as individuals.
Religious organizations still have a place in society, especially as a base of teachings upon which to get our footing, but like children who have grown up and left home, it may be we are starting to refer to them more for advice than continue living under the same roof.
Tammera Fenn
Charleston
Trust me
Rick Bennett, in his May 21 OpEd “ Maine Wants real Solutions From Candidates,” claims that he knows the “real solutions” needed in Washington and that his opponent, Angus King, does not.
However, Mr. Bennett goes on to demonstrate that he doesn’t see the real problem in Washington, namely the failure of the two big parties. He only sees the symptoms, such as the national debt, partisan gridlock and more. I’m sure that Mr. Bennett is a good person — he seems more positive and open-minded than many others in his party — but if he can’t see the real problem, how can he produce any “real solutions”?
Can an independent like Angus have the positive impact that we are all yearning for? Who knows? Breaking new ground in a fossilized and broken-down institution is not going to be easy, but it’s high time someone credible tried to do it.
So, yes, Mr. Bennett, Angus is telling us “Trust me!” All politicians say or imply that, even the ones who, like you, advocate specific policies, but since Angus seems to be the only candidate who understands the real problem in Washington, he’s the one I’m going to trust with my vote and support.
Charlie Graham
Camden
Ms. Fenn, this is very well-written.
Christ, in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, just before introducing the Lord’s Prayer, advised his followers not to pray publicly in the temples in a show of religiosity, but to pray privately in a closet.
Sadly, until the Supreme Court courageously ruled it illegal in the early 60s, schools across the country required public recitation of that same Lord’s Prayer every morning. I remember how uncomfortable my Jewish classmates were, as well as how awkward it was for Catholic classmates whose version of the Prayer differed from the Protestant one they were asked to recite.
That we are less demonstrative about our religion is a good thing.
Not everyone agrees with you. Making Christian school prayer illegal was one of the greatest mistakes this country ever made. Not everyone got prayer at home, but most people were exposed to it in school,and knowledge about the benefits of living a Christian life was a lot more accessible in society. That our morals have fallen down into a deep abyss since the 1960’s is no coincidence.
Christian school prayer is legal in christain schools. If it is that important then a parent should send their children there. Public schools are not the place for prayer. I don’t see anything wrong with a moment of silence for inner reflection that is nondenomonational.
Engel v. Vitale had but one dissenting vote in 1962, as did Abington School District v. Schempp in 1963. That is a measure of how sound the jurisprudence was.
Since those decisions I have prayed many times in public schools. I have prayed as Christ intended: privately and without show, not publicly like the boastful pharisees.
Proposed Constitutional amendments to the preamble expressly declaring this to be a Christian nation have gotten nowhere.
Read Matthew 6:5-7 and ask yourself whether you wish our children to be seen as “hypocrites” praying openly in showy religiosity or quietly in earnest communion with their God.
Our moral code just a dozen years before the Engel decision allowed racial segregation, imprisonment of homosexuals, and second class status for women. One hundred years before Engel it allowed slavery, well supported by Biblical references.
If you think that students still do not pray in school you are sadly mistaken. The problem with a “Christian” prayer is not all students are Christian.
Yes but they don’t count. They are not protected by the equal protection clause, because they are not equal. (sarc)
But R-money’s church used to “convert” them to Mormonism after their death in the Holocaust.
If you want to make that argument heres anothe one.. Since the words UNDER GOD were added to the Pleadge teen pregnany has gone up, divorce rates, suicides, drug use, alcoholism have all increased. your argument is moot. These things have increased becase people are lazy, self serving, nad the state is supporting them.
Yes, and “In God We Trust” was added to the dollar bill in the same year that “under God” was inserted into the pledge — 1954. I remember it well. I agree that adding those words did not make us more moral.
Heistheone – You are absolutely correct. If you trace many of the bad things in this country back to the point in which they started getting worse, you’d end up in the early 60s. On the other hand, if you trace back many of the good things that have been on the decline, the beginning of the decline would put you in the early 60s. And that’s a fact. I happen to believe it has a lot to do with the removal of Bible reading and prayer in the public school. But, that’s just my belief.
EJ, it all goes back to 1865 and the end of slavery, which the Bible had fully endorsed. Oh for those ante-bellum days.
Why not take it back to 1776 when the upstart colonialists told their king and lord to stuff it, or maybe back to 1066 when the lesser royalty told the king that he had to allow widows to decide who and when they would marry, or … maybe when Cain slew his brother Abel.
Just because someone wants to bring back something good from the past it does not mean that person wants to bring back the bad that was also there in the good old days.
The events EJ chose (abolition of forced public prayer), I chose (abolition of slavery), and you chose (the Declaration and the Magna Carta) are all highlights in the march of history to a more enlightened civilization. As Dr. King said: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
Until it goes too far, then it breaks. and it will break.
So you say.
Hey, I finally agree with you: yes, it is just your belief.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “bad things”. Jim Crow laws, lynchings, the KKK, the Trail of Tears, Japanese internment camps, all happened before the 1960’s.
So, do you agree that because we added “In God We Trust” to the dollar bill in the mid-1950s, and inserted “under God” in the pledge of allegiance around the same time — that these additional words caused the “decline” that you so dislike? Obviously one thing led to the other. We added “In God We Trust” and “under God” and as soon as you could say “Jack Robinson,” we were in moral decline.
Not what I said, and you know it.
Of course it’s not what you said — it’s the same kind of nonsense as what you said, however.
Actually, my point has already been studied and proven.
Your point was nonsense and had no merit. You added, “It’s just my belief.” Now you’ve already changed your mind and have decided “It’s been proven.” Nonsense both ways.
Revisionist history to the max.
Yeah we should go back to the good ole times when women and minorities knew their place. The fifties were great times because women were the possession of men and stayed home barefoot and pregnant, and blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. Gays knew to stay in the closet and children were seen but not heard. Those were the good ole days for sure.
Seriously though. Perhaps things did change in the 60s but it wasn’t because Christian prayer was taken out of school. It has more to do with the Vietnam War, our governments obsession with war and world dominance, the corporate takeover of our country, the change in the integrity of journalism, and the age of technology.
Your religion, not mine. I don’t want my kids indoctrinated with religious mumbo jumbo.
Prayer in public schools is actually not illegal — and it still happens frequently. As a former teacher, I know that some students said a silent prayer before my tests! Some may also choose to say a personal prayer before a meal in the lunchroom. That’s entirely up to them.
What is illegal in public schools is organized, required prayers.
You speak of the need for “Christian prayer.” Not all students are Christians. You would discriminate against Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, agnostic and atheists, etc. We can’t do that in public schools, because public schools are for everyone, not just Christians.
If “Christian” prayer is important to you (and yes, I pray regularly), then practice it at home and in your church (as I do), and if you wish to send your students to a Christian school there are many even in rural Maine.
Just as a question that has kept coming up to me. Should a Bishop such as Bishop Tobin Who misused his powers last year by denying the holy sacrament to someone he politically disagreed with, thus, acting as God himself, lose one or two hands for repeating such behavior this year? I'”m not wishing him personal harm but he threatens ancient supernatural punishment to those who oppose his non_omniscient will. Should he be sanctioned by the punishments imposed on came on like God back in the time Tobin holds onto. Would this be fitting?
If someone publically supports something that is against the principles of some organization should not the organization have the ability to tell that person that he/she is in violation of the organizations principles and if the infraction of those principles onntinues to recend the priviledge of being a member of the organization.
There is no right to belong to any organization, only to not belong to an organization you do not believe in.
Tammera Fenn, well said. I attend a church more beautiful than any built by man every day. It is ever changing with the seasons. I thank God for the privilege of viewing his works every day.
patom1, while I agree that you can find God in the changing seasons, I think it is important to participate in religious community. “No man is an island, entire of itself. Each is a piece of a continent, a part of the main, ” according to John Donne.
Some people seem to think that people who go to church don’t see the sunset! We are not monastic hermits who never leave the church building — we see the ever changing seasons, too!
We need religious community in order to support one another in our sorrows, joys, triumphs and failures. A religious community (church, synagogue, mosque, etc.) can accomplish more good than an individual can accomplish alone. We need religious community as a balance to our egos, and as a way of checking the reality of our individual assumptions and prejudices. All of our lives we are in need of other people.
Being privately spiritual, but not participating in religious community, doesn’t interest me. There is nothing challenging about having deep thoughts by yourself. What is interesting is doing this work in community, where other people might call you on your stuff, or heaven forbid, disagree with you in love. And life gets rich and provocative when you engage with God within a tradition that you did not invent all for yourself.
Tamerra Finn – You write, “It’s our job to sift through the various philosophies and practices to find the jewels that apply to us as individuals.” In truth, that statement is the basis for the vast majority of the problems in modern-day religion. Far too many have picked out the parts that they like and neglected the rest. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. It’s an all-or-nothing proposition.
Agreed, EJ. Since you are of a different tribe than I am, the Bible allows me to purchase one of your children as a slave. I am sure we can reach an agreeable price. As a Bible-believer is there one of your children you could sell to me?
Wrath is cruel, anger is overwhelming, but who can stand before jealousy?
Proverbs 27:4
“I will accept no bull from your house.”
Psalm 50:9 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
:-)
Psalm 50:9-12New International Version (NIV)
9 I have no need of a bull from your stall
or of goats from your pens,
10 for every animal of the forest is mine,
and the cattle on a thousand hills.
11 I know every bird in the mountains,
and the insects in the fields are mine.
12 If I were hungry I would not tell you,
for the world is mine, and all that is in it.
I was merely demonstrating that, like EJ and you, I also know how to quote out of context.
:-)
Or like you and chenard by taking a three word post and deciding what my opinion was of events thousands of years gone.
I have no idea what you think of “events thousands of years gone.” Yesterday you said Socrates was guilty, and made no indication it was a joke. Later, after you were called on it, you claimed you were only joking. Who knows what you think of events thousands of years past? Maybe you don’t even know. Your thoughts about ancient events maybe aren’t all that interesting.
So no need to respond eh?
Good points.
Words have meaning. You posted “Socrates was guilty.”
Choose your words more carefully or be prepared to apologize and correct your misstatement.
So was he found guilty or not?
My original post critiqued you for saying he “was guilty” rather than “was found guilty.” Words have meaning.
Of course words have meaning but I think in this case you are splitting hairs. I hate to define another’s position but it sounds to me like you are saying the courts of the time found him guilty but he really wasn’t. Either he was or he wasn’t. Which is it?
The charges of “corrupting youth” and “impiety” were ambiguous and false and the verdict incorrect. He was guilty of neither charge and neither charge should ever have been considered a crime, let alone a crime that triggered a death penalty.
Consider how many Americans have been falsely convicted. Do you still pronounce those men and women guilty despite their later exoneration?
Legally guilty, philosophically innocent. Sort of like an Occupier that feels its ok to ignore lawful orders to disperse?
I am off to do the governments bidding. Would I be guilty were I to resist on philosophical grounds?
Later.
The true civil resister accepts punishment to demonstrate the insanity of the law. Read Thoreau, Gandhi or King.
The true student of history and the law knows that some are wrongly convicted. That you would support Socrates’ conviction suggests a stubborn refusal to admit your earlier mistake or a stubborn refusal to learn from history.
Cheesecake, you are the one splitting hairs. You said something stupid, and when called on it you claimed you were only joking. Now you’re splitting hairs and dodging the issue, something you do frequently.
You feel that words have meaning??? You that holds that language is a living thing and that all words are metamorphic?
Point to a single post in which I have said that. You can’t get away with making things up. I am not sure that you know what metaphoric means. Words can, of course, create a metaphor. Let me give you an example: A journey through larryincamden’s mind is a drag race; one reaches the end before one realizes the trip had begun.
1. pertaining to or characterized by change of form, or metamorphosis.
Some thing that is changed.
Not metaphoric.
Since I don’t try to keep the statements of others on this board I can not give an example, but I know that you have no problem with changing the meaning of words or as now substituting the wrong word to make your point. This point is proven here.
I misread your post. Mea culpa. I have never seen metamorphic used to refer to words, and my mind read your post as using metaphoric, which makes more sense linguistically.
I have critiqued many on these pages for misusing words like socialist, fascist or Marxist to describe their opponents. I even called EJParsons a White Queen for deciding that words meant whatever he said they meant. I have been a vigilant protector of the language as fellow posters can attest.
We can all enjoy the blessings of irony: it brings both clarity and humor to the debate. Those like EJ who advocate an “all-or-nothing ” approach to religion or the Bible should expect some gentle irony.
“Far too many have picked out the parts that they like and neglected the rest.”
Um, actually everyone does this, including you.
Absolutely true!
Oh, the pot calls the kettle black. Interesting.
No, what is is highlighting hypocrisy. You complain about and wag your fingers at others for doing exactly what you’re guilty of and worse!
I was stating my beliefs, not wagging a finger at anyone. Trouble is, on here if one states his or her beliefs and they don’t agree with the hard left, anti-Christians, then all that is returned for comments it ignorance and accusations.
As you know, EJ, I’m barely left-of-center, and am pro-Christian. You, however, have admitted to scoring far-right on the test you recommended.
Girl, no. You tried to call out others for poor behavior and it’s the exact poor behavior you yourself engage in. Once again, trying to skirt responsibility for your actions. That’s not a difference of opinion, that’s fact.
At a time when it should be obvious that we need responsible leaders in DC who will trim the size of the federal government and actually reduce spending, it is hard to imagine why anyone would consider voting for Angus King, a big-spending liberal.
All the Republican candidates assert they will go to DC and cut spending. To date, only Charlie Summers has offered specifics, while the others speak in generalities. He has my vote.
At a time when is should be obvious that we need leader in Washington who understands that the trickle down theory does not work, it seems insane that the GOP wants to go back to the same old way of doing things that got us where we are to begin with.
No it makes far more sense to vote for someone that supports the failed New Deal and Great Society principles.
They all spend, how ever, Republicans tend to be of the borrow and spend mind set. whilst lowering taxes, lessening revenue. Democrat while they do like to spend money, they seam to know, that you need money to pay the bills,by raising taxes to increase revenue. You can’t help but to be in debt, when your not willing to raise revenue to pay the bills.
And the ONLY answer the Democrats have is tax more. Which DOES NOT work.
Only because the Democrats, unlike the Republicans believe in paying their obligations. Obligations, by the way which were created by Republicans.
You’re just pulling my leg, Right????
He’s talking about two wars and Medicare Part D, all funded with borrowed money.
And I am talking about 75 years of history, the continued two wars and addition of Libya and other minor conflicts.
Wrong, would not go anywhere near your leg.
Tammara Fenn, I am speechless – one of the better letters for quite a while. And you hit the head on the proverbial nail as well – two stars.
…split a piece of wood, and I am there…