Freedom and religion
A recent letter writer (“ Republican Party platform,” BDN, 10/1) chastised Republicans for “reasserting” the principle that “freedom of religion” does not mean “freedom from religion” and delivers a speculative parade of horrors. The writer seeks clarification.
As a professor of constitutional law for 25 years at the University of California, I know something about this subject. “Freedom from religion” is another way of saying that governments may not aid or acknowledge religion in any way. The logical end of this position is absurd: If a synagogue catches fire, the fire department can’t respond. Less extreme results would include excision of “So help me God” from the end of the traditional presidential oath of office or denial of tax exemptions to churches.
Freedom of religion means that the people are free to believe as they wish without state compulsion to the contrary and that the state may acknowledge their beliefs by, for example, making Christmas a holiday. Extreme secularists, such as the letter writer and, apparently, the Democratic Party, which begrudgingly admitted the possibility of a God (over the vociferous objections of many of the party’s convention delegates), would require a stern, perhaps Calvinist, rejection of any religious belief in the public square. That’s not what the founding generation had in mind.
Calvin Massey
Deer Isle
A remarkable community
We at Treworgy Family Orchards want to thank our customers on both sides of Question 1 who have treated us with respect after the unfolding of events on our Facebook page (“ Treworgy family farmers take down ‘No on 1’ sign after Facebook flap,” BDN, 10/22). To those who have been less than respectful, we bear no hard feelings.
Our farm’s mission is to be loving and welcoming to all our guests. Some of our guests expressed that they felt unwelcome and hurt by our sign. We decided to remove our “No on 1” sign because we wanted to demonstrate that we can maintain our convictions, while showing love and respect for those who disagree with us.
Many people have suggested that it was unwise for us to bring our personal convictions into our business. We do not separate our personal lives from our business. Our farm is an extension of who we are, and when we welcome people to our farm we welcome them to our home.
We are grateful to be a part of this remarkable community that values real relationships more than political positions.
Gary Treworgy
Levant
It’s only fair
There being too much money in politics and not enough to balance our federal budget may seem like two different problems, but they’re actually related.
Both are a result of immensely wealthy individuals and huge multinational corporations gaining too much power in our society. But there are steps the middle class can take to regain control of our democracy.
Maine, of course, has already gone a long way toward draining “big money” out of politics with its Clean Elections system. Stellar state Senate candidates such as Geoff Gratwick of Bangor and David White of Bar Harbor, both Democrats, have as a result emerged. Now if Congress would get about overturning the awful Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which opened the door for billionaire kingmakers, we could demand some accountability from the supposedly independent committees that plague our elections with endless attack ads.
By the same token, Congress could get a start on reducing our national debt by asking a little more from those with the most to give. Tax cuts should be allowed to expire on the 2 percent of American households with annual income over a quarter million dollars (while extending middle-income cuts). This would bring in hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade for deficit reduction and strengthen middle-class programs such as Medicare.
U.S. Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe should help forge a bipartisan budget deal now that includes such slightly higher taxes on the rich. Let’s get the money out of politics and do some good for our national finances. It’s only fair.
Phil Bailey
Hancock
Safe streets
Once again, Renee Ordway was right on target in her recent column about not feeling safe in certain areas local to Bangor and Brewer ( “Bangor drug problem makes residents feel like ‘hostages’ in their own homes,” BDN, 10/6).
Neither do I. I live in Brewer and am in my mid 60s. I no longer walk the streets of our local cities and feel totally safe. She was right about people coming up to you who you don’t know. Some look and act intimidating, like they want to start something. I carry a 9mm pistol most of the time these days, sometimes concealed, sometimes not. I also carry a mace gun. The last thing I want to do is actually have to shoot someone, so I have options. Of course I’ll always try to walk away, but sometimes that is not a safe alternative.
The police do a great job but can’t be everywhere. The average arrival time can be up to six minutes. Sometimes we have to do what we need to do to protect ourselves, loved ones and, yes, even strangers.
David Winslow
Brewer
Elections have consequences
Two years ago residents of Bangor and Hermon chose Republican Nichi Farnham to represent us in the Maine Senate. Now her first term is drawing to a close. It would be wise to review her work.
Farnham is a likable person and has worked for what she feels is the best interests of her community. Recently in the BDN, Farnham touted some of her accomplishments. Much was left unsaid, however.
Farnham failed to mention that she helped spearhead the attempt to end same-day voter registration. She also failed to mention her support of Maine’s new insurance overhaul bill that has increased rates for older Mainers.
She opposed issues important to women, earning a 33 percent rating from the Maine Women’s Lobby for the second session of the 125th Legislature. She opposed the right of child care workers to collectively bargain, sought to put unnecessary restrictions on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs and supported restrictions on unemployment benefits.
When faced with the choice of supporting her Republican colleagues’ budget or standing up for the greater Bangor community, she voted along party lines, even when it meant cutting programs.
Farnham has supported policies that make it harder to live and work in Maine. I urge residents to send Democrat Geoff Gratwick to the Senate to help reverse the harmful policies that have come from the LePage administration and senators such as Farnham.
Mike Dunn
Former state representative
Bangor
So basically we can live in a theocracy? They are using the government to enforce their religion on others, by making laws based on those religions. I have no problem with religion, but if people then use religion to say, same sex couples do not deserve to be married because its against our religion, and thus want to ban it. Then yes it is interfering with groups of people. If you force laws that go against my religion then, yes you are preventing me from practicing my religion The fire Department example is just stupid. They are not putting out the fire because they recognize the religion Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. They are recognizing the fire! This person is just going to the extreme, its up to the person to say so help me god. It is not a requirement, nor should it be.
Not so fast there Calvin Massey: since your last paragraph contains a lie about and a slur against the Democratic party why should we believe your analysis of the Constitution and your direct line to the founders brains?
I don’t know what you taught in your constitutional classes but based on your afore mentioned comments I suspect what ever it was it was considerably biased.
Our Constitution most certainly does grant citizens the right not to participate in a religion or a church or believe in God. That’s would be called freedom from religion.
Yes you have the freedom to practice your religion, and they have the freedom to force you to practice theirs.
People have the right to express their beliefs, religious or otherwise, in a public forum. The constitution does give you the right not to participate in a religion or a church or believe in God. It does not give you the right not to ever hear a religious belief even in the work place (Title 8). Presently I can ask you in the workplace if you believe in Allah or God or anything else. I cannot continue if you tell me to stop. I can discuss religion with a co-worker during my break within earshot of you. Many are using “freedom from religion” to erase any mention of religion except in the home and place of worship. The constition does not give you the right never to hear or be presented with religion beliefs. For example “Do you believe in Jesus Christ as you Lord and Savior?” One has every right under the constituion to ask anyone that, even under limited circumstances at the workplace. Freedom from religion does not grant one the right not to hear religious beliefs.
If also doesn’t grant you the right to force your beliefs on us. You can keep do what you want in public, that is fine. Its when you start making laws based on your faith, that has a perment impact on all of us. That is wrong. Practice it in public and in private, leave it out of the court room and government.
Walk away. That is your right.
Not if it’s the work place you don’t have a chance to walk away.
but when it becomes law we can’t walk away. The issue isn’t they practice it in public the issue is them trying to create law based on their religion. Then we can walk away, we are force by the law.
So how is it in your workplace?
But aren’t all laws based on faith and beliefs of some type? And those laws do have an impact on all of us. Aren’t un-Godly beliefs forced on Christians? Our children are taught that we evolved from monkeys, that this country was not founded on Christian beliefs, that bringing a Bible to school or even mentioning the name of Jesus in public is wrong, that bowing your head and saying a prayer before eating will get you ridiculed, that abortion is not killing. I could go on but you get my point.
“Our children are taught that we evolved from monkeys” – This right here shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. We did not evolve from monkeys, we evolved from a common ancestor that we shared with monkeys.
“that this country was not founded on Christian beliefs” – We aren’t. Look up the Treaty of Tripoli
“that bringing a Bible to school or even mentioning the name of Jesus in public is wrong” – Once again, you show that you don’t know what you are talking about. The only thing banned from public school is school sponsored prayer. Students can bring in as many bibles and pray as much as they want.
“that bowing your head and saying a prayer before eating will get you ridiculed,” – Yes, that is called free speech
“I could go on but you get my point.” -The only point that I got is that you have a serious martyr complex.
You have the right to home school, not use public schools. You can Absolutely o everything you just said. You can bring a bible to school, you can bow your head in prayer, and you can mention Jesus name in public and you are not forced to have an abortion. Absolutely nothing is preventing you from doing that. Nothing is forced on your at all. What would be forced is if we started to make laws saying, you have to have an abortion, can never mention Jesus in public. You kind of just proved the other sides point. You want to force your view on everyone, I.E no one can have abortion because my religion thinks it bad, but not one is trying to force YOU to have an abortion.
We get you points but don’t agree with them. your ridiculous monkey statement is falsehood, the founding is debatable (more on the side of not founded on Christian beliefs), mentioning Jesus in public is OK if not domineering, bowing your head in prayer should not get ridicule (but remember Christ’s admonition on this), and your views on abortion redefine “killing”.
No, our laws are not based on faith they are based on the concepts of universal human rights put forth in our Constitution, which you apparently have not read or don’t understand. There are no un-Godly laws except in the minds of religious fanatics that believe their God informed the makers of the Constitution. The Constitution does not deal with God or religion except to say you may practice your religion but you may not expect the government make your religion into law.
(Here’s an interesting little factoid for you, thisonewillwork. Your brand of Evangelical Christianity didn’t even exist when the Constitution was being written)
Our schools are public schools. We teach children from all races, religions and ethnic backgrounds. We make every effort to teach facts. To do anything less would be dishonest and a disservice to the students. We do not teach creationism because it is neither a fact nor is it science. It is a religious belief. If you want your children to believe nonsense, you have the option of home schooling.
Nobody is preventing your child from bringing a bible to school, praying in school, mentioning the name of Jesus or any other religious figure, nor is your child being told what to think about abortion, contraceptives or sex. They are being taught facts about sexual reproduction in a factual curriculum. It is your job as a parent to convey your moral beliefs to your child . That is not the schools responsibility.
We understand your points. They are erroneous and you are not a victim of religious discrimination no matter how hard your church promotes this idea to you. Sheesh
Actually, if you start bothering people at work with your “Do you believe ……” proselytizing your employer can fire you for harassment if you have been asked to stop and you don’t.
Kind of hard if it is the employer or boss. Happens all the time.
That’s right. The Constitution does guarantee you the right not to participate in a religion. That however is not a “Freedom from Religion” because no such power exists. It is not mentioned in the Constitution. Some religionist has the right to knock on your door. You have the right to close it as gently or as harshly as you choose.
Religionists have the right to express their beliefs,that is what Freedom of Religion means.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ”
Looks pretty clear to me.
The “freedom from religion” is the idea that government won’t impose religion on you. Like the BDN deleting offensive comments isn’t an infringement of freedom of speech, just as a Christian (or whatever) lobbying their religion isn’t an infringement of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. But if Congress is making laws that respect an established of religion, then that begins to impede on your right to freely exercise your religion (or lack of) and that’s what people mean when they say “freedom from religion.”
It’s a pretty simple concept and I think you know that, but you like to argue…
The concepts of “of” and “from” are both included in the word freedom. Freedom means free to choose. Religion is a set of ideas. We have freedom of thought and freedom of speech. We are not free to restrict the freedoms of others. “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”. –Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
That is not what people are concerned with. People can practice their religion in public all they want. Its when they want a perment space in the public to show their symbols that is an issue. Also the issue is when they try to pass law based on their religion, when they do that, then yes they are impeding on peoples practice of their own religion because now legally they have to comply with another faiths laws.
You have a right to a gun, but you do not have a right to use that gun to take from others, you have a right to your religion, you do not have the right to use your religion to take from others.
Express yes, publicly mandate, no.
What is the lie towhich you refer?
May I politely suggest that you observe that fine Republican mantra of individual responsibility and do your own reading comprehension; keeping in mind that it is irresponsible for you to expect others to work hard so you can have a free ride.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I was asking what lie you referred to when you wrote
Not so fast there Calvin Massey: since your last paragraph contains a lie about and a slur against the Democratic party why should we believe your analysis of the Constitution and your direct line to the founders brains?
Phil Bailey–A tax on political ads could kill the two proverbial birds with one stone. Not only would a significant tax levied on all political ads raise millions of dollars for the public coffers and/or clean elections but it could also act as a deterrent to runaway spending and at the least would be the silver lining around the cloud of all the negative ads. As an extra added bonus, it would give Grover Norquist and his handlers conniptions.
A tax on posts on a newpaper forum could raise revenue too. It could be a deterrent.
LOL.
It would also be completely and totally a violation of the 1st Amendment. A tax on free speech? Sure that would pass muster.
Well the government can tell you when and where you are allowed to peacefully assemble, also some places require you to obtain a perment to assemble so……. it already has passed muster.
Your understanding of the law is a bit wrong. Just a bit.
Look at west baptist church, look of the republican and democratic conventions. At those conventions people were only allowed to protest at certain locations, which were pretty far from the conventions themselves. Look at occupy, one way they were cleared out where because they didn’t have the proper permits. What part did I have wrong?
Actually if these people had taken the protest locations to court they would win. You also included ALL peaceful assemblies in your original statement. Whether you need a permit depends entirely on the nature of the assembly, the number of people involved, the location but in general no such permit is required nor legal.
How is that wrong?
Which begs the questions, does anyone, group or individual, get a tax deduction for political “advertising”?
Massey — if you think it’s fair to go to the logical end of freedom from religion, then you have to admit that the logical end of your position is just as absurd. If being free from religion would ultimately mean that the government would let a Church burn down, then the end of government acknowledging religion would be endorsing and enforcing it.
Just because you can swing to an extreme with a concept or bit of logic, it doesn’t mean it fails. That’d be like saying we can’t have speed limits, because ultimately you could limit the speed to 0, or whatever. It’s just silly. And I think you of all people know that “slippery slope” arguments don’t fly in court.
Personally I think they should let the church burn down but protect any property nearby. Why am I forced to pay taxes to provide services to something that doesn’t help protect itself by paying taxes.
because in the end we are all in this together. I do not like religion, but we are all fellow citizens of this country, state and town.
If we were all in this together then churches would be paying their fair share of taxes. As it is now MY taxes are increased because they don’t pay taxes and that effectively is forcing me to subsidize religion which is something from which the Consititution is supposed to protect me.
Good point.
Then let Planned Parenthood burn, too.
Actually there is a difference. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit health organization, not a religious organization. Notice I did not say religious schools, hospticals etc should not be tax exempt, I said churches. There is no logical reason why they should not have to pay property, local taxes like everyone else.
Good for you David and bad for anybody who makes the mistake of trying to victimize you or the ones you love or happen to be able to protect.
Treworgy – Have your opinion, that’s great. I hope in witnessing the reactions to your sign you recognized what is at stake here and what this means to some people and their families.
Whether you “agree” with gay people are not, you can’t deny they don’t have it easy. You can’t deny that they’re at the very least fighters. When was the last time you had to fight for your rights? When was the last time you literally had to take to the streets and march in order to have the right to die for your country like gay people did with DADT?
Look at what the gay community is fighting for and look how much they’ve invested in these battles. They want to be able to hold jobs without fear of being fired, they want to be able to fight for this country overseas and they want to be able to get married. Does that really sound like a bunch of people who are hellbent on destroying society?
Re: you last paragraph, they have all those things and can get married, to someone of the opposite sex.
Just like black people could get married to someone of the same race! See, we didn’t need interracial marriage, they were equal all along!
interacial marriage is NOT the same as same sex marriage. This is a failed talking point of the SSM group. The African American community finds this comparison offensive.
Really not any different? Substantiate that statement. I certainly see no difference. And the some members of the black community find it offense and many millions more agree that there is really no difference. It’s a question of equal rights, period.
Simple explanation: African American does not equal SSM. Black ministers have had many sermons regarding this comparison. They find it offensive and full of bigotry. I suppose your next argument will be for a person who is a bisexual to have a SSM and a Hetero marriage, then you will equate that somehow with interracial marriage. If you want to redefine marriage you are heading down a very slippery slope. This is why, when this vote is put out to the people, it is always voted down.
Marriage has been “redefined” several times throughout history. Most recently in 1967 and again in 2004.
Well, you can’t compare it to interracial marriage. Why, you might ask? Because it is devestating to the anti-equality side…
The slippery slope fallacy is just that, a logical fallacy. It doesn’t bode well for your side if the best you can do is flawed logic.
Do black ministers speak for all the black people in the country? Do Malone and Emrich speak for all the white people in this country?
Heaven forbid that they do :-)
Do black ministers speak for all the black people in the country? Do Malone and Emrich speak for all the white people in this country?
Actually, it’s voted down by homophobes.
Homophobic = “fear of people.” Please choose another word to say what you mean.
Exactly. “You people” are afraid of “gay people”. Homophobes.
Homophobic = “fear of people of the same sex.”
It’s the right term.
But, if you perfer, we could say “prejudiced” or “bigoted” and still be accurate.
We say bigot and then you scream and cry that you’re being victimized. We’re running out of accurate words…
I am a straight married guy.
I have the freedom to marry the adult person who I love and am attracted to.
Schmidlap, above, claims that a gay or lesbian person’s “freedom” to marry someone they are NOT attracted to and do NOT love is the same as the freedom I have.
No, it isn’t.
It’s like a young woman being told by her father, “You can get married as long as you marry the person I pick out for you.”
not4us doesn’t want us to use that argument because he or she knows that it works.
It was prior to 1967 when the SCOTUS “redefined” marriage to include people of different colors being allowed to marry each other.
It sounds very similar to me, the African-American community’s offense notwithstanding.
Are you a member of the African American community?
Did you know that the NAACP endorses SSM? http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/05/20/politics/naacp-endorses-same-sex-marriage/
Did you know that the most powerful black man in the world endorses SSM? http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/10/25/politics/obama-backs-same-sex-marriage-measures-in-maine-maryland-washington/
Also: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-19/black-shift-on-maryland-gay-marriage-pits-clergy-against-naacp
Numerous more articles, too. The internet gives you the latest news at your fingertips. You don’t have to use the failed talking point issued by NOM that blacks don’t like SSM anymore.
Why engage him in this ridiculous argument? He CAN marry the woman he’s shacking up with but chooses not to so he thinks we all should be glad that we HAVE to live as he lives with his woman. It’s not even the same issue.
Just to make sure someone else reading realizes just how stupid his argument is.
Yes, and ford allowed you to buy the model t in any color as long as it was black.
I’m a straight guy married to the same woman for 33 years.
I have the freedom to marry the adult person I am attarcted to and love.
My gay neighbor, you tell us, has the freedom to marry someone he is NOT attracted to and does NOT love.
How is that the same as my freedom?
It’s not, but good luck getting schmidlap to realize that…
Sometimes I hear arguments where people say that they don’t have the right to marry anyone they love, like they don’t have the right to marry their sister. At the same time, they want us to marry someone who, at most, we love like a sister.
It’s like when your date says, “You can order anything you want! Just make sure it’s under $10.” It’s all nonsense! (And I definitely don’t have plans to marry that fool who told me that!)
Smart business people don’t deliberately offend a large portions of their customers by associating their business with a controversial political issue.
If the Treworgys didn’t want to offend half of the state, they should not have put their business in the middle of this discussion.
when was the last time they (Treworgy) had to fight for their rights? How about right now…they have a right of free speech which they are being bullied for expressing their political point of view. If you read their letter, you would see their WHOLE point of view. I find it amusing that those who denounce spreading hate and intolerance are committing the very same act towards Treworgy. Why not verbally attack EVERY person that has a “No on 1” sign at the end of their driveway???? Why single out Treworgy? To attack an individual based on their rights of freedom of religion and free speech is a violation of Treworgys constitutional rights. Attacking them based on THEIR beliefs is a sign of hatred. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me. You want to stop people from spreading hate? Start with yourself.
That’s a nonsense argument though. You say they have a right to free speech (of course they do), but then you criticize others for exercising that exact same right. If you want to be able to express your opinion, you need to be able to deal with others doing the same thing.
EVERYONE is welcome to voice their opinions. Voicing an opinion is one thing, but promoting others to inflict financial loss on a person(s) due to their religious or political opinion is WRONG. That is crossing a line.
Why? We’re not allowed to speak with our money? If I don’t won’t to give my money to a business that is promoting a cause that deeply offends me, why shouldn’t I be able to speak out against them and encourage others to do the same?
Denying gay people marriage rights inflicts a huge financial loss for gay couples, especially in terms of taxes. But you think that is fine? Why doesn’t that also cross a line?
Don’t presume to know which side of this issue I stand on. But surely you see that by promotimg a boycott of treworgy is promoting hatred. What would you say if someone said dont shop at a business because the owners want you to vote yes on 1?
I would say that’s fine. If someone isn’t comfortable shopping at a place because that place supports a position that the shopper doesn’t like, then that’s his or her right. If someone who opposes SSM doesn’t want to go to a boutique with the big orange signs, then good. It goes both ways. AND, at the same time, others are MORE likely to shop there.
Don’t forget, this issue also directly affects some business owners, so if they have a YES sign, it’s more than supporting their friends or family. And again, if Betty and Barney don’t like it, they don’t have to shop there.
I would say that’s your choice.
Now answer my questions. Why can’t anyone speak with their money? What’s wrong with that?
I made no presumption about your position, I simply pointed out that gays suffer a financial loss with a No vote. You say it crosses a line when these businesses suffer a financial loss, so I asked if why or if it matters that gays also suffer a financial loss. You seem to be conveniently ignoring that point.
I hope you also defend Pepsi, Microsoft, Amazon.com, T-Mobile, Facebook, and other business that are the subject of boycotts due to their support of SSM.
In any case, the example you provide is still free speech. I can call a for a boycott of Baloglu Industries because they donate heavily to NOM, for example. Is that wrong? It’s everyone’s choice to boycott Baloglu Industries or not. Just as the Million Mom March has called for a boycott of JCPenny and not very many people have joined them.
It’s what everybody does all the time, from grapes to beer to beauty products.
Mr. Treworgy with all due respect I drove by your business today and the No on 1 sign that appeared in the BDN seemed to be in the same place today as when it was photographed and published in the BDN. The No on 1 sign I saw was on the corner of Route 222 (Union Street) and Pember Road.
I have no issue or problem with Freedom of Speech. So I guess the question I have is…was there more than one sign erected or did someone else put one up?
does it really matter, since you have no problem with freedom of speech?
It matters if the author states “We decided to remove our “No on 1” sign because we wanted to demonstrate
that we can maintain our convictions, while showing love and respect
for those who disagree with us” but the sign remains.
You can just keep driving around checking for signs. Perhaps they will change their minds and put up more signs. Who cares? It is their right to put up a sign or take it down. This is America!!!
If you an find where I said in any of my posts that they couldn’t put up a sign please copy and past it here not. But I will save you the trouble of looking because I never said they couldn’t.
What I did say was that it was a poor business decision to make a privately held personal belief a public business pronouncement. It’s their right but it was a poor business decision.
And your right, this is American and people have a right to express their opinion both pro and con on that decision.
Oh, by the way my JOB takes me all over the state so I see all types and manners of political signs.
It really matters because if he says he took it down, and it’s still up, then he loses any integrity he had. It makes everything else he said questionable as well.
The photo in the BDN is of a different sign then the one the Treworgy’s had posted…the one Gary had posted was near his driveway. Gary is a man of high integrity and would not lie about taking down the sign.
IF you believe in freedom of speech, why do you even care if they have a sign up. They have every right to express their opinion.
They have the right to express their political beliefs. Their customers (including me) have the right to express our political beliefs by making or not making purchases or publicly expressing our responses, pro or con too.
I have never said that they didn’t have that right. What I have said and will continue to say is that it is a poor business decision as it will alienate one group of people or the other.
I will tell you again.. like you’ve never hear it before. Maybe this time it will sink in? I don’t really care that they have the sign up. This isn’t a free speech issue. It’s the fact that the Treworgy family believes that I am unworthy of equal opportunity that I care about. They told me that with their sign. I’m glad they put it up so I might see who they really are.
I believe I read that as long as the signs are put up within the public right of way that anyone can put signs up. Plus it’s against the law to take them down.
Correct.
Mr. Treworgy our family has visited your farm for years and always appreciate the family atmosphere and the fruits of labor provided by you and your workers…..our kids have many memories from past years and now our visits include grandkids who enjoy every bit of your farm along with the many others that frequent your family’s farm every fall…..There are many of us like your family who don’t separate personal conviction from public, business, community and home living…..The messages of support written on your Facebook page were amazing, and the truly disgusting comments posted in response to a lawn sign were equally disgusting….thanks for all you and your family provide to community and your convictions are shared and appreciated by countless people….and those convictions will accompany us into the voting booth also…..God bless you and your family…..
I concur, God Bless You, Treworgy family. I am sorry you all had to endure the wrath of the SSM side with their nasty comments and threats. Those who want tolerance seem to have so little of it for anyone who disagrees with them.
Freedom of speech is a two way street.
yes it is, but hateful, hurtful, and mean-spirited speech is not part of that street.
Sure it is. As long as they are not threatening anyone, it’s protected. How do you think the Westboro Baptist Church gets to keep doing what they are doing?
And how do so many get away with the hateful, hurtful, mean-spiritied speech against homosexuals? It is indeed a two way street.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. Treworgy’s has every right to say or post any sign they wish. But when a business does so, they should be prepared for the public to react pro and con.
I have seen a few business with YES signs. And I’m sure they have lost customers, just as Amazon, T-Mobile, and Facebook have for supporting the gay-marry. That’s the nature of this. If you take a stand, whether it’s displaying a sign or making a donation, you have to accept that there might be negative reactions along with the positive.
I’ve watched all of this unfold and there have been hateful mean-spirited things said from both people who were disappointed by Treworgy AND people who support the farm. Free speech is a two way street and both sides of the street are filled with people who can talk respectfully…and people who don’t. BOTH sides.
So please stop acting like:a)Only those who felt disappointed by the sign have said mean things. That’s false.b)EVERY one who felt disappointed by the sign have said mean things. The great majority simply said they were disappointed and would not be coming back.
Have you called out those on your side who are guilty of that behavior?
Please, your side should observe that admonition too.
It wasn’t the “wrath of a side”. It was a few customers expressing how Treworgy’s view made them feel and some of them wanted to let them know that they couldn’t come to the farm with clear conscience. It was the onslaught of defensive remarks that attracted even more. It is a very touchy subject when a portion of the population is told that you feel they are unworthy of equal opportunity.
Ugh, these gays. I mean, you tell them that you are voting against their civil rights and they get all upset. I mean, I’m not a bigot, I just think that queers are second class citizens and should be treated as such. Is that so wrong? (sarcasm)
I like that Mr. Treworgy acknowledges, and seems to be the only one, that there are people on the other side of the issue that treated him with respect.
Whether Pab, scint, schmid, kitty, EJ and the others acknowledge it or not, not everyone who disagrees with them are brutal bullies who bring down their wrath with nasty comments and threats.
And it goes the other way-they also don’t acknowledge when people on their side are guilty of that behavior which they accuse us of displaying. Why is that?
Not all proponents of SSM give nasty comments. Many of us acknowledged the family’s right to express their views but don’t agree with them. They seem to be non-militant about it, unlike so many No-on-1 zealots.
Please remember that Gays and Lesbians suffer from being called disgusting things also. Neither side is living up to God’s words.
This year was the first time I went to the Treworgy farm. Truly had a wonderful time.ie Apples, Pumpkins, hay ride, music, cornmaze, free icecream, petting zoo and all the warm fuzzies. This is what I paid for with my admission fee. However, I do not pay for your polictical views. I doubt that I will be there next year. When I take my family to McDonalds I am purchasing a “happy meal” not political views. This was a poor decision on Treworgy’s part. This is their business and can announce any view point, even if its with a “rainbow sign “. Pumpkin seeds are cheap…….and there is not alot vested in a cornmaze. There will be other farmers planning and expanding on your business idea. The world was your oyster.
The SSM folks have honestly done much more damage to their campaign than they realize by being so nasty and venomous. To Gary and Patty- hang tough, you have tons of supporters…God Bless.
Nasty and venomous?
As opposed to comparing law-abiding citizens to pedophiles and animal “lovers”?
Really? The hypocrisy in the NO side is thicker than tidal mud.
It’s not hypocracy. It’s “lying for Jesus”! Because, spreading lies and rumors about your fellow citizens is ok as long as you are denying them queers their rights, right? (sarcasm)
The anti-SSM side has done that damage. How much nasty and venomous behavior was there compared to comments stating that the farm has lost that customer’s business? The anti-SSM has used this incident, twisting it and making it more than it is.
And, man, again-it’s tiresome to see anti-gay people portraying themselves as the victim and being bullied by the powerful gay mafia. It’s just so false and ridiculous.
The religious right always likes to pretend they are the victim. What they see as “suppression of free speech” is just someone else exercising their free speech. What they see as “attacks on religious freedom” are just people unwilling to let the RR bully them anymore. Case in point, the LGBT community. We aren’t putting up with their crap anymore and they don’t like it. They can’t shame us away anymore and they HATE that they are losing that fight. All these comments against sames sex marriage that I see whenever BDN posts an article related to smm are just the death wails of a dying movement. All these posts of “well, I WOULD vote for civil unions, but not marriage” or “why can’t you just be happy with civil unions” just make me think they are compromising because their side is losing.
Hardly. Most of the original comments directed to the business were simply explaining their disappointment and let them know they could no longer support them. Many discussions took place in response to these comments and unfortunately there were some mean things said by people supporting both sides of this issue. You are right, they have tons of support from people who already share their view that some of us are unworthy of equal opportunity. That hardly hurts a campaign.
How about the majoritu of those of us who are not vernomous. How about the minority of anti-SSMs who are venomous? (the Treworgys seem to be in the non-venomous majority).
Birds of a feather do flock together, in you case with ill will. Your blessings do not mask your malevolence.
Mike Dunn, I know that Geoff Gratwick is a good man. And..it sounds as though you have just made a sound case in support of Nichi Farnham as a fiscally responsible candidate.
There is NO money for all these “but I want it” programs to continue at this time.
Gary, good letter and good point. I would not feel welcome if the sign was there but, if I was in your shoes I would have left it up. I received a death threat last spring because of a letter I wrote to the paper. I still write. I am chastised and have to hide my sexuality at work for fear of being fired. I am who I am. All you did by taking the sign down and contacting the paper to make a bug story out of it was to make others feel like your side was bullied more than ours. Every morning I pray that God remove me from selfish, dishonest, or self seeking motives. I hope your decision was removed from these also.
Gary, such political signs are not passive. They are the equivalent of a loud, vocal shout either for or against an issue or candidate…and though they shouldn’t, many people will take it personally (either consciously or subconsciously.) Next time, include some common sense with your conviction. You are sowing division, not unity.
Phil Bailey, Gary Treworgy, Mike Dunn: good letters.
Calvin Massey: you claim that Ds reject God but have Calvinist policies? Dichotomous.
David Winslow: be careful. This isn’t Sanford FL.
Gary,
Good people do not campaign against other peoples’ civil rights. Take a good long look in the mirror.
Elections have consequencesReally?
“when we welcome people to our farm we welcome them to our home.”
Putting up a sign that says “No” ………… to anything. Indicated you do not.
when was the last time they (Treworgy) had to fight for their rights?
How about right now…they have a right of free speech which they are
being bullied for expressing their political point of view. If you read
their letter, you would see their WHOLE point of view. I find it amusing
that those who denounce spreading hate and intolerance are committing
the very same act towards Treworgy. Why not verbally attack EVERY
person that has a “No on 1” sign at the end of their driveway???? Why
single out Treworgy? To attack an individual based on their rights of
freedom of religion and free speech is a violation of Treworgys
constitutional rights. Attacking them based on THEIR beliefs is a sign
of hatred. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me. You want
to stop people from spreading hate? Start with yourself.