Bring back ‘Down Memory Lane’
Both my wife and I wish to express our extreme disappointment in the Maine Public Broadcasting Network’s decision to drop the program, “Down Memory Lane,” with Toby LeBoutillier.
It was a program we looked forward to listening to every week and as a state representative, your decision will certainly be factored in when I am called upon to support MPBN.
It seems to me that we have enough political pundits expressing their opinion all day long and when you are done listening to them you are not any more enlightened than you were before you started listening. Two hours a week compare to how many hours of inane conversation? Put LeBoutillier back on the air.
Bernard L.A. Ayotte
State Representative
Limestone
Guns do kill people
Even following the tragedy in Newtown, we are told by gun-control opponents that guns don’t kill people. Yes, the Second Amendment states that no law shall be passed to restrict the right to bear arms. It does not, however, say any and all arms.
When our forefathers wrote the document, guns were single-shot muskets. Since then, we have developed all sorts of “arms,” and in fact laws have been enacted to curb possession of many, including chemical and nuclear weapons.
I have no doubt that the fathers wanted to guarantee the right to possess the type of weapons they had in their time, and I do not suggest that only muzzle-loaded rifles should be allowed.
Yet there can be no doubt that guns which can fire hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds, which can kill crowds of children in the blink of an eye, would never have been supported by our founding fathers.
Such weapons are not even necessary for a wildlife hunter, if he or she has any claim to sportsmanship and skill. Those guns are weapons of mass destruction, just as much as is an atomic bomb. If ours is a sane society, we must enact laws to prevent the type of carnage we have witnessed, laws restricting possession of devices including automatic, rapid-fire rifles and multiple-round clips. These guns do kill people.
Steve Colhoun
Addison
Healing message of love
As we all struggle to “make sense” of a senseless act, which seems to have no simple answer, I am comforted by what a most wise and gentle man told us over 2,000 years ago. He admonished us to love God supremely and to love “your neighbor as yourself.”
As we rush around enjoying the benefits of technology and looking for that “perfect gift,” I think that we might do better to pause and truly “do good” to our fellow man.
Just as a single cut may not be fatal, but repeated slashings might will be, one slight brush-off or snub might not cause much angst, but a life of repeatedly being treated as a “misfit” or “odd” or unacceptable, would certainly begin to become crushing. How easily we might all be the one who smiles at the stranger or offers help to one in difficulty. I feel that we might benefit by taking time to listen to and act on the message from “the still small voice” that spoke to Elijah.
How grateful I am that the church I attend at 10:30 a.m. Sunday at 939 Broadway has the healing message of love. Come join us any Sunday at 10:30 a.m. as we strive to “grow in grace,” and live with patience, expressing love in good deeds. All are welcome. “Let there be peace on
Earth, and let it begin with me.”
Debbie Dufton
Hampden
Eliminate violence, not religion
Our government leaders and most recently our president, have called for more love to be shown in our dealings with others. Yet these same leaders continue to support governmental and private attempts to legislate removal of all references to religion.
The voids in our souls resulting from the absence of religion will not remain empty. Many believe that our society is slowly collapsing around us, and that our remaining days on Earth are few in number, whether the end be by nuclear war, natural disaster or divine judgement. These thoughts of desolation and loneliness can fill empty hearts with anxiety and fear, so it should be no surprise that the most troubled of people might lash out violently in their hopelessness.
The Chinese have a proverb “society prepares the crime and the citizen commits it.” In this country, our government is preparing the crime by mandating the elimination of all references to God and religion from our national discourse.
Darrell Dunn
Mariaville
I agree completely with Rep Ayotte’s fine letter re MPBN’s cancellation of “Down Memory Lane.” I have noted that in my refusals both in writing and by phone to add to my MPBN contributions for the end of the year, as I have previously done. It was a delightful two hours hosted by a smooth and engaging veteran, and he deserves to be back on the air. But don’t count on it, alas.
News gets higher ratings and thus more money from “underwriters” than music’s anemic ratings and listener contributions. See Al Diamon’s blog post on this matter: http://thebollard.com/2012/11/28/media-mutt-30/.
I, too, am a fan of “Down Memory lane,” and agree with Bernard Ayotte that MPBN already has plenty of news and talk. There is nothing quite like “Down Memory Lane” anywhere else.
Darrell Dunn, which religion doesn’t practice killing the non believers? Certainly not Christianity, with its nearly 2000 year history of persecuting those of other religions, and even other Christians.
There have been many claims that American society was collapsing, going back into the 1800s. It is a very poor attempt to scare the ignorant.
Thanks for that.
Darrell Dunn lives on a different planet if he thinks our government is eliminating all references to religion. Has he looked at his dollar bill, listened to every President close an address by saying “God bless America,” or considered how every session of each house of Congress begins with a chaplain’s prayer? We have more public references to religion than at any time in our nation’s history. Call it public sanctimony.
Mr.Colhoun automatic weapons are restricted .Gun violence was higher under the last ban and the second amendment was not enacted for hunters it was written to give the citizens the right to never come under the oppression of a tyrannical Government like our founding fathers fought to rid us of .
Yet we recognize that the Second Amendment has limits — we banned machine guns in the 1930, and no sane person says we should all have our own private atomic bombs.
There are more gun dealers in the U.S. than McDonald’s restaurants. Only one in five Americans owns a gun, but they own enough guns for almost every person in the country (so they have an average of about five guns each).
No one needs a semi-automatic weapon — unless they want to kill a lot of people.
It’s time to stand up to the bullies who run the NRA for the benefit of the gun manufacturers and their big profits, and ban the sale of large capacity clips and all semi-automatic weapons.
“we banned machine guns in the 1930,”
No machine guns (automatics) are regulated. You can purchase one if you complete the proper permits, pay the necessary fees and can find one at a reasonable price.
~~~~~
“and no sane person says we should all have our own private atomic bombs.”
Atomic bombs, etc…are considered incendiary devices.
~~~~~
“There are more gun dealers in the U.S. than McDonald’s restaurants.”
And obesity kills an estimated 300,000 people per year. That’s close to 10 times the number of deaths (31,840) from guns in 2011 (Source CDC). Maybe we should be regulating and/or closing all fast food restaurants too.
~~~~~
“No one needs a semi-automatic weapon — unless they want to kill a lot of people.”
So you would take my Ruger 10/22 which has never been used in a mass shooting and can hold no more than 10 rounds in a magazine because it’s a “semi-automatic”?
Seems that we should be banning high fat foods, etc…as you stand a 10 time greater chance of dieing from obesity than from a firearm.
Awesome, well reasoned response!
Well thought out and researched but I think you will find the anti gun crowd is more concerned with controlling others than guns.
Incendiary devices, but “arms”. That’s why we call it nuclear disarmament. Nothing in the second amendment refers to “firearms”.
I’m with you on semi-auto being within the framers’ intentions, but I do believe the government can draw the line between a true military weapon and a weapon suitable for an armed citizenry that can defend against tyranny of the government. Arguing some weapons are incendiary is a cop out: second amendment defenders should be willing to define their own reasonable line.
Incendiary = a weapon that explodes causing a shock wave, heat wave, blast damage, etc…. i.e. pipe bomb, RPG, mortar round, artillery round, any type of device dropped from an aircraft (i.e. a bomb), grenade, etc…
That’s my definition of incendiary device.
I have no problem sitting down and having a reasonable discussion over limiting access. But that discussion needs to be broad and all encompassing and not limited to ban/not ban.
Atomic bombs are weapons — the “right to bear arms” doesn’t say what kind of arms. My point is that we already draw the line somewhere. The question is, “Where is the best place to draw the line?” and not whether we will draw a line.
I realize that you may prefer to change the subject, and talk about obesity rather than gun violence. But just because obesity is also a problem doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what we can to halt this epidemic of mass killings of little children, first responders, etc.
I didn’t change the argument. You brought in an extrenious topic into the argument and I responded with facts and I’m the one changing the topic? Nice try.
I’ve never said we shouldn’t do something but this knee jerk reaction will not stop anything. It needs to be comprehensive and include anything and everything that contributed to Newtown.
West Webster is something else completely. Want to stop that? Answer this question, why was he released after beating his 92 year old blind & deaf grandmother to death with a hammer? Answer that and maybe you saved two of my brothers and his sister last Monday.
Is your main issue with guns or profits?You seem to have disdain for both.
I have an issue with the NRA saying they are protecting 2nd Amendment rights when they are really protecting the profits of the weapons industry. Their talk of “rights” keeps their membership behind them, but the real motive of the NRA leadership (note that I am talking about the leadership, not the rank and file) is profits for the gun manufacturers.
Nice letter Mrs Dufton.
Rep Ayotte try Itunes or spotifly they are both reasonably inexpensive .
There is nothing like “Down Memory Lane” any where else — Terry LeBoutillier would give us music that was released 90 years ago that week in 1922, 80 years ago in 1932, etc. And he would give the news of that day 60 years ago from the Bangor Daily News. Along with his commentary the show was unique. Sure, you can search itunes, but it’s not at all the same. Sadly, they are taking the M out of MPBN.
Steve Colhoun writes:
“I have no doubt that the fathers wanted to guarantee the right to possess the type of weapons they had in their time, and I do not suggest that only muzzle-loaded rifles should be allowed.
“Yet there can be no doubt that guns which can fire hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds, which can kill crowds of children in the blink of an eye, would never have been supported by our founding fathers.”
Mr. Calhoun, semiautomatic guns are not capable of firing “hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds.” Semiautomatics deliver one bullet per trigger pull. It would take one heck of a marksman to pull the trigger hundreds of times in a matter of seconds, notwithstanding the fact he would need to stop to reload several magazines to achieve “hundreds” of rounds.
It appears you have misunderstood the difference between an assault rifle (which can fire semiautomatically or automatically) and the fictitious assault rifle created by Congress in the 1990s (any firearm rifle that LOOKs like an actual assault rifle OR has a magazine with a capacity of more than 10-rounds).
Further, the Constitution’s framers were not dumb. Just as they had seen throughout their lives, they knew technology was improving. They knew that one day muskets would be a thing of the past, just as we know the computers we have today will be a thing of the past.
With time, we will each have our very own portable nuclear weapons.
Well Chenard, if you were a Native American living in New England when the colonists landed, you would have thought the white man’s “Fire Pole” was the equivalent of a nuclear weapon.
Hiroshima cannot be compared with killing a Native American with a musket. Get real.
Native Americans were decimated by European diseases, not European firearms.
Nuclear weapons are A) not “firearms” and B) are considered “incendiary devices” are are rightfully regulated.
The Amendment uses the word “arms,” not “firearms.”
Justice Scalia recently suggested that a hand-held rocket launcher fits within the definition of an arm one could lawfully carry. Once we reduce the size of a nuclear weapon so that it could be launched by a rocket launcher, it might be legal per Scalia.
Rockets, by the way, can be quite incendiary. Nuclear weapons incinerate among other things, but the fires they start are more a result of the flammable material on the ground.
The word “firearms” is not in the Constitution; rather, the word is “arms.” The definition for arms is “weapons and ammunition; armaments.” And if you look under “weapons,” you get “A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.” Doesn’t sound like that precludes nuclear weapons, grenades, etc., does it?
If semiautomatic rifles kill people, then 99.9% of them in the hands of citizens are defective. Secondly, since when is the second amendment about hunting?
You’re being purposely obtuse, the 2nd amendment, gives us the right to hunt and protect our homes. If you need a semi automatic to protect your family, may I suggest, you go back to the firing range.
Hmmm, I don’t see anything in the second amendment about hunting or self defense. In fact, the second amendment specifically points out that the right to bear arms by the public (militia) is to defend liberty. Not sure where hunting and home defense come into it.
If you’re going to focus on the militia part of the amendment, then you’d better include “well regulated” as well!
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
See the comma? Remember the big deal over “you didn’t build that” and the administration saying their was a comma? Well that cuts both ways lecole.
Actually I don’t give a flying f*&k about the comma (or lack thereof) in Obama’s statement. What I care about is the beginning of the paragraph: “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.” Meanwhile, you’re going to argue that the first half of a *sentence* has nothing to do with the second half (much less “well regulated” has nothing to do with “militia”)? Excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing.
I see you have no issue exercising your right of free speech from the 1st Amendment. I object to the language you use but I will defend to my death your right to say it. Of course if you limit my 2nd Amendment right I may have to defend that right with sticks and rocks.
Perhaps you and I both have no issue with freedom of speech because the First Amendment is not prefaced by a dependent clause?
What you and so many others fail to realize is without the 2nd Amendment you and I would not enjoy the 1st Amendment. In fact, this great country would likely not have survived.
1) Why would you assume that I want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment?
2) Why do you equate *sensible* gun regulations with getting rid of the 2nd Amendment? And don’t give me the “slippery slope argument.” Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Fallacy
1) You haven’t said you want to keep it.
2) I haven’t seen you suggest “sensible” gun regulations yet.
Want to limit “high capacity” magazines? Fine
Want to increase the penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a crime with a mandatory penalty with no reduction, no probation and no parole tacked on at the end of the sentence? Fine
Want to require a mandatory waiting period? Fine
Want to close the “gun show loophole” (which I’m unsure even exists)? Fine
What do you suggest?
All of the above. Nobody outside of those in the military and police needs to own anything more powerful than an ordinary handgun or hunting rifle. As in both Israel and Switzerland (which the “no regulations” folks like to point to as friendly to their cause), strong limits on concealed weapons permits (basically, only if it’s job-related). Would also like everyone who owns a gun to be *required* to take a course on gun safety, that would (like drivers licenses) need to be updated periodically. And a national registry, so that people who shouldn’t own guns don’t slip through the cracks. Obviously this is not going to prevent everyone who shouldn’t do from acquiring a gun (no laws are perfect: would we get rid of traffic laws because some folks break them?), but it would be a good start.
Oh yes, and if you get caught in even the slightest infraction (threatening, domestic abuse, etc.), you lose those rights altogether.
Please define “ordinary” and who decides what “ordinary” is?
I hold a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. I have passed not one but several firearm safety classes. Why is my permit only recognized in 7 states?
Switzerland has a national militia with required military training for males 20-30. The “military” firearms are kept AT home. They have also rejected stricter gun control regulations as recently as 2011.
Israel allows both open and concealed carry of firearms without permits. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/israel
We already have a national registry of people that aren’t allowed to purchase a firearm. That’s what a FFL calls when you want to purchase a firearm. If you want to add people with “mental health” issues, understand you are only going capture those that have been diagnosed and then only those that have been reported by providers.
As mentioned in my previous posting, Switzerland has *strict* regulations on concealed gun permits; only those with jobs in protection are allowed to take their guns out of the house for other than military-related purposes. And apparently, you have incorrect information: cf. (from wikipedia)
“Changes due to the Schengen treaty
The rules laid out above were changed on 1 December 2008 as Switzerland joined the Schengen treaty; and all member countries must adapt some of their laws to a common standard. Following the draft of the Swiss government for the new Waffengesetz (weapons law), these points will change:
Unlawful possession of guns will be punished.
Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit. Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered. As a central weapons register was politically unfeasible, the authorities hope to get an overview of the market through this registration requirement.
Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number.
Airsoft guns and imitations of real guns will also be governed by the new law.
While the above mentioned “free arms” remain exempt from the weapon acquisition permit, the vendor is required to notify the local arms bureau of the sale.”
As to Israel, cf. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Israel-Gun-Control/2012/12/25/id/468967.
Oh yeah, and if you want your permit to be recognized in all states, then we really *do* need a national registry, don’t we?! ;-)
I’ve passed a national check lecole…not once, not twice, but multiple times. As a matter of fact, my old government security clearance normally triggers an additional office an FFL has to speak with. My prints are on file in two different states and with the FBI. But my CWP is only valid in one of those two states and 7 others.
So it’s OK to keep a military grade (i.e. selective fire version auto, 3 round burst, semi-auto) firearm in a home in Switerland but not to keep a civilian version (i.e. semi-auto version non-selective fire version) in this country because in Switzerland the person promises not to remove it?
In case you missed it, Israel is at war and seems to be at war most of the time. You stand a better chance at being killed by a suicide bomber than being shot by a concealed weapon.
Oh, I almost forgot why no comment on the wide gaps in getting the mentally ill on a national registry?
Translation: “I want what I want, and therefore I deserve to have it, regardless of the consequences.”
And oh, by the way, there have been many discussions about mental illness; there is absolutely no evidence that the mentally ill are more likely to use guns to ill purpose than any other demographic. But at any rate, this happens to be a posting regarding guns, so it’s irrelevant.
From all reports the Newtown shooter had “issues” so any discussion on “gun control” must include “mental health”.
I can’t help it if you are incapable or unwilling to see or understand that.
Okay, let’s talk mental health care, then. I presume you’re a strong supporter of the Affordable Care Act, since it provides access to mental health services previously denied by many insurers? Cf. http://www.voxxi.com/affordable-care-act-mental-health/
Let’s talk mental health.
When and how does a person get there name placed on the “do not sell to list” when it comes to mental health?
When they are diagnosed?
When they are placed on medication?
When they are undergoing treatment by a MD, PHD, PA, NP?
And how do we get around HIPAA issues and concerns?
What about provider/patient confidentiality issues?
How long do they stay on the list?
Who makes the decision to remove them?
When do they get removed?
As far as the ACA goes, no I didn’t nor do I support the federal government mandating that I must purchase something as a condition of citizenship. If the state of Maine wishes to do it like Massachusetts fine. So now that the door is open for the feds to require that a citizen purchase a product or service from a private company where does it stop?
All good questions. In fact, the laws re most of this haven’t changed since 1968. However, if no one can *afford* mental health care — because insurers are niggardly about covering it — it will make little difference, especially given ready access to “weapons of mass destruction.” And explain to me please, how mental health care (much less any other kind of health care) will ever be affordable if healthy people don’t have to purchase insurance?
“All good questions” but you don’t answer any of them. Why?
Because, again, how would someone get on any such list (barring having committed a crime, whereupon other kinds of prohibitions kick in), if s/he cannot afford to see a mental health professional because either a) s/he has no insurance (remember that most of the mass murder crimes are committed by people in their late teens/twenties who are *least* likely to *have* insurance!) and/or their insurance doesn’t cover or weakly covers mental health.
Let me give you one example from my own family. A relative and his wife live in North Carolina (a right-to-work state, btw). Because of this, the relative’s wife was unable to put him on her insurance. As a self-employed tradesman, his insurance covered mental health to a maximum of $2,000/yr. He suffers from periodically severe depressions that require hospitalization (the only thing that works for him are multiple ECT treatments — at $2K a pop — plus medications). The last round of depression cost him and his wife $60K.
Now, if that’s what happens to a hard-working man *with* insurance, what do you suppose would happen to a young person *without* it? Likely to go for treatment? Likely to be diagnosed or medicated? Likely to appear on any list you’d like to have compiled? And, given that the states don’t share enough info re gun ownership (cf. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/legislative-handcuffs-limit-atfs-ability-to-fight-gun-crime.html?hp&pagewanted=all), do you really expect them to share info re mental illness?
For more info re the mental illness and violence issue, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/our-failed-approach-to-schizophrenia.html?hpw . The most important paragraph: ” It takes a village to stop a rampage. We need reasonable controls on semiautomatic weapons; criminal penalties for those who sell weapons to people with clear signs of psychosis; greater insurance coverage and capacity at private and public hospitals for lengthier care for patients with schizophrenia; intense public education about how to deal with schizophrenia; greater willingness to seek involuntary commitment of those who pose a threat to themselves or others; and greater incentives for psychiatrists (and other mental health professionals) to treat the disorder, rather than less dangerous conditions.”
I don’t disagree. This is one of the most confusing and poorly written parts of the Constitution. I really don’t know (and don’t believe anyone knows) what the intended meaning of a “well-regulated militia” is. An oxymoron, in many ways.
The state militias long ago re-named themselves the National Guard (in honor of Layfayette, the Frenchman who helped us in the American Revolution, and who later led the Guarde National of France). If you want to join the “well-regulated militia,” you’ll have to sign up for the National Guard.
The term militia, or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.
You say “today” many people use the term “militia” in that (incorrect) way.
Of course, before they seized power in their countries, Mussolini and Hitler had their “black shirts” and “brown shirts” — unregulated, unauthorized “militias” that worked to overthrow the governments of Italy and Germany.
In contrast, the “well-regulated militia” mentioned in the 2nd Amendment clearly refers only to militias that are regulated by law — the National Guard of each state is the “well-regulated militia” of that state.
Militia
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
Whether or not the National Guard would qualify as a militia is beside the point. A militia is defined as a citizen who becomes a soldier, and is distinct from professional military. The founding fathers clearly intended this clause to mean an armed citizenry to protect from government tyranny.
This is coming from someone who doesn’t like the 2nd amendment as written and would vote for a revision. But to me, like it or not, the meaning is clear.
Yes, and we call the National Guard “citizen soldiers.” They are, indeed “a body of citizens enrolled for military service and called out periodically” and “distinguished from professional soldiers” etc.
During the Vietnam War the National Guard was never called to serve in combat roles during that war, and many joined the National Guard to avoid combat. It is only in recent conflicts that these citizen soldiers, which were the original state militias, have been treated as if they were one and the same with the professional army.
Every state National Guard was originally the “well regulated militia” of that state.
Indeed, the meaning is clear — the mention of the “well-regulated militia” in the 2nd Amendment refers to the National Guard.
OK, but then why the second part of the amendment? Do members of the National Guard provide their own weapons? To me, that is where the line between a professional military organization and a militia is drawn.
I’m just saying, the whole amendment is poorly written and unclear. If it were well-written, we wouldn’t be arguing about it.
In 1787 when the Constitution was adopted, yes, the members of each state militia brought their own weapons with them. Times have changed, and so now the connection between the “well-regulated militia” and the “the right to bear arms” is outdated. But that was the original intention.
Many conservative judges (like Antonin Scalia) say they are “originalists,” that is, they think we should not go beyond what the original framers of the Constitution intended. In that case — if we were to use a conservative “originalist” interpretation — the 2nd Amendment would limit the right to bear arms to those who serve in the National Guard.
Check out District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Pretty much covers it all and affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms. The decision makes it clear that the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause. The court also further defines the individual right to be for “lawful purposes”, setting the stage for reasonable controls. Semi-auto? Honestly, I would want semi-auto for home defense: not comfortable with my bolt-action fire rate to ensure I put down a danger in my house!
More specifically, the Second Amendment is about citizens being able to protect themselves from government.
Highly unlikely that the framers had that in mind, having just experience Shays’ Rebellion. Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays_Rebellion
So you would like the ability to kill American soldiers with your guns if you deemed the government unacceptable? None dare call it treason.
If assault weapons kill people, how does anyone dare walk into any establishment that sells them without fearing for their very lives? What happened in Connecticut was horrific, of that there is no doubt. The weapons did not do anything without the man with his finger on the trigger. If you believe there is no need for anyone to own an assault style weapon, feel free to not own one.
When the President gives up his weapon security that follows him everywhere he goes, then I will probably still keep my security. If you don’t like guns, don’t own one.
“our government is ……… mandating the elimination of all references to God and religion from our national discourse.
News Flash for Darrell Dunn: Government is not some alien device acting on its own. The government is us. We are the government: “We the People” and we have not eliminated religion from the public sphere. What we have done is limit your ability to require all of us to pay honor and homage to your interpretation of God and your interpretation of cultural mores.
If you could find it in your heart to be a bit less censorious and a bit more accepting you might find that your life is less fraught with angst and your Christmas is merrier.
Well said, MSally! When I was a child in the 1950s and ’60s, there never were any organized prayers in the public schools I attended. But children were free then — and are free today — to say a silent prayer before a test, or say grace before eating lunch. None of that has changed.
The only change was when they added “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag in 1954, and added “In God We Trust” to the dollar bill the same year — changes I’m old enough to remember.
No one should be forced to pray — coerced prayer is not sincere prayer. Organized prayers (coercive by their very nature) in public schools would be a clear violation of Constitutional freedoms.
On this Christmas Day I hope we can all be accepting of differences — I celebrate Christmas, yet I recognize that not every American shares the same religious traditions.
Mr Colhoun – Great letter. Thank you.
S. Colhoun: Good letter.
D. Dunn; I think you unnecessarily feel persecuted.
Rep. Ayatto: I’m also disappointed with the demise of Down Memory lane over the air (along with a lot of other good music). However, although poorly publicized, the show can be accessed by streaming on your computer. I listened to Friday’s show as it came online at 2:00 Friday. Once up, you can access previous shows at any time, very convenient if you missed it earlier.