How many offices needed?
I actually laughed out loud when I saw the picture of the East Newport Post Office earlier this month with the announcement that daily hours would be cut. It should have been closed, as Newport does not need or deserve two post offices. Let’s get serious. Many towns have multiple offices, including Farmington and Vassalboro. These facilities have to be maintained, heated and plowed, etc. Mr. Paperback, for example, closed when modern technology made the stores unprofitable. Why not government facilities?
Brian Hanson
Saint Albans
Cut our Legislature
Our governor is busy trying to figure out how to shaft the working class rather than reduce the size and cost of state government.
The governor should start by cutting the size of the Maine Legislature by at least two-thirds. California, the most populous state, has a smaller Legislature than we do.
We pay salary, transportation, housing, food, health care and pension for a part-time job. It’s a great racket — serve one term, and you have benefits for life.
Most of our representatives are self-employed, so they need the health care benefits — poor dears. What other part-time job in this state is so lucrative as being in the Legislature? Meanwhile, most of their constituents’ best job opportunities are part-time at Walmart.
Donna Twombly
Pittsfield
Our godless culture
In the excellent article written by Charles Krauthammer, “The Roots of Mass Murder” on Dec. 24, the one piece that Krauthammer left out was about our “godless” culture.
God is banned from our classrooms, and most public places. Our founding fathers created our Constitution based on God’s moral teaching. His commandments have been banned from display.
They include the following: Thou shalt have no other gods before me; thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image; thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain; remember the Sabbath day, keep it holy; honor thy father and mother; thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor; and thou shalt not covet.
Of these, which is most important? “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength,” and “love your neighbor as yourself.”
Loving God, ourselves and each other is the most important thing we can do to make our society better.
There’s no law written that denies my right to speak the name of Jesus or God in public places. I will not allow fear of being sued to prevent my right to free speech any longer and hope that others will finally challenge anyone that dictates the false premise “separation of church and state.”
My God is awesome, in him will I trust.
Rhonda Loncto
Fletchers Landing Township
Read the Bible
If same-sex couples want to get married, fine, just don’t flaunt it in public. Let our children grow up believing what the Bible says about the subject. If you don’t know what the Bible says, maybe you should read it.
Carolyn Dubay
Cambridge
Licensed gun ownership
I ask our elected officials not to let the National Rifle Association hold our country hostage. I do not want to see our country become a militant nation.
We need to get assault weapons out of the hands of criminals, severely disturbed individuals and irresponsible gun owners. Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.
Just as one must pass a test to get a license to drive a car and car registration is required, so should gun ownership be licensed.
Somehow we need to find and register the assault weapons already in circulation and restrict them to military and police work. Hunters and sportsmen should be assured their guns are not in question, but assault weapons are not useful for protection or recreation.
At the same time we need to provide easier access to better mental health services. It is deplorable that so many programs are being cut. We need to get our priorities straight and stop the violence so prevalent today.
Joan Shapleigh
Dover-Foxcroft
The ‘elbow swing’
There are certain TV news correspondents, many of them women, who have the “swinging elbow” as they stand before the camera and report the news. If it was a subtle, unintentional reflex we could probably deal with it. But it appears quite intentional and distracting.
I first noticed it with Nancy Cordes of CBS News. I have since noticed the “elbow swing” being done by a few more local TV reporters and weather forecasters. When it is extreme, I liken it to an overstuffed pigeon trying to get off the ground. If this is their gesture of swagger, please tell them to stop. I find it distracting and unnecessary on the highest order.
Roger Ritter
Princeton
God was all over the catholic church, how many children did that prevent from getting molested? You can pray all you want in schools, you can yell about god in any public space.
But why single out the Catholic Church? You speak of child abuse within that institution as if it is much less extent elsewhere. The fact of the matter is that the problem is far worse today outside the Church. For more than a decade the Church has taken drastic and very effective steps to stem abuse while most of society has not nearly done enough. Thanks to people of faith who although late in recognizing the abuse were willing to do something about it. It’s time we learn from past mistakes and wrongdoings and deal with the present.
Ohhh, so people fixed the problem not god. Thanks.
As I said, “people of faith” did. It certainly was not done by atheists!
Of course it wasn’t atheists… they’re not dumb enough to leave their children in the care of a man in a dress and funny hats. Catholics are deluded… it’s good to see them falling from power.
Would atheists leave their children in the care of men who dress as women and women who dress as men? So whose deluded? My point here is not to say cross dressers are abusers of children. Rather, my point here is that there is no need to be demonstratively offensive on account of a personal grudge against the Church.
How do you know it is a “personal grudge”? You jump to alot of conclusions. Perhaps they see through a lot of the hypocrisy. Perhaps they are not impressed. People can think for themselves.
I agree that we need not get offensive. There are many great Catholics, both in the priesthood and laity. I have many disagreements with the Catholic Church, but I acknowledge that the Catholic Church also does a lot of good. I have sometimes donated to specific Catholic charities, such as a Catholic-run orphanage in Haiti.
We need not be offensive.
You’ve made that point often enough. You are starting to sound as if you’re protecting the church. The church needs no protection.
I totally agree with penzance about not being offensive unless the situation clearly calls for it otherwise, which is rare. We can all disagree without being disagreeable, even on controversial topics such as gay marriage, abortion, entitlements, etc.
Of course he needs to be offensive, he IS on the offensive.
It’s not whether the problem is worse or not elsewhere, it’s the fact that the church protected its molesters and ignored the safety of the children. That sort of institutional protection was not happening elsewhere and that’s why the church gets singled out – the glaring hypocrisy is another factor in that.
Wrong Teachers’s unions have continaully protected pedophiles
Huh?
I’m surprised wolfdeer has not called you a liar and a hypocrite for this comment! :) He makes it a point to direct this accusation at me time after time. Coming from him, I take it as a badge of honor. :)
That’s childish. It’s not an honor to lie and engage in hypocrisy. Also, by the up/down votes — it’s not only me who disagrees with your dishonesty.
But where do those up/down votes come from? Really, I don’t care.
I am sure you care, but not in the votes, but that people see you and your lies, prejudice, and dishonesty about everything you write.
You ARE one of the most hypocritical people in the world.
That statement coming from you even makes me feel prouder.
Let’s avoid the personal attacks, please.
This thread is a perfect example of how she feels proud for being cruel and inflammatory. I understand you keep thinking she is ignorant of truth, but she supports lies and loves anger.
Could we avoid the personal attacks, please?
Uhh, yes, but the more “veiled” ones are just as offensive as the more “out there” comments. One sounds more honest than the other. I say that without defending anyone.
–
Ok, let’s try again. I do not understand your response.
I was saying to penanze that it is easier to “overlook” the more veiled insults (such as whawell’s , many times). I meant that a poster such as tedlick may be more “out there” (more direct) in his comments but maybe more honest. Maybe the “out there” was misleading in that context.
“Honor”?
Post sources sweetie.
Aha! I caught you! You’re lying! Pennsylvania State U. was accused of doing the same thing, that is, engaging in “institutional protection”. I’m sure you didn’t miss that bit of news because it made the headlines repeatedly for several months ongoing. So, buddy, what does that make you? A hypocrite, right? Oh, that’s such a terrible accusation to make against you, the truth protector squad.
“That sort of institutional protection”. Again, “That sort of…”
What happened at Penn State wasn’t of the magnitude of the Catholic Church — obviously.
And what about yesterday? You were saying that pointing out dishonesty is barnyard language, now you’re throwing out hypocrite and liar like it’s nothing. That’s your hypocrisy on display, again, for all to see.
Again, since you won’t lay off, I have every right to fight back. I AM NOT YOUR DOORMAT. You are certainly not going to get my respect until you can show me you deserve it.
Now you’re playing the victim in order to avoid addressing the substance of what I wrote. You were wrong to say I was lying. I was very clear in my initial post. The Catholic Church is singled out because there is no where else that engages/engaged in that sort of institutional protection of child molesters. It’s not a lie to say so and you were wrong to try and criticize me for that. And yesterday you complained about the sort of “barnyard language” you’re spewing now — that’s hypocrisy.
She sounds very angry there.
Here is a rule for civil argumentation. Since you won’t take my explanation, I’ll just give your a reference, which I doubt is politically motivated by any stretch of the imagination:
Ad Hominem
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AdHominem
Pointing out that you’ve lied or engaged in hypocrisy is NOT an ad hominem attack. You’re just trying to change the subject because you know you’ve been caught in a lie.
You could be wrong when you say “there is no where else that engages/engaged in that sort of institutional protection…”. I do not believe we know the extent of the cover up in the cases of child molestation in the Boy Scouts yet.
Isn’t that a religious institution as well?
You made me smile here. I could not stop laughing. Now that I have. You made yourself a doormat. You did this by your own actions. The level of dislike you have garnered, if it could, be transferred into stocks, you would be rich.
I am surprised that whawell is all alone in this. Where are the others?
If gay marriage had been defeated they would still be on here, gloating,etc. They feel somewhat deflated by it all. Recent elections have not gone at all their way. They did not see this coming.
So true.
Who knew talking about rape, economy, and poverty in a non factual manner would have resulted in further loss of power? I think they need to hire whawell as a PR consultant. They could lose even more support.
So, because Penn State did it, that makes it OK for the fundies in the Vatican?
You’re so very very sick.
Buddy that’s your statement, not mine. I’ve never remotely stated two wrongs make a right. That said, I thought you were so honest (I mean that sarcastically). What happened anyway?
The Church will have done the right thing when it sends Bernard Cardinal Law back to the US to answer for his covering up child sexual abuse by Priest.
Is this you’re only complaint against the Church? Of course you ignore all the good the Church has done to alleviate abuse.
My biggest complaint against the church is that after so many years of allowing children to be molested and covering it all up, they now abandon kids who need homes for the sake of a political stance… even when they had FOLLOWED THE LAW before they decided to make such a stance.
They’re vile… disgusting… and we’d be better off without their harm.
This almost sounds to me like you are reacting in anger. Are you angry because it calls homosexuality a sin? That said, I really think you are full of anger at this point in your life. If you would take a more objective view, you would realize it calls adultery and fornication sinful acts as well. Yet people who commit these acts that happen to be natural don’t necessarily react with anger. Bearing a grudge can only hurt you on the long run. You can be sure all the past anger by folks like you over the past two thousand years has not changed the Church’s position on homosexuality. It’s unreal therefore to continue believing that your and other people’s anger will change the Church.
He doesn’t sound the least bit angry to me. Just direct and honest.
That’s not anger — stop trying to change the subject and derail the conversation.
Once again, equating pedophila with homosexuality.
Some people are not capable of being educated. ( In this case, unwilling,etc. unless it is an extreme right wing site.)
How so? I never mentioned pedophilia in my comment.
And they would have continued to cover it up if they had not been caught. It would have gone on as it has for years and years. Their cover was blown.
Tedlick, you could do a better job of making your point if you said it with less venom. When we act or speak out of anger we are actually less effective.
While I agree that the Catholic hierarchy did a miserable job of dealing with pedophiles, that they protected abusers and put more children at risk, and covered up the issue for decades, the majority of priests are actually good people. Let’s not paint all Catholics with the same brush.
While I agree with you that the majority of Priest are good decent people Tedlick has every right to express anger at what the Church did in regard to child sexual abuse. This is an organization who preaches morality (believe me I know. I attended Catholic schools through high school and we had religion class every day), yet they did the cowardly thing and covered up children being abused by people that are referred to as “Father”. Priest were looked upon almost as an extension of God. The Church was very good at teaching right from wrong, but when it was time for the Church to do the right thing they covered it up.
I understand the anger, and share it. We can be angry. But when we allow our anger to determine what we say and how we say it we become less effective. Others hear only the anger, and our intended point becomes lost in the venom.
You can live in your fairytale land about “all the good” the Church has done. The Church covered up the child sexual abuse matter and The Holy Father is still protecting Cardinal Law for the role he played in the cover up. Rather then do the right thing and report the offending Priest to law enforcement Law instead transferred Priest who had sexually abused children in one parish to others so that they could do it again with a fresh crop of kids.
Well, that’s the allegation I hear. But truthfully, I’m not sure that the Cardinal was directing what happened. He certainly did a poor job though in responding to some reports.
Oh come on whawell even some of the Priest who participated in the sex acts with kids told how Law would bring them into his office and pray with them and then after telling them not to do it again would re-assign them to another parish. The Church paid out Millions in settlements for goodness sake just in the Boston Archdiocese alone.
Let me see your source of information on this.
My goodness anyone who read just about any newspaper in the Country with the exception of The National Catholic Register would know it, Butif you are really interested, which I seriously doubt you are, why don’t you go to either Boston.com or Bostonherald.com and look at the articles yourself. Just go to the archives and put in Roman Catholic Priest Scandal and you should have plenty of reading. If those two sites do not have enough information for you, then try doing the same thing on Google, they have 4,140,000 entries on the subject. Good reading.
Why single out the Catholic Church? Maybe because they seem so insistent on inserting themselves into our politics here in America?
The Church has a moral and civic duty to speak out on moral issues. It’s a good thing too because without the Church or religious groups the government would trod over its citizens incessantly. That buffer against the government’s lust for more power is one of the main reasons for the First Amendment right to religious practice.
“the government” is all of us, we the people.
“the government” is not the problem.
If you are on the receiving end, I can understand why you feel the way you do about the government. What folks like you don’t realize is that the government will no longer be able to afford giving, giving, and giving unrelentingly for long by continuing its tax and borrowing pattern. The country right now is on a steady and certain declining path financially.
whawhell, you write, “If you are on the receiving end, I can understand why you feel the way you do about the government.”
I’m currently fully-employed (as I have been my entire adult life), and am paying into the system, although, yes, I do benefit from highways and bridges, air traffic controllers, police and fire protection, armed forces that keeps us safe, etc.
I’ll bet you benefit from these things, too. We are a society. We form a government for our own mutual benefit. So yes, I am on both the paying end and the receiving end. I am part of society. “No man is an island,” as John Donne said.
My wife is also fully employed, and has been most of her life,but many years ago she was severely injured when she was hit by a drunk driver. At that time (before we were married) she needed SSI Disability payments, subsidized housing and food stamps while she was recovering from severe injury. She remains blind in one eye from that accident.
Some day I will be eligible for Medicare and Social Security. At some point in every person’s life, we need the help of other people. That’s why we set up programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (most people in nursing homes have their care paid for by Medicaid/MaineCare).
I’m assuming that you aren’t an anarchist. Anarchism results in the unmitigated oppression of the weak by the powerful. Libertarianism is one step away from anarchism. Both are bad ideas. We need government because we need one another.
Excellent!
I apologize for the initial statement because it was not intended as a personal remark. I should have used the impersonal pronoun “one” instead of the personal pronoun “you” when posting that statement.
That said, I was well aware of your employed status because you have referred to it on several occasions.
When speaking of people on the receiving end I was not referring to people who work for a living or who are retired. My comment was directed at those who do not work and have little or no work history to speak of. Their perspective in life is usually very different than most other people’s.
Thanks, whawhell. I didn’t think you meant it as anything personal, as you and I are both trying to be cordial in our disagreements.
Still, as you know, I’m employed and paying taxes, and am glad to have a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” I drive on highways and bridges. I buy goods that come in through our ports. I am kept safe by our armed forces. I benefit from our legal system of courts, district attorneys and public defenders, jails, police and fire protection, pure food and drug laws, etc., etc. I benefit indirectly from many other laws and regulations such as patent and copyright laws. Society as a whole benefits from child labor laws, etc.
My wife is a social worker who provides assistance to people with chronic mental illnesses. Despite what some people think, mental illnesses are real, and her clients really need her help.
Don’t you also benefit from having a government? Don’t you use the highways? Won’t you grow old and get sick some day, and need such things as Medicare or Social Security?
I’m not an anarchist by any means. The government in general does serve a useful role as you pointed out. What I object to quite frequently is its tendency to overstep its bounds with too many regulations and increases in entitlements. For instance, in the latest spending package just approved by Congress, which by now the President may have already signed into law, a one year extension to unemployment has been effected. Already there has been several extensions. A recent study has shown that once people used up all their unemployment benefits they found a job within one month. Clearly there is a lot a abuse going on that is costing the taxpayer big time. Merely prolonging the duration of these entitlements is not the answer. There are many examples of abuses going on, far too many to list here that the government is not really interested in dealing with.
And above you criticize others for making assumptions about another’s “intentions” and yet here you are doing that exact same thing. Pretending you know the “perspective” of these supposed people that you think exist. That’s hypocrisy. Engaging in a behavior you criticize others for is hypocrisy. That’s not a personal attack, that’s a description of your poor behavior.
When poster’s comments are clearly intended as personal attacks, it becomes another matter. When people like you say I lie when I don’t and do this unremittingly, then what choice do I have but to fight back. No, this is not hypocrisy. It’s common sense.
You are lying. It is that simple. As penzance states, falsehood. You have much of this. You are hypocritical but blind to it.
I have been very clear and specific in pointing out how you’ve lied and engaged in hypocrisy. You ignored those comments — you don’t now get to say I’m just throwing those out there indiscriminately as a personal attack.
This isn’t a fight. It’s a discussion. If someone says you have lied and then demonstrates how you’ve lied — that’s not a personal attack. Quit pretending that you’re being victimized when you’re held accountable for your poor behavior.
I and others have asked you countless questions of substance and yet you ignore those, instead opting to claim that you’re a victim and that everyone is so nasty. It’s your choice to determine which comments you want to respond to, but you don’t get to suggest that people are just relentlessly attacking you because that’s not the truth. You’ve been asked questions and have been given responses that have nothing to do with you personally, but instead involve the issues themselves — you’ve chosen to ignore the bulk of those comments. That’s your fault, no one else’s.
The Church had some good music in the 80’s, but I haven’t heard anything by them recently.
And also to speak out against their own moral failings? Oh, that’s right The Church is infallible. Any religion, inclduing the Catholic Church, does not have an exclusive on morality nor is the exclusive conscience of governments. Far from it in history, when the unholy alliances of The Chruch and governments, especially roylaty, were guilty of gross moral misconduct (and atrocities)
You asked why single out the Catholic church, and we have clearly pointed out why. So you change the subject.
How often do they speak out against their history of child abuse and the fact that it is still occurring. Or is their “moral and civic duty to speak out” only apply to other people and institutions?
Also the Catholic Church has a nearly 1700 year history of murder, rape, abduction, torture, imprisonment, cultural destruction, etc. It is wishful thinking that they have suddenly changed in the last few years.
Single them out for covering up child abuse. If you can let that slide, there is nothing good or holy about you.
I don’t have to “let it slide” as you said. It’s alleged coverup continues to be brought up ad nauseam on account of the Church’s stand on social issues like abortion and homosexuality. I’m not blind as to what is going on here. The constant attacks against the Church are not so much about abuse – because that’s largely irrelevant by now – but about those social issues. Of course you liberals out there who attack it at every opportunity won’t admit to that because you really don’t want to argue about your indefensible stands on social issues. You take the Saul Alinsky approach of personal attacks on those who disagree with you. It’s very uncivil and undemocratic to say the least.
You sound very passive aggressive.
Ted made an ad hominem attack (“there is nothing good or holy about you”). It was not the first time. It has been ongoing. What kind of response should I have given? Am I supposed to be a doormat? I understand posters getting upset now and then. We’re all human after all. But his continuous barbs are uncalled for. Maybe you should call him out on it too. Incidentally, I noticed that poster penzance is beginning to do just that. Not surprisingly he was put down for trying to keep the discussion civil. It appears to me there is an attempt by some posters here to put down anyone who disagrees with them on such issues as gay marriage, abortion, and government entitlements. I’ve come to the conclusion they only want people who agree with them to use this forum for discussion. They forget that this is a public forum provided for by this newspaper. This means that everyone’s input on issues is welcomed.
Yes, whawell, I hope we can disagree without being disagreeable. I often disagree with you, and often am baffled by the statements you make (asking, “How can whawhell come to a conclusion that is so clearly wrong?”), but I’d like to have have a rational discussion. There are too many insults on these pages. And I admit that I’ve occasionally done it, too — but I think I do it only rarely, and I quickly regret it. We need not be as dysfunctional as Congress.
@penzance:disqus It does not matter how often. I am guilty of being socially cruel, often without knowing it, until I see it register on peoples faces.
@whawell:disqus True. Call them out without being just as peevish as they are. Rise above, do not challenge that they disagree with you, that is obvious. Challenge what they are saying. Debate is an art, war strategy, and is won with a calm head.
Somethings are more difficult:
Stating that people are not as equal as you, tends to bring out the worst in them, as it would bring out the worst in me or you.
A Victim?
You are not one, even though you bleat and beg to be one.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, lately I’ve been battling back attacks directed at me by certain posters. In fact I just finished one with a poster.
Over the past months going back three or four years, the general tone has gotten nasty and nastier. At this point, like you, I find little recourse except to point out their posting misbehavior. The rules for posting seem to be completely outside their realm of personal conduct. It’s like trying to make peace with a mob. It rarely works, especially when its worked up. Maybe you have a better chance at it than I do because of your stand on the issues. Thanks for the feedback.
Whawell, you’re not being honest. You say you are pointing out bad behavior, but then you engage in that exact same behavior yourself.
Yesterday you said I was using barnyard language, but then later on, you used that same exact “barnyard language” about me. When I pointed that out to you, you started saying you’ve been victimized and that people are getting nasty with you. How is that fair? Why can you fault me for something that you do yourself?
You’re an adult, you know better. It’s not fair for you to criticize others and act holier than thou while doing exactly what you supposedly denounce.
At least today some appear to be overdoing it with the venom directed toward you. While I often disagree with you, I think the personal attacks are very unfortunate. I’d like us all to take a few breaths before we write.
Pointing out a lie, hypocrisy or an attempt to derail a discussion isn’t venom. It’s not a personal attack to challenge poor behavior. Playing victim doesn’t absolve personal responsibility either.
Actually, I had some other posters in mind, not you. I agree that we can point out hypocrisy, etc. But I prefer softer terms like “falsehood” to angrier terms such as “lie.” It’s hard to have these discussions without showing anger. But I think when we show anger we become less effective — and eventually the whole discussion gets out of control and becomes a childish exchange of insults.
I would like to think, that one can be stern and clear, even mean spirited, but with a clear intent to inform. I do not believe “Sugar coating” is the right direction for whawell. I am not judging her beyond, what she has demonstrated.
If a child swears, disrupts events, and all for the reason of wanting to be seen – are they not chastised? Do people not speak up? Do they sugar coat their words? Maybe, but often saying “Billy I know you punched sara” then Billy lies, “Please do not lie to me” a teacher would reply.
Whawell is not a child, therefore, I will not sugar coat my words to appease her, when she does no such thing for anyone on this site. Have you not heard her? How come you are so quick to offer her your shoulder, it is not the issues, but how she behaves that reduces any support received from me. She will not be afforded sympathy for her words. There is sympathy for her as a person.
I think that’s fair, but we’re adults and playing the victim shouldn’t be an excuse to skirt responsibility for a person’s own poor behavior. So, yeah, maybe some have gotten angry over Whawell’s lies and hypocrisy, but that anger doesn’t make those lies and hypocrisy okay. And yet, Whawell uses that as a convenient excuse to change the subject and avoid accountability — that’s more egregious to me than an angry tone.
Here here!
I know you might not agree with me, but this tactic of attacking the messenger is what gay activists have been engaging in and promoting among their sympathizers. I have to admit, the tactic is working. Most people are afraid to go against these activists’ agendas even though they deeply disagree with it. As I pointed out, I’m not a door mat. If people want to hit me, I’ll only take so much before I put them down verbally.
For now I’ll be moving along. Thanks for sharing your thoughts
What isn’t working is your derailing tactics. People see what you’re doing when you scream that you’re being victimized. You’re not a victim, you’re just trying to change the subject because you don’t have a direct and real response — otherwise, you’d be able to answer pretty simple questions like why you think being left handed is different from being gay for example.
You’ve come to the wrong conclusion then. Disagreeing with someone doesn’t mean hating someone. Pointing out a lie isn’t trying to silence someone.
You lie and allow yourself an easier double standard constantly — then when you’re called out on it, you play the victim. You pretend that you’re being persecuted or something, but all it is is a means of you changing the subject. That’s the true lack of an argument. You are caught lying or engaging in hypocrisy and you don’t know what to do, so you scream that you’re being victimized because you can’t address the facts of the matter.
Time to take responsibility for yourself and the things you write.
There again, you accuse me of lying (“You lie and allow an easier double standard), but I don’t lie. A lie is an intentional attempt to deceive someone with a falsehood. If you feel you must, it’s okay to point out what you believe to be a falsehood. It’s not okay however to accuse someone of lying when you are not aware of the person’s intentions. As I stated earlier you may disagree with a point of view if you will. Charging someone of deliberately making a false statement is another matter. The charge itself is almost always false and without any merit or basis, not to mention the unfairness of it.
Whawell, quit skirting the issue. Why do you think it’s fair to criticize others for something you do yourself?
“As I stated earlier you may disagree with a point of view if you will. Charging someone of deliberately making a false statement is another matter. The charge itself is almost always false and without any merit or basis, not to mention the unfairness of it.”
First – you mention unfairness. I chuckle.
Second – You have made false statements. There are things called facts. You do not have them but say you do.
Third – The charge is correct. You are without facts. Bleat all you wish, it is true you are without facts.
Can’t answer my simple question? Again — Why do you think it’s fair to criticize others for something you do yourself?
I just re-read your prior comment, the one you just replied to. I did not see a question in it. So how could you expect me to answer one that was not there?
To answer your last question, I do not think it’s fair to criticize others for something I do. That’s why I don’t.
I asked you several questions elsewhere and you refuse to answer them. Why is that?
“That’s why I don’t.” Yes, you do. You accused me of “barnyard language” then later on sarcastically used that same “barnyard language” to speak to me all because you mis-read what I wrote. Can I get an apology for that? You seemed to have conveniently ignored my earlier reply in which I pointed out that double standard you set for yourself.
You take someone calling you out on your dishonesty as a personal attack though. When you skew the facts or engage in hypocrisy (you demand I take a Republican politician as a solid source, but you know darn well you wouldn’t take a Democratic politician as a solid source), it is what it is. It’s lying and hypocrisy — if you take that as a personal attack, fine, but playing victim doesn’t somehow erase your poor behavior.
It will NEVER be irrelevant.
——————————
If you want to engage in homosexuality, that’s your business. If I choose to comment on homosexuality when the issue arises, that’s my business. I think you have a problem with free speech and anyone who disagrees with you, especially when you don’t have a reasonable argument or any on-the-point argument to offer. That is why you act disagreeably and with nastiness. This type of leaching and predatory behavior in unacceptable in any type of civil forum.
“If I choose to comment on homosexuality when the issue arises”
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation not an issue.
“I think you have a problem with free speech and anyone who disagrees with you”
No one has stopped you for speaking. It is not that you disagree. it is that you lie, that is what people dislike.
“That is why you act disagreeably and with nastiness.”
I am very objective. You make my blood pressure increase, which I am sure stimulates the motors in your brain. You truly are cruel and either blind to it, or take great pleasure in it. I am serious because I care, I believe the “issues” you talk about are a band-aid for more personal crisis. Why do you lie? I am serious, stop saying you do not, because you do.
If your blood pressure rises when I say homosexuality is learned behavior, then you are not very objective. An objective person stays cool under most circumstances.
Gay rights groups have spent millions of dollars to show a genetic link to homosexuality and have all but abandoned the search on account of the fact the search itself has not produced any type of revelation of a genetic link. On the other hand it was found from a study of a very large sampling of identical twins that when one of a pair of twins is gay, the other is, nine times more often than not, not gay. Clearly because identical twins share the same set of genes, the actions of one who became homosexual cannot have been determined by genes. Also, if homosexuality were genetic, it would long ago have bred itself out of the population. This takes into account the fact the although some produce children in an ordinary biological way, they produce far fewer children than heterosexuals.
Get mad all you want, but the facts are indisputable along with other substantiating facts which I won’t mention now.
A lack of a discovered genetic link does not prove that homosexuality is a learned behavior. To suggest so is a lie. There are plenty of characteristics that are immutable without having a genetic link.
And can you please describe why it matters that homosexuality have a genetic link? Religion doesn’t have a genetic link and yet we protect that. We say being Christian is an identity, not a behavior.
There is no solid genetic link to handedness, yet we don’t claim that lefties are learned. We don’t try and force lefties to change. Please explain specifically what you believe the differences between my examples to be. You are an objective person after all, right?
Absolutely correct!
Yes-it annoys me when people think they know genetics because they watch tv and they assume because there is no specific set of chromosomes that code for the gay then it must not be genetic. Not everything about our DNA is as simple as eye color.
Again, I did not presume the lack of discovery meant there was no genetic link. What it (the lack of discovery) really means is that there is less of a likelihood of a genetic link. You keep misrepresenting my views and then you hastily call me a liar. This is just one example of many of your incivility. Furthermore that comment of mine was directed to Poster Marquis, not you. So, bug out.
I didn’t call you a liar. Quit pretending you’re a victim, it’s tiresome. I said it’s a lie to make such a suggestion.
You have been clear in stating that you think homosexuality is a learned behavior. You backed this up by citing a lack of a discovered genetic link. There is suggestion in that. Also, quit pretending that you are open minded in this regard, you’re not. You’ve already dismissed many studies and claimed they are backed by big/activist money. You haven’t proven that homosexuality is learned.
Furthermore, why don’t you address my questions? You keep playing the victim as a means of changing the subject and derailing the conversation. I asked you some very specific questions and they were civil ones at that. Answer them if you’re such a good and honorable person.
homosexuality being a learned behavior does not make my blood boil. How much you lie does. You have no merit. You say you do, but you don’t. You are a small child screaming the sky is purple, having a screaming fit that no one believes you.
Thank you, you have helped me with the blood boiling issue. I now have a template to understand you better.
Yes, the facts are indeed indisputable — you are indisputably wrong.
“Gay rights groups have spent millions of dollars to show a genetic link to homosexuality…” Now you are repeating your own urban legend.
I agree with you that being gay is a sexual orientation, and is as natural as left-handedness. It is not an “issue.” whawell is wrong. But whawhell also deserves to be treated fairly. I don’t think whawhell intends any cruelty. whawhell is merely ignorant.
You claim that whawhell makes your blood pressure increase. Outside of a torture chamber, no one can make you do anything. You always have a choice. If your blood pressure increases, it’s because of how you choose to react.
Pen – I disagree with you. Whawell Is very ignorant, not merely, or slightly. She is also cruel. You are correct, I choose behavior. Thank you for your concern. The fixations of people amuses me. I knew as I wrote it, it would acquire a comment from others. I did not think it would be from you.
I wrote it on purpose. I said to myself, “what would she do, if she got a reaction.” She would ignore most of my comments, but if she knew she was affecting me, then she would isolate that effect and expose it. Something that many comments have charged her with doing. I was going to keep this to myself, the subterfuge, but you have made it clear, that I must expose it.
She cares more about upsetting people than the facts. She cares more about harm then help, she cares more about oppression and beliefs that deny others dignity. You expect me to treat her not as a tyrant but not as someone that is merely ignorant. Politely I will decline your advice. You are correct about one thing, my blood never boiled, because I made choice to manipulate the variable with stimuli. Sorry you got snagged in my trickery. Hope you are not too offended.
“Engage in homosexuality”?? Are you even sane. You “engage in heterosexuality”! What a crock.
I’m engaged to a homosexual. Does that count?
Funny. Funny is good. There are those who take themselves way too seriously.
I have never told you you cannot speak your mind.
I point out the hypocrisy behind your cray of “for the children”… nothing more. I always will.
But I’ve never tried to silence you.
Any nastiness I present is what you’ve earned. You actively wish to harm law-abiding citizens, and you support organizations that harm children to make a political point, both of which are unacceptable in any type of civil forum.
“Of course you liberals out there who attack it at every opportunity won’t admit to that because you really don’t want to argue about your indefensible stands on social issues.”
I am not a liberal. You can believe as you want about my political affiliations. However, your stand appears to be indefensible as everyone else has corrected you on everything you have said. I am starting to think this is the only way you communicate with people.
The reason why the church was allowed to ‘molest’ for so long is because the age of consent in the Vatican is 12. They only ‘looked into it’ and took drastic measures’ when society said 12 was too young. It is more prevalent in the Catholic church because their own teachings allow it. Look it up yourself. Age of consent in Vatican city. It used to be 9.
Amazing. I was not aware of that.
Don’t be amaze by what Jersey said. He’s merely repeating an urban legend.
You are confusing age of consent with age of reason. That’s a big distinction you and others miss. Don’t rely on urban legend for your information. Rather, check it out the fact.
whawell, I believe you are actually right this time. Not often, but once in a while, I agree with you. I think jersey730 is repeating an urban legend.
I think we’re also off on a tangent, and not discussing what the letter-writer said.
I don’t know which letter writer you are referring to. I presume you meant Rondo Loncto or Carolyn Dubay. In any event I was not responding to either one. Poster Jersey’s comment was so far off the beaten path, I felt compelled to respond to that poster’s comment instead.
In closing for the evening, be assured I appreciate your comment.
jersey730, I often agree with you. This time I believe you are mistaken.
Many religions regard puberty as a time when a child reaches “the age of reason,” when they become morally responsible for their actions. In Judaism the Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah ceremonies are observed at this age after the child studies Hebrew and the Torah. When I was a child I took confirmation classes and joined the Methodist Church when I was 12. In the eyes of the church I was at least semi-officially an “adult.”
I looked in The Catholic Encyclopedia on-line, and it says “the age of reason” can be as young as seven, but it is generally regarded to begin at puberty. “At this age Christians come under the operation of ecclesiastical laws,” the article says. In this one case I think whawell is correct, that you are confusing the age of consent with the age of reason. Sorry.
whawell, I agree with you that child abuse, and the abuse of the pastoral office, is not limited to the Catholic Church — other churches have also had this problem (although some have dealt with it better than the Catholic Church did) and it is also a problem outside of the churches.
However, mero818 was trying to make the point, I believe, that we are not better off simply because we invoke the name of God. Saying “My God is awesome” as Rhonda Locanto did doesn’t actually solve our problems.
Locanto also is on shaky ground claiming that “Our founding fathers created our Constitution based on God’s moral teaching.” If so, why did they leave all mention of God out of the Constitution? The only mention of religion in the body of the Constitution is the statement that there shall be “no religious test” for holding office under the Constitution.
It is not people of faith who did something about the abuse in religious organizations. In fact it took years of individuals’ efforts to publicize the abuse. The same can now be seen in regard to the abuse in the Boy Scouts organization. Until enough people spoke up and brought it to the attention of the media, nothing was voluntarily done by any church, except to hide it.
It is interesting that you should single out the Boy Scouts (of America), an organization that rejects gays who flaunt their homosexual life styles. To their credit the Boy Scouts kept a national list of adults who should not be enrolled as Scout leaders to protect their boys from abuse. It has worked quite well for them. Compared to other similar organizations it kept abuse and the potential for abuse at a lower rate. It was effective. Now homosexual groups are attacking the organization on the grounds they kept a list of potential abusers. The real issue here is the Scouts’ rejection of homosexuality, not potential child abusers. That is what is going on here. That is why this Christian organization is being singled out.
It’s no news to me or anyone who posts on a regular basis in this venue that likewise I am being singled out for my position against gay marriage. Many posters, mostly known homosexuals by their own admission, choose to attack my character instead of the issue at hand. In other words, they make nasty personal attacks on me. As I state now and then, their tendency to attack my person-hood is more of a reflection of who they are as human beings than who I am as a person of faith who means no harm.
To address your point, yes, indeed it is people of faith who did something about abuse within their own ranks or organization. It is people like myself, once wrongdoing was pointed out, who demanded accountability from their own bishops and who demanded that something be done to stamp out all child abuse. The good news is that the Church has responded, something the liberal media is loathe to point out. Now one cannot even do any volunteer work within its confines where children might be involved or located without going through a vetting process and educational one as well, all designed to prevent abuse and the appearance of abuse. Guess what? It’s working very well even though it is not 100% effective. The number of allegations of recent abuse has gone done to almost zilch. It’s time people like you wake up to this notion and stop exploiting others’ good names and well-meaning organizations for the purpose of advancing your political agenda and personal interests.
If you are indeed serious about eradicating child abuse look no further than your public school systems, professional groups like the APA, and yes, some homosexual groups that advocate outright child sexual abuse. But no, you refuse to go there, at least not with the same fervor.
You mention gays who “flaunt their lifestyles,” by which I believe you mean that they are honest about who they are and do not hide in the closet, pretending to be something they are not.
I flaunt my heterosexual lifestyle regularly. I wear a wedding ring and am often seen in the company of my wife. Some of our friends are aware that we share a bedroom. We sometimes hold hands in public, and even occasionally give one another a public peck on the lips.
Shame on us for “flaunting” our heterosexual life style!
Exactly and shame on the Boy Scouts for their bigoted, discriminating stance. Many have taken their sons out of such an organization. The Girl Scouts are inclusive. Bravo to them.
Boy Scouts believe people who can be identified as homosexuals are not good role models of behavior that is considered sinful. That is why they are not permitted to be Scout leaders. Likewise, the Church does not permit anyone who does not believe in the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist to receive it. You can argue all you want about the real presence but you can’t argue the fact that by openly inviting everyone who does not believe in the real presence to receive sends the message that it is not indeed the real presence. So, therefore, how can the Boy Scout organization permit gays to be Scout leaders when doing so sends the message that it is okay to engage in homosexuality? For your information, it’s not just gays who are not permitted enroll as Scout leaders. The policy applies to a wider class of people who do not hold the same moral values as the Scout do.
“Boy Scouts believe people who can be identified as homosexuals are not good role models of behavior that is considered sinful”
Why, just because they decide it? Please inform us with misinformation. When are you going to tire, I expect never, because this attention must be nice. I will not tire either. You are comments are my new foxnews source.
“You should the historical process of what you are speaking.Boy Scout organization permit gays to be Scout leaders when doing so sends the message that it is okay to engage in homosexuality?”
The boy scouts do not deny any member of any faith, nor is Christianity the only religion that is representative of the members. You related the boy scouts to Christianity, when all that is required is that you believe in a higher power. uhh, your ignorance is stale.
Actually, the Boy Scouts do discriminate against atheists, agnostics, Buddhists (who are non-theistic) and sometimes Unitarians (who do not require doctrinal agreement with the concept of God).
My son was going to join a troupe, the requirement for belief, was a higher power. If this is not cannon it does not change my argument much.
Yes, Joseph, some troops are more flexible on this than others. I had the national leadership in mind when I posted above.
The Boy Scouts have a clear code of conduct all must be willing to adhere to regardless of their faith origin. You might disagree with some aspects of their code, but you are not free to dictate who the organization can and cannot permit as members. This code is not something new. It has been around for many decades, probably dating back to the origin of the organization itself. There is no misinformation here in this comment or in my prior comment as you implied.
Actually, you’re wrong. We can dictate who an organization permits as members. For example, we wouldn’t allow them to ban black members.
Tradition isn’t a defense either. Women couldn’t vote for a long time, dating back to the origin of the nation — would that have been a good excuse to continue to deny them the right to vote?
Your rebuttal is excellent. She is so wrong. (about so much…)
I don’t think that we should dictate who they can or will not accept as members. However, we can make it clear to the rest of the country how discriminatory, backward, and ignorant some of their policies are. We also should not allow taxpayer money to benefit such organizations that willfully discriminate as they do.
whawell, you write, “… how can the Boy Scout organization permit gays to be Scout leaders when doing so sends the message that it is okay to engage in homosexuality?”
It is okay to be born gay or lesbian, just as it is okay to be born left-handed. It is natural. There is nothing wrong with being the people God created us to be.
My wife is left-handed, and coincidentally so was my first wife. My first wife was hit with a ruler by her teacher in first grade every time she tried to write with her left hand. The teacher was convinced that it was unnatural. The teacher was wrong, just as you are wrong today.
Penzance, whether you believe one is born gay or not is not the question, even though I happen to believe no one is born gay. The question is whether the Boy Scouts, a private organization, have a moral right to deny admission to anyone who does not uphold their moral code. My answer to that question is this: absolutely yes. Any one organization should not have to admit anyone within in its ranks it deems likely harmful to the organization or its membership. Otherwise, what the sense in doing away with a moral code or a set of beliefs for which the organization exists? To put it in simpler terms, If I set up an organization to promote a certain cause, it would be foolish to admit people who have no desire to promote the cause and who may even impede it as well. A divided house cannot stand.
Some time ago, I started an organization unrelated to the Scouts. When I did so, I looked for like-minded people, certainly not people whom I knew would oppose the cause I set out to accomplish. But what I see going on with the Boy Scout of America is an effort by outsiders to force it to accept homosexuality. Boy Scouts are being denied public access in cities across the country like San Francisco simply because they refuse to give up part of their code of moral beliefs that does not harm anyone. The Boy Scouts have been in existence for many decades and have done much good. I can’t see why it should be forced to change for ideological and political reasons when no demonstrable harm is being done through its policy.
What do you mean “denied public access”? If you mean that they aren’t given free use of public facilities because city laws require such organizations to be non-discriminating, then I think that’s fine.
As for how long it’s been in existence, I am not sure that that’s a valid point. There are other organizations in this country that have been around a very long time but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing for the rest of the country. Yes, the Boy Scouts of America is a great institution that does real good for boys and young men. It seems that all the issues I have with children would be corrected by having those children be taught those good basic social skills and respect that the Scouts are known for. It is unfortunate, though, that this backward policy has hurt many boys and men and their families-there is a demonstrable harm that is being done. That being said, as a private organization, I think the Boy Scouts should be able to do whatever the heck they want. But I don’t think taxpayer funds should help support it in any way and I think we are free to criticize it for it’s ignorant policy.
“The real issue here is the Scouts rejection of homosexuality, not potential child abusers. That is what is going on here. That is why this Christian organization is being singled out.”
–People who are discriminated against, usually will talk about the discriminating group. Why do you think this is a conspiracy theory? Why are you relating sexual abuse when no evidence has been found, please do not say you have evidence, because you don’t. Personal feelings do not count. If you do have evidence, show it, don’t say it. Thank you.
“Many posters, mostly [known] homosexuals by their own admission, choose to attack my character instead of the issue at hand.”
–You infuse your character into your statements. The argument and yourself become indistinguishable.
“In other words, they make nasty personal attacks on me.”
–Funny — in a dark comedy. Your political beliefs do the same to them. You play victim while dousing them in acid.
“As I state now and then, their tendency to attack my person-hood is more of a reflection of who they are as human beings than who I am as a person of faith who means no harm.”
–Homosexuals are murdered, beaten, hung, fired from their jobs, oppressed, denied marriage in most states, how does this not mean harm? Because you do not do it? Yet preach about cruelty and mistreatment towards them and expect them to shake your hand for it? No instead, you blame them for their anger. How short sighted.
“It’s time people like you wake up to this notion and stop exploiting others’ good names and well-meaning organizations for the purpose of advancing your political agenda and personal interests.”
— What? You are doing what you are telling them not to do. You are not a dictator are you?
“If you are indeed serious about eradicating child abuse look no further than your public school systems, professional groups like the APA, and yes, some homosexual groups that advocate outright child sexual abuse. But no, you refuse to go there, at least not with the same fervor.”
You are lying. That, or, ignorance is so damning for your debate. I am a psychology student and the information that is available says exactly the opposite, this I know for a FACT. Why do you do what you are doing, when everything you say is a lie? I pitied you for a moment, you elicited my sympathies. That will not happen again.
I am straight, white, and educated. You are not educated, if you are, you have ruined all that you have learned. You have made this personal all on your own. The statements are manipulative and are made to be cruel and without heart, only malice exists in your chest and for that, I hope you find the grace you falsely preach about.
You encapsulated it, again. That poster seems a bit narcissistic. Everything revolves around her and her agenda to exclude. Does it make her feel better about herself? Superior? Maybe she thinks so, but if so, it is not working. It just shows her to be small minded, bitter -sounding, sour. When one reads her posts, it has the effect of making one think how fortunate one is not to live in such a small and gloomy world.
She seems to be her own worst enemy. And for someone like her who seems to take great pleasure in, and is adament about, trying to deny other human beings rights and fairness….to on the other hand cry victim when others (gay or otherwise) point out her how hypocritical and cruel she shows herself to be ,is almost astounding.
I wrote a message about her below one of our [you and me] communications, but then deleted, feeling pity. I now know I should have let it stay, because it was an accurate wall of text.
They kept a list, but how many on that list did the organization report to the police? That is the issue. They may not have moved the offenders from town to town, as the Catholic Church did, but not reporting the offenders is not much of an improvement.
The reason the Boy Scout organization is being attacked for their stance against gays is that they claim to prepare youth to meet the world, but exclude a segment of the population. There is no hypocrisy on the part of those opposed to that policy. There is a bit on the part of the BS because, while they oppose gays, they did little to protect the children. It is splitting hairs to say they were better than the Catholic Church.
You are the one with the agenda, not penanze and those like him.
Carolyn- I’ve read the Bible and it says love thy neighbor- how ’bout that?
The golden rule is one thing that got hammered home in my days of Sunday School. It’s still the single most important Christian lesson in my opinion. Though I am today an agnostic, I still champion this rule. Amazingly I find that a great deal of Christians have forgotten the golden rule.
So true.
Amen!
“If same-sex couples want to get married, fine, just don’t flaunt it in public. Let our children grow up believing what the Bible says about the subject. ”
Hypocrisy. Plain and simple. If you want to believe in the Bible, fine, just don’t flaunt it in public.
Try holding yourself to the same standard you hold others to. It’s funny how those screaming that they’re so Godly actually refuse to judge their own behavior in the manner that they judge the behavior of others. Funny or hypocritical…
Carolyn Dubay & Rhonda Loncto
I have read your bible. I find it to be the most redundant, ambiguous and contradictory book I have ever read.
The Tao te Ching was written a century before Jesus walked on earth. The first quatrain explains your delusion–
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
–Lao Tzu-
kcjonez, thanks for that great quote. I am a reader of both the Dao de Jing and the Bible, and find great wisdom in them both.
Of course, many Christians misunderstand the basics about the Bible. It is the foundational classic of Judaism (the Hebrew Bible) and Christianity (the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament plus the New Testament). It was written in at least two different ancient languages, by many different human authors, in various locations, over many hundreds of years. The books are written in many different styles (psalms, proverbs, poetry, philosophy, epistles, history, mythology, parables, visions, testimonies of faith, etc.) and were selected and collected by many other humans.
In other words, the Bible was written by humans, in human languages, and for humans. It requires our use of reason just as we would use reason with any other book (especially because of the many different genres of writing within the books of the Bible).
Because there are many different authors, they sometimes disagree with one another. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a great deal of wisdom to be found in the Bible.
The Bible, like the Dao de Jing, is a great religious classic. It would be foolish to dismiss it.
I concur. The Essenes are as devout to a religion as people can be and they are constantly studying, translating and interpreting the Bible. Their supposition that many chapters of the Bible are meant to be in the present tense as opposed to the past tense is good food for thought and stands most current biblical dogma on it’s ear.
“Without beginning law(God) creates thought(heaven) and life(earth)…….
Carolyn Dubay, you misconstrue the Bible’s message to stand against treating gays and lesbians fairly and equitably.
God condemns rape and victimization, not love.
Even if your Biblical beliefs are heartfelt, they should not be used as a basis for our government. You implore us to “let our children grow up believing what the Bible says,” why do you want to dictate what Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist children believe?
Rhonda Loncto, you are fundamentally mistaken in your beliefs here. The Ten Commandments is surely not banned, you are free to post them in your yard as long as you obey signage size regulations.
If you think your God is awesome, why do you think He is powerless? I was taught that God is everywhere. It’s impossible for our laws to ban Him from our classrooms!
As for our founding fathers— there is nothing in our laws that is explicitly Christian. Of the 10 Commandments you falsely claim are banned, only two are actual crimes in the United States (murder and theft)… and those two are crimes in every civilization, both modern and ancient, that we have found!
Marriage is not owned by Christians. Nothing is owned by a religion, besides property and some of the practices that are performed within that religion, even then, copyright infringement does not exist for said practice. Imagery from Pagan faiths, any faith that is not Christian, were adopted by Christianity. Images of Satan are very similar to Gods of fertility and bountiful harvests, goats, hooves and mighty upper bodies were adopted with red paint and scary teeth. Even Christmas borrows heavily from a patchwork of faiths.
I do not understand why Christians feel so abused in a place that can practice their faith — tax free. I hear often that any who review Christianity are godless and therefore without validation or merit of any kind.
Yes, our nation was founded by Christian men, who were slave owners and raped black women. Yes we were men of cloth who decimated entire population to have our land. We employed rules and laws to limit any who practiced minority faiths – even though we came here to practice our faith freely, in turn we acted like the king we were running from.
Our history is not cut and dry, our faith is multicultural, and if you doubt this. English is not just English. Central Maine versus Down East Maine, both speak English, but very differently. Faith, religion, beliefs are no different. It is not one water well that created a crop, it is many riverbeds all going in different directions that create a strong harvest. A people adopt a way to define their world, and if others adopt it, there tends to be variance.
We say to one another so often, “I do not like that direction, therefore, we fill in the river” before we know it, we are alone, unhappy, and full judgment that deprives us of our pursuit of happiness. The harvest does not grow. We shoot ourselves in the foot, then stand proud, that, we are morally righteous people.
I am not pagan, I am not a heathen, and I am not godless. I care about my country and the people within it.
We should all ask ourselves “Do I want my faith overshadowing all other faiths? Do I want to live in the past with my founding fathers? Do I want to deprive people of basic rights because what they do offends me? Should my faith govern all people? Am I afraid of my ideas being tested by those who oppose them?
These questions are personal and only ourselves hold us accountable to our answers. Now apply these questions to anyone, what if the majority of our faith was not Christian even though founded as Christian, would you like it, if their faith could overshadow your own?
My wall of text has now concluded. Faith is beautiful, do not deflower it.
Excellent, eloquent essay. Thank you.
Thank You Gopher. *Big Grin* Thanks everyone :D
Please define precisely who you mean by “we”. You make the reference to “we” throughout your comment. I doubt you are part of those people who raped black women and had slave labor. My point here is that before you post a comment, be more specific so that the reader can appreciate or consider your comment more fully.
You seem to have ignored the entire essay while fixating on a pointless issue.
I criticized his comment because there is a lot of room in it for misinterpretation. This is not a fixation. He was making loose general accusations that can’t be defended.
Instead of saying misinterpretation, try saying “…a lot of room for interpretation.” This is not unlike what people say about the bible. What did I accuse people of?
Why do you need to be defended, was I attacking you?
Here again, Joseph, I was simply asking who you were referring to when you used the pronoun “we”. I was not attacking you, I was merely asking for clarification.
“We” are the champions, my friend.
….and we’ll keep on fighting till the end…..
Most of us had no trouble following something that clear and well-written. It also came across as genuine, thoughtful and not “canned”, unlike some other comments.
Whawell asked, “who is we?”
We the people of our nation.
Joseph, I’m sorry I didn’t phrase my question any better. My question was about who you meant by the pronoun “we”. For instance, when you stated “Yes we were men of cloth who decimated entire population to have our land”, who were you specifically referring to? Although there may have been some men of cloth who decimated certain people like the Native Indians, I am not aware of any who have. I doubt very much there were, if any, MANY men of cloth who killed just to acquire Native Indian land. I could present other examples, but I think this one should suffice to make my point that your comment needed clarification.
have you never heard of the manifest destiny? It was the whole notion that God wanted the white man to have all the land of the west
I think you’re splitting hairs here, whawell.
Rhonda Loncto,
The worst school massacre in our nation’s history took place in 1929… a time when your “god” was still in the classroom being forced onto all children. What good did it do when a mad man blew the school up?
Where was your god making a difference when Jim Jones’ followers killed themselves and their children?
Your god does not stop mass murders… he does, however, often cause them.
Carolyn Dubay,
Your bible is not civil law. It matters not one tiny iota.
Marriage is civil law, and is now rightly open to all citizens. Telling children otherwise is simply lying to them… isn’t lying a “sin” in your bible?
Why do you, and so many shallow minded people like you, have such a problem with commitment?
Rhonda, I pray in school everyday, as the BIble tells me, in private. One man wanted all schools to be secular. He beleived only religious people should teach. Hitler.
What about the Amish school shooting? They pray in school. What about the 6 million Jews murdered in prayer. What about the priests killed in WWII while they prayed. What about the shooting in churches? Stop pushing your nonsense and start looking at the problem. The problem is people like you who try to segregate a democracy with theology. This is AMERICA. I am free to worship who I choose.
Gay marriage and the BIble. Then perhaps we should stop flaunting female lay leaders. It is against the BIble for them to speak in church. What about divorces, they shouldn’t be printed because it is against the teachings of Christ. Stop singling out one group to make yourself feel superior. I dont like to hear about murder, or rape, or war…all against the BIble. If you dont like to read anything that is against the BIble that go hide in a hole somewhere but stop being mean to one group because of your own ick factor. Thou shalt not judge.
Yes, Jersey. As I’ve pointed out more than once on these pages, what most people think they know about the Bible (and what it says or doesn’t say about homosexuality, abortion, etc.) is often wrong.
Pollsters ask Americans “Do you follow the Ten Commandments?” and a good-sized majority say “Yes.” Then the pollster asks, “Can you name them?” and most people can only name two or three.
D. Towmbley, J. Shapleigh: good letters.
R. Loncto: the Ten Commandments are not the law of the land. Possibly four of them are on the books in several forms. Therefore, they do not need to be on display in or at courthouses. The 2nd greatest commandment should indeed be honored but so often isn’t including by those among the Christian right.
C. Dubay; many of us have read the Bible–several versions–and as stated before have found your interpretation to be wanting. You may teach children what you wish but be aware they will be faced with the reality of the issues. “Flaunting”? That’s in the eye of the beholder and why shouldn’t legally married couples be out in public? Do you want them to stay in the “closet”? How Christian of you.
Oh, good! I see our friendly local christians didn’t use up all their energy decrying the destruction of their Christmas but have enough to start another jolly year of whining invective against the 21st century. I believe if my hobby made me as unhappy as they seem to be I’d be looking for a different hobby.
Ms. Loncto, I think if you substitute the word Allah for every instance of the word God in your letter, then you might begin to see where the problem lies. We are not a Godless nation, we are a secular nation.
Wasn’t that something about “Cole”…….yikes…….
i like how someone gave your comment a thumbs down even though they couldn’t possibly know what you’re referring to. Must have been whawell.
Too funny and too predictable.
Now, wait and there will be another one or two.
Mrs Shapleigh Gun ownership is a right and not a privilege,the things you folks need to remember is today you might be for taking away my rights to own a weapon[2nd amendment] tomorrow it might be your right to free speech[1st amendment] that somebody else wants to strip from you.Its a slippery slope.
Gun related violence was higher during the last ban and school shootings like for instance Columbine still took place,Weapons bans do not work they only give you a false sense of security and strip others of there rights as set forth by our founders .
“Gun related violence was higher” – care to share your source on that? Equating a ban, however ineffective it may or may not be, with “stripping you of your rights” is a blatant exaggeration, and you know it.
I was still hoping for a reply in our last thread, though I suppose that’s not forthcoming. ;)
Since the thread was closed, I’ve used Disqus to find a place to reply.
As to your claim that the argument that a gun ban strips citizens of their rights is blatant exaggeration, let me ask: What part of “shall not be infringed” do you find confusing?
— My response to your other comment follows below. —
Thanks, I try.
Does Sancho know you’re out tilting at windmills again? Authoritarianism became a part of this problem long ago. It happened when people, citizens, voted to allow the government to run the schools that communities had developed to educate their children. I live in Indiana where there is a strong movement toward alternatives to government run schools. That’s fine with me. I do not think any parent should be forced to send their child to a government run school. But that’s not really the issue at hand.
The question here is whether armed guards do more harm than good. President Obama sends his daughters to a private school that employs eleven armed guards, not including his daughters’ secret service detail. David Gregory, the TV talking head who sat in Washington DC and waved a high capacity magazine around to prove a point, also sends his kids to that school. They don’t seem to think armed guards do more harm than good when their children are involved. In fact they go out of their way to send their children to such a school. Of course those men are both pretty authoritarian in their philosophies. Both men also seem to think that laws designed for the common man do not apply to them. I’m inclined to think such men are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I am not in favor of armed guards, in the form of assigned police officers. Such an assigned officer did not prevent the Columbine tragedy. In fact, that particular deputy never entered the school to render aid until after the perps had killed themselves. That’s certainly not of much help to the children.
You speak to me of fears and a chicken little solution. What fear I have comes in the form of concern that well intentioned fools will ignore the Constitution and further infringe the people’s right to keep and bear arms. They’ve done it before, there’s no reason to think they will not do it again. In fact Diane Feinstein has already proposed a bill that would recreate the Clinton era ban and extend it quite a bit. President Obama has already spoken of his desire to accomplish exactly what’s in Feinstein’s proposed bill. I spend time on the Internet arguing against such action. It didn’t accomplish anything the first time. Why in the world would I assume it would accomplish anything of value if done over.
I argue that the teachers at Sandy Hook failed to fulfill their obligation to defend the children. Politicians prevented them from doing their jobs. The fault lies with the lunatic who pulled the trigger and the politicians who offered him a target rich environment.
I do not believe sitting idly by while the media creates another monster is a very good idea. I do not believe the government’s probable knee jerk reaction as presented by Senator Feinstein will be a good idea. The only idea I’ve found that makes any sense is to allow the teachers on the scene to be trained and armed. Do you honestly think that if offered the choice of a bullet between the eyes or a gun in their hand any of the adults who were killed in any of these tragedies would choose the bullet? I know I’d rather go down fighting than whimpering. You?
Citizens in a free society have an obligation to defend themselves and those around them. That’s part of what makes us free. Several States are taking action to train and arm teachers for the defense of the children in their charge. Those States are not just allowing but helping the teachers fulfill their obligation. Such a movement is building here in Indiana. I support that movement. Care to offer your solution?
By the way, I prefer colored pencils. One can draw a more complex image with much finer lines.
The interpretation that the 2nd amendment means that any and all weapons should be un-regulated and sold to anyone without question is a very liberal interpretation – an opinion. It is not a fact.
Should guns be sold in vending machines, for anyone, including children, to buy? Unless you agree, you apparently are ok with “infringing” on rights. Right? Please stop perpetuating the myth that the 2nd amendment is akin to a weapon free for all.
Reasonable regulations won’t prevent law abiding citizens from owning perfectly suitable weapons. Another assault ban, as ineffective as the first one was, will not deprive anyone from the right of owning a pistol(s), shotgun(s) or hunting rifle(s).
I’ll reply to the other point in a bit…
Article 2 of the Amendments to the Constitution: 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.
Indiana constitution Article 1 Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
Indiana constitution, Article 12 Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years
Well regulated meant trained and capable, not controlled by federal fiat. I am one of the people as referenced throughout the Constitution. In that I am over the age of seventeen I am a member of the Indiana Militia. The Kentucky Long Rifle of the Revolution was the most advanced weapon on the planet at the time.
The Supreme Court originally found that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated precisely because it was not a military weapon and they stated that the Second Amendment only guaranteed the people military weapons. They were, of course wrong, since sawed off shotguns have been used as military weapons. Their error was the result of their own ignorance. Nobody was present to argue the other side of the case, and the government attorney lied. None the less they found that the people were guaranteed military weapons.
Please stop misrepresenting the Second Amendment. Even the Federalist Papers affirm the traditional definitions used. Your “Reasonable regulations” are still infringement.
Additionally, the AR-15 is not suitable as a military weapon. It’s really a small caliber varmint rifle that looks scary. “Assault Weapon” is a misnomer attached to the weapon by the anti-gun kooks so they could scare the ignorant into accepting a ban.
If, as you acknowledge, the so called “Assault Weapon Ban” was ineffective, and it was, why bother? Oh, and you told me you didn’t want a gun ban. What happened? Were you misrepresenting your point of view?
“Arms” is very generic and can be interpreted in many ways. Is it any hand held weapon? What’s your interpretation? Full autos such as the military standard M16 (not AR15’s)? RPGs? Grenade launchers?
Infringement and “stripping one of their rights” are quite different, aren’t they? Do you believe in any so-called infringements yourself? Mental status, felon status, age – should any of these be factored?
I’m not pushing a new assault weapons ban. Just trying to squash hyperbolic exaggerations. Pancho here is very moderate on gun rights. The extremists on the left and right of this issue irk me, that I’ll admit. The recent publishing of legal gun owners in NY disgusted me for instance.
My past conversation with bm regarded why his first gun purchase in his life would be something that fell under the past assault ban and not a (perfectly good for defense) pistol or shotgun. I am trying to understand peoples motivations, not question their rights.
I fear the solutions that both the far left and far right are bringing to the table. I think the fanatics in this country who represent minorities, have the loudest voices and it should not be that way.
Despite the media reaction and the horrendous nature of the recent shooting, schools are (statistically speaking) still incredibly safe places to be for children. I feel the slim chance of reward in putting guns in teachers hands in public schools across the country, is outweighed by the risk.
Giving in to fear and putting guns in everyones hands (or the opposite – taking them all away) both would represent a country I don’t want to live in.
The truth of the matter is, if someone wants to kill a bunch of people badly enough, and has no regard for their own life, they are going to find a way to do it in any environment.
Comments closed before I had a chance to respond to the notorious ar-15 comment,not being rude just busy.First I did not say I was going to purchase an ar-15 but being former military and having only trained with and become proficient in military weapons like the ar or the 1911 they would be the most logical choice.Yes a rifle, revolver or shot gun would do the same just as a bicycle would get me where I am going but I do prefer my truck.
As far as the supposed blatant exaggeration goes it was in reference to Mrs Shaplieghs call to make gun ownership a privilege like driving or registering a car and not a right like what is set forth in the 2nd amendment her words not mine and that implies stripping another rights.
I didn’t think you rude. This comment format (vs an open forum) can be difficult to have more in-depth conversation obviously.
Preferences are peoples own to be sure. Though your long term preference was to be unarmed, correct?
I don’t think she said that it shouldn’t be a right – simply that all weapons be should be registered. Not quite the same.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/24/history-gives-mixed-grade-to-impact-assault-weapons-ban/
Data published earlier this year showed that while the ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period.
Ok, mass shootings – that I can buy (though it also notes)
After the ban expired, the average number of mass shootings every year continued to tick up slightly.
Still, that’s not quite all gun related violence – in general violent crime is trending down, while mass shootings are trending up, ban or not. Which supports the idea (at least in my mind) that while well intentioned, the ban was rather inconsequential and would be again if implemented.
Donna Twombly other than the personnel attack on our Governor I’m with you a 100%.
Ms. Loncto, you make some very good points. However, it is not the job of the government to teach about God and religion. It’s not the job of the state to display the commandments. Why, you’ve done a very good job right now displaying them. I’d much rather learn about God from my friends and neighbors than from the government.
Ms. Dubay-while *I* have not read the Bible, I do know many people who are clergy and who have read it and studied it. They tell me that there is nothing in the Bible about same-sex marriage. As for flaunting it-what IS flaunting it? Shopping together? Drinking from the same soda? Holding hands? Nuzzling each other? A quick peck on the cheek? Hugging? I see all that from straight couples and I can’t see why I can’t do that with my boyfriend. You are free to teach your child as you see fit, but don’t expect everyone else to do as you do.
Carolyn Dubay It’s your job to instill in your child whats right or wrong not societies if you feel same sex relations are wrong then that is what you should instill in your child ,do not expect those engaged in behavior you do not approve of to lead your child down your path.
Mr. Ritter-I don’t think I’ve noticed this swing you describe. But something I have noticed is people everywhere saying “I mean.” During interviews or press conferences or whatever, people always say it and that is pretty distracting too! I’ll be on the lookout for the swing!
Cutting the Maine State Legislature using the California ratio of representatives to population would be a good idea. The State of Maine has approximately 1,328,188 residents. The State of California’s Assembly representation for an Assembly seat is approximately 465,000 per Assembly district and 846,791 per Senate seat. Using the same ratio of Assembly seats to population we would have approximately 3 State Assembly seats and 1 and a fraction Senate seats. This would radically simplify state government. You could probably get rid of the governor. Go for it!!!!!!
If I recall correctly, terrorists flew airplanes into the world trade center in the name of god. The last thing we need is more religious superstition in this country. Can we please join the rest of the civilized world and move past this silliness?
“The governor should start by cutting the size of the Maine Legislature by at least two-thirds. California, the most populous state, has a smaller Legislature than we do.”
Miss Twombly, although Gov. LePage thinks he is the king of Maine and can do whatever he wants, when he wants, he cannot do anything about the size of the Legislatue. The people have the final say on whether the Legislature can be trimmed.
Miss Loncto, you are mistaken. God has not been banned from the classroom. Students are free to talk about God amongst themselves, read the Bible during study hall, discuss the Bible and God at lunch, and even learn about the Bible in a class.
The line is drawn, appropriately so, when the government decides to promote God or any religion in the classroom. Our founding fathers understood the importance of keeping government out of religion and of keeping religion out of government.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t need a 2,000-year-old text to tell me what’s right and wrong, especially when it comes to murder and stealing, among other crimes. After all, this text is the same one that states a rape victim must marry her attacker and accepts slavery.
Ms. Dubay: here’s the problem, you write, “…Let our children grow up believing what the Bible says…”
Well, you can let your children grow up believing in whatever you choose: Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, a magic carpenter in the sky, or all three. I might think they are unprepared for the real world, but that’s your right, with your children. But exercising one’s rights under the law (marrying who you choose) is not “…flaunt(ing) it in public…”
Public is public: communal, accessible to all, available, free, unrestricted, community.
If you don’t want to see the sun rise in the east because your book might say otherwise, well–don’t get out of bed until well past dawn, and you won’t see that “flaunting.”
Sorry if it disturbs your world view. Try sunglasses or even eyeshades.
“Somehow we need to find and register the assault weapons already in circulation and restrict them to military and police work.”
Miss Shapleigh, unfortunately, the news media have misinformed you on what an assault rifle is. An assault rifle is a rifle that can be shot automatically, semiautomatically, or in bursts of automatic fire. What the news media are calling assault rifles are nothing more than semiautomatics. The only difference between them and traditional hunting rifles is appearance, not performance.
However, no one needs a semiautomatic weapon to hunt, unless they are a very very bad shot.
Now, maybe you’re going to tell me hunting is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and then I’ll reply and say that I know that already.
Ms. Loncto: I’m sure you believe that *your* god is awesome, and trust Him if you wish. But He–like all gods–has no place in my children’s classroom, except possibly in a lesson about various cultures.
Why is it that the sanctimonious among us feel such an all consuming need to constantly admonish, as the letters above do, those whom they have designated as unchristian? Who appointed them judge, jury and executioner for the world. And why does the BDN keep giving them a venue to vent their petty antagonism toward all who fail to believe their narrow interpretation of morality?
Freedom of speech. It created 222 comments, probably 20 are mine. :)
I like how well you wrote that.
Carol Dubay, I don’t want my children/grandchildren seeing people who worship God in public.
That makes as much sense as what you are saying.
Rhonda Loncto:
Establishing your religion in public taxpayer-funded schools is what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent.
Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Native Americans et al., have their own “awesome gods” and don’t want your god forced on them.
Neither do atheists.
Keep it in your tax exempt church.
Yessah