New Bible needed
Sean Faircloth’s call for the realization of separation of church and state (BDN, March 16) may be seminal for leading the religious right out of its rut in stone age law and early evolution.
Maybe society needs the religious right around as a relic of our origin of thought, just as the Museum of Natural History in New York offers us a fascinating glimpse of our physical origins. But “the right” has no social or spiritual right to stagnate progressive mentality and physicality with its ancient animal-control doctrines and laws.
Adaptability is the key to societal survival. We need a new Bible, not just the 36 new versions now competing for future leadership of the psychic species.
Val Vadis
Westfield
Brewer residence requirement
I just read a story in the BDN about the Brewer City Council proposing to require that future school superintendents be residents of Brewer.
There is no mention of Councilor Larry Doughty’s reasoning behind his proposal, but all I can say is that I think it is ridiculous to limit Brewer’s choices for a potential leader of our children’s educators, just to force some show of loyalty, or make a few extra tax dollars, in exchange for our children’s quality of education.
I hope the people of Brewer will vote this down by a landslide.
Steve Campbell
Brewer
Close the loopholes
Businesses should compete on the quality of their products, not on the cleverness of their tax attorneys. Yet General Electric, Wells Fargo and some of America’s largest corporations have been able to so deftly exploit loopholes in the tax code that they paid no federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, a recent study found.
Small businesses can’t afford to hire the armies of well-paid tax lawyers needed to use these gimmicks and are left to shoulder the tax burden skirted by big companies. One of the most egregious corporate tax dodging schemes is when large corporations shift the profits they legitimately make in this country to shell companies in places such as the Cayman Islands, where they don’t have to pay taxes.
A recent study by US PIRG and Citizens for Tax Justice found that Wells Fargo has nearly 60 subsidiaries in tax haven countries such as the Cayman Islands.
As a small-business owner, I have to pay taxes, so Wells Fargo and GE should do the same. Sens. Snowe and Collins should stand up to these companies by supporting the Cut Loopholes Act which would end the worst of these offshore tax dodging schemes.
Michelle Souliere
Portland
No role model here
As the Legislature winds down its session it is drawing closer to passing LD 1422, which pretends to fix Maine’s educational system.
As a parent in RSU 2, the inspiration for this misguided bill, I have seen first hand the incessant failures of this grand experiment run amok: standards-based reporting. How our former superintendent, now working for Education Commissioner Steve Bowen, can showcase RSU 2 as a success is beyond the pale. During his tenure our district floundered, causing many of our brightest to flee for better schools and our test results to fall.
As parents of RSU 2 ask questions, our administrators refuse to listen. Their blind faith even impacted our children this past week when a student was stripped of his God-given right to solicit signatures for a petition questioning the efficacy of this “reform.” Apparently, the Constitution no longer applies to our future leaders.
This latest abomination continues a pattern of arrogance toward anyone with the temerity to ask: Why are we doing this and why so fast? Instead, we should replace our administrators and oppose LD 1422; the faster, the better.
Why is our governor looking at RSU 2 as the shining city upon a hill? If he wants Maine open for business, he should be promoting excellence, not the mediocrity that standards-based education propagates.
Is this still America? In my America, George Washington couldn’t tell a lie. Unfortunately, RSU 2 continues to live a lie. I hope Maine learns the truth, before all RSUs become as “proficient” as ours.
Jeff Romano
Hallowell
More oversight of DHHS
Every day I read another outrageous proposal by Paul LePage and his administration. The latest one: 47 jobs to be lost from the Department of Health and Human Services.
This agency needs more oversight and accountability. A special investigative committee should be appointed without the interference from LePage to find out what exactly is happening to cause so many problems. This department is funded by U.S. and Maine taxpayers and we have a right to know.
In this proposal LePage wants to restructure and reorganize DHHS but will this restructuring address the budget gap or the computer error that paid 19,000 ineligible people? I question how DHHS and especially the people it serves will manage with a “leaner” organization. Does “leaner” mean fewer and fewer employees and less money for those in need?
LePage has been attacking DHHS policies since he took office. He has dismissed managers who had years of knowledge and experience about its inner workings. The loss of these employees caused many of the current problems.
It seems to me the governor, with the help of some of his legislators, and lobbyists who represent callous corporations, prefer taxpayer money be available for their own specific projects such as the east-west highway rather than programs that will aid vulnerable Maine residents.
Phyllis Coelho
Belfast
East-west questions
Why do a handful of corporations want to invest $2 billion in an east-west highway corridor through the middle of Maine that would connect Quebec and New Brunswick?
If they can swing $2 billion, why are Maine taxpayers being asked to fork over $300,000 for a feasibility study? Have these corporations done their own study to determine whether this project is feasible? How does this influx of public money into a private enterprise affect laws regarding land acquisition and eminent domain? Why is the LePage administration pushing this through as an “emergency,” according to Sen. Doug Thomas?
Are short-term jobs worth the destruction of forests, rivers, lakes and streams in Central Maine? What about access to drinking water and agriculture? Who will be responsible for the inevitable accident or spill — the U.S or Canada? Ask these questions of local and state government. Get some answers. Are we willing to sacrifice our communities and way of life to enrich corporations and politicians?
Lisa Laser
Dover-Foxcroft
Jeff Romano–Governor LePage and Commissioner Bowen do not care a fig for RSU2 or better education for our children or our rights to protest their ham handed governance. Their goal, fed to them by their handlers at ALEC & MPHC, is to privatize everything and kill any institution that could stand in the way of this selling of the American dream.
Their strategy, as it was with the insurance travesty last year, is to introduce all these measures at the latest possible time and stifle debate so they can railroad their measures through before we can fully understand the damage they will do.
We should not accept their reasoning or their bill LD1422 and we should fight them with we all we have.
You are raving. Do you never have anything else to spew but ALEC and MPHC hatred?
Why would LePage and Commissioner Bower want to kill public education? What possible benefit would it be to them?
Do you have proposals to improve educational quality? I’d love to hear them. LePage and Commissioner Bowen have offered some concrete proposals to improve Maine education. If you think they are wrong, then tell why and suggest an alternative.
Overuse of the “H” word? Plenty of the latter spewed by the “right” against organizations they detest (deosn’t that sound better?). The organizations criticized have more than earned distaste and opposition over the years.
As long as its a republican hesheother will always have a problem.
I will assume from your response that you think it is a good idea for privately funded lobby groups to dictate our governance. I think it is a terrible idea. I believe that bottom up governance will best serve the majority of the people and work towards social equity whereas top down governance serves our neo-aristocracy and the ultimate ends to this system will be a modern serfdom where the large majority is in constant debt and lives at the whim of an elite few–sort of like what we have now.
The MHPC/ALEC plan will take taxpayer funding and give it to private entities over which we, the taxpayers have no control. I personally would prefer to not give my hard earned pay to schools that intend to rewrite science and history to serve their masters narrow worldview.
The LePage plan also will take funding from lower performing schools and transfer it to higher performing schools. This will widen the education gap between our poorer areas and our wealthier ones. I would favor applying resources to where they are needed most, not to where they are needed least. The end game for these out of state corporate special interest groups is to privatize all public services–thus allowing the elite few to get their hands even deeper into the proverbial cookie jar.
Bottom line…….bad leadership, bad idea, bad bill.
What insurance choices have the Liberals and Democrats left you here in Maine after 35 years of “leadership”?
Your bottom up theory will only serve the majority of people who are and will become dependent on others. It will never benefit those who pull the wagon.
Keep propping up failures in education. Keep supporting teacher tenure.
I notice you only object to conservative privately funded lobbying groups. I could be wrong–maybe I missed the posts where you spewed forth about liberal, privately funded lobbying groups? If so, I apologize.
Americans have the right to organize and petition the government in their interests. A huge part of attempting to influence government in your favor is raising money. The people can combat the disproportionate use of money by becoming informed and voting. You should use your skills to encourage people to vote.
That’s because conservatives are lobbying for taking public funding away from public schools and giving it to private and religious schools. Democrats are not. Your interests and the interests of your Tea Party cohorts are to defund public education.
Name anything more “bottom up” than letting individuals decide where their children will go to school.
Sad to say but a great deal of research indicates that there is a correlation between education level and political affiliation. College graduates tend to vote/be more liberal whereas high school graduates tend to vote/be more conservative (google it, that’s what I did). If this is true then that certainly would explain why ALEC & MPHC would want to kill public education, the fewer people going on to higher education then the fewer people voting Democrat.
So, college graduates should have more say in government policy that those lowly high school graduates should?
The truth is that the value of a college degree is not what it used to be. More Americans are looking for an education that will get them the skills they want to make a living, without putting them so deep in debt that they can’t afford to eat.
Nobody wants to kill public education. They want to improve it. The reality is that there are disagreements over what will improve education. I would prefer that people debate reality instead of baseless conspiracy theories.
“So, college graduates should have more say in government policy that those lowly high school graduates should?”
Who said that other than you? Certainly not I and certainly nothing I read. I said higher education tends to equate to a voter being more liberal politically, thus, as you requested, giving you one potential reason for ALEC & MPHC to be against education. They don’t want people voting against their agenda which liberals tend to do. Read what I wrote, not what you want to see.
Okay, your logic is that college graduates tend to vote Democrat so ALEC and MHPC are attempting to keep people from going to college so they will be less educated and thus vote Republican?
And apparently, those people over at ALEC and MHPC are so obtuse that they don’t realize that it is pretty hard to work in a professional position such as finance, law, medicine, or technology without a more advanced degree than high school. How do they expect to get employees for their corporations if they kill off public education and attempt to keep people out of college? I’m sorry, but it just is not a logical accusation to make.
OK, debate this: Explain how taking public tax dollars out of public education and giving them to private and religious schools willt improve public education. Be specific and give examples. Cite your sources.
Okay–I’ll bite, but I don’t have time to write a research paper, not even for you.
Right now, public tax dollars go to John Bapst in Bangor, a private school (although, of course, no longer religious, because it can’t be by law). My nephews live in the outlying towns of Bangor. They have a choice of schools: Ellsworth, Bangor High, John Bapst are three of those choices. All of those choices are paid for by public dollars. One of my nephews is intending to enter John Bapst next year. His choice of that school, and the choice of others in his situation who choose John Bapst over Bangor High or another public school, is in no way causing the failure of Bangor High or any other public school.
Opponents of school choice paint a picture of a mass exodus of students from public to private schools. This just won’t happen. Believe it or not, most people are happy with how schools treat their children on a personal level, even when they decry the state of education in general in the US.(It’s a lot like how people view Congress: they love their congressperson and hate Congress as a whole. )Then there are a few, vocal, people who aren’t. These are the people who will take advantage of school choice.
The change proposed by these bills is not really revolutionary. Much of rural Maine already has school choice in some form. Expanding school choice is not going to wreck the system.
Choices are generally good — although flight from public school “A” to private school “B” has a tendency to take the cream of the crop and send them to private school “B” (which can kick students out if they are disruptive), and leave public school “A” (which cannot kick students out) with the students that were already struggling. So the public school “A” is given a double disadvantage — and we say they aren’t doing a good job.
But as you say, John Bapst High is not Catholic anymore (I don’t know of any law that required them to become secular — it was economics, I think). If it was a religious school then giving them public funds would be, in my estimation, a violation of the First Amendment — the government would be paying for sectarian religious instruction.
Using your own scenario, the best students leaving public schools and going to private schools, would result in the public school teachers having more time to spend on the remaining students.
Public education has been the greatest single thing that has provided Americans with the opportunity to improve their situation. You say that by taking money away from public schools and giving it to religious groups that is somehow going to help. That’s nonsense. The right wing would wreck our public schools, leaving us all worse off.
This nation offered plenty of opportunity before the rise of the current public education system. The opportunity stems from individual liberty, not from public education. Not that I think public education is a bad idea.
See–I have to disagree. Conservative ideas about education are not trying to wreck schools. They are sincere attempts to reform schools. Public schools are not there to serve themselves–in other words, the intent of public education is not preservation of the current system (or it shouldn’t be); the intent of public education is to provide students with the skills and information they need to succeed in life. How those students can best obtain those skills is what this debate is about.
Yes, for its time, the United States of the 1820s and 1830s offered more opportunity than other places — but our system public schools is more than 150 years old now. I don’t think we can really point to a time that anyone now alive remembers when we didn’t have our current public school system.
It is the reforms begun in 1837 by Horace Mann when he became secretary of the newly formed (and first in the nation) Board of Education of Massachusetts that truly made us the land of opportunity. We’re talking about twenty years before the U.S. Civil War. Mann believed that “common schools,” what we today call public schools, taught by professional teachers, could offer universal public education and thus offer opportunities to the children all Americans to improve their situation, become better informed citizens, and strengthen the nation. Mann’s ideas were eventuslly copied in every state. Many of his “normal schools” for training teachers became today’s public colleges and universities. I went to one, Northern Michigan University.
His dream succeeded. Before his time you had to be wealthy enough to attend a private school or have private tutors, and such a system tends to perpetuate wealth, and deny opportunities to the poor.
I agree that the intent of many conservatives is to reform public schools, not wreck them — although certainly some on the right want to wreck the public school system as a matter of principle. But whether the intent is there or not, by draining off public school funds and giving the money to religious institutions — in violation of the principles laid out in the First Ammendment — the public school system will be harmed.
So reform, yes. Public funds for religious schools and religious instruction, no.
Do you have evidence that Bangor High School is suffering because some Bangor area towns’ students attend John Bapst with their tax dollars rather than Bangor High?
I don’t see that parents choosing a religious school for their child and using tax dollars that are earmarked for their child’s education anyway for that school violates anybody’s freedom or religion, or causes a government establishment of religion.
According to statistics, the US spends more per student on education than most other nations. There is not an issue with lack of money. There is an issue with methodology and culture. The best indicator of a student’s success is parental involvement. I don’t think we have anything to fear from parents being allowed more control of their child’s education.
I have no problem if a town or city chooses to give a family some support for sending their child to a secular private school like John Baptst High. But if it was still a Catholic school I would object, because that would be a violation of the First Ammendment — the public should not pay for doctrinal religious instruction.
Yes, we spend a lot on education, but it varies from community to community, and wealthy communities spend a lot more per student than poor ones do. We need to find a way to level the playing field so that (for instance) Detroit, Michigan public schools get an amount per student similar to the nearby Grosse Point, Michigan schools.
We’ll have to agree to disagree over public money being directed by parental choice to a sectarian school. As long as the government does not refuse a parent’s choice based on the religion taught at the school, there is no establishment in my view. So, yes, that means a Muslim can choose an Islamic education.
So you think it’s okay for the government — the taxpayers — to pay for the teaching of religious doctrines? If I understand you correctly, yes, we disagree. I’m glad we can disagree respctfully.
No, I think it is okay for tax money to go to parents who chose a religious school that meets the educational requirements of the state. That may mean the school teaches from a particular religious perspective and it may mean there is a class on religion. As long as the parents make the choice freely, and the government does not discriminate against any religion, it is not the government establishing a religion, but it is the parents exercising the right to practice their faith.
That’s my opinion of it. The Supreme Court has chosen not to hear most recent cases on vouchers to religious schools. The most recent cases I have seen are backing away from a strict Lemon test–but it depends on the court’s makeup, and if they will decide to hear a challenge to public funds going to religious schools.
I definitely hear and understand your objection–it’s an issue I think the court should speak on.
Likewise, I hear and respect your opinion — and respectfully disagree.
Yes, ultimately the Supreme Court will have the final word.
John Bapst is no longer listed as a Catholic school. The state pays tuition to this school if your town has no high school. Students from districts with a high school pay tuition.
Wandi, You are sincere. Many of the people leading the ultra conservative movement are quite a bit less sincere than you are.
Maybe they are insincere–I tend to think they are sincere, but misguided in some things. Actually, what I see is that they are so convinced they are right, that they have given up thinking and listening. Just like the people on the far left.
Yes, wandini, I think they are sincere, too. But you are respectful and willing to engage in a respectful discussion, which counts for more than mere sincerity. I like what Mike Huckabee once said, “I’m a conservative; I’m just not angry about it.”
That’s why the lowest educated states are all red states. Stupid people (who tend to be followers) fall for the GOP lies, misrepresentations and extreme rhetoric and are easily fooled into voting Republican.
Mr. Buckley was pretty well-educated and pretty conservative…
there’s always an exception.
“College graduates tend to vote/be more liberal”
The result of 4 more years of progressive indoctrination.
I don’t carry pennies anymore because ALEC has talked the Republicans into tracking me with them.
I would suggest that you use the internet and find out something about both of those organizations before you start informing those of us that have read up on them what they are for or against.
I base what I know of these organizations by what posters such as yourself say about them–although I have been to MHPC’s website, and I occasionally receive e-mail from them. These groups were formed to present conservative answers to political questions. They have every right to do so.
My problem lies in that I never see kc or others who criticize MHPC and ALEC hold Sussman or liberal groups to the same standard. Why on earth is it okay for a liberal millionaire to fund his opinions and solutions for political questions, but not a conservative millionaire? MHPC and ALEC have formed because there are people who hold sincere opinions on how the country should be run. It seems more logical to argue against their actual positions then to argue against something they don’t even support.
Nobody wants to kill public education–plenty of people would like to reform it.
Who is saying it’s not right for conservative millionaires to fund their causes. It’s the cause that is in dispute not the right to support the cause.
As to reforming education. You need to read ALEC and the Heritage Foundation material more carefully. You won’t find any of them coming right out an saying “We want to destroy public education” That wouldn’t be very smart, now would it? Read what they have to say about private education, religious education, taxation and funding. You will see that they consider private education a better good than public education and that funding for public education could be better managed by private entities. Their prescription for reform would kill effective public education.
LOL–so you think your interpretive skills have ferreted out the true agenda? You sound like the flip side of those who call Obama a socialist…
The stated mantra of the privatizers is to claim that the private sector does everything better.
Curiously, they don’t feel that way about the military and they clearly feared the competition of a public option in the Affordable Care Act.
They also don’t mind having the public fund a study and grease the skids for a private east-west highway.
The real rationale of the privateers is to privatize the gain and leave the burden with the taxpayers.
Privatize the profits, socialize the cost. It’s the motto of the greedy. And those that bear the cost are too stupid to know how they are being ripped off.
Let chenard a 1% cough up some of her profits. Lets see why she declines to do what she asks of others.
Oh you have no idea, but that delves into conspiracies and such.
The mantra of the midget left perhaps. The difference is that conservatives recognize that which is best left to government and that which is best left to the private sector.
You claim that you are a member of the 1%. You have said so repeatedly here in this forum.
Therefore I suggest, in keeping with your philosophy, that you voluntarily nationalize your business. Turn control over to the government. Let’s see how well the government can run your affairs.
Conservatives’ collective judgments must be seriously questioned on any subject related to governing since they are the fools who elected the man who incompetently caused our economy to go into the toilet, George W. Bush. Why would anyone care about the opinion of a proven fool.
Substitute Barney Frank & Maxine Waters for GWB and you’re right on target ! And maybe that congressman from Florida who thinks that Guam might tip over !!
Come up with a better line of crap. Bush has been gone for a while now you know.
GWB IS the cause of our woes whether you want to admit it or not and you contributed to our woes by foolishly electing him! The GOP put our economy in the tank requiring deficit spending/stimulus…all caused by BUSH and the GOP’s poor handling of the economy, not to mention the unpaid for prescription drug plan and the two ill-advised and poorly planned wars. The way you guys think, Obama came into office with no problems and a surplus…like what Clinton handed off to Bush!!!!
So when do you get out of high school?
hurts doesn’t it…to know that your foolish votes for Bush helped cause the mess we are in. How about an apology from all you righties who helped put our economy into the toilet by electing the worst President in 70 years, GW BUSH?
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress from January 2007 to January 2011, is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 & FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 & FY 2011. (FY=fiscal year) In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.
After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, including Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
Actually, we had, for better than 200 years, recognized where the public and private sectors each excelled. We had public elementary and secondary schools, a mix of public/private universities, public roads, a public post office, public/private partnerships in the railroad industry, and a public military. Utilities and banks were seen as holding a public trust and were closely regulated.
That began to change in the 1980s. Now there is a zeal to privatize education despite the very mixed records of private charter schools, a zeal to build private roads with public assistance, a desire to outsource many military functions such that a Blackwater mercenary made tenfold what a GI made, and deregulated banks and utilities that brought us the Enron fraud and the 2008 crash.
There is a mantra: a refusal by radical rightwingers to realize that our parents and grandparents had it right.
I understood that the charter schools are PUBLIC schools.
Now using existing private (ie) traditional catholic schools to help fill in the blanks of public supported schools is an idea I used to hear from generally liberal democratic folks.
Most charter schools are private schools that are publicly funded. Some are actually public schools, but they are the exception.
Many Northern states like Maine have statutes that prohibit aid to parochial schools on the grounds of separation of church and state. Some Democrats pushed for legislation in other states that provided this funding. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the US Supreme Court struck down a Pennsylvania statute that sought to reimburse parochial schools for some of their expenses. The Court held that this violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While it is hard to generalize about ideologies, I would say that old-line Democrats supported parochial aid, but more liberal Democrats did not.
chenard, your position is the radical one. You and your kind resist any change to the school systems that conflicts with a union agenda. You know and I know that you object to private education because it takes students out from under union control. That means fewer union jobs. You don’t care if the school is under performing your agenda here is clear. Public Schools have had a bit more that a “mixed” record, many complete failures.
The State of Maine has had on the drawing board, in various forms, an East West highway for 40 years. For whatever reason our government has been unable to get the job done. Now a private company with private land and a mostly completed road steps forward to do it and suddenly we hear complaints that it should be a public highway.
Our parents had it right but they also knew the limitations of government. You seem to have decided that government is the answer to all ills. My experience tells me that sometimes the government doesn’t even know what the question is.
Nothing radical here just a realization that there is more than one way to get something done. A business person which you claim to be should know that.
That isn’t a radical concept.
What I find most interesting is you calling any number of well known Bangor liberals, extremists for supporting the East West Highway. Including people like the director of EMDC. I think you have another agenda… Obama Truther???
Strawmen arguments don’t work with me. My support for public education is irrelevant to whether they are unionized. Having worked years ago for a private school, I know their limitations. Taking money from public schools does not make them better. Charter schools, when independently analyzed, have not lived up to their supposed promise, even though they get to choose their students.
Were we not on a tax-cutting frenzy there would be money for an East-West Highway. LePlague now wants to eliminate the income tax. Sounds like Norquist and the drowning government in a bathtub theory to me.
You just pushed a bunch of hooey and expect me to buy it?
You know and I know there is no way any Maine legislature was ever going to get an East-West Highway done in Maine in the public sector. This has been “studied” for over 40 years and NOW you say its because of tax-cutting. That is a moronic statement and you are better than that.
Years ago….? How many?
Giving more money to public schools has resulted in them becoming worse. Maybe we should try doing the opposite.
The Canadians have equalized funding within their school systems, so that urban schools get funding comparable to (or sometimes better than) suburban schools, and have outperformed us since then. The same is true for Finland.
Val–the first mistake a person makes is pride. It amazes me to see how arrogant the anti-religion crowd can be–as if religious people are just too busy picking meat out of their teeth to have the capability for intelligent thought.
We don’t need a new bible. The one we have is fine. And you don’t have to read it or live by it in your personal life. But you have no right to tell others that they cannot live by it.
Lisa–It is a road, not a toxic waste dump. Last I looked, lakes, forests and streams can co-exist with roads. All the pristine wilderness in the world is not going to offer Mainers job opportunities.
No more arrogant than the religious folk who keep insisting that those who do not believe as they do are going to go to hell, and that everyone who doesn’t follow their path are sinners who need to be condemned and forced to the fringes of society. How arrogant to insist that there is only one route to getting the most out of the human experience!
I respect that religious people have the right to believe as they wish to believe, but I’m sick and tired of religious folk implying that I am “less than” them because I approach life in a different way.
If you don’t believe in hell, or in sin, then what difference does it make if someone is so rude as to say you are going there? If religious people were writing editorials saying that atheists have no place in government–then I would call them arrogant too.
My problem comes when one side says the other side should, basically, shut up. A person’s religious beliefs, or lack of them, are integral to the person as a whole and cannot be left out of that individual’s political decisions. You are certainly not “less than” anyone, but I can’t guarantee that everyone is going to be nice to you. Following a different path takes fortitude.
I have been taught that heaven or hell isn’t in the “next life” but is present or absent in this life depending on how one conducts themselves, what happens to them or what they do to others or the planet.
Religious people have a right to be in politics but they should not use their position to push their religious agenda. The forefathers and mothers warned us about bringing religion into politics and politics into religion. As American citizens we are given freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Hundreds of people love and respect me for the path that I have chosen. The only ones who say degrading things about my path are Christians, particularly evangelicals who are set on condemning anyone who thinks differently than they do to hell. Atheists are very considerate and respectful to me and I have never had one of them say the insulting things that Christians say.
I have heard atheists say insulting things about Christians. I am glad that you have the support that you do. But you can’t expect everyone to support you–people have to accept that there are sincere differences of opinion in the world. There is no need to demonize the other side. All you can do is speak charitably and persuasively to your cause.
Why can’t everybody support True Native’s rights to believe as he wishes. You expect everybody to support your right.
I do support True Native’s right to believe as he wishes. I also support religious peoples’ right to believe as they wish. Where I challenge people is when they wish to deny others the right to practice their faith. People of faith have the right to use that faith in the arena of politics, and they have the right to have that faith guide their decisions, even if they are elected to office.
You have never been denied the right to practice your faith.
I want to be free from people like you using your religion to tell me how I am supposed to live and that if I don’t live like you tell me to live that I am going to be penalized by your God.
Politicians are elected to represent The People and not their own religious convictions. This is part of the reason why this country is screwed up…people get elected and rather than fight for ALL people, they follow their own agenda.
When I vote, I’m not voting for a religious leader, I am voting to a person who will represent ALL of the people, not just evangelical Christians.
I don’t have a cause and I’m not trying to convince anyone to live the life that I have chosen with my belief system. We are all free to believe as we wish in this country. I have accepted that there are differences in the world, so I accept that you have your beliefs.
What I don’t accept is people who use politics to force other people to live by their standards. Have your beliefs but allow others to live their lives according to their beliefs and don’t try to force others (though legislation/politicians) to live by your religious code.
Atheists are considerate and respectful to you because you agree with them. Try being a Christian and see how “considerate and respectful” they are.
I am not an atheist. This is one problem that many Christians have…they assume that because someone isn’t a church going, Bible thumping, Christian that they are atheist.
People who aren’t Christian can still believe in God, a Creator or a Higher Power. Christians aren’t the only ways that can have a fulfilling relationship with the entity that gives them live. Many, many people believe in God, the teachings of Christ, but not all of the supernatural stuff that has been added to the story of a very simple man.
I often talk about the teachings of Christ with atheist friends. We actually have very respectful conversations because neither us is trying to force the other to embrace our beliefs. My Christian friends seem to be the ones who cannot accept that other people have different beliefs and that they can have fulfilling lives without a Christ figure in their lives.
Well said.
Pagan Romans called the early Christians “atheists” because the Christians denied the existence of the Roman, Greek, and Egyptian gods and goddesses.
Wandi, nobody is telling you to shut up. What they are telling you and you aren’t hearing is there is something called the separation on church and state. This involves you keeping your beliefs out of my reproductive system and out of my kids schools. I have absolutely no interest in managing how you worship, your sexual relationships, what your pastor tells you is the way to behave and how to organize your spiritual life. The problem starts when you think you need to make this into a Christian nation and not a nation of laws built on the Constitution.
And yes, political decisions can be made with out the input of religion.
Show me one political decision that is made that does not depend on some sort of morality derived from one’s spiritual outlook on life.
If “my beliefs” cannot be taught in your schools then whose beliefs can? Yours? I don’t even know how a belief can get into a reproductive system, but since beliefs are intangible nothingness, I suspect they won’t do any permanent damage.
Political decision not depending on morality: The funding and building of the Interstate system?
Okay, I accept that one.
Here’s one that is dependent on morality: abortion.
Only because you’ve dragged your churches morality into the discussion. This is the classic case of the confusion of ethics and morality.
How can the issue of life or death be kept free from morality?
Go back to your classes on embryology and neurology.
My class on embryology confirmed that when the sperm and ovum unite, a new, and separate genetic being has been initiated. That new human has a heartbeat at 3 weeks post conception. It is uncertain exactly when a fetus can feel pain, but by week six brain waves are detectable, and by week 12 there is a developed nervous system. That’s science.
Religion tells me that humans have a soul and that soul is present at the moment of conception. Ethics (and my religion) tell me it is not right to kill.
Both faith and reason convince me unalterably that abortion is wrong. Faith and reason also convince me that the death penalty is wrong. I don’t care if the state sanctions either. It is not right to kill.
I respect your explanation, although I disagree in part.
The soul develops gradually, I believe, as the fetus gradually becomes a human person. The Hebrew word “ruah” means both “spirit” and “breath.” Genesis 2:7 says, “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breated into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” When Adam could breathe on his own he had a spirit and became a living human being. When the fetus can breathe and survive naturally on its own, without medical intervention, it is a human person with its own spirit.
Just to be safe, I oppose abortion in the third trimester. Yet my religion teaches me that the fetus doesn’t become a human child until it is naturally viable.
How about teaching maths, writing, penmanship, reading, history, chemistry, physics, biology and physical education. Teaching of beliefs belongs in church. School is not another venue for religion.
History, sociology, sex education, to list a few subjects that have become indoctrination by progressives like you. Totaly infused with a particular world view and set of progressive ethics.
Prove it
A quick question: Did you have a good experience as a student when you went to school? You seem to have a hostile nature pertaining to your views of education and what you think goes on inside the classrooms of public schools. Just curious.
Your question has no purpose except to be used as either a “gotcha” or as a basis for an ad-hominem attack.
I actually had a pretty average school experience. A Mixture of good and bad. At the time I thought it was all pretty good. My opinion of the education system is based on my experience and knowledge gained in the years since including involvement with my own children’s education.
I think math can be taught without faith, penmanship, yes (but who really teaches penmanship anymore?). Reading and writing in their most elementary forms do not need to be influenced by faith, but once you get into reading at an advanced level, you cannot escape wrestling with ideas concerning religion and morality. And thus writing will also be influenced. All sciences have the potential to conflict with faith because by their nature they are concerned with the origin of the world and how its laws work. Science is not the pure, evidence based subject some would have us believe. (I am not saying that I think Creationism ought to be taught along with Evolution). History is so colored by one’s viewpoint that it is impossible to separate it completely from religion.
I think the most reasonable approach to take is to allow multiple perspectives in the public arena. People are usually enriched when exposed to opposing ideas. I think faith has a place in the public arena, including politics, just as much as lack of faith has a place.
As a scientist and a father who has middle school kids, I
have to disagree with your assessment on science as a subject. It is taught as a method to collect data
about the natural world and make conclusions based on the evidence the data
provides. The evidence will never be absolute but it allows us to make our best
judgment of how the world works. Current
theory is scrutinized and changes as more data comes to light. For example, quantum
mechanics replaced a large part of the classical model. I do not teach but that is how I have witnessed
it being taught. Absolutists who see things in black and white tend to dislike
the grey area scientific conclusions provide and lose track of the method that
led to them.
The anti-science trend coming from the right in this country
is disturbing. Scientific thinking has
brought us modern medicine, the germ theory of disease, put us on the moon and
heck, my 60 inch plasma. It is disturbing because the reason and logic that
scientific though provides fits much better with pure conservative dogma then
liberal. I think this why things like environmental protection came from
conservative thinkers.
I agree that scientific thinking agrees with how I view conservative thought. It’s based on logical observation of causes and effects.
I see what you are saying, and, for the most part, my experience in science on the high school and college level has followed a methodical approach that did not bring politics or religion into it. Except for one class: Evolution and Ecology. It could have been taught without religious bias, but the professor had an agenda to show how “stupid” people who didn’t agree with her were.
I had to take evolution and it was very heavy in statistics. In general, that data backs up the theory very well and religion never came up. I think there are a few bad apples in every bunch. Anyone who compares religion and evolution side by side (your professor or a Kansas school board) is doing a disservice to their students. Arguing religion and evolution is like trying to win a game of chess with only kings left on the board.
God doesn’t fit in the scientific method. Evolution does not come close to disproving God. It only disproves a strict interpretation of the bible. Maybe Genesis was talking about the early primordial soup when it says that God created man from the dust of the ground. If that’s the case, its sad that we haven’t really evolved intellectually over the last 3000 years.
I agree. I thought the science of evolution was fascinating.
Your mistake was in taking a course called Evolution and Ecology. Had you taken a science course called Evolution or one called Ecology you would have studied facts, statistics, research, juried articles. A course called E and E is obviously someone’s ideas about how the two relate. It’s not the professors fault that you tried to drag church dogma into a scientific discussion of the relationship between E and E.
It was required for a biology major. Oh-I didn’t have to drag church dogma into it. The professor was…um…very proactive about her point of view.
The only people that believe faith takes precedence over basic science (be nice, now, use your grown up words) view the world from the confines of a rigid and controlling religion.
Multiple perspectives are fine when the perspectives relate to the issue at hand. If multiple perspectives means dragging your religious morality into a scientific or historic issue they are worse than useless. It is perfectly possible to learn objectively without making religious judgements on whether facts are right or not according to one’s religion. Sodium combines with Chlorine. Luther posted his criticisms on the church door. Both are facts. Moral judgment is not needed in either chemistry or history.
The earth circles the sun. Deal with it.
But in the case of Luther, you need to know the content of his criticisms to understand the context behind what happened in Europe for the next few hundred years. I find the history lesson is much more engaging when you present multiple sides. My history class in the public school definitely fell into the “Protestants are right” side.
Teaching history is analogous to news reporting. What you neglect to put into a piece can be very significant to understanding the real story. Every single thing you teach might be factual–but is it the whole picture?
While I agree with you on many things, I agree with wandini that religious people do not give up their right to have a political viewpoint when they get baptized, join a church or synagogue or mosque, or get ordained. We can’t ask people to not express a religious viewpoint during a political discussion — it’s basic to their sense of right and wrong.
Both the secular left and religious right feel that they are marginalized; both seem to feel a bit persecuted. We have to make room for both of these views, and many others. That’s what freedom of religion is about. And for us to have freedom of religion, the government must remain neutral on religious matters. The question is, when it comes to separation of church and state, where do we draw the lines?
The conservatively religious (or the religiously conservative) confuse the moral beliefs and practices of their religion with ethics. Ethics are not morals and many a moral belief is unethical. Confusing morality and ethics has led the religiously conservative to believe they have a right to insert their specific religious beliefs into the law. They don’t.
Here’s my definition of ethics and morals: The ethical person understands the difference between right and wrong. The moral person does the right thing.
The problem you are having with many religious people (and you and I tend to agree here) is that what you and I think of as the moral response to an issue is often not the same thing the person on the religious right thinks is moral. Just the same, they have a right to disagree with us about how to define moral behavior.
Oh absolutely, they have a right to disagree. And so do I. Nobody is suggesting the right of a free press be taken away from anybody. The religiously conservative do need to learn the difference between morality and ethics (the above definition could benefit from a bit more research) so they don’t keep trying to insert their morality into the laws of the US and thinking they are working toward making laws more ethical. One of the reasons they feel persecuted is because they don’t understand the difference.
Hi msally — you say folks on the religious right “believe they have a right to insert their specific religious beliefs into the law. They don’t.”
I understand what you are saying, and see this as a complicated problem.
You and, say Rev. Pat Robertson — would agree that murder is wrong. Your reason might be that no person has the right to take the life of another without due prcess under the law. Robertson’s reason might be, “one of the Ten Commandments forbids murder.”
You used secular ethics, he used religious dogma. You and Robertson might agree, but for different reasons — and when you agree, you don’t object to his religious belief.
The problem is when you disagree — and he gives a religious reason for disagreeing with you. Then you say he shouldn’t express a religious opinion.
I guess I didn’t make my point clear. I did not say a religious opinion could not be expressed. What I tried to say and failed was that someone’s religious beliefs have no business being made into laws that others must follow. Example: School prayer and bible reading. It’s been banned from schools for a good reason. Schools are public places, paid for by public money requiring Jews, Hindus Buddhists, Jains, Atheists, Catholics to listen every day to a Protestant rendering of the bible and a Protestant prayer is illegal. Yet, “christians” insist they want it back in schools. In cases like this they are not disagreeing with me or others that believe in freedom of religion they are trying to change the law to force their religion onto a public place. At this point they are not expressing a religious opinion . I will discuss at length religion in the public sphere all they want. I will not tolerate trying to change the Constitution.
I agree with you here.
Thegreatwandini and I appear to agree with you here. There is no way to create a non-sectarian prayer for a public school setting — all you could do would be find the lowest common denominator and have an essentially meaningless prayer — and that would actually be offensive to anyone who took religion seriously.
Funny, I’m 64 and went to public schools in the 1950s in Detroit, Michigan — and I never once heard a prayer in that setting. In order to “bring back” such prayers one would have to reach very far back, indeed.
Of course, prayers are still legal, just not organized prayers. I know some students prayed before taking tests that I gave! And if they want to say a private grace before lunch in the lunchroom, no one stops them.
Your students would have done better to study more and pray less! :)
Thanks for the laugh!
:-)
I think that MSJ’s claim that “”christians” insist they want it back in schools.” is bogus.
I was lucky to grow up in a similar time as you where we had both catholic elementary and high schools and the public schools were of the same size. Some catholics went to the public school because they thought it had better teachers and resources. And I was surprised when I found out a kid went to the catholic HS and he wasn’t catholic ! I remember my HS history teacher’s children went to the catholic HS . It was sorta odd playing footbal and basketball against his son ! I sorta recall that the kids didn’t even have to take religion !
Seems the only real difference is that the kids who went to catholic school had better penmanship !
Thanks — yes, my penmanship wasn’t the best, and it gets sloppier as I get older. I had many friends who went to Catholic schools. In fact, I had almost no friends at the public school until eighth grade — all of my after-school friends went to parochial schools.
I’ve heard some religious conservatives say we need to bring back prayer to the public schools, but prayer won’t improve the schools, especially if it is rote prayer or some kind of watered-down lowest common denominator. And if it is sectarian it will only cause problems. There are other things that we might do to improve our schools that would be more productive.
Actually I disagree with using a biblical reason for arriving at ethical behavior since it is simply a statement with very little reasoning behind it. An ethical statement gives the reason. Thou shalt not kill in these circumstances and because of these reasons. The blanket statement of of thou shalt not kill has lead to the intrusion of the conservatively religious into private reproductive decisions and polarized a lot of the country.
So then your ethics would be the same if this was 1000 BC ?
That’s because ethics is opinion based, and subjective morality is a branch of that ethical opinion. But even subjective morality could not exist if there were not a perfect moral standard by which you could base your decision on what is “right” and “wrong”, else the two do not exist at all.
What is that perfect moral standard? Is it sentient?
I disagree when you say, “even subjective morality could not exist if there were not a perfect moral standard,” for even if such a perfect moral standard exists, falible humans cannot perfectly discern it — and I am inclined to believe that there is no perfect moral standard.
Even if we take all of the Bible literally (which I believe to be a grave mistake), God changes apparently his mind sometimes. God created the world, then after a passage of time we are told he decided it wasn’t working, and destroyed nearly everything in a Great Flood — drowning most of the animals who were certainly innocent.
And then, apparently again regretting the destruction, promised there would never again be such a flood.
Even then for a long time, although we are told God loved Abraham, etc., God rained destruction on Sodom and Gomorrah — yet there was no such thing as the Ten Commandments yet! Eventually God decided that some clear rules might be good.
Then, still things were unsettled, and Jesus comes into the picture and some time later we have a “New Testament” written down for the first time — all these changes!
Then, we are told, people got it wrong again — so some people were given the Book of Mormon to set things straight, and others were given the Qur’an, and still others led the Protestant Reformation — which then split into dozens upon dozens of competing groups.
If there a perfect moral standard somewhere, there is certainly no agreement.
You snagged it when you said “… fallible humans cannot perfectly discern it.” But you messed it up with all that other nonsense.
We, being created beings, have a beginning. We can not possibly fathom infinity. We put everything in a nice neat tidy little box, even God. I mean, if a God does exist, and did create this universe and everything in it, then I would venture to guess that this God person is above the laws of physics and such. But we keep trying to fit God into a box that includes things like the laws of physics, and apply those finite things, to an infinite God. It just doesn’t work, which is why we have so many religions I’d guess.
Circular logic based on a false premise. And a mish-mash at that….
There is no bigger “mish-mash” than that of Christianity…..
But you have no problem expressing the view that religious people are “less than” you and those who hold what you believe are “enlightened” views.
The bible tells us that we are ALL sinners, every single last one of us. It’s not hard to see why when you look at the news and see all the suffering, abuse, and violence.
You’re not “less than” anyone. No real Christian will boast about themselves like that, and no real Christian will even allow themselves to think in such a way. I can say this with certainty, because if “Christianity” is indeed based on the actions of the man named Jesus, then anyone who does those things isn’t doing what Jesus did.
And the only reason we mention hell and stuff, is because we’re sinners too. We know where we’re going if we don’t stay on the path. Out of love we warn our fellow sinners of a better way, a better path to live by. We, being sinners, know another sinner when we see one, so we warn you of that broken leg you’re going to get if you don’t at least try to reach out to God. You don’t need a broken leg to know it’s going to hurt, right?
But just know, hell isn’t a place where you’re physically tortured by demons. Most people aren’t exactly sure what hell really is, but we know from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, that it’s a place you don’t want to be. It’s a place the rich man didn’t want to be so much, that he even asked if he could go back and warn his family of the dangers of coming to that place. That’s love, that’s a sinner wanting to warn his fellow human being, and from one sinner to another, you DO need Jesus. Everyone does.
But Christ said to take care of the log in your own eye before trying to remove a splinter from someone else’s.
Actually, there are hundreds of religions that do not focus on Christ. YOU need Jesus, and that is your right. I don’t need Jesus in the same way that you do. I have a beautiful life and when my life comes to an end, if I am judged, I feel confident that I will be told by The Creator, “Well done my good and faithful servant.”
We can only hope, and I wish you luck on your journey, brother. I’ll pray for you if you pray for me, okay? Thanks!
I agree with you that we don’t need a new Bible — the problem is not the Bible, but the way fundamentalists on the right misunderstand — and fundamentalists of the left dismiss — the Bible.
It is not a magical book handed down on golden plates from the skies, but it is a great collection of writings by many ancient writers. It is the great religious classic of Judaism and Christianity. It is an inspired conversation.
We should use our reason when we read it, just as we would with any other book. Because it contains many genres of writing — hymns, poetry, parables, philosophy, theology, proverbs, mythology, history, songs of joy and wonder, testimonies of faith — we must understand that different genres of literature require different ways of reading and understanding. To take everything in the Bible literally is to misunderstand the intent of the authors, and to lose the intended meanings.
Because I take the Bible seriously, I cannot take it all literally. It is not a Paper Pope, magically infallible. It is a wonderful collection of religious writings by great human authors, a chronicle of their search for wisdom, morality, and of their understanding of and encounter with God, of that which is sacred or holy — and because it has been so misused by the right, and sadly dismissed by so many on the left, we need to look at it with fresh eyes and apply our God-given reason when reading it.
I agree. There is a lot of wisdom in the Bible for those who are seeking understanding. If you are only seeking black and white rules, then the Bible becomes what it is to many posters here–a tool for labeling people sinners, or a tool for labeling people as religious fools.
Arrogance is not exclusive to liberals. The conservatively religious have been for many years insisting that the insufficiently religious are unethical, immoral, unpatriotic and probably perverted. That’s arrogance.
If the religiously conservatives’ bible teaches them intolerance and it’s accompanying characteristic, arrogance, then perhaps Mr. Faircloth is right. It is time for a new bible.
Maybe it’s not the bible or its message, but the preachers-in-question we should be replacing.
You got people like Wright and Sharpton, and people like that who mix a message of hate into their speech. Then you have people like Martin Luther King Jr. who died with the message of non-violence built into his very life and not just in words. It’s people like King I look to when I am searching for examples of people like Jesus in our modern times, God rest his soul.
Val Vadis: What’s really needed is better interpretation (less literal, more relational) of the Bible and its contents, aided by enlightened Bible Study (preferably with a group) and by using a good translation. I recommend The Message, translated by the classic langauge scholar Eugene Peterson, in conjunction with the NRSV.
Try the Jefferson Bible.
Yes, Jefferson cut the virgin birth, resurrection appearances, and other miracles out of the Gospels, and pasted then back together as “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” for his own personal use — now in print as “The Jefferson Bible.” It’s certainly one of my favorite books — it helps us understand the faith of Jefferson, and gives us another way of looking at the life and teachings of Jesus.
I agree! I take the Bible seriously — therefore I cannot take all of it literally. I like your idea of reading side-by-side the excellent NRSV with the accessable translation called The Message. The NRSV is a top-notch translation that keeps the cadences of the lovely 1611 King James Version. The Message challenges us to re-think our assumptions by putting the words of the Bible into contemporary language — the way English is actually spoken!
“The Message”? That is no bible, that is a joke.
It reads like it was written by Cheech and Chong.
“Nah man its cool, God totally sent His Son to be like, all cool and stuff”
Phyllis Coelho: Did you suggest an independent investigation was merited when Baldy was guv. The state lost $50,000,000 and no one from the Dems was complaining. DHHS needs to restart from the ground up. The DHHS is litered with party hacks and gross incompetence
Michelle Souliere: You are correct; we need to close the loopholes. Unfortunately the White House took a pass at creating any meaningful tax legislation deciding instead to invest energies in creating a class war.
The class war has always been here. The only difference is that lately the victims in the war have gotten vocal.
Oh great, another victim. Poor thing.
The victims are the middle class taxpayers. The abusers can be found mixed in with the wealthy and the poor. I say ‘mixed in’ because there are many poor that are deserving of the assistance they get, and there are many wealthy that pay far more than their fair share.
I don’t worry too much about the wealthy, they have their own welfare line, by appointment, and are not worried about where their next meal is comming from. Of course I don’t worry too much about the able bodied that are working the system. The ones that do worry me are the working poor, who are trying to keep their head up and busting their butts, only to see the goal line moved just out of reach just when they get close.
I agree. But the government, particularly the Democrats, want to punish the wealthy knowing full well that all the wealthy will do is pass on the penalties to the consumer, which is usually the middle class and poor. The Democrats are waging a class war all the while knowing that they’re going to cover their donor and lobby buddies with additional loopholes and special deals. These actions, once again, punish the middle class and the poor. It’s actually the Republicans that are working for the middle class and the poor, not the Democrats. The Democrats really couldn’t care less about the middle class and the poor. All they care about is power, and they’ll do or say anything to attain and keep their power.
Lisa Laser: You are clearly a liberal Democrat as your first instincts are to stifle any growth either for jobs or commerce. Getting jobs and allowing folks to be able to provide for their familieis is in your words “Sacrifice communities for corporations or politicians”. Liberals and Democrats need to make certain that poverty persists forcing voters on to entitlement programs where their future votes can be easily purchased.
Jeff Romano: Keep perpetuting a failing system where only 4 of 5 students graduate high school and the worst teachers are tenured. At least the brightest that fled had somewhere else to go to get an education.
VAL,
Thank you for the opportunity to change, but for me I’ll stick in the rut of stone age law. P.S. Your adaptability theory is the reason society is not going to survive.
‘….society is not going to survive.’
Did ‘the Jesus’ tell you that?
Adaptation is the reason you’re able to write nonsense on the computer thing-y….. Adaptation is the reason you’re able to have faith in myths…..
Adaptation is the reason you’re able to breathe/blink involuntarily…..
Lisa Laser, an East-west highway is not an open festering sore on the landscape. There have been limited access highways built all over this country and they haven’t caused the demise of anything. If you are, as I surmise by your post, an evironmentalist. Wouldn’t it make sense to have trucks saving 3 hours of travel time by being able to travel through Maine rather than drive around it?
LePage’s objective in restructuring health insurance , public education and social services is personal control of public funds. How will this make government more transparent or responsible to the public?
I agree, “Lisa Laser”, that the taxpayers of Maine shouldn’t be required to finance a study of the “financial feasibility” of the “pig in a poke” the that “E-W Highway” is. Those who are promoting the idea say it’ll be great for Maine. Meanwhile, is there any place where we can find accurate information about the project: what’s the route; what would it cost Maine; how many interchanges would there be and where; etc, etc?
Or the cleverness of their zapper software Michelle? http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/01/31/business/lawmakers-seek-to-stop-businesses-from-using-zapper-software-to-skim-sales-tax-revenue/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education – Justice Black’s and Justice Rutlege’s oposing opinions both claimed there is a wall of separation between church and state in Everson Vs. board of Education in 1947
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
Yet the First Amendment to tne United States Constitution makes no mention of a “wall of separation between church and state” :
“Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Maybe if Gaëtan Dugas had read Matthew 15:16 there wouldn’t be 3.4 million children with AIDS
http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
Val Vadis – We don’t need a new Bible. We just need to start reading and understanding the one we already have. And we need to connect to the God that inspired those that took the time to write it.
Val Vadis,
You can’t adapt the bible to fit the situation you want. It is what it is, and we can’t change history because of it. The whole thing is about Jesus anyway, so I see little reason to “adapt” the bible to a more modern text, to replace it outright. Jesus is the completion of the law, the law made flesh, whereby we are saved by our faith in God rather than our own good works. It’s a beautiful message, really. It covers some dark territory, but those are mostly examples of what NOT to do. Can’t warn you of “danger ahead” if you can’t use the examples we see in the lives of evil people.
Yes, religion is just a set of laws to live by, but Jesus is “the way” to live. He didn’t do anything but heal, feed, and forgive people… And was killed for it! Gotta wonder why such a good person was killed for nothing?
“But “the right” has no social or spiritual right to stagnate progressive
mentality and physicality with its ancient animal-control doctrines and
laws.”
This is where I take issue. The right, the religious right, certainly does have a social and spiritual right to “stagnate” all they want. It is called the Constitution of the United States.
Yes the Constitution does guarantee your right to stagnate.