Anti-Christian sentiment
What’s with all this anti-Christian sentiment being propagated by the gay community in Maine? First they attack Michael Heath for being “un-Christian” referring to him as a “gay-hater,” then they attack all Christians because they believe God meant what he said, specifying (repeatedly), that a marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. For any community that prides itself on “tolerance,” it seems pretty duplicitous to be on the attack mode against anyone who has an opposite opinion. Accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being “in favor of discrimination” is an effective tool which works with some, but misses the point. Intolerance and discrimination have nothing to do with this issue. It’s about obedience: something we all fall short of.
The gay community wants what it can’t have … they want their behavior to be accepted from a social, cultural and Christian standpoint. This childlike whining about being “victimized,” while attempting to drag others into a shouting match, only serves to cloud the issue altogether: although it’s probably by design.
I guess speaking the truth in love isn’t always as easy as it should be. Especially when the one(s) you’re talking to don’t want to hear it.
David Del Camp
Portland
Climate change
As I read Alan Boone’s op-ed, BDN, May 25, a couple of thoughts occurred to me. First, as he explained why he believed climate change was a hoax, I was curious how many oil and coal companies put money behind these “sciences”? If I follow the money, I can usually find the motives.
Secondly, Alan quoted the former Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart, as saying “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Then he says, “That’s all you need to know.” This is a bad thing? In my view, if we switched to alternative energies thus ending ground and water contamination, stopped polluting the air, ended mountaintop removal and the raping of boreal forests for tar sands oil, while also bringing about justice and equality to the world, then found out climate change was a hoax, would that not be a win-win situation?
There are some motives other than monetary.
Tom Newman
Southwest Harbor
The so-called east-west highway
As Mainers, why would we choose to spend the prodigious sum of two billion plus dollars on a highway that is unneeded? Why would we choose to tear up a swath through the north country, for more than 200 miles across Maine?
The worst part of such a scheme is that we already have a fine east-west highway, in place and operating. This is the current rail line that crosses Maine from Vanceboro, through Mattawamkeag, Brownville, Greenville and Jackman. This rail line crosses into Quebec Province, near Lac Megantic, then heads on west to Montreal. It has been in operation for more than 80 years.
By utilizing this highway, it could carry just as much or more container traffic at a much cheaper cost in energy than by building a new one. Rail transportation is much more cost efficient than truck traffic.
All that would be required to make this work is to construct a short spur rail line from Eastport north to intersect the current east-west rail line near Vanceboro. It would also most likely require some modernization of the east-west rail line. But even these costs would be far cheaper than constructing a massive new highway.
Let’s use what we have and not needlessly rip up our north country. Moving large volumes of freight by rail is always more efficient that by truck. It works for most of the rest of the US. Why not Maine as well?
Stephen Clark
Scarborough
Civil discourse
Life used to be quiet here in the “hollow middle,” but several months ago the “idea” of the east-west highway arose. Since then life has become stressful over the when, where and why of it all.
That stress level increased with the June 1 Bangor Daily News editorial “ Highway to Civility, Please.” I take issue with the last three sentences: “But stop the hostility” — most people I know are frustrated, not hostile. “Have the conversation” — that’s just it, there is no conversation. To my knowledge every time Mr. Vigue has been asked to participate in an open discussion, he has refused. “At the very least wait for all the information” — this statement could also apply to the BDN editorial staff who rushed to prejudge others before all the information was in.
Folks from Calais to Coburn Gore are soul searching, researching and forming their “ideas” for or against the highway. You should send your reporters out to the grass-roots, interview these individuals, and share their stories with your readers. These articles may then be used as the basis for the “civil” discourse which really needs to take place.
Judith Hummel
Garland
Civility, please!
In response to the opinion (BDN 5/31/12 on East-west highway to civility. Please?).
The opinion states that people are shouting about a potential highway and that they are forgetting something: It’s not happening yet. That’s exactly the point, if people don’t make their voices heard before it is happening, it will be too late!
Residents constantly hear Mr. Vigue’s perspective. Why is he pushing his vision so hard, traveling everywhere trying to sell something that he doesn’t know is feasible?
The opinion stated: “Why hasn’t he revealed the exact route publicly? Because some homeowners have been afraid of harassment and asked him not to discuss it, Vigue said. Plus, the road has not been designed.” If that’s the case, how is it any homeowners have been able to ask that it not be discussed, are a few that are being given information on a road that hasn’t supposedly been designed yet?
The opinion states “stop the hostility.” I don’t think opponents advocate hostility. I can see how there may be a sense of hostility considering people are being put under duress by not being given information as to exactly where this highway will be.
The opinion states “have the conversation.” That is what opponents would love to do if only Vigue would have a conversation with those that have a different vision and values rather than accusing them of giving false information and bullying.
Opponents must and will continue to fight the good fight as I am sure Vigue will continue to try and sell his vision.
Carol Gorecki
Orneville Township
Mr. Del Camp, I have listened to a great many proponents of gay marriage, and viewed their ads, and I recall none of them, nor their ads, calling people “un-Christian.” Do not judge that half of the state that supports same sex marriage by the words of one of their members.
Remember, in America, we judge people as individuals. In the end, that is all any gay Mainer asks, that he or she not be judged by the life partner he or she chooses.
The Christian church, itself, is divided on gay marriage. What is your response to the Episcopalian who tells you that her religion tells her to support gay marriage?
You ask, “What is your response to the Episcopalian who tells you that her religion tells her to support gay marriage?”
I would advise that person to reread the scripture stating that God hates sin, but loves the sinner. God does not condone homosexuality, He calls it abomination. Now before you get up in arms, we’re all sinners in His eyes and any sin is an abomination to Him. God doesn’t discriminate between gay and straight, liar or murderer, sin is sin. But He gave us a Savior to bring us all back to Him and in good standing with Him as well.
We Christians are called, indeed, we’re commanded to be like Him (follow His example). So we should also hate sin, but love the sinner to help everyone come to know God’s unending Love. Many Christians have forgotten that or they don’t know it yet and we all fall short daily, but this is our command, to Love.
To those Christians who engage in bashing people for their own life choices, I say shame on you. Stop bible beating people who are no better or worse than you in God’s eyes and start showing His boundless Love instead. Speak the truth in love, yes, but that is not license to bash.
God hates the sin of prejudice, but still loves the person who expresses that prejudice.
Jesus never went around preaching against sexual practices, but he did say, “Judge not so that you will not be judged,” “Love your neighbor as yourself,” “Take the log out of your own eye before you attempt to remove the speck in your neighbor’s eye,” and “He that is without sin should cast the first stone.” He welcomed everyone to his banquet table, especially those who were considered outsiders by “proper” people.
The Bible in general, and Jesus in particular, shows concern for the stranger, the outsider, the oppressed person, and all those who are perceived to be different. That theme is throughout Scripture, while there are only six verses in the Bible — out of more than 31,000 — that might realistically be applied to the issue of homosexuality. That makes it one of the very smallest issues in the Bible.
And when the Apostle Paul uses terms such as arsenokoitai (literally “male-bed”) and malakoi (literally “soft”), modern translators who translate these terms as “homosexuals” are missing the mark. Paul was more likely condemning male prostitution and the sexual exploitation of children.
Biblical Greek and Hebrew have no equivalent of our modern term “homosexual,” and no properly translated Bible contains that word.
We Christians are called to follow Jesus’ example — to welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, comfort the sick, visit those in prison, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty — and that (according to Matthew 25) is the only basis for our judgment on the Final Day.
So I see the Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers and United Church of Christ to be following Jesus when they welcome the stranger and the outsider, inviting them to the banquet table, regardless of society’s prejudices against them.
Welcoming the stranger, feeding the hungry, comforting the sick, etc. doesn’t mean one should support prostitution, gay marriage, or even homosexuality. One can still welcome the sinner while hating the sin. Homosexuality is an unnatural act. If God indeed intended homosexuality as an expression of love He most certainly would have created the human species differently for its survival. Homosexuals who obviously disagree with me on this point are free to carry on as they wish. They should not however expect the state of Maine and the people it represents to endorse their lifestyles.
I do not endorse, your life still, but I do nothing, to keep you from living it. In saying that, I do endorse, the equal right for consenting, same-sex couples to marry.
Likewise I do not endorse your life style and do nothing to prevent you from engaging in it. I just don’t endorse it and I urge others not to do so by voting not to change the definition of traditional marriage.
By voting against other citizen’s civil rights you are in actual fact doing something against their life style. You are working to deny them their civil rights. The pursuit of happiness, a thought that many believe to be god given to all. Do you really believe that in doing so you are doing god’s work.
You play a lot of word games to spread your particular prejudice.
Marriage from the beginning was not a civil institution. It became a civil institution when the state endorsed it. It was never intended to deny anyone any rights. Rather it was intended to strengthen the family unit of mom, dad, and the children for the sake of posterity. Now people like yourself demand that the family unit be redefined to include two moms and two dads. This serves no purpose other than to endorse a certain relationship for its own sake. Civil marriage has never been intended to endorse human relationships for its own sake. This is not a word game!! It’s serious business.
You are wrong. You are the one who is playing the semantics game. You are doing so to protect and promote your own prejudice. Does your information come to you in your dreams. What you say about marriage is not historically factual. This has been pointed out to you time after time by many posters on these threads and yet you continue to spew your yarns. That is dishonest. Why do you deliberately lie ?
Thankfully the majority of Mainers do endorse their life style, just not the religious radicals/zealots.
You are comparing prostitution (sex for money) to committed, loving relationships — I see no comparison. This isn’t about sex. It’s about love and commitment. Why do right-wingers want to make everything to be about sex?
And this isn’t about “lifestyles.” Gay people, like straight people, have many different “lifestyles.” Some are rich, some poor, some in-between. Some are well-educated and some are not. Some are hair stylists, some are professional football players, some are florists, some are truck drivers, some are lawyers, and some work in paper mills. Some go to bars, some go to AA, some don’t do either. Some like rock ‘n roll, some like country, some like classical, and some aren’t particularly musical. Some date around, some are monogamous. Where is the gay “lifestyle”?
Where is the “gay agenda”? I have a gay friend who says his agenda goes like this: Get up with the alarm clock at 6:00, shower, shave, eat breakfast, and go to work. He says, “If there’s another ‘gay agenda,’ will someone please tell me?”
The Bible tells us that David’s love for Jonathan was greater than his love for women. Marriage is mostly about love, commitment, fidelity, and caring for each other for better for worse, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, ’till death. For the most part, marriage, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, isn’t really about sex at all. It’s about sharing your life with someone you love.
I’m for the freedom to marry because I’m a Christian, and because I’m for marriage. I’m not afraid of marriage. Marriage is good for society. Those who oppose the freedom to marry don’t seem to trust marriage. Why do they want to stop people from getting married?
I did not compare prostitution to homosexuality. My intent was to show that homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin – an offense to God, a rejection of his will, a rejection of God Himself when the sin is full-born.
I know you won’t agree with me, but let me say this: I believe homosexual orientation (as opposed to homosexuality itself) is an emotional disorder or a symthom of a deeply rooted disorder or anxiety. Although some people are more apt to acquire this disorder, it is no more genetic in origin than, say, a predisposition to alcohol or drug abuse. Like all sexual disorders, it can be very difficult to overcome, particularly after a period of activity. That’s why I believe young people, especially teenagers who feel rejected by their own peers, should be encouraged to get proper counseling before they become sexually active. Of course, state endorsement through the institution of civil marriage ought not to be pursued for that reason.
You have absolutely no credible science to support your belief. It is not a question of anyone agreeing with you. Your arrogance is breathtaking.
….
You speak of “prostitution, gay marriage, or even homosexuality” in one phrase, yet you say you are not comparing them. Sure looks like a comparison.
Why not simply refrain from voting on this issue. What is your obsession with this issue.
As the same Bible also tells us that eating shellfish is an abomination and that enslaving the people of a neighboring tribe is permitted, I trust that you don’t eat lobster, scallops, or clams and have lobbied for the repeal of the 13th Amendment. If I am incorrect in either assumption, then please let me know.
Chenard, I hear a lot of such claims about what the bible says. Many times I’m stumped simply because, to begin with, I’m not a scriptural scholar. When I take the time to study any such claim in depth I usually find them to be either false or taken out of context. It appears to me you have access to a source from an atheist organization clearly intent on confounding Christians.
Whawell, if you poll Americans and say, “Should we live according to the Ten Commandments?” almost all Americans say “Yes.” Then if you ask them to name them, most people can’t even name three.
You say you’re not a biblical scholar. Neither am I, but because I take the Bible seriously I take the time to learn what it says — and what it doesn’t say. I take the time to learn who the authors were, and how the books were collected, and why some books were included and others excluded. If you’re going to live by the Bible, don’t you want to know what its about?
There is profound biblical ignorance in this country, and yet those ignorant people are telling us to live by the Bible. If you don’t know what’s in it, why tell people to obey it?
As to shellfish, please read Leviticus 11:9-12. As to making slaves of other tribes, please read Leviticus 25:44-46. There is nothing I am taking out of context.
Please note that the Biblical verse that terms homosexuality an abomination is Leviticus 18:22, the very same book that condemns eating shellfish (or frogs legs) and endorses slavery.
Is it un-Christian to eat shellfish and not own slaves from other tribes? Or am I being judgmental?
That is your belief. I have a different belief system. That is what is great about America–no one is forced to live by someone else’s belief system and we all get to think for ourselves. There is nothing in the Constitution that the Bible should dictate our laws.
I read a lot of postings in this venue calling people “un-Christian” – or effectively doing so – for opposition to gay marriage. I also speak from my own personal experience as well. This unfortunate labeling by many gay marriage supporters is quite rampant, not only among posters.
The fact people do not support homosexuality does not make them un-Christian or judgmental.
It does not make them un-Christian, but surely makes them judgmental. How is saying “my religion declares what you do to be an abomination” not passing a judgment?
I have a very easy response to your question. Saying a sin, such as homosexuality, is an abomination is very different than saying someone is going to hell. The former is a statement of belief; the latter, an unfair judgment – unfair because it presupposes one’s state of mind and personal circumstance when the act considered a sin is committed.
PS: Being judgmental is being un-Christian. So how can not being un-Christian make someone judgmental? A person is either judgmental and thus un-Christian, or is being Christian and not judgmental.
Sin, such as prejudice, is an abomination. Nonetheless, while God hates the sin of prejudice, God still loves the person who expresses prejudice. You can still repent, whawell.
I agree, prejudice is an abomination. So what prejudice is it you claim I have? Please don’t judge me for telling the truth as you have just done. Peace.
Judging others is unChristian. Pushing others to the fringes of society is unChristian. Trying to tear apart families and spread malicious untruths about them is unChristian. Collecting money that should be spent on the poor, the children, the hungry, the orphans and widows to give money for a campaign to smear some of the most beautiful people and families in this state is unChristian. Trying to control other’s lives and taking away their freedom is unChristian.
Sounds like we have the same values!!
David Del Camp–You are accusing the supporters of equal rights of trying to deliberately cloud the issue at the same time as trying to cloud the issue with your imagined story about attacks on the church and religion.
This is the unclouded issue…….Some people are allowed to enter the legal institution of marriage and enjoy the benefits thereof and some people aren’t. If you don’t want to accept gay marriage as “godly’, that is your prerogative, but if you don’t want the state of Maine to allow American citizens equal rights, then we are violating the US Constitution, specifically the fourteenth amendment:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Mr. Del Camp, No one is asking for acceptance, they are asking for civil rights. There is no religion that is necessary for any couple to get married and if you and your church want to be obedient to your God and not perform or accept a marriage then that is your right. It is not your right to dictate beliefs to others or use your religion to discriminate against a civil marriage and that is what is being voted on, civil marriage.
I agree with you that this is an issue of civil rights. No church is required to perform any marriage ceremony that it disapproves of.
It is also worth noting that a growing number of churches take heed of Jesus’ teaching that we should welcome the stranger and the outsider, regardless of society’s prejudices, and that we should judge not lest we be judged. Several denominations ordain qualified clergy regardless of sexual orientation, and perform same-sex marriages in states that honor the freedom to marry.
Mr. Del Camp, the latest data on gay rights shows that the majority of Americans are willing to give the gay community what it wants,which is equal rights. As far as whining about being “victimized’ I hear a lot more of this from some in the Christian community than I do from the gay community. As someone who is about to celebrate their 45th wedding anniversary I can’t imagine why I would think that if I had a homosexual couple who lived next door to me that that would somehow endanger my marriage. I have 3 children,10 grandchildren,and 2 great grandchildren and as far as I know none of them are gay but if I were to learn that one or some of them were , I couldn’t imagine not loving them as much as the others. I know that there are people out there who have shunned their children and refused to let them back into their homes because they are gay and in my mind this is the sin of all sins to be so self rightious that you forsake your own flesh and blood.
I agree. I’ve been married to the same woman for 33 years. Our marriage is not threatened in any way if our neighbors are given the same freedom to marry that we take for granted.
Mr. Del Camp asks: “What’s with all this anti-Christian sentiment being propagated by the gay community in Maine?”
Seems like a easy answer, but allow me to help you with it. It’s our response to all the anti-gay sentiment being propagated by certain segments of the Christian community in Maine…who, by the way, fired the first round when we started asking for legal protection from discrimination. Not all Christians…just the bigots who thinly veil their contempt with their religion.
Hope that helps simplify things, Mr. DC.
David Del Camp- you are 100% correct! Thank you so much for writing this letter.
The east-west highway will be built….Just a matter of time…
Climate change is real: has happened in recent human history (Little Ice Age) and will happen again. Climate change due to industrialization is likely real, although the contribution is hard to measure (no control!). Our attempts to stop climate change? Essentially pointless and at best symbolic. We can’t control China and India and other rapidly industrializing parts of the world. Why don’t we invest in trying to cope with consequences of the inevitable?
China is outspending us in the development of renewable energy and will capture a big chunk of that future market.
Take a look at how many hybrid or electric cars they produce, almost none.
Their renewable energy development is focused on wind and solar. Sadly, they are still building coal-fired power plants.
But not to save the world. Only because there is a market…
That market is one we should be dominating.
Ha! We don’t dominate any market China wants anymore. New world order, I’m afraid…
The Germans compete with the Chinese for wind and solar because their government subsidizes both. We should do the same, instead of subsidizing the oil companies.
To what end? It wont change global warming, although reduced foreign oil dependence is a good thing…
David Del Camp – Your thoughts are interesting – but incorrect.
Stephen Clark – You call the east-west highway “so-called.” You mean it DOESN’T run east-west?
It runs southeast to northwest according to the vague descriptions of Vigue. Take out a map.
Don’t need to. It runs generally east-west. It takes those in Eastern Quebec through Maine to western New Brunswick. It takes those from eastern Eastport to western Coburn Gore. But I suppose minutiae are important to some people with not a lot to do.
You asked the question.
And he never answered it.
Who? Did you expect Stephen Clark to answer here?
No.
withdrawn by the author — it posted in the wrong place.
withdrawn.
posted in the wrong place.
Withdrawn — having trouble with the site.
……