Herd mentality prevailed

Once again, the people of this nation, this state, have failed to embrace the ideals upon which this country was founded. Right-wing religion and a herd mentality prevailed again.

On the matter of Question 1: The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments basically say, "if one can do it, everyone can do it."

Voters denied people those rights with their yes vote.

On the matter of Questions 2 and 4: While I agree that such drastic reduction in tax income would probably be crippling, the state of Maine and its cities and towns need to realize that continuing to enact budgets that are beyond the ability of Maine citizens and businesses to support will only make things worse. Blood can't be squeezed from a stone, and people's wallets are getting thinner every day. Who knows, maybe the state and towns will enact sensible budgets next year. Sure.

The people of Maine had a chance to prove that this is a state that the nation could follow by sending a message that tolerance of other lifestyles is OK and that uncontrolled spending is bad.

The people failed in that message and, for the first time in my life, I'm afraid of the future and what it holds.

Ed McCaffrey, Rumford

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.




Isn't it interesting that

Isn't it interesting that the fundamentalists deny that God could make a new relevation and that the Constitution exists ahistorically and without any context.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield


Centarie2000 you ask a very

Centarie2000 you ask a very good question. How long. Until all American citizens enjoy equal rights.
Can't people compromise? On what basis. To compromise you have to have a common language and a common set of rules for debate. On one side you have people who have a secular, rational, and fact (the laws of nature are fixed and unchangeable if imperfectly discovered) based worldview governed by the Constitution (the rules for debate). On the other you have a supernatural, irrational, and subjective worldview governed by the bible (as the fixed tradition which it of course is not since its been re-written so often but there I go being rational). On one side words mean something or the other the laws of nature are relative. They can be changed to anything else they want through their subjective power (prayer). The sun can stop in the sky for example. One side want the private realm of religion and the public realm of policy separated; the other wants to impose their brand of religion on everyone else through government's police power.
This will end when the demographics change with more of the first and less of the second
Jon Albrecht Dixfield


Gil, words have meaning. I

Gil, words have meaning. I know in your supernatural worldview that's an unnecessary restriction. Words also have an author and a context and a history. True the words "the seperation of church and state" are not specifically in the constitution and they don't have to be because the policy is. In 1791 when James Madison wrote the 1st Amendment the word "establishment" was a noun that meant tavern or building. So the establishment clause means quite plainly that Congress can not make a law related to the organization, structure, dogma of a church. The free exercise clause clearly states that Congress can not limit how people choose to exercise their religion. But that's not the end of the 1st Amendment. In addition there is the freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and petitioning of Government. Why are all of these seemingly very different subjects under one amendment. To that you have to look to the author and the debates in Congress to find out their intent. Madison is very clear in the debates in the house, works that he authored like the Remontance, and in his letters. Jefferson expressed it best that he would oppose all tryanny over the mind of man. Madison was equally clear if not so elegent. He wanted government strictly out of conscience or man. Government can not be used to impose one man's conscience on anothers .i.e conscience is private, religion is private and the two spheres private and public shall never touch. The separation of church and state. Jefferson understood that and articulated it best in his 1802 letter to the Baptists where the phrase was first used. That letter was a letter of state that set a precedent in defining the role of government and churches and as such has been referred to by the Supreme Court often. The letter is as binding as any Presidential action by tradition.
There are many good books on Constitutional Law, biographies of Madison and Jefferson, and the journal of the House (no record was kept of the debates in the Senate just a recording of the actions taken). You might want to get out of your bible and back into the real world.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

 's picture

My cat wants to know how

My cat wants to know how much longer this is going to go on.

 's picture

She meant the name calling

She meant the name calling and cat fighting (her word). Why can't people just compromise?

 's picture

Evidently if you disagree

Evidently if you disagree with Ed your just following the "herd". I would assume if you agreed with him you would be a person that thinks on their own. Didn't President Obama say the same thing about republicans vs. democrats recently? Ed you really should try to think on your own. It looks like your just following a different herd.


jchick, you finaling got

jchick, you finaling got something right - "Our system of government is based on the Constitution of The United States." The Declaration has nothing to do with our founding. It is not a founding document and it has no legal standing. Great prose and nothing more. Written 11 years prior and two governments prior to our Founding by men who mostly didn't participate in our founding. Its chief author did not prticipate in writting the Constitution, attend the radification convention, and publicly condemned the constitution.
The separation of church and state - First Amendment. It is in the Constitution.
"It does NOT mean "if one can do it, everyone can do it." It depends on what "IT" is." Wrong again. That's exactly what it means
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The parrot wants to know if

The parrot wants to know if queenhoneeybee (tough to spell) ever read a LTTE in support of same sex marriage that she did NOT like.

 's picture

Let's look at that again

Let's look at that again Ed,

Beginning with the Declaration of Independence, from which you quoted: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Notice that I capitalize "Creator" as it is in the original.)

Then there is this from the preamble: "...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

You will notice that the founders believed that God gave them the right and the authority to abolish ties with England to form a new system of government, and that God, our "Creator", is the author and giver of our rights.

So much for the alleged "separation of Church and State". (which, btw, is a phrase you won't find anywhere in our founding documents).

And let's not forget what follows the paragraph you quoted: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Our system of government is based on the Constitution of The United States, and the individual State Constitutions. Nowhere in any of our founding documents or Constitutions, is the government given the authority to define MARRIAGE. Nor should it do so. Marriage is ordained of God. The State has no business mucking around with the institution of marriage.

As for the 9th and 10th. That is not what the 9th and 10th amendments "say". Observe:

9th - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It means that Rights belong to the people whether they are listed or not.

10th - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This means that all power belongs to The People and the government shall only use power delegated to it by The People.

It does NOT mean "if one can do it, everyone can do it." It depends on what "IT" is.

The People of Maine, for the time being, are in favor of the correct definition of marriage, as ordained by God.

John A. Chick

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Ed can go to the back of the

Ed can go to the back of the room and enjoy some cheese with his whine, or he can WALK THE PLANK!! AARRGHH!!

 's picture

Good letter Ed

Good letter Ed


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...