"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Do you suggest that the State go through individual medical/mental health records to see who might be considered a "danger to themselves and others" so we can add more names to the NICS system? What about those people who may have had some issues, but have overcome them with counselling and treatment? What about the laws that protect the privacy of individuals? Or the laws that protect doctor/patient confidentiality? Are you willing to throw all that out in the name of adding more names to a government list somewhere?
The State Police Major is right. We must maintain that delicate ballance between public safety and individual rights. It's hard, but it is necessary in any truly free society.
It is also important to understand that those with evil intentions are not swayed by societies laws. Murder, assualt, burglary, rape, robbery and a host of other laws on the books are broken every day, and without firearms I might add.
We would do well to heed Mr. Franklin's warning: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
"... There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God... (Paul writing to Timothy c. AD 66)
If the illustrious city council members had any clue as to the history of how the Tomb of the Unkowns came to be, they would not have a problem with dedicating this memorial on Veteran's Day.
Britain and France were the first to dedicate a national memorial to their unknown soldiers. Their monuments to their unknown soldiers were unveiled on November 11th, 1920.
On March 4th, 1921, the United States Congress approved the burial of an unidentified American serviceman from World War I in the plaza of the new Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetary.
On Memorial Day, 1921, four unknown servicemen were exhumed from four World War I American cemeteries in France.
On October 24th, 1921, a dedicated WWI veteran, U.S. Army Sgt Edward F. Younger selected one of the four caskets to be interred at the US Tomb of the Unknowns.
The World War I Unknown lay in state in the Capitol Rotunda from his arrival in the United States until Armistice Day (what we now celebrate as Veterans Day), 1921.
On November 11, 1921, President Warren G. Harding officiated at the interment ceremonies at the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery.
Memorial Day (originally called Decoration Day) was first observed on May 30th, 1868 to honor Union soldiers of the American Civil War. Over the years, it has become a day to honor all veterans of all wars, but it was not until 1967 that it was officially named Memorial Day by federal law.
November 11th (Armistice Day) is the day that many allied countries have chosen to honor members of their armed forces who died in service to their country. How could this day NOT be appropriate for dedicating a local monument to honor those who lost not only their lives, but their identity as well?
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
...of a single MoH recipient that thought he/she was deserving of the medal.
You can also be sure that when SSgt Giunta went after his budies, the last thing on his mind was what party they might be affiliated with.
Thank you for your service SSgt Salvatore Giunta.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
That's a sure fire way to get your permit revoked. The ONLY time a CFP holder is legally permitted to pull out a firearm is if they believe they are in grave danger.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
That's a sure fire way to get your permit revoked. The ONLY time a CFP holder is legally permitted to pull out a firearm is if they believe they are in grave danger.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
But if you spend much time reading posts, you know there are a few who only post to "stir the pot." (or so it seems).
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
"...should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -- Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (11 October 1798)
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
...or even a modification of the existing law (which is basically what this is) will not change a thing.
The problem is not that we don't have laws against noise pollution, the problem is we have no enforcement of noise pollution laws.
Basically, our legislators have wasted our time and money on a problem that can only be fixed if and when law enforcement agencies are given the time and resources to enforce it. And, I might add, making it manditory to display an inspection sticker will not change a thing. As others point out, those who like their bikes loud (and cars for that matter) will get a sticker with a "legal" muffler and then swap it out for their preferred muffler of choice.
If we aren't going to enforce the laws already on the books, why do we think new laws will make any difference?
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
....always wear a helmet and protective gear. My bike is bright orange, and I try to wear bright colors in an attempt to be seen. My exhaust is stock. My headlight, like all modern motorcycles, does not have an on/off switch. When the bike is running, the headlight is on.
Even at that, I still have people pull out in front of me or fail to yeild the right of way. I have learned to EXPECT it. In 2003, a kid pulled out in front of me while I was passing a slower vehicle (in a legal passing zone) and the result was a head-on collision with a pickup truck sporting a plow frame. He never looked in my direction (which was a failure on his part) but I've often wondered if I had been riding a bike with louder pipes, if it would have at least made him look in my direction.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
...so that people waiting at stop signs and/or pulling out of their driveway will be alerted NOT to pull out in front of them.
The #1 motorcycle accident scenario (involving automobiles) is pulling out in front of, or turning into the path of the motorcycle because "they didn't see" it. Emergency vehicles use both flashing lights and sirens in an attempt to avoid this type of accident, as well as get people to pull over.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
There is a Chinese proverb that says; "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
You don't pull people out of poverty by takning from the "rich" and giving to the "Poor." All that will do is create more poverty. The other fallacy is that education alone is the answer; "If you want to make something of yourself, you need a college education." That is simply just not true.
Help kids find something they are good at and like to do, and help them find (or create) jobs that utilize those skills and watch them excel. Some of the greatest entrepreneurs this country has ever known began their lives in abject poverty.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
I know you'd love this to be some sort of conspiracy or police screw-up coverup, but it's just a sad case of suicide by cop.
By his own admission, James suffered from severe depression, but he could not bring himself to take his own life. He put on a brave face in public, but chose to suffer in silence.
Google "James F. Popkowski, new scientist" (without the quotes) and see for yourself. The first link is to an article at NewScientist.com to which James posted a rather lengthy (and insightful) comment. Links 2-4 give some insight to how others, who knew James, viewed him.
If you want to be angry at someone, look to the pill-pushing doctors who only treat symtoms instead of taking the time to find the underlying problems. But even at that, for all we know about the human body and psyche, there is much yet to be discovered.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
VA medical facilities and the land on which they reside are Federal Property. It has nothing to do with citizen status, and as one reader already said, you are not US property unless you signed on the dotted line and took the oath.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
...FIRE! There's no getting "ready," he just starts shooting at anything and everything. (I hope he's not a hunter.)
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
For reminding us to show the proper respect for our flag.
"The Red, White and Blue"
Proudly it waves, Old Glory,
over the land of the free.
Promise of hope and freedom,
symbol of liberty.
Red, white and blue are its colors;
colors both brilliant and clear.
Colors with far deeper meaning
than that at first may appear.
Red is for blood of Patriots
who have died to free us;
White is for justice
and government of law;
Blue is for honor and faith
in all we do!
This is my flag;
This is Old Glory,
The Red, White and Blue.
Long may it wave!
from the Musical "I Love America"
by John W. Peterson and Don Wyrtzen
published by Singspiration 1974, 1975
(c) 1999-2008 by John W. Peterson
Music Company - all rights reserved
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
The SCOTUS simply reafirmed what most of us already know; that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental individual right of the people to keep and bear arms.
But don't take my word for it. Listen to what the founding generation had to say about it:
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." -- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent ‘the people’ of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms… " -- Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," Pierce & Hale, 1850 pg. 86-87
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction" -- St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in Blackstone Commentaries, 1803
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
"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." - 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Any law that prohibits freedom of speech is unconstitutional, period. Nothing in the Constitution grants government the authority to limit who may speak, whether it be an individual or an organization speaking on behalf of the members of said organization.
The idea that only tax payers are allowed the freedom of speech is ludicrous.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Israel has not denied food or medical supplies to Gaza. The purpose of the blockade is to intercept weapons and/or materials that could be used to make weapons and/or explosives. They have repeatedly stated that they are more than willing to see that food and medical supplies get to the intended destination.
Israel is not the antagonist here, unless you believe Israel should be blown off the face of the earth, like most of her neighbors.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
"...I don't know why I bother. I created these people in my image, gave them a planet with an abundant supply of food and water, plants and animals, and everything they need to flourish. They never talk to me unless they are sick or want something. They do everything I've asked them not to do, and don't do any of the things I've asked them TO do. All I asked was for them to love me with all their heart, soul and mind and to love their neighbor as they love themselves, but they couldn't even do that. I even sent my son to show them how to live and they rejected him. I poured out my wrath on him when he died on the cross to atone for the sins of the world. And still they reject him and what I have done for them. I give up. I'm not going to help these people any more."
But he didn't say that. "In this way God so loved the world... He gave..." Jn 3:16
"But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?" - 1 Jn 3:17
We don't give because people deserve it, we give because it is the right thing to do.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
"And for Adam and his wife the LORD God made coats of skins, and clothed them." - Gen 3:21
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was a nd never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
How can you categorically say that Obama has NOT made a move to limit firearms or ammunition? No one really knows what goes on behind closed doors at the Whitehouse.
What we can do is look at Obama's voting record on bills that pertain to firearms and ammunition. And in such cases, he has always voted with those who would like to see all civilian arms confiscated or heavily regulated (i.e. make it cost prohibitive for the average civilian to own or use them). His entire staff is a who's who list of anti-gun extremists and hoplophobes who believe the only armed Americans should be Law Enforcement and Military personnel.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
...but you have to remember, we live in a free society where personal liberty is honored and protected. I may not agree with what others say or do, but they are free to do so.
This SJ opinion does not represent Maine at its best. When is it ever "best" to criticize and/or belittle people for excersizing their rights? Are you saying that only people who act according to the way you think they should act properly represent this State?
I do not necessarily agree with either of these exhibitionists, but I can think of a number of worse examples; murderers, rapists, thieves, spouse abusers, child abusers, those who abuse the elderly... shall I go on? The only thing these two are guilty of, perhaps, is bad taste.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
New taxes are new taxes regardless of what is being taxed. That goes for tax increases too. You cannot possibly be so stupid or naive not to get this.
Then again, if all Democrats think like this, it explains a lot.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
...to take a firearm into a bank, unless you are using it to commit a bank robbery. And though you jest, SJ, responsible armed citizens have proven to be effective at twarting bank robbers.
Here are just two of the many instances where an armed citizen has made a difference:
Your statements concerning armed citizens, implying that anyone who chooses to arm themselves in public is a vigilante looking to "plug" someone, is offensive. These are not people who intend to take the law into their own hands. They are merely choosing to be responsible for their own safety.
Perhaps the reason so many people seem to be "flaunting" their rights is because so many of our rights, and our very liberty, are being trampled on these days. You might want to take some time and think about the Freedom of the Press, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
I find it very sad that you (Sun Journal) would excersize your freedom to "bash" the freedom of your fellow citizens.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
...finally going to admit that the Eastern Cougar is alive and well in the great state of Maine?
Several Monmouth residents have seen the cats in our area. I am also aware of sightings in Lewiston (south end of the city line) and Cape Elizabeth. I'm sure they have been spotted elsewhere.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
You forgot to mention the Patriot Act, oh wait, that's right, Obama and the Democratic controlled congress just re-instated it AS IS. It must be OK now?
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
The Constitution of the United States does not grant the Federal Government unlimited power over the several States.
It grants specific power to do specific things on behalf of the States. The Articles of Confederation did not go far enough. Rather than retrofit that document, a new Constitution was proposed.
Over the years, the Federal Government has usurped more and more power than it was ever granted by the Constitution, all for the "good of the nation" or the "good of the people." Nothing in the Constitution of the United States grants the Federal government such broad and reaching power as it wields today. It is no longer representative of the several States, it has become an entity of its own. That sucking sound you hear is your hard earned devaluated tax dollers being taken out of your paycheck.
But the blame does not lie with any single political party. We The People of the United States are solely to blame, because over the years, we have entrusted our liberties to unscrupulous politicians, and we have failed to hold them accountable. As long as it did not directly affect "me" we let it slide, until now everything government does takes more and more from us; freedom, liberty, property.
But who cares about a little liberty when we have so much "stuff?" When government can give us (read promise us) everything we want? A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. (A quote sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but there is no evidence that he ever said that.)
When you have no more to give, because government is taking it all, and the things you "want" are gone and not even your "needs" are being met, maybe then you'll wake up and smell the coffee. But I doubt it.
Oh, and for the record, I'm not a Libertarian, nor am I anti-government.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
You jump on folks for being against the new bill, then you call it for what it truly is, "No Insurance Company Left Behind" (Brilliant. I need to remember that one), and THEN blame the Republicans for a bill the Democratic party single-handedly shoved down the throat of the American people in an attempt to make Obama look good.
This has nothing to do with health care reform. It's all about Obama getting to say that he made good on at least one of his campaign promises.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
the people in your parable can move to another condo if they don't want to pay for the over-priced-badly-though-out cable deal.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
To make a long story short... taking firearms away from the general public does not do a thing to diminish violent crime. Allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is a good thing.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
The key words in your statement being "handgun homicides." Both Australia and the UK have seen an increase in violent crime since they took firearms away from the general public. But don't take my word for it. In an article published 2 Jul 2009, Telegraph.co.uk:
"The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power."
Guess what one of the things the "labor party" did? (hint: banned all guns, including shotguns and rifles.) British Citizens are not even allowed to defend themselves. If you are attacked, and you fight back injuring or (God forbid) killing your attacker, YOU will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Now perhaps you feel there is justice in that, but I don't.
At least in the United States of America, the citizen still has a fighting chance and the right to defend themselves. Which is a good thing. When every second counts, the police are just minutes away.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
US Code, TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 311 (as of Jan 5, 2009)
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
-------
So, if you are between 17 and 45, you are a member of the "unorganized" militia.
But regardless, the right protected by the 2nd Amendment is the "right of The People" to keep and bear arms, not the "right of the militia" or the "right of the States." It is an idividual right, just like the other rights in the Bill of Rights.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Jefferson didn't believe the Christian "religion" to be superior, just the teachings of Jesus Christ, more specifically, those words attributed to Jesus.
He, like many people of his era, had no use for "organized" or government-mandated religions (i.e. state dictated churches). Quite frankly, the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was Constantine making it the official state religion of Rome.
You are spot on with your view of the original intent of the 1st Amendment. The federal government actually over-stepped their authority when they took prayer out of schools. Ironically, here in the LA area, exceptions have been made for Somali children who wish to practice their faith during the school day. For the record, I have no problem with that, but I think other faiths should be allowed to do so as well.
And also for the record, the phrase "Separation of Church and State" appears nowhere in any of our founding or legal documents. It was a phrase that Jefferson used in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The exact phrase he used was "wall of separation between church and state," and it was to assure them that the federal government did not have the authority to dictate, mandate, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of religion, and no single religion or denomination would be adopted as the "official" religion.
A transcript of his letter may be viewed here: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html and there is a link on this page to his original letter at the Library of Congress.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
The average age of a Democratic Republic is 200 years. Our nation is living on borrowed time. Our nations founders pledged their very lives and their fortunes to give birth to this Republic. The men who found the courage to sign the Declaration of Independence paid a hefty price.
The founding generation considered it an honor to represent The People. Today's career politicians pay lip service to The People while they suck them dry to further their own political agenda and their thirst for power.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
..is most often a political appointee, which is why police chiefs usually go with whichever way the political wind is blowing. I've also noticed that most rank and file police officers and sherifs have no problem with our right to keep and bear arms. In some cases, they even encourage it.
What are the odds of surviving a head-on collision... on a motorcycle?
What are the odds of being in two head-on collisions in one year? (second one was in a car)
I cannot attest the the first, but I'm not going to stand around in the middle of a field during a lightning storm. Is that Paranoid or just common sense? As someone mentioned previously, what are the odds that Dr. Suzana Hupp would loose both her parrents in one day to a madman as they sat eating lunch at a small cafe? You can read her story here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre .
I'd say the odds of any of us reading and posting here today, being faced with a similar situation, are pretty slim. But I'm not going to be the one who says you cannot carry a firearm to protect your self, just in case. Nor do I think we should ridicule people who decide to do so. It's not only their choice, it's their right.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Well, first of all, I don't believe everyone in Maine is (or should be) armed.
Statistically, the number of people with carry permits is usually a very small percentage of the population, like between 1% and 3% or less. And while it could be debated all day what, if any, corelation that has to do with crime rates, the truth is, not knowing who is armed, or a show of force, is in fact a deterent to crime.
In the year after Heller, there has been a significant drop in DC's violent crime rate. While there may not be concrete proof there is a direct corelation, I find it very interesting. I don't think it just a coincidence.
I absolutely agree with you that guns and alcohol don't mix. And you're right. It's not wise to go around "flanting" it, but they aren't breaking any laws. They're just making the hoplophobes nervous.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
If you do not have a permit to carry a concealed firearm, you are prohibited from doing so. period.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
and he has been charged with felony reckless conduct with a firearm for this incident. At the time of the incident, there was a warrent out for his arrest. It is also against the law to carry a concealed firearm without a permit in this state.
That means, unless you have a permit to carry a concealed firearm, you are prohibited from doing so. It's the law.
The point I inteded to make is that the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) were written to protect The People from government, NOT to grant rights to The People.
The quotes are from men who participated in the founding of our nation, and reflect their views concerning the importance of firearms for the purpose of self-preservation. Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria, who may have been influenced by Niccolo Machiavelli, but the truth is timeless. Criminals prefer soft targets and will avoid confrontation if they think their intended victim may be armed.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
...and I stress <b>OPINION</b> because it is not based in fact, nor does it even begin to approach the truth.
In your opinion, state that you think it's foolish for law-abiding citizens to walk into a coffee shop with a holstered firearm strapped to their belt. You base this opinion on the actions of a convicted felon who broke the law just by having a firearm in his possession.
You then paint a very broad picture of what you THINK would happen if law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry a firearm with them where ever they went. Non of this is based in fact. It is the same rhetoric we hear every time the topic of armed citizens pops up; "There will be blood in the streets!!" "People will start using firearms to settle arguments!!"
The truth? It hasn't happend. In reality, the law-abiding citizens in this great nation have proven that they can be trusted to be responsible with firearms.
There will always be a few, like Jason Robinson, who will abuse their liberty, sometimes even at the expense of their fellow citizens. But that, in and of itself, is not reason enough to errode the liberties of the rest of The People.
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Actually, the 2nd Amendment is more like a restraining order. It protects a pre-existing individual fundamental right that is based in the first natural law of nature, that of self-preservation.
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." -- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
So what's to stop someone from getting a sticker then swapping out their exhaust? That's what many bikers with loud pipes do now. They pop the factory mufflers on, get the sticker, then swap them out.
We already have laws on the books that deal with loud pipes. Instead of just enforcing the existing law, now we're going to spend a ton of money on more legislation, more regulations, a "task force" to "study" more ways of wasting tax payer money, and roadside decible testing? (I hope they intend to do that with cars too.)
It will be interesting to see what they come up with for a "inspection sticker" plate. Maybe they should come up with a smaller sticker and just stick it to the existing license plate.
I have no problem with police officers stopping "loud" bikes, but I do have a problem with affixing an inspection sicker to the chrome or paint on my bike.
Most bikes don't have windshields, and those that do are made of plastic not glass as in automobile windshields. How would you like it if you had to stick the sticker to your plastic bumper or painted fender?
How do you determine "loudness?" Granted, some bikes are glaringly obvious, but even bikes with legal mufflers can sound loud when a bike is accelerating. Have you ever tried to stop a dozen bikes at a time? Do you really want to expend the LEO manpower it would take to do that?
Towns are disolving their police departments and those that aren't are cutting back. There are a lot more important issues to deal with than loud motorcycles.
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - Jn 14:6
13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." - Mt 7:13, 14
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" - Mt 7:21-23
"The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." - Jn 6:29
"I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." - Jn 6:35-40
"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." - Jn 11:25
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." - Jn 3:16-21
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ... 41Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." ... 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." - Mt 25:31-34, 41, 46
If what Jesus said is true, what you or I believe is irrelevant. Believing something doesn't make it true. All religions are man's attempt to interact with God on man's terms.
Jesus doesn't offer religion, he offers a relationship, on God's terms. God forgives because of what Jesus has done for us. If you want a relationship with God, Jesus is the way.
Well said. The only thing I would add is another reason for the change in federal law has to do with two legged preditors. Assaults, roberies, rapes and even murder are actually more frequent than attacks from wild animals.
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Actually, the inscription reads "Here rests in Honored Glory an American Soldier Known but to God" not "Unknown but only to God"
John Chick Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
First of all, they are not "test" flights, they are "training" flights. Unlike the days of WWII, when bombers would fly at high altitudes, today's military aircraft are designed to fly low, below radar, and are equipped with terrain following radar. It is critical for our pilots to get the type of low-level training in order to hone the skills they will need to do their job.
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)
He fought for your freedom you moron. Think about that every time you type a reply on this blog. You get to do that because of men and women like Col. Barfoot.
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)
"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)
Being a Veteran of three wars and one of the oldest surviving MOH recipients IS the point.
As a medal of honor recipient, he is due the respect of every member of the armed forces, officers and enlisted alike. Even the highest ranking officers must render a salute to a MOH recipient, regardless of the recipients rank or duty status. The congressional medal of honor is protected by law. There are serious penalties, including prison, for it's misuse and/or disrespect.
The contract he signed said nothing about flag poles.
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)
Nowhere in the HOA covenant he signed was he prohibited from installing a flag pole. He submitted a formal request to the HOA board, and his request was denied, not because of "covenant restrictions", but for "asthetic" reasons.
I cannot speak for the Col., but from what I've read, he has always had a flag pole in every place he has lived since he retired from the service. It is something that is very important to him. If the covenant agreement had prohibited flag poles, he probably would not have signed it. Why don't you nay sayers do a little investigating before you pass judgement on someone?
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)
It is ironic that on a day (December 7th) that we remember the sacrifice of so many american service men and women, that a news article is published about a veteran under attack for flying the flag he fought under.
Even worse is that so many here think that he is in the wrong. How may of you guys have ever gone over the speed limit? How many of you have ever "fudged" your income tax forms? I have never met anyone who hasn't bent the rules at one time or another. That man has earned the right to fly the flag anywhere he wants, any way he wants to. He's not a criminal.
The 109th Congress submitted a bill to adress this very issue, and it was signed into law by the President of the United States on July 24th, 2006. What started as a story on the local news in a small Virginia town has blossomed into a nation wide issue. Only on the Sun Journal blogs does one see such anti-American anti-Veteran sentament.
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)
"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)
Thank you for your service to your country, on behalf of a grateful nation and a fellow patriot.
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)
Attention to orders
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.
You forgot the other thing they do... personal attacks when they have nothing to refute what you say.
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)
Gee, I don't know Veritas... maybe they EARNED it. Not everyone who might be classified as "rich" got that way by bilking investors out of their hard earned money. There are actually "rich" people out there who have pulled themselves up by their own shoe laces, applied some good old Yankee ingenuity, and earned every dime the old fashioned way. I'm not one of them, but if I were, I would take offense at the idea that I be forced to pay extra just because I'm "rich."
I don't want affordable INSURANCE, or GOVERNMENT RUN Healthcare OR Insurance. I want affordable HEALTH CARE. There's a big difference.
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)
The State of Maine already recoups taxes from out of State and online purchases by forcing Mainers to pay taxes for our alleged purchases on our State income tax form (whether we made any such purchases or not!)
If I buy something out of State, why should I have to pay sales taxes for it here in Maine. If you're on vacation in California and make purchases while there, why should you have to pay Maine sales tax? But that's how our State looks at things. Never mind that you paid sales taxes to California when you purchased the items. IS THAT FAIR?
I am appauled at the view the Sun Journal is taking on this issue. I make a concerted effort to not only buy local, but buy American. It's getting harder and harder to find products locally that fit that description. If local merchants want more business, they should stock more quality "made in the USA" products. As it is now, you're hard pressed to find anything that isn't "made in China."
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)
There are potentially a number of reasons why no arrest has been made yet. If there are no eye winesses, it's "he said, he said," unless enough evidence can be collected to put the perps away. Unfortunately, the scales of justice tend to tip in favor of the criminal, and the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the victim and the prosecution.
That is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for people who are wrongly accused, but it sure sucks when you're trying to put the bad guys away. You have to make sure you cross all your "t's" and dot all your "i's" just right or they walk. You don't get an arrest warrant until you have the evidence to back it up.
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)
Health care may not be broken, but it is priced way out of reach for the average person. Hence, the "need" for health insurance. It is a never-ending cycle. By law, hospitals cannot turn people away, even if they do not have a means to pay for treatment. The cost of treatment has to be recouped somewhere, so health care costs go up. There are other factors; cost of medical supplies and drugs, malpractice insurance, etc. As health care costs go up, insurance rates go up. The system is definitely broken, but having the government take over is like pouring gasoline on a house fire to put the fire out.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul (i.e. taking money away from Medicare) is not a solution, it is a catastrophy waiting to happen. It very literally could mean a death sentance for some of our senior citizens. Public option = more taxes, and that's the last thing we need right now with this economy. Making health insurance manditory and doling out hefty fines on those who can't pay for it in the first place, is CRIMINAL! It's extortion!
Other than that, it's a great idea... (not)
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)
I'm with you James. I have two granddaughters serving as well.
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)
Sorry Ryan, you just did. By telling people they can only talk about God in/at church, you are basically "shoving your views down other people's throat." You say you don't like it when religious people "force" their beliefs on you, but you are perfectly OK with forcing your beliefs on them (i.e. don't talk about God outside of church.)
That's not how things work in this country. The 1st Amendment not only guarantees the people's right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, it also guarantees free speach. You can no more live your life "God free" than religous people can live their lives "Atheist free." We're all stuck with each other.
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)
Actually, I think it should say "The ship is stinking." what with all the BS that is flying around. We need affordable health care not just affordable health insurance. There is a BIG difference.
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)
What they did AFTER that might be questionable, but they did come here legally.
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)
No, you are misinformed. Medicare premiums DID go up. Want to see my bill?
You are right about one thing. There was no increase in SSI this year. I don't know where you get your information tron, but it's bogus.
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)
I agree jayla. My experience with the Monmouth Police Department has been nothing but positive. But then I don't drive 45mph through the middle of town, I register my vehicles and get them inspected when they are due, and I keep them maintained. MPD averages a 5 minute response time, which is outstanding for a rural area. I am, however, disappointed with these allegations being made about the chief.
Did you know that a crime is committed every 15 minutes and 30 seconds in the State of Maine? Murder is on the rise in this state, as are armed home invasions. This isn't the time to be doing away with the MPD.
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)
That is not what I said Jon. Don't put words in my mouth.
You are the one distorting the meaning of words. Establishment, like so many other words in the English language, can mean many things depending on the context in which it is used. But you know that. In the case of the 1st Amendment, the word "establishment" means "The act of establishing; a ratifying or ordaining; settlement; confirmation." that much is pretty clear from the context. All anyone has to do is look up any comentary on the Bill of Rights and/or the First Amendment to see how you completely distort its meaning.
The letter in which Jefferson mentions the "wall of separation" between Church and State is not a contrived quote. It is available online at the Library of Congress and numerous other web sites that are dedicated to preserving his writtings. His letter was in response to a letter from the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
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)
And you will not find the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere in our founding documents. It is a phrase Thomas Jefferson used to assure people that the government had no authority to tell people what to believe.
The first amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Government is prohibited from establishing a "State" religion and from making laws that prevent people from exercising their religious beliefs. It DOES NOT prevent religious people from participating in government.
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)
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" -- Inigo Montoya
Diversity IS NOT strength. Diverse = Different. Diversity is a state of difference, dissimiltudes, unlikeness. Metal alloys are created when individual elements are melted together and reprocessed until the desired alloy is obtained.
THAT is what made this country strong. People from all nations, ethnicities and religions came to America and blended together. It is this combining of cultures into one culture that has made America unique from all other countries of the world. We celebrate and share our differeneces (diversity), we live and let live (tolerance), but yet we are one people, we are Americans. At least that is the way it USED to be.
Now, in the name of "Diversity" and "Tolerance," imigrants (illegal or not) are coddled, instead of encouraged to "become" Americans. We must be careful what we say so we don't offend them. We "tolerate" their cultural and religious practices even when they are contrarty to our laws. The same public schools that bar any mention of Christianity or the Bible make allowences for devout muslims so they can practice their faith. All in the name of diversity and tolerance.
The natural tendency is to form communities with "like" people, those who share the same culture and values that we are accustomed to. This does not make us stronger, it weakens us by dividing us along cultural boundaries that only serve to exacerbate our differences. It discourages participation in the great experiment.
Yes, celebrate our differences, share in each other's cultures, but we also must come together as one people, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.
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)
"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)
Apparently you missed the video link that some No on 1 supporters posted to "prove" homosexuality was normal because animals do it. Sandra's statement is rather tame by comparison.
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)
Those people from Maine would be considered Maine residents. The issue is not about denying anyone their right to vote. The issue momof4 brings up is whether or not we should allow non-residents (i.e. students from other states) to vote on Maine issues.
When I was in the service stationed in another state, I still listed Maine as my residence. I didn't vote on the local and state issues of the host State. I also went to college in Virginia for a couple years, but I was a registered voter in the State of Maine, so I didn't participate in local and state Virginia elections either.
It's not about were you are born and raised so much as it is about where you register to vote.
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)
"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)
"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)
Laws are worthless without the ability to back them up. Don't think so? Let's ground all aircraft, park all ships and tanks and disband the millitary, the coast guard, and all law enforcement agencies (state and federal). How long do you think we'd hang onto our freedom then? Laws only work when they are obeyed and enforced.
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)
Believing something doesn't make it true. God is not God because I say so or because I believe that He is. He would still be God even if no one believed in Him. He has revealed Himself in creation, He has revealed Himself in His written Word, and He revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. His Word is true and faithful. It teaches us how to live, how to relate to one another, and how to have a personal relationship with Him.
There are many false gods, there are many paths and many religions that claim to know the way to true spiritual bliss. Only ONE claims to re-unite man (and woman) with the Creator. Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me." So either he IS The Way, The Truth and The Life, or he is a liar.
Let me put this another way. If God is only what you believe him (or her) to be, is he really God, or is he a figment of your imagination? If your God only has attributes that you wish him (or her) to have, (i.e. love, peace, acceptance, let you do anything you want because there are no bad people or bad behavior...) that's all well and good, but it is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible claims to be the true and living God, the creator of heaven and earth, the giver and sustainer of life. The God of the Bible desires to have a personal relationship with each and every one of us, but it is on His terms, not ours.
So you are correct in stating that there is only One God, but he is certainly not worshiped by all religions.
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)
You are correct. You DO worship a different god, not the true and living God, the Creator of all things.
If you did, you would revere His Word, His law, His precepts, His statutes, His commandments and His ordinances. Marriage was God's idea and He ordained that marriage is between a man and a woman. He created us male and female and he made our bodies for each other. When a husband and wife are joined together, God says the "two become one." Procreation was certainly part of His design, but it not the sole purpose for marriage. It is also about the unique relationship between husband and wife. Sex was God's idea along with the pleasure a husband and wife experience in the act of sexual intercourse. God's design is not just about the physical aspect of the relationship, he also designed husband and wife to meet each others spiritual and emotional needs as well.
Marriage, as God intended, is a relationship that cannot be realized by two men or two women. A man cannot be a wife to another man. A woman cannot be a husband to another woman. That is true physically, spiritually and emotionally. Two men cannot provide the role of a mother to a child, just as two women cannot provide the role of a father to their children. You may love each other and your children dearly but there is more than love at stake.
Decades of research show how important the family is to society. That is why governments pass laws that protect marriage, and by extension, the family.
It's not about rights, though it is about what is right.
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)
You can drop the "separate but equal" argument. That is EXACTLY what the "equality in marriage" law would have done, create two separate entitities, "civil" marriage and "religious" marriage. It also made religious organizations exempt from recognizing or performing "gay marriages." How is that "equal?"
This is NOT about civil rights. It is an attempt by the gay community to convince government to redifine the definition of marriage. (Which the government has no authority to do.)
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)
This is not about rights. This is about marriage. The people of Maine thought marriage was so important to society, they codified it in State Law. How has this changed? If it was true then, it is still true today.
Maine Revised Statute
Title 19-A, Chapter 23
§650. Findings and purposes
(WHOLE SECTION TEXT IN EFFECT PENDING REFERENDUM ON 11/3/09)
All municipal clerks and courts of this State shall have a duty and shall be legally required to construe the provisions of Maine's marriage laws in accordance with the following findings and purposes: [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:
A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
2. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life; [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
B. To nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children; and [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
C. To support and strengthen traditional monogamous Maine families against improper interference from out-of-state influences or edicts. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
SECTION HISTORY
1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW). 2009, c. 82, §1 (RP).
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)
This is not about rights. This is about marriage. The people of Maine thought marriage was so important to society, they codified it in State Law. How has this changed? If it was true then, it is still true today.
Maine Revised Statute
Title 19-A, Chapter 23
§650. Findings and purposes
(WHOLE SECTION TEXT IN EFFECT PENDING REFERENDUM ON 11/3/09)
All municipal clerks and courts of this State shall have a duty and shall be legally required to construe the provisions of Maine's marriage laws in accordance with the following findings and purposes: [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:
A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
2. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life; [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
B. To nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children; and [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
C. To support and strengthen traditional monogamous Maine families against improper interference from out-of-state influences or edicts. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
SECTION HISTORY
1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW). 2009, c. 82, §1 (RP).
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)
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)
Really nice letter Ellie, especially the day after Veterans Day.
Perhaps you'd like to return to the days of the Militia? We'll just swear in everyone between the ages of 17 and 45, give them a crash course in firearm safety, issue them a rifle and a battle pack of ammo and just sit back and reap the savings.
There's just one catch... the National Guard belongs to the Federal Government, and while tax payer dollers do end up paying for it, getting rid of the National Guard here in Maine won't save us that much. Plus, if we do away with Maine's National Guard units, civilian jobs and businesses will suffer too.
Let's just be thankful we have men and women who are willing to put themselves in harms way. Let's also remember to pray for those men and women, both in the current theaters of operation, and those who stay behind to defend our country.
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)
Not that long ago homosexuality (aka sodomy) WAS against the law (i.e. a criminal offense) in many States. Some still have it on the books, but don't enforce it anymore. Please check your facts before making blanket statements.
And his prediction is not unfounded:
- Over 2 million children around the world are sexually exploited every year.
- Here in the United States, as of the end of the year 2000, there were as many as 325,000 children being exploited.
- Child sex tourism, which involves child sex tours, takes adults from around the world to places where they can sexually exploit children.
- 25% of "sex tourists" outside the United States are American.
- The average age of entry into prostitution in the United States is 13.
The general consensus in this country is that Gay people are born that way. Well guess what, the general consensus is that pedophiles are born that way too. A pedophile will tell you that they would never dream of hurting a child. That they "love" children.
There was a time when society considered it "normal" for a girl to be married at an extremely young age (i.e. 13). In some parts of the world it is still acceptable
My point? Just because something is "acceptable" it doesn't mean it is right.
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)
"I am outraged by the vote against gay marriage. I am not bisexual or gay but many others in this world are, so who, in God's name, says that it is our decision to allow it or not?"
Who in God's name? God Himself. God created us male and female. God ordained the institution of marriage. God defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Who are we to change that? By what authority?
Government is prohibited from passing any laws that establish religion, or interfere with the free exercise thereof.
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)
"Webster's definition of democracy includes "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges." That means history and tradition are not acceptable excuses to deny anyone equal status or benefits under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has already struck down "separate but equal" as unconstitutional. Any attempt to recreate such a system is rightfully doomed to fail."
Martha, the key word there is "arbitrary." The State does not arbitrarily extend bennefits and/or privileges to married couples. It has a reason for doing so. It is because traditional monogamous marriage and the family that is the result, is the basic building block of society.
That does not infringe on anyone's rights. And though we may all be "created equal", we, as citizens of Maine, and by extension, citizens of the United States, certainly do not have equal status or bennefits under the law, married or otherwise. Look around. There are plenty of class distinctions; the "rich", the "middle-class", the "poor", the "homeless" and the list goes on. You can beat any rap if you have enough dough to get a really slick attorney (remember OJ?)
If "separate but equal" is, as you say, unconstitutional, then the "Equality in Marriage" law would have been unconstitutional. It created two "separate but equal" definitions of marriage (religious and civil) and granted certain immunities for religous organizations who did not wish to recognize same-sex "marriage."
For arguments sake, let us assume that other couples and/or families are being denied certain bennefits and privileges that are currently offered to married couples, and that it is a "bad" or "unfair" practice. It would be far more logical to simply pass legislation extending those bennefits to same sex couples, non-married couples and single parent households.
I think you'll find that most Mainers would favor such an approach. It would leave the concept of traditional marriage intact, while ensuring that all Maine couples and families recieve equal bennefits and privileges.
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)
Marrige = one man + one woman. It is the foundation of the family, which is the building block of society.
For this reason, governments protect the institution of marriage and offer incentives in the form of bennefits and privileges. (There is also the ulterior motive... it encourages couples to have more children, which increases the population, which increases the tax base.)
BUT THE GOVERNMNET DID NOT INVENT OR CREATE MARRIAGE, CIVIL, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE. And the government certainly has no authority to redifine it.
This is NOT about equal rights. We are ALL born with equal rights. If gay couples want the same bennefits and privileges afforded to them that are currently afforded to married couples, then get the legislature to do so without changing the definition of marriage.
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)
You must be joking. Brent's letter reminds me of a child who can't have his own way, so he throws a temper tantrum. Kinda like "If you don't let me pitch I'm going to take my ball and bat and go home so no one can play ball."
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)
Gil, I know your comment was basically "tongue in cheek",
Islam is NOT a peaceful religion. Never has been, never will be.
It makes the "crusades" and the "inquisition" look like childs play.
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)
Technically, if one wished to, one could make a very strong case that Lincoln did not have the authority to free the slaves. The Chief Executive's primary function is to "execute" the laws that are sent to his desk from Congress. The President may then sign them into law or veto them (in which case Congress may over-ride the veto with a 2 thirds majority vote.)
Linclon's "Emancipation Proclamation" was really nothing much more than a proclamation. The slaves weren't actually freed until the end of the war.
It has only been in the latter half of the previous century where so called "Executive Orders" have been used to enact "policies" that resemble "law." And both parties are guilty of it.
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)
"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)
Jason says "No, that was not the issue. The issue is about how people treat others who are different. It's about when we decide that because we dislike something, that it must therefore be inferior."
No, the issue was (is still) you want to redifine what constitutes a marriage. Any union that is not between a man and a woman is not marriage. Call it anything you want and get the government to extend the bennefits, privileges (and taxes) to what ever you want to call it.
The government didn't invent marriage, therefore the government has no authority to redifine what "marriage" is.
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)
Even so, they can rewrite THEIR version of the Bible all they want to. That doesn't make the Word of God irrelevent. There are still plenty of good translations out there that remain faithful to the original manuscripts.
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)
If by "freedoms" you mean "rights", then you are mistaken. Rights are not granted by living in a certain place. They are "endowed by their Creator" (according to Mr Jefferson and the ohter founding fathers.) The government does not grant rights. The purpose of government is to protect our rights and not to take any of them from us.
If by "freedom" you mean "liberty", you are also mistaken. Government does not grant liberty or freedom, per se. On the contrary, if anything, governments are more apt to pass laws that deny or infringe on true liberty and freedom.
The 1st Amendment protects religion FROM government interference. Nothing in our founding documents prevents relious people from participating in government, quite the contrary. You cannot separate a man (or woman) from what they believe. Their beliefs will influence every thing they do in every aspect of their lives. That is not necessarily good or bad, it's just a fact.
It makes no difference what the Yes on 1 people based their motivation on. The State of Maine did not invent marriage, nor did the US Government, or any government for that matter. Government has no authority to redifine marriage. The bennefits, privileges and "taxes" that government has bestowed on the institution of marriage, can easily be extended to include same sex couples, heterosexual couples that live together but are not married, and single parent households.
I can understand why government has seen to protect the traditional family. It is the foundation of all society.
What is immoral is to keep extending special privileges and protections to gay people in the guise of non-discrimination and/or civil rights. Yet at the same time, you would be ok with infringing on the equal rights of religious people in the guise of "Separation of Church and State."
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)
Sarah, the State did not invent marriage, nor did any human government. The 1st Amendment is meant to protect religion and religious people FROM government interference, NOT prevent relious people from being involved with government. The State recognizes that traditional marriage and the family unit is the foundation of all society. That is one of the reasons that government affords certain bennefits and privileges to married couples. (The other reason being to create a revenue stream in the form of marriage licenses, etc.)
This is why marriage was codified in Maine Law. (See below)
--snip--
Maine Revised Statutes
Title 19-A, Chapter 23: MARRIAGE
§650. Findings and purposes
1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:
A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
2. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life; [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
B. To nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children; and [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
C. To support and strengthen traditional monogamous Maine families against improper interference from out-of-state influences or edicts. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
--snip--
To reiterate; Marriage is not a government invention, State or Federal. As such, the government does not have the authority to redifine marriage, nor should it do so, but that is precisely what this law attempted to do. If it had not been repealed, not only would the definition of the word "marriage" have been redifined, but many other words relate to marriage would have been as well. (See below)
---snip---
§650-A. Codification of marriage
(EFFECT OF SECTION IS SUSPENDED PENDING REFERENDUM ON 11/3/09)
Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including, but not limited to, "spouse," "family," "marriage," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," "widow" and "widower," must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law. [2009, c. 82, §2 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
2009, c. 82, §2 (NEW).
---snip---
THAT is what the majority voted to repeal. No one is against extending any of the bennefits, privileges or "taxes" associated with married couples, to same sex couples. (And for that matter, heterosexual couples who are not married and single parent households). The State would be acting perfectly within it's authority to do so.
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)
"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)
You're right. The army should have canned him a long time ago.
Being taunted about ones faith does not give one a reason to slaughter anyone. Psychiatrists and psychologists are around troubled people every day. That's their job. Nobody forced him to become an army psychiatrist. When you sign on the dotted line, you go where they say to go whether you like it or not.
And I don't buy that the army didn't look into his accusations about being taunted.
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)
Why make this into a "us vs them" political issue?
I think they are a great idea, and guess what, I'm a registered republican and a native Mainer.
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)
"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)
No, not Everyone. I voted to repeal the law because the government doesn't have the authority to redifine marriage. I also think the law was a bad law in that id only would have allowed same sex couples to have the bennefits and priviledges of married couples.
The bill should be re-submitted, re-written, and renamed "The equality for Families" law, and extend the bennefits and privileges afforded to marriage to same sex partners, heterosexual partners who are not married, and single parrent households. That would leave the definition of marriage alone, and I don't think anyone who voted "yes" would be opposed to equal bennefits for all.
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)
Queen is right on this one. The law would have protected those who did not want to marry same sex couples under the "for religious reasons" category.
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)
Let God deal with it? You mean like he did with Sodom and Gommorah?
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)
If religion is religious why isn't it taken seriously? The moral collapse we are seeing in society is the reason the vote was as close as it was, and why churches are closing their doors. Religion is not taken seriously, never mind marriage. Just keep on teaching the secular humanism religion and evolution as fact and pretty soon you won't have to worry about religion.... at least until Jesus comes back.
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)
The phrase "separation of church and state" appears NOWHERE in our founding documents. It is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut, and it clearly shows what the 1st Amendment was meant to do. The 1st Amendment begins:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The right protected is an individual right to worship as one sees fit, apart from any interference from the government. Jefferson believed that "...religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship..." and that "Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their [Congress] acts..." Thus the government was prohibited from passing laws pertaining to the establishment of any one religion over another, and was prohibited from passing laws that interfered with The People's right to exercise (participate) in the religion of their choice.
At the time our nation was founded, the governments of Europe dictated to the people what religion they were allowed to practice. Those who did not comply were persecuted by both the government and the "Church". Many of the people (if not most) that came to North America did so in an attempt to escape this persecution and worship as they saw fit. This right was preserved in two ways; 1) Nothing in the Constitution gives government the authority to pass laws regarding religion. 2) The right is enumerated in the "Bill of Rights", i.e. the first 10 Amendments to the constitution.
The bottom line: Government is prohibited from creating a "State" religion AND from interfering with the FREE EXERCISE of religion by The People. It does NOT prevent religious people from participating in government, nor does it prevent any particular religious organization form lending support to any particular cause.
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)
That whole "separate but equal" issue is a straw man. The so-called "marriage equality" law would have created a "separate but equal" definition of marriage by distiguishing between "religious" marriage and "civil" marriage.
If this law were really about equality, it would have included extending the bennefits associated with marriage to non-married heterosexual couples and single parrents, NOT JUST GAY COUPLES. Now THAT would have been TRUE equality, and acceptable to all Mainers. But that really isn't what you want, is it? You just want LGBT to bennefit from such a law.
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)
If this were really just about rights (which it is not) or bennefits and privileges (which it is) then it could easily be settled in a manner in which all bennefit. The truth is, this is more than just about equality. This is an attack on the church, marriage and the "natural" family. If it were anything else, they would be willing to compromise. This law only applies to LGBT's. It does nothing to secure equality for non-married heterosexual couples or single parents. It's a bad law that needs to be repealed.
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)
Joseph, obviously, you didn't read what he wrote. No one is asking anyone to compromise on basic civil rights. The compromise is on the definition of marriage.
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)
Please read it again. The first Amendment protects The People (religious or otherwise) from the government establishing a "State" religion. It does NOT prevent religious people from participating in government. There is a big difference. If by "the church" you mean the Roman Catholic Church, or any other organized religion, then that is correct. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows any organized religious body to dictate government policy.
I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your statement. What people believe, i.e. their core values, will influence the laws they choose to be governed by. Our nation, as a people, have a rich Judeo-Christian religious heritage, and as a result, 99.9% of our laws are derived from principles found in the "10 Comandments". It's only been the last 40 years or so that we, as a society, have drifted away from that heratige.
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)
So the statement is true. Clinton signed it. It's not propaganda, it is a factual statement. BOTH political parties are adept at "tacking on" riders and amendments in order to get something passed that might otherwise fail on its own. On the campaign trail, Obama said he was going to put an end to such practices, but so far things are business as usual.
Apparently, Clinton weighed the costs and voted with his pen, just like they all do. The only time any given party talks about creating a line item veto is when there is a sitting president of the opposite party in the white house.
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)
I agree with you Jami, but I don't think Christians are becoming unpopular. The gospel, and those who proclaim it, has never been very "popular". But you're right. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Exciting times indeed!!!
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." -- Jesus
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)
"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)
"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)
Man is incurably religious. We are hard-wired to worship something or someone. That is why there are so many religions.
To answer your other questions:
1. Christianity in not right because I or any other believer says it is, Jesus is the one who said "I AM the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father (God) but by me."
2. In order to practice Christianity, Christians must tell others about Jesus. He instructed us to "go into all the world and preach the gospel (good news) and make disciples of all who believe."
3. Everything we do affects those around us, as what others do affects us. No man is an island. To those who believe in the sanctity of marriage, it is a dart through the heart because marriage is at the very core of God's plan and God's will for our lives. It is the first of four institutions ordained by God.
4. It's not about ego, it's just one begger telling another begger where he found bread.
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)
The Church will endure no matter what the outcome of the vote is on Tuesday. God is still in control. His plans will not be thwarted by anything society does. His Word will still be true regardless of what people think. And there will come a day when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
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)
Let's see. If those opposed to gay marriage base their argument on the bible or God, it's a bad thing. But if the pro-gay marriage side base their argument on "Jesus" it's Ok?
That sounds like a double standard to me.
The truth is, Jesus preached that marriage was ordained by God, and that it was a union between a man and a woman. That the two became "one flesh", and what God has joined together, man should not attempt to separate.
Jesus NEVER condoned sin of any kind. His message was clear; "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand." He offers forgiveness to all who repent and turn from their wicked ways. To those who do, he says "Go, and sin no more."
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)
So animals engage in homosexual BEHAVIOR. There's nothing new about that. Every farm boy or girl knows that.
But it most certainly IS agains the laws of nature. Nature dictates that in order for their species to survive, they must mate with the oposite sex.
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)
This is currently how the law in Maine reads regarding the definition of marriage:
Title 19-A, p650,
1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:
A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.
2. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life;
B. To nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children; and
C. To support and strengthen traditional monogamous Maine families against improper interference from out-of-state influences or edicts.
Those are pretty powerful statements, and I agree one hundred percent. The State has failed in its moral obligation to "nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogomous family unit" with the passage of this so-called "equality in marriage" law.
The State has the authority to extend the same bennefits that "traditional monogamous" married couples now have, to same sex couples and heterosexual couples who are not married. THAT would be the most logical thing to do, and it does not discriminate against anyone, religious or otherwise. I might add, they should probably be extended to single parrents as well.
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)
"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)
Natural law is simply ignorance called traditional?
From Wikipedia:
"Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.
Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law, and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States."
"The Law of Nature also refers to Physical law, a scientific generalization based upon empirical observation"
So basically, what you are telling us is that science and our system of government is based on tradition and ignorance.
From Maine Law Title 19-A, 650:
"A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage."
The "equallity in marriage" law IS EXACTLY about redefining marriage. It re-writes Maine marriage law to redefine the "legal" definition of marriage so homosexuals (people of the same sex) can be "legally" married.
Nice try.
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)
Yes, Jesus taught compassion, but he also taught righteousness and holiness. He also taught about marriage and was specific that it is a union between one man and one woman for life. Never did he teach that we are to tollerate sin, never. Sin is bondage, he came to set us free.
No one is against extending the bennefits and protectionis of married couples to homosexual and heterosexual domestic partners. The government has the authority to do that. But the government does not have the authority to redefine marriage.
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)
Nothing in the Constitution of the State of Maine or the Constitution of the United States gives you the authority to redefine marriage. Claiming that "civil" marriage and "religious" marriage are not the same is a straw man. People of faith are required to obtain a marriage license from the State even though their marriage cerimony will likely take place in a religious setting and be officiated by a minister, priest, etc. When it bennefits the State, they are the same, yet in the case of same sex marriage, they are not (according to you).
Currently Title 19-A, p650 reads:
"A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage."
Marriage is what it is. Marriage is not a right, civil or otherwise. We already have equal rights. Government cannot grant rights. If government could grant rights than government could take them away. Our rights are inherent and are a gift from God. If religion plays no part in this debate, how is it that our founding fathers claimed that our rights to Life, Libery and the Persuit of Happiness are bestowed upon us by our Creator?
Go back to the beginning of the text:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Did you catch that? Their justification for the separation from England was based on what they felt they were entitled to according to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".
We call the union between a man and a woman, marriage. In the eyes of God it makes no difference if someone is married by a Justice of the Peace or a minister. It's still a union between a man and a woman. This union is not only considered Holy and Sacred by religious people, it is the foundation of the family, the cornerstone of civilization and societies and cultures all around the globe. We have laws that extend bennefits and protections to married couples because society would not exist if it were not for "Natural" union between a man and a woman.
If government wishes to extend the same protections and bennefits to same sex couples and domestic partnerships, that is perfectly acceptable. But you should also extend them to heterosexual couples who prefer to NOT be married, yet still maintain a partnership.
No matter how you look at it, the same sex marriage law that you and your fellow representatives and senators passed is a bad law. It needs to be repealed and rewritten so ALL of the people enjoy equal bennefits without changing the definition of marriage.
It is ironic that you should mention our ancestors coming to this country to escape persecution for their religious beliefs while at the same time urging us to accept a law that desecrates one of the most sacred tenents of their faith.
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)
It's not that simple. Many of the laws that God gave the Jews through Moses where part of a covenant that He made with them. Specifically the ceremonial laws pertaining to worship, sacrifices, and the laws pertaining to sanctification (clean vs unclean). They were to be "set appart" as a people, holy unto the Lord.
But there are also other laws that pertain to government and morality that God expects all people to obey, Christian or not. They are written on our hearts (i.e. conscience)so that even people who have never heard about God or his laws are still without excuse. They can't say "I didn't know it was wrong to murder someone" or "I didn't know it was wrong to steal". In the Bible, homosexuality is a moral issue, as is adultery, incest and bestiality. God's judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah ocurred long before the events of Leviticus where he gave Israel the Law through Moses.
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)
If you knew Jesus, you would know that he said: "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
This was in response to a question he was asked about divorce, but it clearly shows marriage as God intended it.
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)
"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)
If all you want are the bennefits the law bestows on married couples, then change the law and leave the definition of marriage alone.
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)
"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)
He may not be your God, but he most certainly is your maker Dosh.
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)
While one might not agree with Joseph's religious views, it is impossible to ignore the affect of unbridaled sensual debauchery on past civilizations. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Babylonian empire, Persa, Greece and Rome, just to name a few. Lust, jealousy, envy, greed, sensuality, these are just the warning signs of a civilization that is on the brink of self destruction.
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)
This is not about rights or equality. This is about redefining marriage.
A "Yes" vote on Question 1 simply affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of civilization and definition should stand. Cultures all over the globe honor marriage, religious or not.
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)
Ooops! Don't think so. Just because some animals exhibit homosexual behavior does not mean there are homosexual animals. When it comes time for breeding season, they will find one of thier kind's oposite sex so their species can survive. I worked on a dairy farm and occasionally would see one cow attempt to mount another that was in heat. Not once did I ever see two cows produce a calf, and neither did they derive some obscene pleasure from this behavior. It did, however, get the bulls attention, which is probably why they do it.
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)
The only place you will find the term "Separation of Church and State" is in Thomas Jefferson's letters and writings. You won't find it anywhere in the documents that make up our system of government.
What we DO have is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which begins with: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
If you recall, the first 10 amendments is often refered to as the Bill of Rights. The purpose is to protect our rights to worship freely, as we choose, and to prevent the government from establishing an "official" state religion, not to protect the government from religious people. And the 1st Amendment also protects the right that religious people have to share their beliefs and opinions: "...or abridging the freedom of speech,".
To you, marriage is nothing more than a social construction, something that government invented. That is not true. From the dawn of civilization, the union of a man and a woman has been the corner stone of society. This is true in literally every society and culture around the globe, even in the absence of any official government. In regligious cultures, marriage is considered sacred, holy and honorable and always between a man and a woman (until just recently).
There are those who say that allowing same sex marriage is the evolution of the marriage, but evolution is about the "natural" progression of things. There is nothing "natural" about same sex unions. Those in favor of same sex marriage will point to the animal kingdom and say that homosexual behavior exists there too. That may be true, but when it comes down to the survival of a given species, the "natural" way this is achieved is by breeding with the oposite sex. Besides, we are supposed to be civilized not animals.
This is not about rights. Never has been and never will be. It is about redefining the word marriage in an attempt to legitimise their homosexual lifestyle.
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)
There is nothing TO justify Jacob's or Solomon's actions.
The Bible is a book of contrasts, not contradictions. It shows both the good and the bad. God's plan for marriage didn't change because they deviated from it. Both Jacob and Solomon had to deal with the repercussions of their actions. In Jacob's case, there was rivalry between his two wives, rivalry between their offspring and favoritism on Jacob's part for Rachel's children, which further exacerbated the situation.
In Solomon's case, it was his relationship with God that suffered in the end. Now supposedly, this guy was the wisest man that ever lived, but it does make one wonder in light of the 700 wives thing.
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)
Rational argument #1 - The law discriminates against both heterosexual and homosexual couples who choose to live together without being married. Rather than change the definition of marriage, the law should extend the same bennefits and priviledges to all domestic partners, whether they choose to be married or not.
Rational argument #2 - Those who are for same sex marriage, state as one of their reasons, that to do otherswise (i.e. civil unions instead of marriage) would create a situation where there would be "equal but seperate" bennefits and priviledges, that we should all be equal under the law. But that is just what the same sex marriage law has done. Now there are seperate guidelines for religious institutions that exempt them from recognizing same sex "civil" marriages.
Rational argument #3 - Both the federal and state constitutions prohibit government from making laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By granting religious entities "permission" to ignor the law regarding same sex marriages, government has set a dangerous precedent that could pave the way to government regulation of religious entities in other areas.
Rational argument #4 - Nothing in the state or federal constitutions grant government the authority to redefine marriage. In fact, it may be argued that government has overstepped its bounds by getting into the marriage business in the first place. The government DOES have the authority to extend the bennefits and priviledges of marriage to all domestic partners.
The rational, fair and equal thing to do is repeal this law, leave the deffiniton of marriage alone, and extend said bennefits and priviledges to all domestic partnerships.
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)
If the shoe were on the other foot, and it was Pitts that was turned down, everyone would be screeming RACISM! DISCRIMINATION! (everyone including Pitts.)
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)
So you think that a man cannot love another man and be a heterosexual? I know a lot of married men who love hanging around with the other guys, that doesn't make them gay. That is Mr. Schmidt's opinion, not what the Bible actually says. The text itself shows what God's idea of a suitible help meet was. He didn't create Steve he created Eve.
If your child continuously does something that you have repeatedly told him not to do, or refuses to do something you've asked him to do, doesn't it make you angry? frustrated? Especially so if it is something that endangers their life. Why? Becaus you love them and you don't want to see them hurt themselves or others.
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)
Perhaps I have missrepresented my position. My objections are not solely based on religious convictions. The government had no authority to get into the marriage business in the first place. Nothing in our founding documents (State and/or Federal) grants the government the authority to redefine marriage. Nothing in our founding documents grants government the authority to regulate marriage either, but it does.
The "rights" that gay couples hope to gain by having the government redefine marriage are not rights. We all have equal rights already. Over the years, laws and statutes have been passed in the guise of protecting marriage, along with certain bennefits and/or exemptions. If our government wishes to extend these to unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples, they could easily do so. I am OK with that, as I'm sure most of the other oponents of this law would be.
One of the objections to simply extending these bennefits is that it would create equal but "seperate" rights. That is not true. In the first place, government cannot create rights. If it could, it could also take them away. This is what the framers of our government believed, that our rights are inherent and unalienable. Governments may deny people their rights, or suppress their rights, but rights don't come from government. In the second place, the very thing this law was suppose to avoid, has instead created a seperate but "equal" condition. Now, acording to our government, we have "religious" marriage and "civil" marriage, with certain exemptions granted to religious organizations who do not with to recognise "civil" marriage. How is this equal under the law? And what about those heterosexual couples who live together but for whatever reason, choose not to get married? Shouldn't they also have the same bennefits and priviledges that married people have now?
All of us should have the same rights under the law whether we are married or not.
I am voting yes on question 1, not because I hate gay people, but because this law the wrong law.
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)
By original plan, I mean one man for one woman for life. In the biblical story of creation, Eve is created by taking a piece of Adams side. He didn't take a piece of his foot to be trampled by him, or a piece of his head that she would be over him. He took a piece of his side, so she would be equal with him, from close to his heart to be loved by him, and from under his arm to be protected by him. They were designed to compliment each other, and to complete each other.
It is mankind that has distorted the relationship that God intended. Some have even done so in the name of religion. Polygamy is recorded in the Bible, as well as the negative ramifications of that practice. Nowhere does God condone polygamy or treating ones wife like property.
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)
I present thousands of years of precedent. From the dawn of time, marriage has been between a man and a woman. And that definition permeates all civilizations and their differing religions.
Jefferson had every right to his opinions. Notice that he was not so much against religion as he was against the clergy. At that time, religion and government were so intertwined that you couldn't tell them apart. The people were told what they could and could not believe by their government. Jefferson and the other founders believed that religion should be a personal choice, and I agree with them. That is why our Constitutions prohibit government from making any laws pertaining to religion, but that hasn't stopped our government from trying.
And Jefferson is correct regarding Christianity and Common Law. Common Law, if anything, is similar to the Mosaic Law without the religious aspects of it.
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)
The State could easily have passed legislation that extends the protections and bennefits that married couples currently enjoy under the law, to include both heterosexual and homosexual domestic partners WITHOUT redefining the definition of marriage.
Those who support the new law say that was the wrong approach, that it provides seperate yet equal protection under the law, and we should all be treated the same. Yet with this new law, we now have exactly that. We have "religious" marriage and "civil" marriage, and once again, the government has passed legislation regulating religion, something that both the Constitution of Maine and the United States Constitution (under the 1st Amendment) forbid government of doing. Using the term "civil marriage" is a straw man. As far as the law is concerned, it doesn't matter if you get married in a church by a minister, or on the sidewalk by a justice of the peace, marriage is marriage.
And as for discrimination, the state and most of the pro-same sex posters here are discriminating against anyone who disagrees with this law, religious or otherwise.
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)
Dorithy said: "For religious groups, the possibility of procreation determines the legitimacy of marriage."
Not exactly. God determines the legitimacy of marriage, procreation is just one of the desired results. God's plan for marriage is one man and one woman for life. The fact that his original plan has been distorted by believers and non-believers alike, does not legitimize the deviation from his original design.
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)
You are correct in that Jesus taught us to love one another, but he also taught us to hate sin because it is a barrier between us and God, and prevents us from having a personal relationship with him. Look at the scriptures again. There are multiple times that Jesus told people "I forgive you, go and sin no more". He also claimed that he did not come to do away with the Law (i.e. the Law of Moses and the teachings of the Old Testament) but to fulfil it. When he was asked what the greates commandment was, he said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." - Matthew 22:36-40
If we love God, we endevour to live in a manner that is consistent with his commandments. If we truly love our neighbor as ourselves we will want what is best for them too, and that is a right relationship with 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)
I think it is dangerous to put words in the founders mouth. No, they did not consider the new government they founded to be a "Christain" government. As you say, they took great pains to make sure the new government could not dictate what people of faith should believe.
That does not mean they did not find value in religion. Franklin was the exception. Even Jefferson, who was a self-proclaimed deist, said that the teachings of Christ were the most purest form of religion that he had found. He even copied Christ's teachings and compiled them into a book and made an attempt to live by them.
If you wish to know how the founding generation would have voted on question 1, you simply have to read some of the laws that were enacted from thata era. There was a time when the practice of sodomy was a criminal offense. It is only in recent history that these laws have been abolished.
Samual Adams and John Adams were devoutly religious men who hoped that the new nation would lean more toward its religious roots, namely Puritanism. They would have abhored the idea of same sex marriage and considered it to be an abomination (which it is, biblically).
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)
Check out the book of John. "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning." and in verse 14 "14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." The Word the apostle John speaks of is Jesus.
Jesus taught that he did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament) but to fulfil them (Matthew 5:17 & 18) and that every word, including the punctuation, is important. Yes, Jesus preached a message of love, but he also preached "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand." He was not afraid to label sin as sin. He also taught more about hell than any other biblical teacher. And then there is the passage in Matthew chapter 10, specifically verses 34 to 42. It starts out "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
You cannot just pick and choose which of Jesus's teachings you wish to believe and throw out the rest. My challenge to you would be to pick up a copy of the New Testament and read the gospel accounts for yourself. There is a whole lot more to Jesus teaching than "love one another".
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)
When man's laws disagree with God's laws, believers have an moral obligation to obey God rather than man. (see Acts 5:29 for starters. The book of Daniel also teaches this.)
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)
You won't find the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution. What we do have is the 1st Amendment, which protects the church (religion) from government intrusion, NOT to keep the church, or by extension religious citizens (or their views), out of government. The latter is impossible.
At the time this country was founded, the governments of Europe dictated to the people what they should believe. (It all started centuries ago when Constantine when he made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.) England also had an official state religion. The founders believed that religion should be a personal choice, and the way they chose to protect that choice was by the statement found in the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The phrase "separation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to a religious organization assuring them that the 1st Amendment protected them from government interference. Over time, this phrase has been misconstrued by those who wish to erase any mention of this country's Judeo-Christian heritage from public schools and other public venues. Laws that prohibit prayer in public schools (prohibiting the free exercise thereof), and courts ruling to have religious artifacts removed from public places (respecting the establishment of religion, or in this case, doing away with religion), are unconstitutional.
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)
We are all sinners, no one is exempt, but if we choose to follow Christ we must repent of our sin and do what he says.
Jesus said "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." - luke 9:23
It is important to note that he said "daily". The goal for a Christian is to be conformed to the image of Christ, but it doesn't happen overnight, it's a process.
Jesus also said "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" - luke 6:46
That one always gets me.
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)
Nowhere in the scriptures is polygamy endorsed. God's original plan was and is one man and one woman for life. Yes, the Bible records historical accounts of polygamy, and it also records the problems that erupt from polygamist relationships. We are also taught not to lie, steal, murder, etc. etc. and there are accounts of what happens when people lie, steal and murder.
Don't confuse God's infinite patience and mercy to mean that He tolerates evil.
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)
First, no one is telling any one how to live. We are simply saying that the government has no authority to redefine the deffinition of marriage. The sanctity of marriage and the true family model (husband, wife, children) are at the core of our Judeo-Christian values and the basis for society.
Secondly, Christianity is not a myth. There really was/is a person named Jesus who claimed to be the Christ, the Son of God. You may not believe that he was/is, but that does not change the facts concerning his life and ministry.
Thirdly, the family, as God intended it to be, is not only a Judeo-Christian value, but one that is found in cultures all over the world, regardless of religion.
No one is denying gay people Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness. You say Christians should keep their beliefs to themselves, well what about the rest of you who are cramming gay marriage down the throat of the religious community? It is an attack on our fundamental core values. It has nothing to do with religious indoctrination. Marriage has been, and still is, considered a unique relationship ordained by God for thousands of years, and not just in Judeo-Christian circles either.
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)
While you're at it, ask God for a little enlightenment for yourself. Nowhere in scripture does it say that God is about fairness and equality. (Although there is a passage that says God is no respecter of persons, i.e. God treats everyone the same whether they are rich, poor, black, white, etc.)
Jesus said ""I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Now really, is that fair? No. But the scriptures also teach that "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." - 2 Peter 3:9.
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)
I suggest you read the bible again. God most certainly ordained marriage (between a man and a woman).
You can start with Genesis chapter 2. Notice that God made Eve, not Steve for Adam. In verse 24 God says: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
When Jesus was asked about divorce, he said: 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - Matthew 19:4-6
Or in Hebrews (New Testament) where it says: "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." - Hebrews 13:4
I don't know where you get your information crash, but the Pope doesn't have a monopoly on the Bible. There are more supporting ancient manuscripts of the texts that make up what we call the Bible, than any other ancient documents. That has nothing to do with the stuff that the Popes make up or the new teachings they issue. That stuff is not part of the Bible.
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)
You are partially correct. The "Old Testament" of the Christian bible is the same as the Hebrew texts which were compiled by the Jews long before Christ walked on this earth. The New Testament is a collection of biographies and letters written by those who had been with Christ and various other eye witness accounts. Before they were compiled into what we call the New Testament, they were copied and passed around to the individual churches. I don't understand why it was a problem to compile them into what we know today as the Bible. We do the same thing with secular writings (i.e. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, which is a compilation of individual stories that were published in "The Strand".)
And as for your other issue, no, it has NOT been scientifically proven that there is a Gay gene. That is mere speculation and wishful thinking amoung those in the Gay community. There is nothing normal about same sex relationships. You don't need a Bible to tell you that, look at the way our bodies are designed (or evolved, if you prefer to think of it that way).
Let us, for a moment, throw God, the Bible and religion right out of the argument and look at this based on the theory of evolution, natural selection and the survival of the fittest. The theory is that over time, life evolves and in the evolution process, traits considered to be improvements are naturally selected over those which are not. That the stronger of the species survive to pass on their genes, ensuring the survival of a particular species. If this is true, and a large percentage of scientists believe that it is, then a homosexual gene (if there was one) would serve no purpose in the evolutionary scheme of things. It does not make the species stronger nor does it ensure the survival of the species. If we were all homosexual, there would be no more offspring. So even if there was a Gay gene, which there is no proof of, it would be a mutation or trait that serves no useful purpose in the survival of the species, and thus it would be an abnormality. (i.e. it ain't normal).
Any way you look at it, biblically or scientifically, homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle.
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)
The basic definition of a bigot is "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own". So in a sense, you are also a bigot. You are prejudice towards anyone who believes the Bible and are intolerant of their opinions because they differ from your own. Oh, and FYI, when someone speaks out about, or shares their faith, they are adhering to the teachings of Christ found in the Bible.
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)
It is also common knowledge that those in gay relationships have their share of unhappy endings as well. That does not give the government justification for redefining the deffinition of marriage.
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)
As followers of Christ, our beliefs should be based on the truth of God's Word. When we deviate from his instructions, we are no longer following the path that he has shown us, rather we are choosing our own way. God's design for marriage is, and always will be, one man and one woman for life. That will never change no matter how the vote turns out in November. God's will and his plan will remain the same. He has made it very clear in his Word as to what he (God) thinks about homosexuality. Nothing we do or say will ever change that. The good news is that while God hates sin, he loves sinners, so if we repent, i.e. turn away from our sin and toward him, he is ready and willing to forgive us and receive us into his family.
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)
Thankyou for answering the call and for supporting your son when he chose to do the same. Those of us who answer do so knowing full well that we may be required to make the ultimate sacrifice. However, that knowledge does little to ease the pain when it happens to those we love. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.
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)
Show me in the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Maine, where the government is given the authority to redefine marraige, and I'll show you the First Amendment, and Article 3 of Maine's Constitution, where government is specifically prohibited from making any laws regarding religion. Marriage is, and always has been, an institution ordained by God, hence the terms "holy matrimony" and the "sacriment of marriage". It will remain so regardless of what you or I think, or any law that is passed by any governing body.
This is not about rigthts. Marriage is not a right. If the State wishes to afford gay couples the same protections and benefits afforded married couples, fine. Just don't call it marriage.
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)
You are correct. And nothing in the Constitution of the United States or the State of Maine Constitution authorizes the government to redefine marriage. In fact, one could argue that the First Amendment protects the religious institution of marriage from government interference.
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)
Of all the ancient writings we have, there are more copies of the books that make up the bible than any other ancient manuscripts. Originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, the level at which these documents have been preserved is astounding, especially when compared to other ancient texts. From the oldest manuscripts to the newest, they are virtually the same.
Those manuscripts have not been written and re-written. The only issue, if you can call it that, is when the bible is translated into other languages from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, especially when attempting to do a word for word translation. The other factor is that over time, languages change. This is especially true of the English language. Words that were common to the English language in the 1600's (when the King James Version of the bible was translated) are either not used today, or have taken on differenct meanings over time. New translations are an attempt to deal with this natural phenomenon, and the better translations are those which include scholars from a variety of denominations (they tend to be less bias).
But to say that the Bible has been written, chapters deleted and re-written is just not true. BTW, the "chapter" and "verse" divisions are not in the original manuscripts. They were added to modern translations for reference purposes only and are not considered part of the text.
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)
Every hear of George Wallace? What party did he belong to? I'll give you a hint, he wasn't a Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Green Party....
Racism knows no political or territorial boundaries, and just because one disaggrees with another person's ideas, it does not make he or she a racist.
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)
So are you saying that the majority of democratic posters to the Sun Journal are collage kids? I seem to recall a lot of Bush bashing on the SJ blogs over the past several years. Sounds like a double standard to me.
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)
Sunstein thinks that animals should have the same rights as humans. So basically, that is "animals = humans" No one is advocating animal cruelty, and we already have laws for that. This guy is way out there, and not just the animal rights thing either. Check out his views on Wikipedia.
Matthew 25:40 has nothing to do with animals. You pulled that way out of context. It has to do with people. It speaks of feeding the poor, visiting the prisoners, clothing the poor, etc, etc.
Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 9 deal with our relationship to other living creatures. We are to be stewards of the planet and the creatures that live here with us. The native American tribes that were hunter gatherers offer a good example for us. They respected the animals they hunted and only took what they needed to sustain them.
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)
Not true. In the famous "sermon on the mount" Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He taught that marriage was holy and ordained by God, and that it was between one mane and one woman, as God intended it to be, from the beginning. The New Testament rarely mentions murder either, but that doesn't make murder any less of a sin.
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)
The first Amendment does not protect Government from religeous people, it protects The People from the Government establishing a State religion. In the centuries leading up the American Revolution, the governments in Europe were joined at the hip with the Catholic church. This goes all the way back to Constantine, the Roman Emperor, who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. History is replete with the atrocities that resulted from that un-holy union, which, by-the-way, was NOT in accordance with Christ's teachings. When Church of England broke away from the Catholic Church under Henry the VIII, the Crown usurped authority over the church. (It is interesting to note that the reason for this move was that the Catholic Church would not grant Henry a divorce.) The church and the government were still joined at the hip, but now the "state" had become head of the church. Leading up to and during the American Revolution, the crown dictated what ministers should preach to their congregations.
The founders realized that freedom of religion was just as important to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as any other inalienable right. Jefferson is the one that coined the term "separation of church and state", but you wont find that phrase in the Constitution or any of the other founding documents. On the contrary, the Declaration of Independence asserts that we are entitled to a "separate and equal station" amoung the "powers of the earth" according to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". It also states that we are all "created" equal, and that we are endowed by our "Creator" with certain "unalienable rights". It goes on to say that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted amoung men, and that when government fails to protect our rights, we have the right to abolish that government at set up a new one. By implication, the right to do so is given to us by God (i.e. our "Creator").
The Constitution of the United States defines the form of Government chosen by the founding generation. It grants government specific authority to act on behalf of The People. Any authority not granted government via the Constitution is retained by The People (see the 10th Amendment). Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Maine, is government granted the authority to redefine marriage. That deffinition, which has existed since the dawn of time, and, it could be argued, predates any form of human government, is a union between a man and a woman.
But marriage is not a right, civil or otherwise. This whole gay marrige thing is not just about civil rights, if it were it could easily be resolved by extending some of the laws that protect married couples to include domestic partners. This would also benefit heterosexual couples who may be life long partners, but are not "officially" married. But that is NOT what the gay community wants. What this is really about is demanding that government legitimize the homosexual lifestyle by redefining what constitutes marriage.
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)
I'm old enough to remember what it was like before the Insurance companies got into the health insurance business. Healthcare was affordable and the only thing you really needed health insurance for were unforeseen emergencies. Prescription drugs were also affordable and we didn't need insurance co-pays or otherwise to get them.
Had State and Federal governments been doing their job, we would not be in such a crisis. Government should have stepped in long ago to regulate the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries, as well as basic healthcare, to ensure that they were affordable for all the people. Instead of listening to The People, our representatives have bowed to the lobbyists and speacial interests in the healthcare industry.
We don't need a government run healthcare system or health insurance. What we need is for the government to do their job and protect The People from an out-of-control healthcare industry, NOT make it manditory for everyone to buy health insurance!
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful
limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and
enforce only our natural rights... and to take none of them from us.
...and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society
we give up any natural right." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to
Francis W. Gilmer (June 27, 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.
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)
That's not exactly true, Lil. We all have access to the best healthcare on the planet. Health insurance and healthcare are two different things.
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)
What they are asking for is that the State redefine marriage, something the state has no authority to do. It is NOT about equal rights. If it were simply about equal rights, legislation could be passed recoginizing "civil unions" between same sex couples, and afford them the same priviledges and bennefits allotted married couples. Rights have nothing to do with this issue. The state DOES NOT and CANNOT grant rights, civil or otherwise. They can pass laws that PROTECT rights or grant certain bennefits or priviledges. The reasoning is simple. If government could grant rights, government could also take them away.
We already have equal rights regardless of ones choice of lifestyle. Every man, woman and child, every gay or straight person, regardless of ones ethnicity, have the same rights. The confusion over this issue exists because some people think this is about rights. It is not. Marriage is not a right, it is an institution ordained by God. Marriage existed long before governments. Marriage would, and does exist, even in the absense of government. The family (one man, one woman and, if they are so blessed, children) is the foundational building block of society. It is for this reason that most governments pass laws that protect the institution of marriage. (Some of these laws also exist in the form of revenues, i.e. marriage licenses, etc, which also have nothing to do with rights.)
Another option would be to ammend the laws that exist for married couples to include domestic partners. That would cover everyone; married couples, heterosexual couples that live together but are not married, and gay couples. Now THAT would be truely fair and equal.
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)
Well, first of all, Matthew 7:12 is not about intolerance, and if you keep reading, you'll eventually come to verses 21 which says:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Now if you back up to chapter 5, which is where his sermon begins, in verse 17 you'll find the following:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
In order to really grasp his teaching, one must take the whole context of his sermon, not just bits and pieces like we have here. The kind of love Jesus preached about does not rejoice or celebrate sin and unrighteousness, and contrary to what people seem to think, it is not hateful to rebuke someone for doing something that God says is wrong.
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)
The family, as God intended it, is a direct result of one man and one woman coming together in the holy bonds of matrimony. It consists of a husband and wife, a father and a mother, and if they are so blessed, children. Everyone reading this LTTE came into being the same way. We are all born male and female.
The government does not have the authority to redefine marriage or make laws that redefine what constitutes marriage. People are confused because there are a number of laws that protect the rights of married people and spouses that have lost their partner. There was a time when those laws did not exist, but the institution of marriage has been with us since the dawn of time.
This is NOT about equal rights for gay couples. If it were they would be satisfied with civil unions, or some other legislation that provided similar rights for them. This is nothing more than an all out attack on the Church, the family and marriage, institutions 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)
Sorry. You don't get to pick and choose who you love if you truely follow Christ.
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)
I suggest you read the New Testament again, especially Jesus' words. Over and over again, whenever he forgives someone, he tells them "go and sin no more". He also mentions more about hell than any other person in the New Testament (or Old Testament).
He was also pretty clear about marriage: one man and one woman for life.
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)
Actually, I think you got that backwards. .357 revolvers are a very common firearm, it's the semi-automatics that are rare in that caliber. The article says that Lord "...could see copper colored bullets in the guns chamber." Technically, there would only be one round in the chamber of a semi-auto. With a revolver, the bullets are clearly visible in the "cylinder".
Something doesn't add up here. Most people can't look at a handgun and tell you what caliber it is unless they have one like just like it. And even then, many models come in different calibers but are similar in appearance (i.e. like Glocks and Smith & Wesson revolvers).
But this is all moot if there was no handgun, which is what seems to be the case.
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)
Obviously you've never known anyone with a debilitating mental illness. I have a very good friend who has bipolar disorder. Stress only aggravates things. Dan's behavior is typical of someone afflicted with this disease. Maybe it's not a crime to pick on those who are less fortunate, but it is morally reprehesible. People like Lord, who get their jollies by tormenting others, should be held responsible for the outcome of their actions.
And as far as the law goes, it might be possible to prove that Lord's actions and/or accusations were contributing factors in this mans death. Had Lord left him alone, this never would have happened. At the very least Lord is guilty of making a false report to the police. Kind of like yelling "fire" when there is no fire.
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)
Those of you who claim to be Catholics and/or Christians, but are in favor of gay marriage, need to pick up your bible, dust it off and read what it has to say about marriage. If you don't believe what it says then you are not a Christian, period, end of discussion.
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)
"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)
And how does one distinguish between a tourist and a Maine resident? You are the lier. We will all feel the pinch.
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)
That's why a lot of manufacturers will offer rebates on merchandise rather then mark down the price of the product. And it's deplorable that our elected representatives would apply this marketing technique knowing full well that 50 percent will not file to get a rebate. Government is not a business!!! Government exists, first and formost, to protect the life and liberties of the people, and to secure their rights, and not to take any of them from them. How is this looking out for the best interests of the tax payers they represent?
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)
So we should raise taxes because our taxes are lower than other states. I have a better idea. Why don't we cut government down to the bare minimum and lower taxes for everyone? Maybe we'll start a trend and the other states will follow our lead.
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)
David said: "...the American psyche's slow progress toward an increasingly peaceful disposition could be stunted by the propaganda's powerful paradox: While sanitizing ads play to the country's growing disgust with militarism, they could ultimately lead us to be more supportive of militarism."
Peacefull disposition? Pray tell, where have you been keeping your head burried for the last two years? I've never seen a time when the American people have been so divided over every issue imaginable. And the hateful things people say to each other, it's the furthest thing from a peaceful dispostition.
Disgust of militarism? How so? I think the nation has a disgust for war, but most of us know that a strong military is essential for maintaining the freedom and liberty we enjoy as American citizens. Personally, I'm disgusted with so-called journalists who find fault with anyone and everything that doesn't fit their world view fantasy. The MSM are the bigest purveyors of propaganda, not the armed forces.
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)
You have a valid complaint, but I'm afraid that for the most part, it falls on deaf ears.
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)
You wouldn't be one of those individuals that is mad at the Monmouth police for doing their job, would you?
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)
"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)
When you cannot refute a persons statements, just resort to name calling.
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)
Why not just work to make health care more affordable?
Healthcare and health insurance are two different things. Health insurance would be more affordable if healthcare were not so expensive. There was a time when the average working American could afford a routine doctor visit, or even a trip the the emergency room, without having to fork over a years salary. Perscriptions were affordable too.
Somewhere along the way, the healthcare, pharmaseutical and health insurance industries (because that's what they really are... industries) figured out that people are always going to need healthcare and medicine, and they'd have to pay, no matter what the cost. I'm not against anyone making a buck, but the fleecing of america by these industries is rediculous.
No public option plan is going to work unless the source of the problem is delt with. Someday, maybe when we're all speaking Chinese, America will figure out that you can't just keep throwing money at something to fix it.
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)
Do you actually believe that a single black man peacefully demonstrating with a rifle slung over his shoulder is the same as Hitler's NAZI thugs?
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)
Which of those 11,346 homicides do you suppose were perpetrated by law-abiding citizens?
Prior to last years elections, there were an estimated 80 million gun owners in this country who collectively own somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million firearms. Since the election, firearms have been flying off the shelves in record numbers, yet there has not been an increase of firearm homicides. On the contrary, in states where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms for personal defense, the violent crime rate has gone down.
The vast majority of those gun related homicides are gang violence. We do not have a gun problem in this country, we have a criminal problem. New York city has some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in this country, yet it has some of the worse gun related violence. That is changing, not because of stricter firearm regulations, but because they have finally begun to target the source... i.e. the gang bangers and the criminals.
Richmond Virginia is another success story. Instead of passing more restrictive firearm regulations (like various citys in Pennsilvania), local law enforcement teamed up with the VA State Police, the FBI and ATF to go after the gang bangers and other criminals, and have enacted tougher penalties for illegal possession of firearms by known felons.
Comparing the US to places like England is comparing apples to oranges. For one thing, the overall violent crime rate in the UK has increased since their government has disarmed law-abiding citizens, and in their twisted court systems, they prosecute people who try to defend themselves against an attacker. Gun control does not address the problem. It only disarms the intended victims.
I do not fear my fellow law-abiding citizens, nor do I fear the dregs of society who perpetrate the crimes that make up those statistics. To disarm the public because a small fraction of individuals choose to commit crimes with firearms is not only unconstitutional, it is unconscionable.
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." -- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
The U.S. military is made up of men and women who swore an oath to "...protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic..." Their duty is to the Constitution and The People of the United States first, the Commander in Chief second. I believe the vast majority of them would have a hard time firing on their fellow citizens. I know I would. Neither should we underestimate the courage and tenacity of a patriot defending his or her freedom. That is why every tyrannical regime in history has made firearm confiscation one of its first priorities when coming to power.
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)
I take issue with some of the statements you make in your article. I doubt very much that those individuals who bore arms at those various events intended to intimidate their fellow citizens. Government, maybe, citizens, no. If you are going to quote Thomas Jefferson, why not include the whole context?
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson from a letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy
And about the order of the first "10" Amendments to the Constitution. What we know as the first and second Amendments were actually the third and fourth in the original "Bill of Rights" submitted to Congress for deliberation. The order of their appearance in the list does not in any way make one right more important than the other. In fact, it has often been pointed out that without the 2nd Amendment, the people might be in jeopardy of loosing their other rights.
Consider the following:
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
I agree that those citizens bearing their personal arms to town hall meetings and venues perhaps displayed poor judgement, but that is not a crime. The People are the supreme authority in this country, not the government. We seem to have forgotten that important distinction.
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights... and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him... and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis W. Gilmer (June 27, 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.
Gun free zones are target rich environments. THAT is the lesson we should learn from these tragic public shootings. You are afraid to see people bearing arms? What about the firearms you don't see? It would not deter an assassin by making political gatherings gun-free zones. Are you afraid to see policemen bearing arms?
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [to secure the rights of the people], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...." -- from the Declaration of Independence, also by Thomas Jefferson.
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)
Last I checked, Cal Thomas was a syndicated columnist not a career politician. Maybe you should direct your grievances toward the policy makers instead of lumping all "conservatives" together. This war of words between so called "democrats" and "republicans" is getting old.
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)
We will all be judged according to what we have done. "...the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Revelation 21:8
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)
This is one of those rare occasions when I agree with you... whole-heartedly.
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)
Pauline, you should try reading some of the historical accounts of the founding of this nation. You have no idea what you are talking about. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere and others spent hours inciting mobs that went on to tar and feather various government officials (of the British government) and riding them out of town on rails.
Sam was pretty good about steaming things up at meetings of the Continental Congress (pre-independence government) in order to sway the opinion of his fellow congressional delegates. I for one, am glad he did. I also swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I will not be quiet while spoiled, rich elitists, who don't have a franction of the wisdom our founding fathers did, run this nation into the ground.
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams 1776
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)
"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)
Actually, the word fascism goes back to the early 1910's, long before the Nazi movement in Germany. In fact, we get the word facism from the Italian word fascio, which loosely translated means "bundle" or "group". But regardless, you're stretching the definition of the word by saying that Republicans are fascists.
We are all democrates, and we are all republicans. Our form of government is considered a democratic republic. To lay the blame of our countries woes at the feet of one party or the other just shows inorance of the facts. Regardless of which party has the majority, they have both managed to contribute to the snarled mess we call government.
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)
Thank you for your service. I also took that oath. My allegiance is to The People and the Constitution of the United States first and formost. As long as the Commander in Chief lives up to his or her oath, I will live up to my end. Our Congressmen and Congreswomen also take an oath when they arrive to assume the duties The People have elected them to. They would do well to heed the advice of Thomas Jefferson:
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful
limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and
enforce only our natural rights... and to take none of them from us.
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights
of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain
him... and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society
we give up any natural right." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to
Francis W. Gilmer (June 27, 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground:
That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries
thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take
possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any
definition." -- Thomas Jefferson quoted in The Writings of Thomas
Jefferson "Memorial Edition" (20 Vols., 1903-04) edited by Andrew A.
Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, Vol. 3, p. 146
"I, however, place economy among the first and most important
republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to
be feared." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Plumer (July
21, 1816)
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)
So really, what we have is a problem with insurance companies that offer health insurance, NOT health care.
Fine. Why doesn't the government go after the Insuruance companies who are denying people insurance because of pre-existing conditions, or age, or any number of other excuses? People cannot afford health care because health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and the health care industry have over-priced their products and services. NO plan is going to work unless the cost of these products and services are affordable.
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)
No one is saying reform is not needed. What people object to is the type of reform that is being proposed. The goverment has no business managing health care. It has a hard enough time managing itself. All you have to do is look at the VA hospitals to see a prime example of mismanagment of health care.
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)
Gil is correct. There is a big difference between "health care" and "health Insurance". What we need is affordable health care. I can remember when you didn't need health insurance for an annual check up because things like that were affordable. Health insuruance was for major unforseen stuff. And that's a fact.
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)
I'm sure you meant the Democratic party. Our runaway government got its start with FDR. BTW, the French are a socialist model of government, not facism.
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)
Actually, I think it's rather vague as to which "side" she's on.
If, by "side", she means Democrats and Republicans, either "side" could be the object of her complaint. From my perspective, the "sides" are The People vs the elite career Politicians. I guess it all depends on ones point of view.
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)
And who was president when the next "bailouts" were pushed through congress at light speed, which by the way were double, if not tripple the amount of the first one?
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)
There need's to be a distinction between "health care" and "health insurance".
To me, affordable health care means that I can afford to pay for my health care, period. Health Insurance is a monkey in the middle. The health insurance industry is a for-profit industry that stands between us and the care we desire. Allowing a for-profit industry to dictate what we can have for medicine or which doctors we can see and not see is the bane of this whole system.
The other issue is the sheer cost of health care, which is the "catch 22". Only the rich and affluent can afford to pay for health care out of their own pocket. The only way for the average person to be able to afford health care is via some sort of health insurance.
Some would have us believe that the rising cost of health care (which in turn increases the cost of insurance, or decreases what insurance companies are willing to cover) is caused by those who have no health insurance. While that certainly does have an impact on the whole system, I can't believe that is the only factor. Nor do I think that the issue is going to be resolved by government stepping in and adding another level of complexity between the patient and the health care they require. The government is not exactly known for its cost-effective programs and policies, quite the opposite in fact.
I personally think that there are other factors driving up the costs of health care and medicine. Unless all factors are identified and dealt with, the system will remain broken. The government will make it manditory for everyone to have health insurance. Those who opt for the government's health insurance will drive the costs up for those who don't. What we should be focusing our attention on is how to bring down the cost of health care (not health insurance) to where the average person can afford it without insurance.
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)
No, our entire legal system is built upon the presupposition that all men are created equal and should all have due process under the law. There is a big differecne between "justice and liberty for all" and "faireness". Life is fundamentally unfair. Our system of government was meant provide equal opportunity for all, not handouts for all.
Obama's idea of "equal distribution of wealth" IS right out of the marxist handbook.
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)
Now tron, certainly you know that politicians will say whatever you want to hear when running for office. That doesn't mean they will do everything they promised. Just look at Obama. He said he was going to pull all the troops out of Iraq, then he deferred to the generals (just like Bush did). He said he wasn't going to tax the middle class, then pushed through legislation that, among other things, placed huge taxes on tobacco.
I don't think we'll ever see term limits. Congressmen like Senator Kennedy, who have been in politics their whole life, would never go for it. They like the power and status they have as US Senators.
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)
So, veritas, you think that because you've had good experiences with VA and military hospitals that everything is fine and dandy. How naive can you be?
I spent the last two years of my active duty going from military hospital to military hospital while they tried to diagnose something that should have only taken them 15 minutes. I'll spare everyone the details, suffice it to say that my experience with military and VA hospitals differs from yours. I appreciate the men and women, Dr's and nurses and PA's that work at Togus and other facilities, and I'm thankful for the care I receive. If I had my druthers though, I'd rather go to CMMC.
If the government takes over health care, hospitals like CMMC and other privately run hospitals won't be any better than the VA hospitals. I don't see too many congressmen/women receiving care at the VA. The only time you see them there is for photo-ops.
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)
Generally, I agree with most of your comment Jon, but the founders really did think that an armed citizenry would be a deterance to tyranny or an overly abusive government-gone-bad. There is another factor that must be considered. Our service men and women swear allegence to the Constitution of the United States first, and to the President of the United States second. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of them would not fire on their fellow Americans, especially if the issue at hand was to disarm them.
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)
I believe Mr. Fixit was exagerating a wee bit. Hitler's first order of business after taking control was to accuse his political enemies of treason and have them shot. However, it was not long after he came to power that he (Hitler) made it manditory that all firearms be registered. It was not long after that when the Nazi regime began confiscating all privately owned firearms. Only then did the Nazi's put the "final solution" into gear.
Registration to confiscation to genocide. It is a pattern that has been repeated at least a dozen times in the 20th century, the most recent being in Rwanda and Darfur.
On these grounds, one could argue that registration of ones firearms is an invasion of privacy.
Firearms are already regulated in this country, and manufacturers already track every serial number of every firearm produced. There is a record of each and every transfer that takes place from the time a firearm leaves the factory until it is sold. In order to purchase a firearm, one must fill out a Federal Form 4473. Once the form is filled out, the dealer must then call NICS. Once the applicant is cleared, the sale can procede. The dealer is required by law to keep the Form 4473 on file as proof of transfer.
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)
The point George is making is that in spite of all the tough OUI laws, people still drive drunk, and drunk drivers still kill people in Maine.
It is illegal to drink and drive but people still do in direct violation of the law. It is illegal to kill someone (with a gun or anything else for that matter) but people still kill, in direct violation of the law. There already thousands of gun-control laws on the books throughout this country, and not a single one of them has been effective. Not one. Why? As George said in so many words, criminals do not obey the law. The only people who are affected by gun-control laws are law-abiding citizens, who were not a threat to start with. It leaves them at the mercy of the criminal. This is age-old wisdom that our current governments seem to have forgotten. As Jefferson said:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
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)
If you count the number of times the bible says "Thou shalt not kill" in relation to some of the other teachings, by your logic killing is not that bad.
Nice try. Sin is sin no matter how many times the bible mentions it. Jesus mentioned hell more than any other biblical personality, but everyone seems to ignor that. It's clear from Jesus's teachings that he believed marriage to be ordained by God, and that it was a relationship of one man and one woman. (See Matthew 19)
If you saw your neighbors house on fire, and you knew they were in there asleep, wouldn't you do everything you could to wake them up and help them escape? Let me put it another way. If you saw your child about to do something that would result in them being injured or worse, wouldn't you do everything in your power to prevent that from happening? You might even yell at them to STOP!
If I say I love my neighbor yet fail to warn them of the wrath of God, then I am a liar. So don't be down on Christians because they love you enough to speak out. I'd rather have a million Christians "warning" me than have God mad at me for eternity.
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)
"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)
Marriage is not a trivial thing. The attempt by homosexual activists to get the State to redefine marraige, which is an institution ordained by God, is a slap in the face of all who believe in the sactity of marriage.
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)
Animals do it, so it must be ok. We are not animals, we are human beings created in the image of God. But lets say you don't believe in God, but in evolution, natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Homosexuality is still an abnormality. In fact, it could be argued that homosexuality in and of itself disproves evolution. Natural selection dictates that only those traits that give a species the best chance of survival are "selected". Since homosexuals cannot reproduce it would stand to reason that it would be in the species best interest for homosexuality to be weeded out of the selection process. Yet homosexuality is on the rise.
Never mind religion. Homosexuality (speaking in the general sense) defies logic, defies science and serves no useful purpose other than to gratify the desires of homosexual individuals. In the animal kingdom, even those individuals that exhibit homosexual-like behavior still mate with the opposite sex in order to breed.
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)
First, the State (government) does not grant rights. If rights could be granted by government, then they could also be taken away by the government.
Secondly, Maine's laws do not allow regligions to do anything. We do not have to get permission from the state to worship as we see fit. The State has no authority to regulate religion or redefine marriage. The laws that exist regarding marriage are there to protect the insitution of marriage, not to grant special rights. There is a difference between rights and privileges. Marriage is neither a fundamental right or a "civil" right. Marriage is, and has always been, the union of a man and a woman in holy matrimony. It is the foundation of the family and in a broader sense, society.
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)
Please, Stacey. Paranoia has nothing to do with it. Rather it is outrage that our elected representatives and the Governor would have the gall to attempt to redefine marriage. That is not why we sent them to Augusta. Marriage is not a right, it is an institution ordained by God. One that we hold sacred. As others have stated, marriage is the foundation, the bedrock of society. The health of any society can be measured by the success or failure of this institution. Marriage is, and always has been, defined as a union between a man and a woman. It is because of this that laws have been established to PROTECT marriage.
Gay people did not lobby the legislature to gain equal protection for their partnerships, they want the state to legitimize their lifestyle by redefining marriage. If it were just about obtaining certain privileges afforded married couples, that would be different. In the end, regardless of which way this goes, marriage, in God's eyes will still be a union between a man and a woman and homosexuality will still be an abomination.
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)
I find it very peculiar that people who claim to be on the side of gay marriage think that the ultimate insult is to call someone gay. You guys are nothing but a bunch of hypocrates.
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)
Walt, pay no attention to these hate mongers. I understood what you were driving at, and I'm sure others did too. The sad truth is that most politicians don't give you the time of day unless you have the means to contribute big bucks to their campaign.
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)
Religious people are your fellow man too, veritas.
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)
I am not a Catholic, but I can see that the options are not as simple as the editorial suggested. And the portrayal of defending marriage as a "political" issue is grossly misleading. This is much more than a matter of politics. The way we define marriage largely defines society. To dismiss it so easily as unimportant is a disservice to readers. Marriage is one the few issues that touches upon the legal, social, religious, educational and cultural fabric of Maine.
I agree, only I wouldn't limit it to Maine. The issue affects all societies everywhere and civilization as we know it.
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)
I'm also an "outside observer", but I can give you an example. A few years ago, the traveling Vietnam Memorial came to Lewiston. I was one of the many hundreds of bikers that met the caravan at the state line to escort them to Lewiston. After the ceremony ended, the bikers were invited to the Lewiston Armory for a "thank you" spaghetti luncheon in appreciation of their service. I was not only surprised, but very impressed to see John serving up spaghetti, and as he did so, he thanked each biker that passed by for taking time out to honor the memory and service of our fallen and missing in action.
John, thank YOU for YOUR service.
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)
The topic is science vs faith not politics. We all know how much you detest republicans, you don't have to pound on them in every post.
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)
Benefits, entitlements and privileges are not the same as rights, nor is the institution of marriage a right. Any and every legal issue that gay people have can be resolved without redefining marriage.
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)
Very predictable. I figured you would home in on that. Just one problem... God does not make gay people. We are created male and female. If believing the Bible makes me a bigot, so be it. If you really want to get technical, you must think God is a bigot too. This is from Websters:
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
That fits God to a tee. According to the Bible, it's God's way or the highway.
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)
Why, because I disagree with you? That's nonsense.
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)
All they had to do was simply reply to the man and say they did not use a biblical principal because they considered it a civic issue. The Governor said as much when he signed the bill.
I don't agree with the Governor's conclusion, but his office could have had the courtesy to reply to Mr. Pulkinen.
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)
That is why one is advised to have a Last Will and Testament. Otherwise your estate goes into probate and the government gets to decide who gets what.
I will say it again. We are all born with the same amount of rights as the next person. We are all created equal. That is the premiss of our society. Rights are not granted by government, though far too often rights are infringed, denied and trampled upon by government.
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)
No, the 10th amendment does not grant power. It says:
"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."
It refers to "...powers not delegated..." by the people. The Federal Constitution does not give States power or People power, it derives its power from The People. The People did not grant the Federal Government any power to redefine marriage. So the next question is, did The People authorize the State to define what constitutes marriage? If so, it would be in their respective State Constitution. Since it is not there either, then the government does not have the authority to redefine marriage.
I know this is hard for some of you to grasp, especially since you live in an age where the government seems to be all powerful, but that is NOT what the founders intended. That is not the government specified in our state or federal constitutions.
Oh, and loving your neighbor as yourself has nothing to do with sex or marriage, but you already knew that...
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)
It's interesting that you would use the term "straight". Do you mean to imply that those who claim to be homosexuals are "crooked"? (sorry, I gave in to the temptation to say that....).
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)
You said, and I quote "If you seek biblical exactness, you could move to Iran." Perhaps you miswrote.
I agree with Jefferson. Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. I never said it was. What I did say is that western civilization and governments were, and still are, heavily influenced by Judeao-Christian ethics that are found in the Bible.
I also concur with the second quote. History is replete with horrific examples of atrocities commited by so-called "religious" leaders. There are many examples of this even today all around the globe.
What's your point?
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)
No, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution because The People did not give government the authority to redefine marriage.
Constitutions, be they state or federal, do not restrict the people from, or grant the people, anything. The Constitution of the United States, and state Constitutions grant government specific authority to act on behalf of The People. Any power or authority not granted by these documents is retained by The People.
And what exactly do gay people need to be protected from that they are not already? They already have just as many rights as anyone else. We are born with equal rights regardless of gender or choice of lifestyle, and thanks to our government and a gullible public, gay people now enjoy special protection under the law here in Maine for their choice of lifestyle.
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)
I don't recall anyone claiming that our government was a theocracy. To borrow a line from the silver screen... "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
The word Theocracy was coined by Josephus, a philosopher, historian and theologian who lived in the first century AD. He used the word to describe the government of the Jewish people, who claimed that God himself was their King. Now I may be wrong, but last time I checked, God was not the president of the United States. Oh, wait...
As for the Bible and Iran, you are confused. Iran is a Moslem nation. They adhere to the Koran, not the Bible. The Bible actually distiguishes between human government and God's moral laws. That said, much of western civilization and government is heavily influenced by the Judeao-Christian ethics found in the Bible. Where the United States differed from other countries of the founding era was that the founders purposfully prohibited the government of the United States from establishing a "State" religion. But it was NOT to keep relgion out of government, rather it was to keep the government from dictating religion, that is, what people were to believe (or not believe).
The truth is, it is impossible to keep religion out of government, especially when our system of government is Of the People, By the People, For the People. What one believes will influence the decisions one makes in life, be it in government or elsewhere. This is also true of judges, even though they are supposed to be impartial and follow the law.
And as for Life, Liberty and Happiness... you must have forgotten the Declaration of Independnece. That's where Mr. Jefferson writes: 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. Did you catch that? Endowed by their Creator. I wonder where they got the "Life, Liberty and Happiness" idea? I'll give you a hint, from the B I B L E.
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)
Could you please show us where in the Constitution of the United States that government is given the authority to redefine marriage? Or where is marriage defined in any of our state constitutions, or state and federal law? The laws and statutes that do exist are there to protect the institution of marriage and the family, not to redefine them. The institution of marriage pre-dates human government, especially our young government.
And how is a question "biblical" or "secular"? The man asked a question. Someone could have answered him whether it was the answer he wanted to hear or not.
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)
No, he merely showed the root in Latin for the word "marriage" as we know it in our language. That doesn't mean that the institution of marriage did not exist prior to that.
Marriage is not a right. Prohibiting gay people from being married does not infringe on any of their civil rights. Government has no authoirity to redefine marriage. From a legal standpoint, nothing in the Constituition of the United States, the State of Maine Constitution, or any other codified law gives government the power to redefine marriage.
The laws that do exist protect marriage because the traditional family is the basic foundation of a healthy society.
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)
Even with artificial insemination there was a male doner and a female doner. So what's your point?
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)
Joe, we would be remiss if we did not recognize the positive impact unions have had on workers rights, fare wages and healthy working environments. However, they can also do more harm than good. It's not about fare wages anymore, it's about how much they can sqeeze out of an employer. In some cases it comes down to legalized extortion. When UPS went on strike a few years ago it not only hurt UPS the company, it affected every business that relied on UPS to distribute their goods and services. It also affected consumers that relied on the distribution of goods and services.
Unions are no longer necessary to keep employers in check. Legislation to protect workers rights and benefits have addressed most of the ills that made them necessary in the past. On the flip side, unions have been plagued with corruption in their quest for more power. What's there to love?
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)
"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)
Congrats Lou. You managed to hit every hot-button topic with one post.
Triumph, there is a differance between rights and "perks". Most of the things you list have nothing to do with the institution of marriage, rather they are priviledges or perks granted married couples by society, because until recently, soceity has recognized the importance of strong traditional families. Society would not exist were it not for the traditional family, i.e. a father a mother and their children.
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)
The point that people are trying to make here is that kids will be kids. It is up to the parents to "train" them how to function in society. That involves love, support, reinforcement, correction, discipline and time. The fact that all kids are not the same or have more issues that others doesn't negate a parents responsibility. You do whatever it takes.
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)
You need to get a few facts straight. There is no gun show loop hole. That is pure propaganda. Dealers who participate in gun shows must be licensed by the Federal Government, and they are required by law to run a NICS check on anyone they sell a firearm to. What gun control advocates are aiming for with such legislation are individual private sales. Generally speaking, an individual wishing to sell a firearm can get more from a private sale than they might get from a dealer.
If there were any evidence that criminals are obtaining huge amounts of firearms from private sales, that would be one thing, but there is not. Does this happen? Yes, but to a small degree. There was just a recent case here in Maine where a number of people were buying guns listed in Uncle Henry's and reselling them in Massachusetts.
Chris Coxe is correct in his assessment of the "no gun" list proposal. And as for your closing remarks, anything that prevents a law-abiding citizen from obtaining, keeping or bearing their private arms is not only unreasonable, it is unconstitutional. Please educate yourself on the National Instant Check System (NICS). Waiting periods are no longer necessary.
And finally, the only "limit" to our rights is in excercising our rights. We do not have the right to infring on the rights of our fellow citizens. There are penalties for abusing our rights or those of another individual.
Government has no authority to prevent me from speaking because I might yell "fire" in a crowded theater, nor does the government have the authority to prevent me from using my hands because I might make a fist and strike someone and government certainly has no authority to prevent law-abiding citizens from keeping and bearing their private arms because they might shoot someone.
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)
We haven't had a legitimate two party system in years, perhaps decades.
Recent political events have blurred the party lines to the point where they are difficult to distiguish. Regardless of party affiliations, there's one thing you can always count on: a politician will say whatever they think you want to hear in order to get your vote. Once in office, they'll do whatever they please, "The People" be damned. There are very few exceptions.
The Founders envisioned a government where our representatives were truely representative of the people at large, and in the early stages it was so. Instead, we have a government of career politicians and elitists who have no clue what the people struggle with from day to day. The "issues" only become important to them on the eve of the next election, when once again, they promise to fix everything that's broken.
This has been coming to a head long before Bush, Clinton, HW or Reagan took office. You have to look all the way back to the early 1920's when the seeds of socialism were first sown. The resulting weeds of socialism have all but choked the life out of the Tree of Liberty.
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)
And because they knew human nature, they warned us what would happen if we, the people, became complacent, and what to do to correct it.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the
facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half
without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if
their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people
preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is
to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a
few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It
is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson from a letter to William
Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On
Democracy
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)
Believing in something doesn't make it true whether a majority believe it or not.
Marriage is more than a word, it is an institution ordained by God, who created us male and female. Homosexuality is a behavior not a state of being.
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)
Is anyone really surprised? Perhaps those who are new to American politics, maybe. But I have a hard time thinking of a single career politician who has actually remained true to their campaign promises. I'm sure there have been one or two, I just cannot come up with any names.
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)
"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)
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Abigail Adams (1804).
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)
Valerie, what you are seeing are "contrails", which is a short for "condensation trails". It is water vapour created by the hot exhaust gases cooling in the atmosphere. Depending on atmospheric conditions, they can can last for minutes or hours.
I am no meteorologist, but I do know that the "haze" you describe is not caused by "jet exhaust" but rather atmospheric conditions. Modern turbofan engines (what powers jet aircraft) are really quite energy efficient.
Agreed. There have been many crackpots who have changed history. There have always been and there will always be, those who refuse to acknowledge the atrocity that was the Holocaust. But there have been similar events even in recent times, yet we don't always hear of them.
Armenians in Turkey: 1915-1918 - 1,500,000
Stalin's forced famine: 1932-1933 - 7,000,000
Rape of Nanking: 1937-1938 - 300,000
Nazi Holocaust: 1938-1945 - 6,000,000
Pol Pot Cambodia: 1975-1979 - 2,000,000
Rwanda: 1944 - 800,000
Bosnia: 1992 - 1995 - 200,000
Darfur: NOW - 300,000 to 400,000
And this list is by no means all inclusive. It is imperative that we not only remember ourselves, but that we teach our children about these events.
Very well said Mr. Pitts. For better or worse, we are living in a new age where information (or misinformation) is disseminated at light speed around the globe. It is also an age that we find the bastions of mainstream media crumbling under the weight of political their own political opinions. Perhaps bias in the MSM has always been there, but too subtle to notice by the casual observer. In any case, the old adage "don't believe everything you hear and only half of what you see..." is certainly applicable in this age as any other.
Recent Comments
And that amounts to extortion
You don't have to pay the mob guy that comes to collect "protection" money, unless you want your legs broken.
And How would you suggest we proceed, SJ?
Do you suggest that the State go through individual medical/mental health records to see who might be considered a "danger to themselves and others" so we can add more names to the NICS system? What about those people who may have had some issues, but have overcome them with counselling and treatment? What about the laws that protect the privacy of individuals? Or the laws that protect doctor/patient confidentiality? Are you willing to throw all that out in the name of adding more names to a government list somewhere?
The State Police Major is right. We must maintain that delicate ballance between public safety and individual rights. It's hard, but it is necessary in any truly free society.
It is also important to understand that those with evil intentions are not swayed by societies laws. Murder, assualt, burglary, rape, robbery and a host of other laws on the books are broken every day, and without firearms I might add.
We would do well to heed Mr. Franklin's warning: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
It also says...
...in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires...
Which do you think is better?
A. To believe the Bible.
B. NOT believe the Bible and be wrong?
If there is no God, then why are so many prayers answered?
I'd say that train is right on schedule...
"... There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God... (Paul writing to Timothy c. AD 66)
The Bravest Soldier crumbles in mother earth...
...unburied and unkown. - Walt Whitman
If the illustrious city council members had any clue as to the history of how the Tomb of the Unkowns came to be, they would not have a problem with dedicating this memorial on Veteran's Day.
Britain and France were the first to dedicate a national memorial to their unknown soldiers. Their monuments to their unknown soldiers were unveiled on November 11th, 1920.
On March 4th, 1921, the United States Congress approved the burial of an unidentified American serviceman from World War I in the plaza of the new Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetary.
On Memorial Day, 1921, four unknown servicemen were exhumed from four World War I American cemeteries in France.
On October 24th, 1921, a dedicated WWI veteran, U.S. Army Sgt Edward F. Younger selected one of the four caskets to be interred at the US Tomb of the Unknowns.
The World War I Unknown lay in state in the Capitol Rotunda from his arrival in the United States until Armistice Day (what we now celebrate as Veterans Day), 1921.
On November 11, 1921, President Warren G. Harding officiated at the interment ceremonies at the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery.
Memorial Day (originally called Decoration Day) was first observed on May 30th, 1868 to honor Union soldiers of the American Civil War. Over the years, it has become a day to honor all veterans of all wars, but it was not until 1967 that it was officially named Memorial Day by federal law.
November 11th (Armistice Day) is the day that many allied countries have chosen to honor members of their armed forces who died in service to their country. How could this day NOT be appropriate for dedicating a local monument to honor those who lost not only their lives, but their identity as well?
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
I've never heard...
...of a single MoH recipient that thought he/she was deserving of the medal.
You can also be sure that when SSgt Giunta went after his budies, the last thing on his mind was what party they might be affiliated with.
Thank you for your service SSgt Salvatore Giunta.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
If she did have a CFP...
...she doesn't now!
That's a sure fire way to get your permit revoked. The ONLY time a CFP holder is legally permitted to pull out a firearm is if they believe they are in grave danger.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
If she did have a CFP...
...she doesn't now!
That's a sure fire way to get your permit revoked. The ONLY time a CFP holder is legally permitted to pull out a firearm is if they believe they are in grave danger.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Pay no attention to the dog behind the glasses...
Most of us get it,
But if you spend much time reading posts, you know there are a few who only post to "stir the pot." (or so it seems).
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
and John Adams said...
"...should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -- Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (11 October 1798)
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Another law...
...or even a modification of the existing law (which is basically what this is) will not change a thing.
The problem is not that we don't have laws against noise pollution, the problem is we have no enforcement of noise pollution laws.
Basically, our legislators have wasted our time and money on a problem that can only be fixed if and when law enforcement agencies are given the time and resources to enforce it. And, I might add, making it manditory to display an inspection sticker will not change a thing. As others point out, those who like their bikes loud (and cars for that matter) will get a sticker with a "legal" muffler and then swap it out for their preferred muffler of choice.
If we aren't going to enforce the laws already on the books, why do we think new laws will make any difference?
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Well, I for one...
....always wear a helmet and protective gear. My bike is bright orange, and I try to wear bright colors in an attempt to be seen. My exhaust is stock. My headlight, like all modern motorcycles, does not have an on/off switch. When the bike is running, the headlight is on.
Even at that, I still have people pull out in front of me or fail to yeild the right of way. I have learned to EXPECT it. In 2003, a kid pulled out in front of me while I was passing a slower vehicle (in a legal passing zone) and the result was a head-on collision with a pickup truck sporting a plow frame. He never looked in my direction (which was a failure on his part) but I've often wondered if I had been riding a bike with louder pipes, if it would have at least made him look in my direction.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
It is also...
...so that people waiting at stop signs and/or pulling out of their driveway will be alerted NOT to pull out in front of them.
The #1 motorcycle accident scenario (involving automobiles) is pulling out in front of, or turning into the path of the motorcycle because "they didn't see" it. Emergency vehicles use both flashing lights and sirens in an attempt to avoid this type of accident, as well as get people to pull over.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Give a man a fish...
There is a Chinese proverb that says; "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
You don't pull people out of poverty by takning from the "rich" and giving to the "Poor." All that will do is create more poverty. The other fallacy is that education alone is the answer; "If you want to make something of yourself, you need a college education." That is simply just not true.
Help kids find something they are good at and like to do, and help them find (or create) jobs that utilize those skills and watch them excel. Some of the greatest entrepreneurs this country has ever known began their lives in abject poverty.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
It's not what you think
Dan,
I know you'd love this to be some sort of conspiracy or police screw-up coverup, but it's just a sad case of suicide by cop.
By his own admission, James suffered from severe depression, but he could not bring himself to take his own life. He put on a brave face in public, but chose to suffer in silence.
Google "James F. Popkowski, new scientist" (without the quotes) and see for yourself. The first link is to an article at NewScientist.com to which James posted a rather lengthy (and insightful) comment. Links 2-4 give some insight to how others, who knew James, viewed him.
If you want to be angry at someone, look to the pill-pushing doctors who only treat symtoms instead of taking the time to find the underlying problems. But even at that, for all we know about the human body and psyche, there is much yet to be discovered.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
No problem whatsoever
VA medical facilities and the land on which they reside are Federal Property. It has nothing to do with citizen status, and as one reader already said, you are not US property unless you signed on the dotted line and took the oath.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Don't you mean...
...FIRE! There's no getting "ready," he just starts shooting at anything and everything. (I hope he's not a hunter.)
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Thank you Mark...
For reminding us to show the proper respect for our flag.
"The Red, White and Blue"
Proudly it waves, Old Glory,
over the land of the free.
Promise of hope and freedom,
symbol of liberty.
Red, white and blue are its colors;
colors both brilliant and clear.
Colors with far deeper meaning
than that at first may appear.
Red is for blood of Patriots
who have died to free us;
White is for justice
and government of law;
Blue is for honor and faith
in all we do!
This is my flag;
This is Old Glory,
The Red, White and Blue.
Long may it wave!
from the Musical "I Love America"
by John W. Peterson and Don Wyrtzen
published by Singspiration 1974, 1975
(c) 1999-2008 by John W. Peterson
Music Company - all rights reserved
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
They did not extend anything.
The SCOTUS simply reafirmed what most of us already know; that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental individual right of the people to keep and bear arms.
But don't take my word for it. Listen to what the founding generation had to say about it:
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." -- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent ‘the people’ of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms… " -- Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," Pierce & Hale, 1850 pg. 86-87
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction" -- St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in Blackstone Commentaries, 1803
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Let the people speak
"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." - 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Any law that prohibits freedom of speech is unconstitutional, period. Nothing in the Constitution grants government the authority to limit who may speak, whether it be an individual or an organization speaking on behalf of the members of said organization.
The idea that only tax payers are allowed the freedom of speech is ludicrous.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Get the facts...
Israel has not denied food or medical supplies to Gaza. The purpose of the blockade is to intercept weapons and/or materials that could be used to make weapons and/or explosives. They have repeatedly stated that they are more than willing to see that food and medical supplies get to the intended destination.
Israel is not the antagonist here, unless you believe Israel should be blown off the face of the earth, like most of her neighbors.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
What if God said...
"...I don't know why I bother. I created these people in my image, gave them a planet with an abundant supply of food and water, plants and animals, and everything they need to flourish. They never talk to me unless they are sick or want something. They do everything I've asked them not to do, and don't do any of the things I've asked them TO do. All I asked was for them to love me with all their heart, soul and mind and to love their neighbor as they love themselves, but they couldn't even do that. I even sent my son to show them how to live and they rejected him. I poured out my wrath on him when he died on the cross to atone for the sins of the world. And still they reject him and what I have done for them. I give up. I'm not going to help these people any more."
But he didn't say that. "In this way God so loved the world... He gave..." Jn 3:16
"But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?" - 1 Jn 3:17
We don't give because people deserve it, we give because it is the right thing to do.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
To Joel Batzell
Keep reading...
"And for Adam and his wife the LORD God made coats of skins, and clothed them." - Gen 3:21
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was a
nd never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
FACT: The vast majority of rank and file...
...Law Enforcement officers support the right to keep and bear arms.
His Presidency isn't over...
How can you categorically say that Obama has NOT made a move to limit firearms or ammunition? No one really knows what goes on behind closed doors at the Whitehouse.
What we can do is look at Obama's voting record on bills that pertain to firearms and ammunition. And in such cases, he has always voted with those who would like to see all civilian arms confiscated or heavily regulated (i.e. make it cost prohibitive for the average civilian to own or use them). His entire staff is a who's who list of anti-gun extremists and hoplophobes who believe the only armed Americans should be Law Enforcement and Military personnel.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
You are certainly welcome to your opinion...
...but you have to remember, we live in a free society where personal liberty is honored and protected. I may not agree with what others say or do, but they are free to do so.
This SJ opinion does not represent Maine at its best. When is it ever "best" to criticize and/or belittle people for excersizing their rights? Are you saying that only people who act according to the way you think they should act properly represent this State?
I do not necessarily agree with either of these exhibitionists, but I can think of a number of worse examples; murderers, rapists, thieves, spouse abusers, child abusers, those who abuse the elderly... shall I go on? The only thing these two are guilty of, perhaps, is bad taste.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
It makes not difference...
New taxes are new taxes regardless of what is being taxed. That goes for tax increases too. You cannot possibly be so stupid or naive not to get this.
Then again, if all Democrats think like this, it explains a lot.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Actually, it is not illegal...
...to take a firearm into a bank, unless you are using it to commit a bank robbery. And though you jest, SJ, responsible armed citizens have proven to be effective at twarting bank robbers.
Here are just two of the many instances where an armed citizen has made a difference:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/06/22/armed-citizen-you-are-not-robbing-bank
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmyLw62sArQ
(Both without firing a shot, I might add.)
Your statements concerning armed citizens, implying that anyone who chooses to arm themselves in public is a vigilante looking to "plug" someone, is offensive. These are not people who intend to take the law into their own hands. They are merely choosing to be responsible for their own safety.
Perhaps the reason so many people seem to be "flaunting" their rights is because so many of our rights, and our very liberty, are being trampled on these days. You might want to take some time and think about the Freedom of the Press, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
I find it very sad that you (Sun Journal) would excersize your freedom to "bash" the freedom of your fellow citizens.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
I wonder if they are...
...finally going to admit that the Eastern Cougar is alive and well in the great state of Maine?
Several Monmouth residents have seen the cats in our area. I am also aware of sightings in Lewiston (south end of the city line) and Cape Elizabeth. I'm sure they have been spotted elsewhere.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Don't forget the Patriot Act
You forgot to mention the Patriot Act, oh wait, that's right, Obama and the Democratic controlled congress just re-instated it AS IS. It must be OK now?
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Back to US History 101
The Constitution of the United States does not grant the Federal Government unlimited power over the several States.
It grants specific power to do specific things on behalf of the States. The Articles of Confederation did not go far enough. Rather than retrofit that document, a new Constitution was proposed.
Over the years, the Federal Government has usurped more and more power than it was ever granted by the Constitution, all for the "good of the nation" or the "good of the people." Nothing in the Constitution of the United States grants the Federal government such broad and reaching power as it wields today. It is no longer representative of the several States, it has become an entity of its own. That sucking sound you hear is your hard earned devaluated tax dollers being taken out of your paycheck.
But the blame does not lie with any single political party. We The People of the United States are solely to blame, because over the years, we have entrusted our liberties to unscrupulous politicians, and we have failed to hold them accountable. As long as it did not directly affect "me" we let it slide, until now everything government does takes more and more from us; freedom, liberty, property.
But who cares about a little liberty when we have so much "stuff?" When government can give us (read promise us) everything we want? A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. (A quote sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but there is no evidence that he ever said that.)
When you have no more to give, because government is taking it all, and the things you "want" are gone and not even your "needs" are being met, maybe then you'll wake up and smell the coffee. But I doubt it.
Oh, and for the record, I'm not a Libertarian, nor am I anti-government.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
lol make up your mind, Veritas.
I think you just like deriding people.
You jump on folks for being against the new bill, then you call it for what it truly is, "No Insurance Company Left Behind" (Brilliant. I need to remember that one), and THEN blame the Republicans for a bill the Democratic party single-handedly shoved down the throat of the American people in an attempt to make Obama look good.
This has nothing to do with health care reform. It's all about Obama getting to say that he made good on at least one of his campaign promises.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
At least...
the people in your parable can move to another condo if they don't want to pay for the over-priced-badly-though-out cable deal.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Tell the whole story (cont)
Britain, Australia top US rates in violent crime
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html
More about violent crime in Britain
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256474/Violent-crime-risen-44-13-years-Labour.html
Still more...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/violent-crime-underestimated-for-10-years-971489.html
Australia...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/30/2641300.htm
Australia more violent despite gun ban
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
To make a long story short... taking firearms away from the general public does not do a thing to diminish violent crime. Allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is a good thing.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Tell the whole story.
The key words in your statement being "handgun homicides." Both Australia and the UK have seen an increase in violent crime since they took firearms away from the general public. But don't take my word for it. In an article published 2 Jul 2009, Telegraph.co.uk:
"The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power."
You can read the whole article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
Guess what one of the things the "labor party" did? (hint: banned all guns, including shotguns and rifles.) British Citizens are not even allowed to defend themselves. If you are attacked, and you fight back injuring or (God forbid) killing your attacker, YOU will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Now perhaps you feel there is justice in that, but I don't.
At least in the United States of America, the citizen still has a fighting chance and the right to defend themselves. Which is a good thing. When every second counts, the police are just minutes away.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
According to US Law...
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
-------
So, if you are between 17 and 45, you are a member of the "unorganized" militia.
But regardless, the right protected by the 2nd Amendment is the "right of The People" to keep and bear arms, not the "right of the militia" or the "right of the States." It is an idividual right, just like the other rights in the Bill of Rights.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Minor correction...
Jefferson didn't believe the Christian "religion" to be superior, just the teachings of Jesus Christ, more specifically, those words attributed to Jesus.
He, like many people of his era, had no use for "organized" or government-mandated religions (i.e. state dictated churches). Quite frankly, the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was Constantine making it the official state religion of Rome.
You are spot on with your view of the original intent of the 1st Amendment. The federal government actually over-stepped their authority when they took prayer out of schools. Ironically, here in the LA area, exceptions have been made for Somali children who wish to practice their faith during the school day. For the record, I have no problem with that, but I think other faiths should be allowed to do so as well.
And also for the record, the phrase "Separation of Church and State" appears nowhere in any of our founding or legal documents. It was a phrase that Jefferson used in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. The exact phrase he used was "wall of separation between church and state," and it was to assure them that the federal government did not have the authority to dictate, mandate, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of religion, and no single religion or denomination would be adopted as the "official" religion.
A transcript of his letter may be viewed here: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html and there is a link on this page to his original letter at the Library of Congress.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Sad, but true.
The average age of a Democratic Republic is 200 years. Our nation is living on borrowed time. Our nations founders pledged their very lives and their fortunes to give birth to this Republic. The men who found the courage to sign the Declaration of Independence paid a hefty price.
The founding generation considered it an honor to represent The People. Today's career politicians pay lip service to The People while they suck them dry to further their own political agenda and their thirst for power.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Don't feed the trolls...
Arrrg, even the parrot knows you shouldn't feed the trolls, Pirate.
Chief of Police...
..is most often a political appointee, which is why police chiefs usually go with whichever way the political wind is blowing. I've also noticed that most rank and file police officers and sherifs have no problem with our right to keep and bear arms. In some cases, they even encourage it.
Being Prepared <> Paranoia
What are the odds of being hit by lightning?
What are the odds of surviving a head-on collision... on a motorcycle?
What are the odds of being in two head-on collisions in one year? (second one was in a car)
I cannot attest the the first, but I'm not going to stand around in the middle of a field during a lightning storm. Is that Paranoid or just common sense? As someone mentioned previously, what are the odds that Dr. Suzana Hupp would loose both her parrents in one day to a madman as they sat eating lunch at a small cafe? You can read her story here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre .
I'd say the odds of any of us reading and posting here today, being faced with a similar situation, are pretty slim. But I'm not going to be the one who says you cannot carry a firearm to protect your self, just in case. Nor do I think we should ridicule people who decide to do so. It's not only their choice, it's their right.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Maybe yes, maybe no.
Well, first of all, I don't believe everyone in Maine is (or should be) armed.
Statistically, the number of people with carry permits is usually a very small percentage of the population, like between 1% and 3% or less. And while it could be debated all day what, if any, corelation that has to do with crime rates, the truth is, not knowing who is armed, or a show of force, is in fact a deterent to crime.
In the year after Heller, there has been a significant drop in DC's violent crime rate. While there may not be concrete proof there is a direct corelation, I find it very interesting. I don't think it just a coincidence.
I absolutely agree with you that guns and alcohol don't mix. And you're right. It's not wise to go around "flanting" it, but they aren't breaking any laws. They're just making the hoplophobes nervous.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
I'll repeat myself... one more time.
If you do not have a permit to carry a concealed firearm, you are prohibited from doing so. period.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
According to the Bangor Daily News...
Robinson has a number of criminal convictions:
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/138279.html
and he has been charged with felony reckless conduct with a firearm for this incident. At the time of the incident, there was a warrent out for his arrest. It is also against the law to carry a concealed firearm without a permit in this state.
That means, unless you have a permit to carry a concealed firearm, you are prohibited from doing so. It's the law.
You miss the point...
The point I inteded to make is that the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) were written to protect The People from government, NOT to grant rights to The People.
The quotes are from men who participated in the founding of our nation, and reflect their views concerning the importance of firearms for the purpose of self-preservation. Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria, who may have been influenced by Niccolo Machiavelli, but the truth is timeless. Criminals prefer soft targets and will avoid confrontation if they think their intended victim may be armed.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
SJ is welcome to their OPINION
...and I stress <b>OPINION</b> because it is not based in fact, nor does it even begin to approach the truth.
In your opinion, state that you think it's foolish for law-abiding citizens to walk into a coffee shop with a holstered firearm strapped to their belt. You base this opinion on the actions of a convicted felon who broke the law just by having a firearm in his possession.
You then paint a very broad picture of what you THINK would happen if law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry a firearm with them where ever they went. Non of this is based in fact. It is the same rhetoric we hear every time the topic of armed citizens pops up; "There will be blood in the streets!!" "People will start using firearms to settle arguments!!"
The truth? It hasn't happend. In reality, the law-abiding citizens in this great nation have proven that they can be trusted to be responsible with firearms.
There will always be a few, like Jason Robinson, who will abuse their liberty, sometimes even at the expense of their fellow citizens. But that, in and of itself, is not reason enough to errode the liberties of the rest of The People.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Like the Obama administration continued?
Like the Obama administration extended... without reforms?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Permit or restraining order?
Actually, the 2nd Amendment is more like a restraining order. It protects a pre-existing individual fundamental right that is based in the first natural law of nature, that of self-preservation.
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." -- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Stupid waste of time, money and resources.
So what's to stop someone from getting a sticker then swapping out their exhaust? That's what many bikers with loud pipes do now. They pop the factory mufflers on, get the sticker, then swap them out.
We already have laws on the books that deal with loud pipes. Instead of just enforcing the existing law, now we're going to spend a ton of money on more legislation, more regulations, a "task force" to "study" more ways of wasting tax payer money, and roadside decible testing? (I hope they intend to do that with cars too.)
It will be interesting to see what they come up with for a "inspection sticker" plate. Maybe they should come up with a smaller sticker and just stick it to the existing license plate.
JC
No sticker on my bike
I have no problem with police officers stopping "loud" bikes, but I do have a problem with affixing an inspection sicker to the chrome or paint on my bike.
Most bikes don't have windshields, and those that do are made of plastic not glass as in automobile windshields. How would you like it if you had to stick the sticker to your plastic bumper or painted fender?
How do you determine "loudness?" Granted, some bikes are glaringly obvious, but even bikes with legal mufflers can sound loud when a bike is accelerating. Have you ever tried to stop a dozen bikes at a time? Do you really want to expend the LEO manpower it would take to do that?
Towns are disolving their police departments and those that aren't are cutting back. There are a lot more important issues to deal with than loud motorcycles.
JC
Christians believe what they believe because...
Jesus said:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - Jn 14:6
13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." - Mt 7:13, 14
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" - Mt 7:21-23
"The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." - Jn 6:29
"I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." - Jn 6:35-40
"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." - Jn 11:25
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." - Jn 3:16-21
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ... 41Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." ... 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." - Mt 25:31-34, 41, 46
If what Jesus said is true, what you or I believe is irrelevant. Believing something doesn't make it true. All religions are man's attempt to interact with God on man's terms.
Jesus doesn't offer religion, he offers a relationship, on God's terms. God forgives because of what Jesus has done for us. If you want a relationship with God, Jesus is the way.
For more information, see notreligion.com
JC
Well said. The only thing I
Well said. The only thing I would add is another reason for the change in federal law has to do with two legged preditors. Assaults, roberies, rapes and even murder are actually more frequent than attacks from wild animals.
You go girl!!! Well
You go girl!!!
Well done.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
Tron said: "...not all, nor
Tron said: "...not all, nor even most, agree the state is poorly run."
Really? You need to expand your circle of friends to more than just "me, myself and I."
Aaargh!!! Off to Davey Jones'
Aaargh!!! Off to Davey Jones' locker with 'im.
Actually, the inscription
Actually, the inscription reads "Here rests in Honored Glory an American Soldier Known but to God" not "Unknown but only to God"
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"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 to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
First of all, they are not
First of all, they are not "test" flights, they are "training" flights. Unlike the days of WWII, when bombers would fly at high altitudes, today's military aircraft are designed to fly low, below radar, and are equipped with terrain following radar. It is critical for our pilots to get the type of low-level training in order to hone the skills they will need to do their job.
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)
He fought for your freedom
He fought for your freedom you moron. Think about that every time you type a reply on this blog. You get to do that because of men and women like Col. Barfoot.
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)
Thanks Old Bill, I'll second
Thanks Old Bill,
I'll second that.
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)
Being a Veteran of three
Being a Veteran of three wars and one of the oldest surviving MOH recipients IS the point.
As a medal of honor recipient, he is due the respect of every member of the armed forces, officers and enlisted alike. Even the highest ranking officers must render a salute to a MOH recipient, regardless of the recipients rank or duty status. The congressional medal of honor is protected by law. There are serious penalties, including prison, for it's misuse and/or disrespect.
The contract he signed said nothing about flag poles.
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)
Nowhere in the HOA covenant
Nowhere in the HOA covenant he signed was he prohibited from installing a flag pole. He submitted a formal request to the HOA board, and his request was denied, not because of "covenant restrictions", but for "asthetic" reasons.
I cannot speak for the Col., but from what I've read, he has always had a flag pole in every place he has lived since he retired from the service. It is something that is very important to him. If the covenant agreement had prohibited flag poles, he probably would not have signed it. Why don't you nay sayers do a little investigating before you pass judgement on someone?
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)
It is ironic that on a day
It is ironic that on a day (December 7th) that we remember the sacrifice of so many american service men and women, that a news article is published about a veteran under attack for flying the flag he fought under.
Even worse is that so many here think that he is in the wrong. How may of you guys have ever gone over the speed limit? How many of you have ever "fudged" your income tax forms? I have never met anyone who hasn't bent the rules at one time or another. That man has earned the right to fly the flag anywhere he wants, any way he wants to. He's not a criminal.
The 109th Congress submitted a bill to adress this very issue, and it was signed into law by the President of the United States on July 24th, 2006. What started as a story on the local news in a small Virginia town has blossomed into a nation wide issue. Only on the Sun Journal blogs does one see such anti-American anti-Veteran sentament.
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)
Indeed, Walter, you are
Indeed, Walter, you are truly a man of integrity.
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)
Col. Van T. Barfoot, Thank
Col. Van T. Barfoot,
Thank you for your service to your country, on behalf of a grateful nation and a fellow patriot.
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)
Attention to orders
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.
Gil, You forgot the other
Gil,
You forgot the other thing they do... personal attacks when they have nothing to refute what you say.
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)
Gee, I don't know Veritas...
Gee, I don't know Veritas... maybe they EARNED it. Not everyone who might be classified as "rich" got that way by bilking investors out of their hard earned money. There are actually "rich" people out there who have pulled themselves up by their own shoe laces, applied some good old Yankee ingenuity, and earned every dime the old fashioned way. I'm not one of them, but if I were, I would take offense at the idea that I be forced to pay extra just because I'm "rich."
I don't want affordable INSURANCE, or GOVERNMENT RUN Healthcare OR Insurance. I want affordable HEALTH CARE. There's a big difference.
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)
The State of Maine already
The State of Maine already recoups taxes from out of State and online purchases by forcing Mainers to pay taxes for our alleged purchases on our State income tax form (whether we made any such purchases or not!)
If I buy something out of State, why should I have to pay sales taxes for it here in Maine. If you're on vacation in California and make purchases while there, why should you have to pay Maine sales tax? But that's how our State looks at things. Never mind that you paid sales taxes to California when you purchased the items. IS THAT FAIR?
I am appauled at the view the Sun Journal is taking on this issue. I make a concerted effort to not only buy local, but buy American. It's getting harder and harder to find products locally that fit that description. If local merchants want more business, they should stock more quality "made in the USA" products. As it is now, you're hard pressed to find anything that isn't "made in China."
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)
There are potentially a
There are potentially a number of reasons why no arrest has been made yet. If there are no eye winesses, it's "he said, he said," unless enough evidence can be collected to put the perps away. Unfortunately, the scales of justice tend to tip in favor of the criminal, and the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the victim and the prosecution.
That is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for people who are wrongly accused, but it sure sucks when you're trying to put the bad guys away. You have to make sure you cross all your "t's" and dot all your "i's" just right or they walk. You don't get an arrest warrant until you have the evidence to back it up.
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)
Health care may not be
Health care may not be broken, but it is priced way out of reach for the average person. Hence, the "need" for health insurance. It is a never-ending cycle. By law, hospitals cannot turn people away, even if they do not have a means to pay for treatment. The cost of treatment has to be recouped somewhere, so health care costs go up. There are other factors; cost of medical supplies and drugs, malpractice insurance, etc. As health care costs go up, insurance rates go up. The system is definitely broken, but having the government take over is like pouring gasoline on a house fire to put the fire out.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul (i.e. taking money away from Medicare) is not a solution, it is a catastrophy waiting to happen. It very literally could mean a death sentance for some of our senior citizens. Public option = more taxes, and that's the last thing we need right now with this economy. Making health insurance manditory and doling out hefty fines on those who can't pay for it in the first place, is CRIMINAL! It's extortion!
Other than that, it's a great idea... (not)
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)
I'm with you James. I have
I'm with you James. I have two granddaughters serving as well.
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)
Sorry Ryan, you just did. By
Sorry Ryan, you just did. By telling people they can only talk about God in/at church, you are basically "shoving your views down other people's throat." You say you don't like it when religious people "force" their beliefs on you, but you are perfectly OK with forcing your beliefs on them (i.e. don't talk about God outside of church.)
That's not how things work in this country. The 1st Amendment not only guarantees the people's right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, it also guarantees free speach. You can no more live your life "God free" than religous people can live their lives "Atheist free." We're all stuck with each other.
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)
Actually, I think it should
Actually, I think it should say "The ship is stinking." what with all the BS that is flying around. We need affordable health care not just affordable health insurance. There is a BIG difference.
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)
So did mine. What they did
So did mine.
What they did AFTER that might be questionable, but they did come here legally.
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)
No, you are misinformed.
No, you are misinformed. Medicare premiums DID go up. Want to see my bill?
You are right about one thing. There was no increase in SSI this year. I don't know where you get your information tron, but it's bogus.
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)
I agree jayla. My experience
I agree jayla. My experience with the Monmouth Police Department has been nothing but positive. But then I don't drive 45mph through the middle of town, I register my vehicles and get them inspected when they are due, and I keep them maintained. MPD averages a 5 minute response time, which is outstanding for a rural area. I am, however, disappointed with these allegations being made about the chief.
Did you know that a crime is committed every 15 minutes and 30 seconds in the State of Maine? Murder is on the rise in this state, as are armed home invasions. This isn't the time to be doing away with the MPD.
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)
That is not what I said Jon.
That is not what I said Jon. Don't put words in my mouth.
You are the one distorting the meaning of words. Establishment, like so many other words in the English language, can mean many things depending on the context in which it is used. But you know that. In the case of the 1st Amendment, the word "establishment" means "The act of establishing; a ratifying or ordaining; settlement; confirmation." that much is pretty clear from the context. All anyone has to do is look up any comentary on the Bill of Rights and/or the First Amendment to see how you completely distort its meaning.
The letter in which Jefferson mentions the "wall of separation" between Church and State is not a contrived quote. It is available online at the Library of Congress and numerous other web sites that are dedicated to preserving his writtings. His letter was in response to a letter from the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
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)
Marriage is not a civil
Marriage is not a civil right.
And you will not find the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere in our founding documents. It is a phrase Thomas Jefferson used to assure people that the government had no authority to tell people what to believe.
The first amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Government is prohibited from establishing a "State" religion and from making laws that prevent people from exercising their religious beliefs. It DOES NOT prevent religious people from participating in government.
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)
"You keep using that word. I
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" -- Inigo Montoya
Diversity IS NOT strength. Diverse = Different. Diversity is a state of difference, dissimiltudes, unlikeness. Metal alloys are created when individual elements are melted together and reprocessed until the desired alloy is obtained.
THAT is what made this country strong. People from all nations, ethnicities and religions came to America and blended together. It is this combining of cultures into one culture that has made America unique from all other countries of the world. We celebrate and share our differeneces (diversity), we live and let live (tolerance), but yet we are one people, we are Americans. At least that is the way it USED to be.
Now, in the name of "Diversity" and "Tolerance," imigrants (illegal or not) are coddled, instead of encouraged to "become" Americans. We must be careful what we say so we don't offend them. We "tolerate" their cultural and religious practices even when they are contrarty to our laws. The same public schools that bar any mention of Christianity or the Bible make allowences for devout muslims so they can practice their faith. All in the name of diversity and tolerance.
The natural tendency is to form communities with "like" people, those who share the same culture and values that we are accustomed to. This does not make us stronger, it weakens us by dividing us along cultural boundaries that only serve to exacerbate our differences. It discourages participation in the great experiment.
Yes, celebrate our differences, share in each other's cultures, but we also must come together as one people, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.
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)
God speed Lewis
God speed Lewis Millett,
Thank you for your service.
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)
Apparently you missed the
Apparently you missed the video link that some No on 1 supporters posted to "prove" homosexuality was normal because animals do it. Sandra's statement is rather tame by comparison.
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)
Those people from Maine
Those people from Maine would be considered Maine residents. The issue is not about denying anyone their right to vote. The issue momof4 brings up is whether or not we should allow non-residents (i.e. students from other states) to vote on Maine issues.
When I was in the service stationed in another state, I still listed Maine as my residence. I didn't vote on the local and state issues of the host State. I also went to college in Virginia for a couple years, but I was a registered voter in the State of Maine, so I didn't participate in local and state Virginia elections either.
It's not about were you are born and raised so much as it is about where you register to vote.
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)
I agree. This is getting
I agree. This is getting old...
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)
Great letter John. John A.
Great letter John.
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)
Oh, give US a break
Oh, give US a break Veritas,
Laws are worthless without the ability to back them up. Don't think so? Let's ground all aircraft, park all ships and tanks and disband the millitary, the coast guard, and all law enforcement agencies (state and federal). How long do you think we'd hang onto our freedom then? Laws only work when they are obeyed and enforced.
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)
honeeybee, Believing
honeeybee,
Believing something doesn't make it true. God is not God because I say so or because I believe that He is. He would still be God even if no one believed in Him. He has revealed Himself in creation, He has revealed Himself in His written Word, and He revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. His Word is true and faithful. It teaches us how to live, how to relate to one another, and how to have a personal relationship with Him.
There are many false gods, there are many paths and many religions that claim to know the way to true spiritual bliss. Only ONE claims to re-unite man (and woman) with the Creator. Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me." So either he IS The Way, The Truth and The Life, or he is a liar.
Let me put this another way. If God is only what you believe him (or her) to be, is he really God, or is he a figment of your imagination? If your God only has attributes that you wish him (or her) to have, (i.e. love, peace, acceptance, let you do anything you want because there are no bad people or bad behavior...) that's all well and good, but it is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible claims to be the true and living God, the creator of heaven and earth, the giver and sustainer of life. The God of the Bible desires to have a personal relationship with each and every one of us, but it is on His terms, not ours.
So you are correct in stating that there is only One God, but he is certainly not worshiped by all religions.
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)
Beth, since you brought it
Beth, since you brought it up...
You are correct. You DO worship a different god, not the true and living God, the Creator of all things.
If you did, you would revere His Word, His law, His precepts, His statutes, His commandments and His ordinances. Marriage was God's idea and He ordained that marriage is between a man and a woman. He created us male and female and he made our bodies for each other. When a husband and wife are joined together, God says the "two become one." Procreation was certainly part of His design, but it not the sole purpose for marriage. It is also about the unique relationship between husband and wife. Sex was God's idea along with the pleasure a husband and wife experience in the act of sexual intercourse. God's design is not just about the physical aspect of the relationship, he also designed husband and wife to meet each others spiritual and emotional needs as well.
Marriage, as God intended, is a relationship that cannot be realized by two men or two women. A man cannot be a wife to another man. A woman cannot be a husband to another woman. That is true physically, spiritually and emotionally. Two men cannot provide the role of a mother to a child, just as two women cannot provide the role of a father to their children. You may love each other and your children dearly but there is more than love at stake.
Decades of research show how important the family is to society. That is why governments pass laws that protect marriage, and by extension, the family.
It's not about rights, though it is about what is right.
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)
You can drop the "separate
You can drop the "separate but equal" argument. That is EXACTLY what the "equality in marriage" law would have done, create two separate entitities, "civil" marriage and "religious" marriage. It also made religious organizations exempt from recognizing or performing "gay marriages." How is that "equal?"
This is NOT about civil rights. It is an attempt by the gay community to convince government to redifine the definition of marriage. (Which the government has no authority to do.)
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)
This is not about rights.
This is not about rights. This is about marriage. The people of Maine thought marriage was so important to society, they codified it in State Law. How has this changed? If it was true then, it is still true today.
Maine Revised Statute
Title 19-A, Chapter 23
§650. Findings and purposes
(WHOLE SECTION TEXT IN EFFECT PENDING REFERENDUM ON 11/3/09)
All municipal clerks and courts of this State shall have a duty and shall be legally required to construe the provisions of Maine's marriage laws in accordance with the following findings and purposes: [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:
A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
2. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life; [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
B. To nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children; and [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
C. To support and strengthen traditional monogamous Maine families against improper interference from out-of-state influences or edicts. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
SECTION HISTORY
1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW). 2009, c. 82, §1 (RP).
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)
This is not about rights.
This is not about rights. This is about marriage. The people of Maine thought marriage was so important to society, they codified it in State Law. How has this changed? If it was true then, it is still true today.
Maine Revised Statute
Title 19-A, Chapter 23
§650. Findings and purposes
(WHOLE SECTION TEXT IN EFFECT PENDING REFERENDUM ON 11/3/09)
All municipal clerks and courts of this State shall have a duty and shall be legally required to construe the provisions of Maine's marriage laws in accordance with the following findings and purposes: [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:
A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
2. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life; [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
B. To nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children; and [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
C. To support and strengthen traditional monogamous Maine families against improper interference from out-of-state influences or edicts. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
SECTION HISTORY
1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW). 2009, c. 82, §1 (RP).
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)
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)
Really nice letter Ellie,
Really nice letter Ellie, especially the day after Veterans Day.
Perhaps you'd like to return to the days of the Militia? We'll just swear in everyone between the ages of 17 and 45, give them a crash course in firearm safety, issue them a rifle and a battle pack of ammo and just sit back and reap the savings.
There's just one catch... the National Guard belongs to the Federal Government, and while tax payer dollers do end up paying for it, getting rid of the National Guard here in Maine won't save us that much. Plus, if we do away with Maine's National Guard units, civilian jobs and businesses will suffer too.
Let's just be thankful we have men and women who are willing to put themselves in harms way. Let's also remember to pray for those men and women, both in the current theaters of operation, and those who stay behind to defend our country.
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)
You didn't check very
You didn't check very hard.
Not that long ago homosexuality (aka sodomy) WAS against the law (i.e. a criminal offense) in many States. Some still have it on the books, but don't enforce it anymore. Please check your facts before making blanket statements.
And his prediction is not unfounded:
- Over 2 million children around the world are sexually exploited every year.
- Here in the United States, as of the end of the year 2000, there were as many as 325,000 children being exploited.
- Child sex tourism, which involves child sex tours, takes adults from around the world to places where they can sexually exploit children.
- 25% of "sex tourists" outside the United States are American.
- The average age of entry into prostitution in the United States is 13.
The general consensus in this country is that Gay people are born that way. Well guess what, the general consensus is that pedophiles are born that way too. A pedophile will tell you that they would never dream of hurting a child. That they "love" children.
There was a time when society considered it "normal" for a girl to be married at an extremely young age (i.e. 13). In some parts of the world it is still acceptable
My point? Just because something is "acceptable" it doesn't mean it is right.
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)
"I am outraged by the vote
"I am outraged by the vote against gay marriage. I am not bisexual or gay but many others in this world are, so who, in God's name, says that it is our decision to allow it or not?"
Who in God's name? God Himself. God created us male and female. God ordained the institution of marriage. God defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Who are we to change that? By what authority?
Government is prohibited from passing any laws that establish religion, or interfere with the free exercise thereof.
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)
Martha said, "Webster's
Martha said,
"Webster's definition of democracy includes "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges." That means history and tradition are not acceptable excuses to deny anyone equal status or benefits under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has already struck down "separate but equal" as unconstitutional. Any attempt to recreate such a system is rightfully doomed to fail."
Martha, the key word there is "arbitrary." The State does not arbitrarily extend bennefits and/or privileges to married couples. It has a reason for doing so. It is because traditional monogamous marriage and the family that is the result, is the basic building block of society.
That does not infringe on anyone's rights. And though we may all be "created equal", we, as citizens of Maine, and by extension, citizens of the United States, certainly do not have equal status or bennefits under the law, married or otherwise. Look around. There are plenty of class distinctions; the "rich", the "middle-class", the "poor", the "homeless" and the list goes on. You can beat any rap if you have enough dough to get a really slick attorney (remember OJ?)
If "separate but equal" is, as you say, unconstitutional, then the "Equality in Marriage" law would have been unconstitutional. It created two "separate but equal" definitions of marriage (religious and civil) and granted certain immunities for religous organizations who did not wish to recognize same-sex "marriage."
For arguments sake, let us assume that other couples and/or families are being denied certain bennefits and privileges that are currently offered to married couples, and that it is a "bad" or "unfair" practice. It would be far more logical to simply pass legislation extending those bennefits to same sex couples, non-married couples and single parent households.
I think you'll find that most Mainers would favor such an approach. It would leave the concept of traditional marriage intact, while ensuring that all Maine couples and families recieve equal bennefits and privileges.
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)
Marrige = one man + one
Marrige = one man + one woman. It is the foundation of the family, which is the building block of society.
For this reason, governments protect the institution of marriage and offer incentives in the form of bennefits and privileges. (There is also the ulterior motive... it encourages couples to have more children, which increases the population, which increases the tax base.)
BUT THE GOVERNMNET DID NOT INVENT OR CREATE MARRIAGE, CIVIL, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE. And the government certainly has no authority to redifine it.
This is NOT about equal rights. We are ALL born with equal rights. If gay couples want the same bennefits and privileges afforded to them that are currently afforded to married couples, then get the legislature to do so without changing the definition of marriage.
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)
Well thought out
Well thought out letter?!?
You must be joking. Brent's letter reminds me of a child who can't have his own way, so he throws a temper tantrum. Kinda like "If you don't let me pitch I'm going to take my ball and bat and go home so no one can play ball."
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)
Gil, I know your comment was
Gil, I know your comment was basically "tongue in cheek",
Islam is NOT a peaceful religion. Never has been, never will be.
It makes the "crusades" and the "inquisition" look like childs play.
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)
Technically, if one wished
Technically, if one wished to, one could make a very strong case that Lincoln did not have the authority to free the slaves. The Chief Executive's primary function is to "execute" the laws that are sent to his desk from Congress. The President may then sign them into law or veto them (in which case Congress may over-ride the veto with a 2 thirds majority vote.)
Linclon's "Emancipation Proclamation" was really nothing much more than a proclamation. The slaves weren't actually freed until the end of the war.
It has only been in the latter half of the previous century where so called "Executive Orders" have been used to enact "policies" that resemble "law." And both parties are guilty of it.
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)
mt 7:6 John A. Chick "If a
mt 7:6
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)
Jason says "No, that was not
Jason says "No, that was not the issue. The issue is about how people treat others who are different. It's about when we decide that because we dislike something, that it must therefore be inferior."
No, the issue was (is still) you want to redifine what constitutes a marriage. Any union that is not between a man and a woman is not marriage. Call it anything you want and get the government to extend the bennefits, privileges (and taxes) to what ever you want to call it.
The government didn't invent marriage, therefore the government has no authority to redifine what "marriage" is.
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)
I'm pretty sure that's just
I'm pretty sure that's just a hoax.
Even so, they can rewrite THEIR version of the Bible all they want to. That doesn't make the Word of God irrelevent. There are still plenty of good translations out there that remain faithful to the original manuscripts.
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)
If by "freedoms" you mean
If by "freedoms" you mean "rights", then you are mistaken. Rights are not granted by living in a certain place. They are "endowed by their Creator" (according to Mr Jefferson and the ohter founding fathers.) The government does not grant rights. The purpose of government is to protect our rights and not to take any of them from us.
If by "freedom" you mean "liberty", you are also mistaken. Government does not grant liberty or freedom, per se. On the contrary, if anything, governments are more apt to pass laws that deny or infringe on true liberty and freedom.
The 1st Amendment protects religion FROM government interference. Nothing in our founding documents prevents relious people from participating in government, quite the contrary. You cannot separate a man (or woman) from what they believe. Their beliefs will influence every thing they do in every aspect of their lives. That is not necessarily good or bad, it's just a fact.
It makes no difference what the Yes on 1 people based their motivation on. The State of Maine did not invent marriage, nor did the US Government, or any government for that matter. Government has no authority to redifine marriage. The bennefits, privileges and "taxes" that government has bestowed on the institution of marriage, can easily be extended to include same sex couples, heterosexual couples that live together but are not married, and single parent households.
I can understand why government has seen to protect the traditional family. It is the foundation of all society.
What is immoral is to keep extending special privileges and protections to gay people in the guise of non-discrimination and/or civil rights. Yet at the same time, you would be ok with infringing on the equal rights of religious people in the guise of "Separation of Church and State."
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)
Sarah, the State did not
Sarah, the State did not invent marriage, nor did any human government. The 1st Amendment is meant to protect religion and religious people FROM government interference, NOT prevent relious people from being involved with government. The State recognizes that traditional marriage and the family unit is the foundation of all society. That is one of the reasons that government affords certain bennefits and privileges to married couples. (The other reason being to create a revenue stream in the form of marriage licenses, etc.)
This is why marriage was codified in Maine Law. (See below)
--snip--
Maine Revised Statutes
Title 19-A, Chapter 23: MARRIAGE
§650. Findings and purposes
1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:
A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
2. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life; [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
B. To nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children; and [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
C. To support and strengthen traditional monogamous Maine families against improper interference from out-of-state influences or edicts. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
--snip--
To reiterate; Marriage is not a government invention, State or Federal. As such, the government does not have the authority to redifine marriage, nor should it do so, but that is precisely what this law attempted to do. If it had not been repealed, not only would the definition of the word "marriage" have been redifined, but many other words relate to marriage would have been as well. (See below)
---snip---
§650-A. Codification of marriage
(EFFECT OF SECTION IS SUSPENDED PENDING REFERENDUM ON 11/3/09)
Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including, but not limited to, "spouse," "family," "marriage," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," "widow" and "widower," must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law. [2009, c. 82, §2 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
2009, c. 82, §2 (NEW).
---snip---
THAT is what the majority voted to repeal. No one is against extending any of the bennefits, privileges or "taxes" associated with married couples, to same sex couples. (And for that matter, heterosexual couples who are not married and single parent households). The State would be acting perfectly within it's authority to do so.
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)
Semper Fi Jared
Semper Fi Jared Golden,
Thank you for your service.
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)
You're right. The army
You're right. The army should have canned him a long time ago.
Being taunted about ones faith does not give one a reason to slaughter anyone. Psychiatrists and psychologists are around troubled people every day. That's their job. Nobody forced him to become an army psychiatrist. When you sign on the dotted line, you go where they say to go whether you like it or not.
And I don't buy that the army didn't look into his accusations about being taunted.
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)
Why make this into a "us vs
Why make this into a "us vs them" political issue?
I think they are a great idea, and guess what, I'm a registered republican and a native Mainer.
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)
This is not Canada. John A.
This is not Canada.
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)
No, not Everyone. I voted to
No, not Everyone. I voted to repeal the law because the government doesn't have the authority to redifine marriage. I also think the law was a bad law in that id only would have allowed same sex couples to have the bennefits and priviledges of married couples.
The bill should be re-submitted, re-written, and renamed "The equality for Families" law, and extend the bennefits and privileges afforded to marriage to same sex partners, heterosexual partners who are not married, and single parrent households. That would leave the definition of marriage alone, and I don't think anyone who voted "yes" would be opposed to equal bennefits for all.
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)
Queen is right on this one.
Queen is right on this one. The law would have protected those who did not want to marry same sex couples under the "for religious reasons" category.
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)
Let God deal with it? You
Let God deal with it? You mean like he did with Sodom and Gommorah?
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)
You're kidding, right? If
You're kidding, right?
If religion is religious why isn't it taken seriously? The moral collapse we are seeing in society is the reason the vote was as close as it was, and why churches are closing their doors. Religion is not taken seriously, never mind marriage. Just keep on teaching the secular humanism religion and evolution as fact and pretty soon you won't have to worry about religion.... at least until Jesus comes back.
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)
The phrase "separation of
The phrase "separation of church and state" appears NOWHERE in our founding documents. It is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut, and it clearly shows what the 1st Amendment was meant to do. The 1st Amendment begins:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The right protected is an individual right to worship as one sees fit, apart from any interference from the government. Jefferson believed that "...religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship..." and that "Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their [Congress] acts..." Thus the government was prohibited from passing laws pertaining to the establishment of any one religion over another, and was prohibited from passing laws that interfered with The People's right to exercise (participate) in the religion of their choice.
At the time our nation was founded, the governments of Europe dictated to the people what religion they were allowed to practice. Those who did not comply were persecuted by both the government and the "Church". Many of the people (if not most) that came to North America did so in an attempt to escape this persecution and worship as they saw fit. This right was preserved in two ways; 1) Nothing in the Constitution gives government the authority to pass laws regarding religion. 2) The right is enumerated in the "Bill of Rights", i.e. the first 10 Amendments to the constitution.
The bottom line: Government is prohibited from creating a "State" religion AND from interfering with the FREE EXERCISE of religion by The People. It does NOT prevent religious people from participating in government, nor does it prevent any particular religious organization form lending support to any particular cause.
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)
Oh please. That whole
Oh please.
That whole "separate but equal" issue is a straw man. The so-called "marriage equality" law would have created a "separate but equal" definition of marriage by distiguishing between "religious" marriage and "civil" marriage.
If this law were really about equality, it would have included extending the bennefits associated with marriage to non-married heterosexual couples and single parrents, NOT JUST GAY COUPLES. Now THAT would have been TRUE equality, and acceptable to all Mainers. But that really isn't what you want, is it? You just want LGBT to bennefit from such a law.
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)
Well said. If this were
Well said.
If this were really just about rights (which it is not) or bennefits and privileges (which it is) then it could easily be settled in a manner in which all bennefit. The truth is, this is more than just about equality. This is an attack on the church, marriage and the "natural" family. If it were anything else, they would be willing to compromise. This law only applies to LGBT's. It does nothing to secure equality for non-married heterosexual couples or single parents. It's a bad law that needs to be repealed.
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)
Joseph, obviously, you
Joseph, obviously, you didn't read what he wrote. No one is asking anyone to compromise on basic civil rights. The compromise is on the definition of marriage.
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)
Please read it again. The
Please read it again. The first Amendment protects The People (religious or otherwise) from the government establishing a "State" religion. It does NOT prevent religious people from participating in government. There is a big difference. If by "the church" you mean the Roman Catholic Church, or any other organized religion, then that is correct. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows any organized religious body to dictate government policy.
I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your statement. What people believe, i.e. their core values, will influence the laws they choose to be governed by. Our nation, as a people, have a rich Judeo-Christian religious heritage, and as a result, 99.9% of our laws are derived from principles found in the "10 Comandments". It's only been the last 40 years or so that we, as a society, have drifted away from that heratige.
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)
So the statement is true.
So the statement is true. Clinton signed it. It's not propaganda, it is a factual statement. BOTH political parties are adept at "tacking on" riders and amendments in order to get something passed that might otherwise fail on its own. On the campaign trail, Obama said he was going to put an end to such practices, but so far things are business as usual.
Apparently, Clinton weighed the costs and voted with his pen, just like they all do. The only time any given party talks about creating a line item veto is when there is a sitting president of the opposite party in the white house.
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)
I agree with you Jami, but I
I agree with you Jami, but I don't think Christians are becoming unpopular. The gospel, and those who proclaim it, has never been very "popular". But you're right. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Exciting times indeed!!!
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." -- Jesus
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)
Exactly! John A. Chick "If a
Exactly!
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)
Can you prove that he
Can you prove that he doesn't exist?
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)
Man is incurably religious.
Man is incurably religious. We are hard-wired to worship something or someone. That is why there are so many religions.
To answer your other questions:
1. Christianity in not right because I or any other believer says it is, Jesus is the one who said "I AM the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father (God) but by me."
2. In order to practice Christianity, Christians must tell others about Jesus. He instructed us to "go into all the world and preach the gospel (good news) and make disciples of all who believe."
3. Everything we do affects those around us, as what others do affects us. No man is an island. To those who believe in the sanctity of marriage, it is a dart through the heart because marriage is at the very core of God's plan and God's will for our lives. It is the first of four institutions ordained by God.
4. It's not about ego, it's just one begger telling another begger where he found bread.
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)
The Church will endure no
The Church will endure no matter what the outcome of the vote is on Tuesday. God is still in control. His plans will not be thwarted by anything society does. His Word will still be true regardless of what people think. And there will come a day when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
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)
Let's see. If those opposed
Let's see. If those opposed to gay marriage base their argument on the bible or God, it's a bad thing. But if the pro-gay marriage side base their argument on "Jesus" it's Ok?
That sounds like a double standard to me.
The truth is, Jesus preached that marriage was ordained by God, and that it was a union between a man and a woman. That the two became "one flesh", and what God has joined together, man should not attempt to separate.
Jesus NEVER condoned sin of any kind. His message was clear; "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand." He offers forgiveness to all who repent and turn from their wicked ways. To those who do, he says "Go, and sin no more."
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)
So animals engage in
So animals engage in homosexual BEHAVIOR. There's nothing new about that. Every farm boy or girl knows that.
But it most certainly IS agains the laws of nature. Nature dictates that in order for their species to survive, they must mate with the oposite sex.
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)
This is currently how the
This is currently how the law in Maine reads regarding the definition of marriage:
Title 19-A, p650,
1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:
A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.
2. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life;
B. To nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children; and
C. To support and strengthen traditional monogamous Maine families against improper interference from out-of-state influences or edicts.
Those are pretty powerful statements, and I agree one hundred percent. The State has failed in its moral obligation to "nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogomous family unit" with the passage of this so-called "equality in marriage" law.
The State has the authority to extend the same bennefits that "traditional monogamous" married couples now have, to same sex couples and heterosexual couples who are not married. THAT would be the most logical thing to do, and it does not discriminate against anyone, religious or otherwise. I might add, they should probably be extended to single parrents as well.
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)
The disease is sin, Jesus is
The disease is sin, Jesus is the cure.
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)
Natural law is simply
Natural law is simply ignorance called traditional?
From Wikipedia:
"Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.
Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law, and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States."
"The Law of Nature also refers to Physical law, a scientific generalization based upon empirical observation"
So basically, what you are telling us is that science and our system of government is based on tradition and ignorance.
From Maine Law Title 19-A, 650:
"A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage."
The "equallity in marriage" law IS EXACTLY about redefining marriage. It re-writes Maine marriage law to redefine the "legal" definition of marriage so homosexuals (people of the same sex) can be "legally" married.
Nice try.
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)
Yes, Jesus taught
Yes, Jesus taught compassion, but he also taught righteousness and holiness. He also taught about marriage and was specific that it is a union between one man and one woman for life. Never did he teach that we are to tollerate sin, never. Sin is bondage, he came to set us free.
No one is against extending the bennefits and protectionis of married couples to homosexual and heterosexual domestic partners. The government has the authority to do that. But the government does not have the authority to redefine marriage.
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)
To the honorable Sen. Deb
To the honorable Sen. Deb Simpson from Auburn,
Nothing in the Constitution of the State of Maine or the Constitution of the United States gives you the authority to redefine marriage. Claiming that "civil" marriage and "religious" marriage are not the same is a straw man. People of faith are required to obtain a marriage license from the State even though their marriage cerimony will likely take place in a religious setting and be officiated by a minister, priest, etc. When it bennefits the State, they are the same, yet in the case of same sex marriage, they are not (according to you).
Currently Title 19-A, p650 reads:
"A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage."
Marriage is what it is. Marriage is not a right, civil or otherwise. We already have equal rights. Government cannot grant rights. If government could grant rights than government could take them away. Our rights are inherent and are a gift from God. If religion plays no part in this debate, how is it that our founding fathers claimed that our rights to Life, Libery and the Persuit of Happiness are bestowed upon us by our Creator?
Go back to the beginning of the text:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Did you catch that? Their justification for the separation from England was based on what they felt they were entitled to according to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".
We call the union between a man and a woman, marriage. In the eyes of God it makes no difference if someone is married by a Justice of the Peace or a minister. It's still a union between a man and a woman. This union is not only considered Holy and Sacred by religious people, it is the foundation of the family, the cornerstone of civilization and societies and cultures all around the globe. We have laws that extend bennefits and protections to married couples because society would not exist if it were not for "Natural" union between a man and a woman.
If government wishes to extend the same protections and bennefits to same sex couples and domestic partnerships, that is perfectly acceptable. But you should also extend them to heterosexual couples who prefer to NOT be married, yet still maintain a partnership.
No matter how you look at it, the same sex marriage law that you and your fellow representatives and senators passed is a bad law. It needs to be repealed and rewritten so ALL of the people enjoy equal bennefits without changing the definition of marriage.
It is ironic that you should mention our ancestors coming to this country to escape persecution for their religious beliefs while at the same time urging us to accept a law that desecrates one of the most sacred tenents of their faith.
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)
It's not that simple. Many
It's not that simple. Many of the laws that God gave the Jews through Moses where part of a covenant that He made with them. Specifically the ceremonial laws pertaining to worship, sacrifices, and the laws pertaining to sanctification (clean vs unclean). They were to be "set appart" as a people, holy unto the Lord.
But there are also other laws that pertain to government and morality that God expects all people to obey, Christian or not. They are written on our hearts (i.e. conscience)so that even people who have never heard about God or his laws are still without excuse. They can't say "I didn't know it was wrong to murder someone" or "I didn't know it was wrong to steal". In the Bible, homosexuality is a moral issue, as is adultery, incest and bestiality. God's judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah ocurred long before the events of Leviticus where he gave Israel the Law through Moses.
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)
If you knew Jesus, you would
If you knew Jesus, you would know that he said: "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
This was in response to a question he was asked about divorce, but it clearly shows marriage as God intended it.
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)
We are created male and
We are created male and female.
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)
If all you want are the
If all you want are the bennefits the law bestows on married couples, then change the law and leave the definition of marriage alone.
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)
... and religious people are
... and religious people are free to speak too.
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)
He may not be your God, but
He may not be your God, but he most certainly is your maker Dosh.
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)
While one might not agree
While one might not agree with Joseph's religious views, it is impossible to ignore the affect of unbridaled sensual debauchery on past civilizations. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Babylonian empire, Persa, Greece and Rome, just to name a few. Lust, jealousy, envy, greed, sensuality, these are just the warning signs of a civilization that is on the brink of self destruction.
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)
This is not about rights or
This is not about rights or equality. This is about redefining marriage.
A "Yes" vote on Question 1 simply affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of civilization and definition should stand. Cultures all over the globe honor marriage, religious or not.
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)
Ooops! Don't think so. Just
Ooops! Don't think so. Just because some animals exhibit homosexual behavior does not mean there are homosexual animals. When it comes time for breeding season, they will find one of thier kind's oposite sex so their species can survive. I worked on a dairy farm and occasionally would see one cow attempt to mount another that was in heat. Not once did I ever see two cows produce a calf, and neither did they derive some obscene pleasure from this behavior. It did, however, get the bulls attention, which is probably why they do it.
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)
The only place you will find
The only place you will find the term "Separation of Church and State" is in Thomas Jefferson's letters and writings. You won't find it anywhere in the documents that make up our system of government.
What we DO have is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which begins with: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
If you recall, the first 10 amendments is often refered to as the Bill of Rights. The purpose is to protect our rights to worship freely, as we choose, and to prevent the government from establishing an "official" state religion, not to protect the government from religious people. And the 1st Amendment also protects the right that religious people have to share their beliefs and opinions: "...or abridging the freedom of speech,".
To you, marriage is nothing more than a social construction, something that government invented. That is not true. From the dawn of civilization, the union of a man and a woman has been the corner stone of society. This is true in literally every society and culture around the globe, even in the absence of any official government. In regligious cultures, marriage is considered sacred, holy and honorable and always between a man and a woman (until just recently).
There are those who say that allowing same sex marriage is the evolution of the marriage, but evolution is about the "natural" progression of things. There is nothing "natural" about same sex unions. Those in favor of same sex marriage will point to the animal kingdom and say that homosexual behavior exists there too. That may be true, but when it comes down to the survival of a given species, the "natural" way this is achieved is by breeding with the oposite sex. Besides, we are supposed to be civilized not animals.
This is not about rights. Never has been and never will be. It is about redefining the word marriage in an attempt to legitimise their homosexual lifestyle.
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)
There is nothing TO justify
There is nothing TO justify Jacob's or Solomon's actions.
The Bible is a book of contrasts, not contradictions. It shows both the good and the bad. God's plan for marriage didn't change because they deviated from it. Both Jacob and Solomon had to deal with the repercussions of their actions. In Jacob's case, there was rivalry between his two wives, rivalry between their offspring and favoritism on Jacob's part for Rachel's children, which further exacerbated the situation.
In Solomon's case, it was his relationship with God that suffered in the end. Now supposedly, this guy was the wisest man that ever lived, but it does make one wonder in light of the 700 wives thing.
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)
Rational argument #1 - The
Rational argument #1 - The law discriminates against both heterosexual and homosexual couples who choose to live together without being married. Rather than change the definition of marriage, the law should extend the same bennefits and priviledges to all domestic partners, whether they choose to be married or not.
Rational argument #2 - Those who are for same sex marriage, state as one of their reasons, that to do otherswise (i.e. civil unions instead of marriage) would create a situation where there would be "equal but seperate" bennefits and priviledges, that we should all be equal under the law. But that is just what the same sex marriage law has done. Now there are seperate guidelines for religious institutions that exempt them from recognizing same sex "civil" marriages.
Rational argument #3 - Both the federal and state constitutions prohibit government from making laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By granting religious entities "permission" to ignor the law regarding same sex marriages, government has set a dangerous precedent that could pave the way to government regulation of religious entities in other areas.
Rational argument #4 - Nothing in the state or federal constitutions grant government the authority to redefine marriage. In fact, it may be argued that government has overstepped its bounds by getting into the marriage business in the first place. The government DOES have the authority to extend the bennefits and priviledges of marriage to all domestic partners.
The rational, fair and equal thing to do is repeal this law, leave the deffiniton of marriage alone, and extend said bennefits and priviledges to all domestic partnerships.
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)
If the shoe were on the
If the shoe were on the other foot, and it was Pitts that was turned down, everyone would be screeming RACISM! DISCRIMINATION! (everyone including Pitts.)
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)
So you think that a man
So you think that a man cannot love another man and be a heterosexual? I know a lot of married men who love hanging around with the other guys, that doesn't make them gay. That is Mr. Schmidt's opinion, not what the Bible actually says. The text itself shows what God's idea of a suitible help meet was. He didn't create Steve he created Eve.
If your child continuously does something that you have repeatedly told him not to do, or refuses to do something you've asked him to do, doesn't it make you angry? frustrated? Especially so if it is something that endangers their life. Why? Becaus you love them and you don't want to see them hurt themselves or others.
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)
Perhaps I have
Perhaps I have missrepresented my position. My objections are not solely based on religious convictions. The government had no authority to get into the marriage business in the first place. Nothing in our founding documents (State and/or Federal) grants the government the authority to redefine marriage. Nothing in our founding documents grants government the authority to regulate marriage either, but it does.
The "rights" that gay couples hope to gain by having the government redefine marriage are not rights. We all have equal rights already. Over the years, laws and statutes have been passed in the guise of protecting marriage, along with certain bennefits and/or exemptions. If our government wishes to extend these to unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples, they could easily do so. I am OK with that, as I'm sure most of the other oponents of this law would be.
One of the objections to simply extending these bennefits is that it would create equal but "seperate" rights. That is not true. In the first place, government cannot create rights. If it could, it could also take them away. This is what the framers of our government believed, that our rights are inherent and unalienable. Governments may deny people their rights, or suppress their rights, but rights don't come from government. In the second place, the very thing this law was suppose to avoid, has instead created a seperate but "equal" condition. Now, acording to our government, we have "religious" marriage and "civil" marriage, with certain exemptions granted to religious organizations who do not with to recognise "civil" marriage. How is this equal under the law? And what about those heterosexual couples who live together but for whatever reason, choose not to get married? Shouldn't they also have the same bennefits and priviledges that married people have now?
All of us should have the same rights under the law whether we are married or not.
I am voting yes on question 1, not because I hate gay people, but because this law the wrong law.
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)
By original plan, I mean one
By original plan, I mean one man for one woman for life. In the biblical story of creation, Eve is created by taking a piece of Adams side. He didn't take a piece of his foot to be trampled by him, or a piece of his head that she would be over him. He took a piece of his side, so she would be equal with him, from close to his heart to be loved by him, and from under his arm to be protected by him. They were designed to compliment each other, and to complete each other.
It is mankind that has distorted the relationship that God intended. Some have even done so in the name of religion. Polygamy is recorded in the Bible, as well as the negative ramifications of that practice. Nowhere does God condone polygamy or treating ones wife like property.
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)
I present thousands of years
I present thousands of years of precedent. From the dawn of time, marriage has been between a man and a woman. And that definition permeates all civilizations and their differing religions.
Jefferson had every right to his opinions. Notice that he was not so much against religion as he was against the clergy. At that time, religion and government were so intertwined that you couldn't tell them apart. The people were told what they could and could not believe by their government. Jefferson and the other founders believed that religion should be a personal choice, and I agree with them. That is why our Constitutions prohibit government from making any laws pertaining to religion, but that hasn't stopped our government from trying.
And Jefferson is correct regarding Christianity and Common Law. Common Law, if anything, is similar to the Mosaic Law without the religious aspects of it.
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)
The State could easily have
The State could easily have passed legislation that extends the protections and bennefits that married couples currently enjoy under the law, to include both heterosexual and homosexual domestic partners WITHOUT redefining the definition of marriage.
Those who support the new law say that was the wrong approach, that it provides seperate yet equal protection under the law, and we should all be treated the same. Yet with this new law, we now have exactly that. We have "religious" marriage and "civil" marriage, and once again, the government has passed legislation regulating religion, something that both the Constitution of Maine and the United States Constitution (under the 1st Amendment) forbid government of doing. Using the term "civil marriage" is a straw man. As far as the law is concerned, it doesn't matter if you get married in a church by a minister, or on the sidewalk by a justice of the peace, marriage is marriage.
And as for discrimination, the state and most of the pro-same sex posters here are discriminating against anyone who disagrees with this law, religious or otherwise.
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)
Dorithy said: "For religious
Dorithy said: "For religious groups, the possibility of procreation determines the legitimacy of marriage."
Not exactly. God determines the legitimacy of marriage, procreation is just one of the desired results. God's plan for marriage is one man and one woman for life. The fact that his original plan has been distorted by believers and non-believers alike, does not legitimize the deviation from his original design.
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)
John, You are correct in
John,
You are correct in that Jesus taught us to love one another, but he also taught us to hate sin because it is a barrier between us and God, and prevents us from having a personal relationship with him. Look at the scriptures again. There are multiple times that Jesus told people "I forgive you, go and sin no more". He also claimed that he did not come to do away with the Law (i.e. the Law of Moses and the teachings of the Old Testament) but to fulfil it. When he was asked what the greates commandment was, he said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." - Matthew 22:36-40
If we love God, we endevour to live in a manner that is consistent with his commandments. If we truly love our neighbor as ourselves we will want what is best for them too, and that is a right relationship with 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)
I think it is dangerous to
I think it is dangerous to put words in the founders mouth. No, they did not consider the new government they founded to be a "Christain" government. As you say, they took great pains to make sure the new government could not dictate what people of faith should believe.
That does not mean they did not find value in religion. Franklin was the exception. Even Jefferson, who was a self-proclaimed deist, said that the teachings of Christ were the most purest form of religion that he had found. He even copied Christ's teachings and compiled them into a book and made an attempt to live by them.
If you wish to know how the founding generation would have voted on question 1, you simply have to read some of the laws that were enacted from thata era. There was a time when the practice of sodomy was a criminal offense. It is only in recent history that these laws have been abolished.
Samual Adams and John Adams were devoutly religious men who hoped that the new nation would lean more toward its religious roots, namely Puritanism. They would have abhored the idea of same sex marriage and considered it to be an abomination (which it is, biblically).
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)
Your Jesus is not the Jesus
Your Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible.
Check out the book of John. "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning." and in verse 14 "14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." The Word the apostle John speaks of is Jesus.
Jesus taught that he did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament) but to fulfil them (Matthew 5:17 & 18) and that every word, including the punctuation, is important. Yes, Jesus preached a message of love, but he also preached "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand." He was not afraid to label sin as sin. He also taught more about hell than any other biblical teacher. And then there is the passage in Matthew chapter 10, specifically verses 34 to 42. It starts out "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
You cannot just pick and choose which of Jesus's teachings you wish to believe and throw out the rest. My challenge to you would be to pick up a copy of the New Testament and read the gospel accounts for yourself. There is a whole lot more to Jesus teaching than "love one another".
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)
When man's laws disagree
When man's laws disagree with God's laws, believers have an moral obligation to obey God rather than man. (see Acts 5:29 for starters. The book of Daniel also teaches this.)
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)
You won't find the phrase
You won't find the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution. What we do have is the 1st Amendment, which protects the church (religion) from government intrusion, NOT to keep the church, or by extension religious citizens (or their views), out of government. The latter is impossible.
At the time this country was founded, the governments of Europe dictated to the people what they should believe. (It all started centuries ago when Constantine when he made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.) England also had an official state religion. The founders believed that religion should be a personal choice, and the way they chose to protect that choice was by the statement found in the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The phrase "separation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to a religious organization assuring them that the 1st Amendment protected them from government interference. Over time, this phrase has been misconstrued by those who wish to erase any mention of this country's Judeo-Christian heritage from public schools and other public venues. Laws that prohibit prayer in public schools (prohibiting the free exercise thereof), and courts ruling to have religious artifacts removed from public places (respecting the establishment of religion, or in this case, doing away with religion), are unconstitutional.
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)
We are all sinners, no one
We are all sinners, no one is exempt, but if we choose to follow Christ we must repent of our sin and do what he says.
Jesus said "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." - luke 9:23
It is important to note that he said "daily". The goal for a Christian is to be conformed to the image of Christ, but it doesn't happen overnight, it's a process.
Jesus also said "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" - luke 6:46
That one always gets me.
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)
Ray, Nowhere in the
Ray,
Nowhere in the scriptures is polygamy endorsed. God's original plan was and is one man and one woman for life. Yes, the Bible records historical accounts of polygamy, and it also records the problems that erupt from polygamist relationships. We are also taught not to lie, steal, murder, etc. etc. and there are accounts of what happens when people lie, steal and murder.
Don't confuse God's infinite patience and mercy to mean that He tolerates evil.
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)
Gary, First, no one is
Gary,
First, no one is telling any one how to live. We are simply saying that the government has no authority to redefine the deffinition of marriage. The sanctity of marriage and the true family model (husband, wife, children) are at the core of our Judeo-Christian values and the basis for society.
Secondly, Christianity is not a myth. There really was/is a person named Jesus who claimed to be the Christ, the Son of God. You may not believe that he was/is, but that does not change the facts concerning his life and ministry.
Thirdly, the family, as God intended it to be, is not only a Judeo-Christian value, but one that is found in cultures all over the world, regardless of religion.
No one is denying gay people Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness. You say Christians should keep their beliefs to themselves, well what about the rest of you who are cramming gay marriage down the throat of the religious community? It is an attack on our fundamental core values. It has nothing to do with religious indoctrination. Marriage has been, and still is, considered a unique relationship ordained by God for thousands of years, and not just in Judeo-Christian circles either.
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)
While you're at it, ask God
While you're at it, ask God for a little enlightenment for yourself. Nowhere in scripture does it say that God is about fairness and equality. (Although there is a passage that says God is no respecter of persons, i.e. God treats everyone the same whether they are rich, poor, black, white, etc.)
Jesus said ""I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Now really, is that fair? No. But the scriptures also teach that "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." - 2 Peter 3:9.
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)
I suggest you read the bible
I suggest you read the bible again. God most certainly ordained marriage (between a man and a woman).
You can start with Genesis chapter 2. Notice that God made Eve, not Steve for Adam. In verse 24 God says: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
When Jesus was asked about divorce, he said: 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - Matthew 19:4-6
Or in Hebrews (New Testament) where it says: "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." - Hebrews 13:4
I don't know where you get your information crash, but the Pope doesn't have a monopoly on the Bible. There are more supporting ancient manuscripts of the texts that make up what we call the Bible, than any other ancient documents. That has nothing to do with the stuff that the Popes make up or the new teachings they issue. That stuff is not part of the Bible.
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)
Actually crash, You are
Actually crash,
You are partially correct. The "Old Testament" of the Christian bible is the same as the Hebrew texts which were compiled by the Jews long before Christ walked on this earth. The New Testament is a collection of biographies and letters written by those who had been with Christ and various other eye witness accounts. Before they were compiled into what we call the New Testament, they were copied and passed around to the individual churches. I don't understand why it was a problem to compile them into what we know today as the Bible. We do the same thing with secular writings (i.e. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, which is a compilation of individual stories that were published in "The Strand".)
And as for your other issue, no, it has NOT been scientifically proven that there is a Gay gene. That is mere speculation and wishful thinking amoung those in the Gay community. There is nothing normal about same sex relationships. You don't need a Bible to tell you that, look at the way our bodies are designed (or evolved, if you prefer to think of it that way).
Let us, for a moment, throw God, the Bible and religion right out of the argument and look at this based on the theory of evolution, natural selection and the survival of the fittest. The theory is that over time, life evolves and in the evolution process, traits considered to be improvements are naturally selected over those which are not. That the stronger of the species survive to pass on their genes, ensuring the survival of a particular species. If this is true, and a large percentage of scientists believe that it is, then a homosexual gene (if there was one) would serve no purpose in the evolutionary scheme of things. It does not make the species stronger nor does it ensure the survival of the species. If we were all homosexual, there would be no more offspring. So even if there was a Gay gene, which there is no proof of, it would be a mutation or trait that serves no useful purpose in the survival of the species, and thus it would be an abnormality. (i.e. it ain't normal).
Any way you look at it, biblically or scientifically, homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle.
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)
Rex, The basic definition of
Rex,
The basic definition of a bigot is "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own". So in a sense, you are also a bigot. You are prejudice towards anyone who believes the Bible and are intolerant of their opinions because they differ from your own. Oh, and FYI, when someone speaks out about, or shares their faith, they are adhering to the teachings of Christ found in the Bible.
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)
John, It is also common
John,
It is also common knowledge that those in gay relationships have their share of unhappy endings as well. That does not give the government justification for redefining the deffinition of marriage.
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)
Yolande, As followers of
Yolande,
As followers of Christ, our beliefs should be based on the truth of God's Word. When we deviate from his instructions, we are no longer following the path that he has shown us, rather we are choosing our own way. God's design for marriage is, and always will be, one man and one woman for life. That will never change no matter how the vote turns out in November. God's will and his plan will remain the same. He has made it very clear in his Word as to what he (God) thinks about homosexuality. Nothing we do or say will ever change that. The good news is that while God hates sin, he loves sinners, so if we repent, i.e. turn away from our sin and toward him, he is ready and willing to forgive us and receive us into his family.
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)
John, Thankyou for answering
John,
Thankyou for answering the call and for supporting your son when he chose to do the same. Those of us who answer do so knowing full well that we may be required to make the ultimate sacrifice. However, that knowledge does little to ease the pain when it happens to those we love. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.
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)
Show me in the Constitution
Show me in the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Maine, where the government is given the authority to redefine marraige, and I'll show you the First Amendment, and Article 3 of Maine's Constitution, where government is specifically prohibited from making any laws regarding religion. Marriage is, and always has been, an institution ordained by God, hence the terms "holy matrimony" and the "sacriment of marriage". It will remain so regardless of what you or I think, or any law that is passed by any governing body.
This is not about rigthts. Marriage is not a right. If the State wishes to afford gay couples the same protections and benefits afforded married couples, fine. Just don't call it marriage.
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)
You are correct. And nothing
You are correct. And nothing in the Constitution of the United States or the State of Maine Constitution authorizes the government to redefine marriage. In fact, one could argue that the First Amendment protects the religious institution of marriage from government interference.
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)
Not so, Tracy and FC, Of all
Not so, Tracy and FC,
Of all the ancient writings we have, there are more copies of the books that make up the bible than any other ancient manuscripts. Originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, the level at which these documents have been preserved is astounding, especially when compared to other ancient texts. From the oldest manuscripts to the newest, they are virtually the same.
Those manuscripts have not been written and re-written. The only issue, if you can call it that, is when the bible is translated into other languages from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, especially when attempting to do a word for word translation. The other factor is that over time, languages change. This is especially true of the English language. Words that were common to the English language in the 1600's (when the King James Version of the bible was translated) are either not used today, or have taken on differenct meanings over time. New translations are an attempt to deal with this natural phenomenon, and the better translations are those which include scholars from a variety of denominations (they tend to be less bias).
But to say that the Bible has been written, chapters deleted and re-written is just not true. BTW, the "chapter" and "verse" divisions are not in the original manuscripts. They were added to modern translations for reference purposes only and are not considered part of the text.
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)
Every hear of George
Every hear of George Wallace? What party did he belong to? I'll give you a hint, he wasn't a Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Green Party....
Racism knows no political or territorial boundaries, and just because one disaggrees with another person's ideas, it does not make he or she a racist.
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)
So are you saying that the
So are you saying that the majority of democratic posters to the Sun Journal are collage kids? I seem to recall a lot of Bush bashing on the SJ blogs over the past several years. Sounds like a double standard to me.
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)
Sunstein thinks that animals
Sunstein thinks that animals should have the same rights as humans. So basically, that is "animals = humans" No one is advocating animal cruelty, and we already have laws for that. This guy is way out there, and not just the animal rights thing either. Check out his views on Wikipedia.
Matthew 25:40 has nothing to do with animals. You pulled that way out of context. It has to do with people. It speaks of feeding the poor, visiting the prisoners, clothing the poor, etc, etc.
Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 9 deal with our relationship to other living creatures. We are to be stewards of the planet and the creatures that live here with us. The native American tribes that were hunter gatherers offer a good example for us. They respected the animals they hunted and only took what they needed to sustain them.
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)
Not true. In the famous
Not true. In the famous "sermon on the mount" Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He taught that marriage was holy and ordained by God, and that it was between one mane and one woman, as God intended it to be, from the beginning. The New Testament rarely mentions murder either, but that doesn't make murder any less of a sin.
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)
Not so fast, Mac. The first
Not so fast, Mac.
The first Amendment does not protect Government from religeous people, it protects The People from the Government establishing a State religion. In the centuries leading up the American Revolution, the governments in Europe were joined at the hip with the Catholic church. This goes all the way back to Constantine, the Roman Emperor, who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. History is replete with the atrocities that resulted from that un-holy union, which, by-the-way, was NOT in accordance with Christ's teachings. When Church of England broke away from the Catholic Church under Henry the VIII, the Crown usurped authority over the church. (It is interesting to note that the reason for this move was that the Catholic Church would not grant Henry a divorce.) The church and the government were still joined at the hip, but now the "state" had become head of the church. Leading up to and during the American Revolution, the crown dictated what ministers should preach to their congregations.
The founders realized that freedom of religion was just as important to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as any other inalienable right. Jefferson is the one that coined the term "separation of church and state", but you wont find that phrase in the Constitution or any of the other founding documents. On the contrary, the Declaration of Independence asserts that we are entitled to a "separate and equal station" amoung the "powers of the earth" according to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". It also states that we are all "created" equal, and that we are endowed by our "Creator" with certain "unalienable rights". It goes on to say that in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted amoung men, and that when government fails to protect our rights, we have the right to abolish that government at set up a new one. By implication, the right to do so is given to us by God (i.e. our "Creator").
The Constitution of the United States defines the form of Government chosen by the founding generation. It grants government specific authority to act on behalf of The People. Any authority not granted government via the Constitution is retained by The People (see the 10th Amendment). Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Maine, is government granted the authority to redefine marriage. That deffinition, which has existed since the dawn of time, and, it could be argued, predates any form of human government, is a union between a man and a woman.
But marriage is not a right, civil or otherwise. This whole gay marrige thing is not just about civil rights, if it were it could easily be resolved by extending some of the laws that protect married couples to include domestic partners. This would also benefit heterosexual couples who may be life long partners, but are not "officially" married. But that is NOT what the gay community wants. What this is really about is demanding that government legitimize the homosexual lifestyle by redefining what constitutes marriage.
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)
I'm old enough to remember
I'm old enough to remember what it was like before the Insurance companies got into the health insurance business. Healthcare was affordable and the only thing you really needed health insurance for were unforeseen emergencies. Prescription drugs were also affordable and we didn't need insurance co-pays or otherwise to get them.
Had State and Federal governments been doing their job, we would not be in such a crisis. Government should have stepped in long ago to regulate the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries, as well as basic healthcare, to ensure that they were affordable for all the people. Instead of listening to The People, our representatives have bowed to the lobbyists and speacial interests in the healthcare industry.
We don't need a government run healthcare system or health insurance. What we need is for the government to do their job and protect The People from an out-of-control healthcare industry, NOT make it manditory for everyone to buy health insurance!
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful
limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and
enforce only our natural rights... and to take none of them from us.
...and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society
we give up any natural right." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to
Francis W. Gilmer (June 27, 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.
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)
That's not exactly true,
That's not exactly true, Lil. We all have access to the best healthcare on the planet. Health insurance and healthcare are two different things.
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)
That's not true. What they
That's not true.
What they are asking for is that the State redefine marriage, something the state has no authority to do. It is NOT about equal rights. If it were simply about equal rights, legislation could be passed recoginizing "civil unions" between same sex couples, and afford them the same priviledges and bennefits allotted married couples. Rights have nothing to do with this issue. The state DOES NOT and CANNOT grant rights, civil or otherwise. They can pass laws that PROTECT rights or grant certain bennefits or priviledges. The reasoning is simple. If government could grant rights, government could also take them away.
We already have equal rights regardless of ones choice of lifestyle. Every man, woman and child, every gay or straight person, regardless of ones ethnicity, have the same rights. The confusion over this issue exists because some people think this is about rights. It is not. Marriage is not a right, it is an institution ordained by God. Marriage existed long before governments. Marriage would, and does exist, even in the absense of government. The family (one man, one woman and, if they are so blessed, children) is the foundational building block of society. It is for this reason that most governments pass laws that protect the institution of marriage. (Some of these laws also exist in the form of revenues, i.e. marriage licenses, etc, which also have nothing to do with rights.)
Another option would be to ammend the laws that exist for married couples to include domestic partners. That would cover everyone; married couples, heterosexual couples that live together but are not married, and gay couples. Now THAT would be truely fair and equal.
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)
Well, first of all, Matthew
Well, first of all, Matthew 7:12 is not about intolerance, and if you keep reading, you'll eventually come to verses 21 which says:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Now if you back up to chapter 5, which is where his sermon begins, in verse 17 you'll find the following:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
In order to really grasp his teaching, one must take the whole context of his sermon, not just bits and pieces like we have here. The kind of love Jesus preached about does not rejoice or celebrate sin and unrighteousness, and contrary to what people seem to think, it is not hateful to rebuke someone for doing something that God says is wrong.
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)
Jim, The family, as God
Jim,
The family, as God intended it, is a direct result of one man and one woman coming together in the holy bonds of matrimony. It consists of a husband and wife, a father and a mother, and if they are so blessed, children. Everyone reading this LTTE came into being the same way. We are all born male and female.
The government does not have the authority to redefine marriage or make laws that redefine what constitutes marriage. People are confused because there are a number of laws that protect the rights of married people and spouses that have lost their partner. There was a time when those laws did not exist, but the institution of marriage has been with us since the dawn of time.
This is NOT about equal rights for gay couples. If it were they would be satisfied with civil unions, or some other legislation that provided similar rights for them. This is nothing more than an all out attack on the Church, the family and marriage, institutions 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)
Sorry. You don't get to pick
Sorry. You don't get to pick and choose who you love if you truely follow Christ.
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)
I suggest you read the New
I suggest you read the New Testament again, especially Jesus' words. Over and over again, whenever he forgives someone, he tells them "go and sin no more". He also mentions more about hell than any other person in the New Testament (or Old Testament).
He was also pretty clear about marriage: one man and one woman for life.
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)
Actually, I think you got
Actually, I think you got that backwards. .357 revolvers are a very common firearm, it's the semi-automatics that are rare in that caliber. The article says that Lord "...could see copper colored bullets in the guns chamber." Technically, there would only be one round in the chamber of a semi-auto. With a revolver, the bullets are clearly visible in the "cylinder".
Something doesn't add up here. Most people can't look at a handgun and tell you what caliber it is unless they have one like just like it. And even then, many models come in different calibers but are similar in appearance (i.e. like Glocks and Smith & Wesson revolvers).
But this is all moot if there was no handgun, which is what seems to be the case.
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)
Obviously you've never known
Obviously you've never known anyone with a debilitating mental illness. I have a very good friend who has bipolar disorder. Stress only aggravates things. Dan's behavior is typical of someone afflicted with this disease. Maybe it's not a crime to pick on those who are less fortunate, but it is morally reprehesible. People like Lord, who get their jollies by tormenting others, should be held responsible for the outcome of their actions.
And as far as the law goes, it might be possible to prove that Lord's actions and/or accusations were contributing factors in this mans death. Had Lord left him alone, this never would have happened. At the very least Lord is guilty of making a false report to the police. Kind of like yelling "fire" when there is no fire.
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)
You hit the nail on the head
You hit the nail on the head Gil.
Those of you who claim to be Catholics and/or Christians, but are in favor of gay marriage, need to pick up your bible, dust it off and read what it has to say about marriage. If you don't believe what it says then you are not a Christian, period, end of discussion.
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)
Jon, You might want to do a
Jon,
You might want to do a review of your review.
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)
I see. And how does one
I see.
And how does one distinguish between a tourist and a Maine resident? You are the lier. We will all feel the pinch.
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)
That's why a lot of
That's why a lot of manufacturers will offer rebates on merchandise rather then mark down the price of the product. And it's deplorable that our elected representatives would apply this marketing technique knowing full well that 50 percent will not file to get a rebate. Government is not a business!!! Government exists, first and formost, to protect the life and liberties of the people, and to secure their rights, and not to take any of them from them. How is this looking out for the best interests of the tax payers they represent?
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)
Now I've heard
Now I've heard everything.
So we should raise taxes because our taxes are lower than other states. I have a better idea. Why don't we cut government down to the bare minimum and lower taxes for everyone? Maybe we'll start a trend and the other states will follow our lead.
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)
David said: "...the American
David said: "...the American psyche's slow progress toward an increasingly peaceful disposition could be stunted by the propaganda's powerful paradox: While sanitizing ads play to the country's growing disgust with militarism, they could ultimately lead us to be more supportive of militarism."
Peacefull disposition? Pray tell, where have you been keeping your head burried for the last two years? I've never seen a time when the American people have been so divided over every issue imaginable. And the hateful things people say to each other, it's the furthest thing from a peaceful dispostition.
Disgust of militarism? How so? I think the nation has a disgust for war, but most of us know that a strong military is essential for maintaining the freedom and liberty we enjoy as American citizens. Personally, I'm disgusted with so-called journalists who find fault with anyone and everything that doesn't fit their world view fantasy. The MSM are the bigest purveyors of propaganda, not the armed forces.
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)
Alan, thank you for your
Alan, thank you for your service.
You have a valid complaint, but I'm afraid that for the most part, it falls on deaf ears.
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)
Pretty strong statement
Pretty strong statement there taxpayer,
You wouldn't be one of those individuals that is mad at the Monmouth police for doing their job, would you?
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)
Well put. nuff said. John A.
Well put.
nuff said.
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)
So typical. When you cannot
So typical.
When you cannot refute a persons statements, just resort to name calling.
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)
Why not just work to make
Why not just work to make health care more affordable?
Healthcare and health insurance are two different things. Health insurance would be more affordable if healthcare were not so expensive. There was a time when the average working American could afford a routine doctor visit, or even a trip the the emergency room, without having to fork over a years salary. Perscriptions were affordable too.
Somewhere along the way, the healthcare, pharmaseutical and health insurance industries (because that's what they really are... industries) figured out that people are always going to need healthcare and medicine, and they'd have to pay, no matter what the cost. I'm not against anyone making a buck, but the fleecing of america by these industries is rediculous.
No public option plan is going to work unless the source of the problem is delt with. Someday, maybe when we're all speaking Chinese, America will figure out that you can't just keep throwing money at something to fix it.
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)
That is ludicrous! Do you
That is ludicrous!
Do you actually believe that a single black man peacefully demonstrating with a rifle slung over his shoulder is the same as Hitler's NAZI thugs?
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)
Which of those 11,346
Which of those 11,346 homicides do you suppose were perpetrated by law-abiding citizens?
Prior to last years elections, there were an estimated 80 million gun owners in this country who collectively own somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million firearms. Since the election, firearms have been flying off the shelves in record numbers, yet there has not been an increase of firearm homicides. On the contrary, in states where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms for personal defense, the violent crime rate has gone down.
The vast majority of those gun related homicides are gang violence. We do not have a gun problem in this country, we have a criminal problem. New York city has some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in this country, yet it has some of the worse gun related violence. That is changing, not because of stricter firearm regulations, but because they have finally begun to target the source... i.e. the gang bangers and the criminals.
Richmond Virginia is another success story. Instead of passing more restrictive firearm regulations (like various citys in Pennsilvania), local law enforcement teamed up with the VA State Police, the FBI and ATF to go after the gang bangers and other criminals, and have enacted tougher penalties for illegal possession of firearms by known felons.
Comparing the US to places like England is comparing apples to oranges. For one thing, the overall violent crime rate in the UK has increased since their government has disarmed law-abiding citizens, and in their twisted court systems, they prosecute people who try to defend themselves against an attacker. Gun control does not address the problem. It only disarms the intended victims.
I do not fear my fellow law-abiding citizens, nor do I fear the dregs of society who perpetrate the crimes that make up those statistics. To disarm the public because a small fraction of individuals choose to commit crimes with firearms is not only unconstitutional, it is unconscionable.
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." -- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
The U.S. military is made up of men and women who swore an oath to "...protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic..." Their duty is to the Constitution and The People of the United States first, the Commander in Chief second. I believe the vast majority of them would have a hard time firing on their fellow citizens. I know I would. Neither should we underestimate the courage and tenacity of a patriot defending his or her freedom. That is why every tyrannical regime in history has made firearm confiscation one of its first priorities when coming to power.
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)
Mr Sirota, I take issue with
Mr Sirota,
I take issue with some of the statements you make in your article. I doubt very much that those individuals who bore arms at those various events intended to intimidate their fellow citizens. Government, maybe, citizens, no. If you are going to quote Thomas Jefferson, why not include the whole context?
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson from a letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy
And about the order of the first "10" Amendments to the Constitution. What we know as the first and second Amendments were actually the third and fourth in the original "Bill of Rights" submitted to Congress for deliberation. The order of their appearance in the list does not in any way make one right more important than the other. In fact, it has often been pointed out that without the 2nd Amendment, the people might be in jeopardy of loosing their other rights.
Consider the following:
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
I agree that those citizens bearing their personal arms to town hall meetings and venues perhaps displayed poor judgement, but that is not a crime. The People are the supreme authority in this country, not the government. We seem to have forgotten that important distinction.
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights... and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him... and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis W. Gilmer (June 27, 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.
Gun free zones are target rich environments. THAT is the lesson we should learn from these tragic public shootings. You are afraid to see people bearing arms? What about the firearms you don't see? It would not deter an assassin by making political gatherings gun-free zones. Are you afraid to see policemen bearing arms?
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [to secure the rights of the people], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...." -- from the Declaration of Independence, also by Thomas Jefferson.
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)
Last I checked, Cal Thomas
Last I checked, Cal Thomas was a syndicated columnist not a career politician. Maybe you should direct your grievances toward the policy makers instead of lumping all "conservatives" together. This war of words between so called "democrats" and "republicans" is getting old.
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)
Yes, John 28, He will. We
Yes, John 28, He will.
We will all be judged according to what we have done. "...the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Revelation 21:8
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)
Well said, Leonard, This is
Well said, Leonard,
This is one of those rare occasions when I agree with you... whole-heartedly.
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)
Pauline, you should try
Pauline, you should try reading some of the historical accounts of the founding of this nation. You have no idea what you are talking about. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere and others spent hours inciting mobs that went on to tar and feather various government officials (of the British government) and riding them out of town on rails.
Sam was pretty good about steaming things up at meetings of the Continental Congress (pre-independence government) in order to sway the opinion of his fellow congressional delegates. I for one, am glad he did. I also swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I will not be quiet while spoiled, rich elitists, who don't have a franction of the wisdom our founding fathers did, run this nation into the ground.
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams 1776
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)
Well said Old Bill.. John A.
Well said Old Bill..
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)
Actually, the word fascism
Actually, the word fascism goes back to the early 1910's, long before the Nazi movement in Germany. In fact, we get the word facism from the Italian word fascio, which loosely translated means "bundle" or "group". But regardless, you're stretching the definition of the word by saying that Republicans are fascists.
We are all democrates, and we are all republicans. Our form of government is considered a democratic republic. To lay the blame of our countries woes at the feet of one party or the other just shows inorance of the facts. Regardless of which party has the majority, they have both managed to contribute to the snarled mess we call government.
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)
Bravosixalpha, Thank you for
Bravosixalpha,
Thank you for your service. I also took that oath. My allegiance is to The People and the Constitution of the United States first and formost. As long as the Commander in Chief lives up to his or her oath, I will live up to my end. Our Congressmen and Congreswomen also take an oath when they arrive to assume the duties The People have elected them to. They would do well to heed the advice of Thomas Jefferson:
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful
limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and
enforce only our natural rights... and to take none of them from us.
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights
of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain
him... and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society
we give up any natural right." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to
Francis W. Gilmer (June 27, 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground:
That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries
thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take
possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any
definition." -- Thomas Jefferson quoted in The Writings of Thomas
Jefferson "Memorial Edition" (20 Vols., 1903-04) edited by Andrew A.
Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, Vol. 3, p. 146
"I, however, place economy among the first and most important
republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to
be feared." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Plumer (July
21, 1816)
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)
So really, what we have is a
So really, what we have is a problem with insurance companies that offer health insurance, NOT health care.
Fine. Why doesn't the government go after the Insuruance companies who are denying people insurance because of pre-existing conditions, or age, or any number of other excuses? People cannot afford health care because health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and the health care industry have over-priced their products and services. NO plan is going to work unless the cost of these products and services are affordable.
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)
No one is saying reform is
No one is saying reform is not needed. What people object to is the type of reform that is being proposed. The goverment has no business managing health care. It has a hard enough time managing itself. All you have to do is look at the VA hospitals to see a prime example of mismanagment of health care.
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)
Gil is correct. There is a
Gil is correct. There is a big difference between "health care" and "health Insurance". What we need is affordable health care. I can remember when you didn't need health insurance for an annual check up because things like that were affordable. Health insuruance was for major unforseen stuff. And that's a fact.
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)
I'm sure you meant the
I'm sure you meant the Democratic party. Our runaway government got its start with FDR. BTW, the French are a socialist model of government, not facism.
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)
Actually, I think it's
Actually, I think it's rather vague as to which "side" she's on.
If, by "side", she means Democrats and Republicans, either "side" could be the object of her complaint. From my perspective, the "sides" are The People vs the elite career Politicians. I guess it all depends on ones point of view.
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)
And who was president when
And who was president when the next "bailouts" were pushed through congress at light speed, which by the way were double, if not tripple the amount of the first one?
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)
There need's to be a
There need's to be a distinction between "health care" and "health insurance".
To me, affordable health care means that I can afford to pay for my health care, period. Health Insurance is a monkey in the middle. The health insurance industry is a for-profit industry that stands between us and the care we desire. Allowing a for-profit industry to dictate what we can have for medicine or which doctors we can see and not see is the bane of this whole system.
The other issue is the sheer cost of health care, which is the "catch 22". Only the rich and affluent can afford to pay for health care out of their own pocket. The only way for the average person to be able to afford health care is via some sort of health insurance.
Some would have us believe that the rising cost of health care (which in turn increases the cost of insurance, or decreases what insurance companies are willing to cover) is caused by those who have no health insurance. While that certainly does have an impact on the whole system, I can't believe that is the only factor. Nor do I think that the issue is going to be resolved by government stepping in and adding another level of complexity between the patient and the health care they require. The government is not exactly known for its cost-effective programs and policies, quite the opposite in fact.
I personally think that there are other factors driving up the costs of health care and medicine. Unless all factors are identified and dealt with, the system will remain broken. The government will make it manditory for everyone to have health insurance. Those who opt for the government's health insurance will drive the costs up for those who don't. What we should be focusing our attention on is how to bring down the cost of health care (not health insurance) to where the average person can afford it without insurance.
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)
No, our entire legal system
No, our entire legal system is built upon the presupposition that all men are created equal and should all have due process under the law. There is a big differecne between "justice and liberty for all" and "faireness". Life is fundamentally unfair. Our system of government was meant provide equal opportunity for all, not handouts for all.
Obama's idea of "equal distribution of wealth" IS right out of the marxist handbook.
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)
Now tron, certainly you know
Now tron, certainly you know that politicians will say whatever you want to hear when running for office. That doesn't mean they will do everything they promised. Just look at Obama. He said he was going to pull all the troops out of Iraq, then he deferred to the generals (just like Bush did). He said he wasn't going to tax the middle class, then pushed through legislation that, among other things, placed huge taxes on tobacco.
I don't think we'll ever see term limits. Congressmen like Senator Kennedy, who have been in politics their whole life, would never go for it. They like the power and status they have as US Senators.
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)
So, veritas, you think that
So, veritas, you think that because you've had good experiences with VA and military hospitals that everything is fine and dandy. How naive can you be?
I spent the last two years of my active duty going from military hospital to military hospital while they tried to diagnose something that should have only taken them 15 minutes. I'll spare everyone the details, suffice it to say that my experience with military and VA hospitals differs from yours. I appreciate the men and women, Dr's and nurses and PA's that work at Togus and other facilities, and I'm thankful for the care I receive. If I had my druthers though, I'd rather go to CMMC.
If the government takes over health care, hospitals like CMMC and other privately run hospitals won't be any better than the VA hospitals. I don't see too many congressmen/women receiving care at the VA. The only time you see them there is for photo-ops.
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)
I forgot one
I forgot one thing.
Generally, I agree with most of your comment Jon, but the founders really did think that an armed citizenry would be a deterance to tyranny or an overly abusive government-gone-bad. There is another factor that must be considered. Our service men and women swear allegence to the Constitution of the United States first, and to the President of the United States second. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of them would not fire on their fellow Americans, especially if the issue at hand was to disarm them.
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)
I believe Mr. Fixit was
I believe Mr. Fixit was exagerating a wee bit. Hitler's first order of business after taking control was to accuse his political enemies of treason and have them shot. However, it was not long after he came to power that he (Hitler) made it manditory that all firearms be registered. It was not long after that when the Nazi regime began confiscating all privately owned firearms. Only then did the Nazi's put the "final solution" into gear.
Registration to confiscation to genocide. It is a pattern that has been repeated at least a dozen times in the 20th century, the most recent being in Rwanda and Darfur.
On these grounds, one could argue that registration of ones firearms is an invasion of privacy.
Firearms are already regulated in this country, and manufacturers already track every serial number of every firearm produced. There is a record of each and every transfer that takes place from the time a firearm leaves the factory until it is sold. In order to purchase a firearm, one must fill out a Federal Form 4473. Once the form is filled out, the dealer must then call NICS. Once the applicant is cleared, the sale can procede. The dealer is required by law to keep the Form 4473 on file as proof of transfer.
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)
The point George is making
The point George is making is that in spite of all the tough OUI laws, people still drive drunk, and drunk drivers still kill people in Maine.
It is illegal to drink and drive but people still do in direct violation of the law. It is illegal to kill someone (with a gun or anything else for that matter) but people still kill, in direct violation of the law. There already thousands of gun-control laws on the books throughout this country, and not a single one of them has been effective. Not one. Why? As George said in so many words, criminals do not obey the law. The only people who are affected by gun-control laws are law-abiding citizens, who were not a threat to start with. It leaves them at the mercy of the criminal. This is age-old wisdom that our current governments seem to have forgotten. As Jefferson said:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
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)
If you count the number of
If you count the number of times the bible says "Thou shalt not kill" in relation to some of the other teachings, by your logic killing is not that bad.
Nice try. Sin is sin no matter how many times the bible mentions it. Jesus mentioned hell more than any other biblical personality, but everyone seems to ignor that. It's clear from Jesus's teachings that he believed marriage to be ordained by God, and that it was a relationship of one man and one woman. (See Matthew 19)
If you saw your neighbors house on fire, and you knew they were in there asleep, wouldn't you do everything you could to wake them up and help them escape? Let me put it another way. If you saw your child about to do something that would result in them being injured or worse, wouldn't you do everything in your power to prevent that from happening? You might even yell at them to STOP!
If I say I love my neighbor yet fail to warn them of the wrath of God, then I am a liar. So don't be down on Christians because they love you enough to speak out. I'd rather have a million Christians "warning" me than have God mad at me for eternity.
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)
Well said, Gil. I doubt it
Well said, Gil.
I doubt it will fly though.
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)
Marriage is not a trivial
Marriage is not a trivial thing. The attempt by homosexual activists to get the State to redefine marraige, which is an institution ordained by God, is a slap in the face of all who believe in the sactity of marriage.
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)
I see, Animals do it, so it
I see,
Animals do it, so it must be ok. We are not animals, we are human beings created in the image of God. But lets say you don't believe in God, but in evolution, natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Homosexuality is still an abnormality. In fact, it could be argued that homosexuality in and of itself disproves evolution. Natural selection dictates that only those traits that give a species the best chance of survival are "selected". Since homosexuals cannot reproduce it would stand to reason that it would be in the species best interest for homosexuality to be weeded out of the selection process. Yet homosexuality is on the rise.
Never mind religion. Homosexuality (speaking in the general sense) defies logic, defies science and serves no useful purpose other than to gratify the desires of homosexual individuals. In the animal kingdom, even those individuals that exhibit homosexual-like behavior still mate with the opposite sex in order to breed.
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)
triumph, First, the State
triumph,
First, the State (government) does not grant rights. If rights could be granted by government, then they could also be taken away by the government.
Secondly, Maine's laws do not allow regligions to do anything. We do not have to get permission from the state to worship as we see fit. The State has no authority to regulate religion or redefine marriage. The laws that exist regarding marriage are there to protect the insitution of marriage, not to grant special rights. There is a difference between rights and privileges. Marriage is neither a fundamental right or a "civil" right. Marriage is, and has always been, the union of a man and a woman in holy matrimony. It is the foundation of the family and in a broader sense, society.
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)
Paranoia? Please, Stacey.
Paranoia?
Please, Stacey. Paranoia has nothing to do with it. Rather it is outrage that our elected representatives and the Governor would have the gall to attempt to redefine marriage. That is not why we sent them to Augusta. Marriage is not a right, it is an institution ordained by God. One that we hold sacred. As others have stated, marriage is the foundation, the bedrock of society. The health of any society can be measured by the success or failure of this institution. Marriage is, and always has been, defined as a union between a man and a woman. It is because of this that laws have been established to PROTECT marriage.
Gay people did not lobby the legislature to gain equal protection for their partnerships, they want the state to legitimize their lifestyle by redefining marriage. If it were just about obtaining certain privileges afforded married couples, that would be different. In the end, regardless of which way this goes, marriage, in God's eyes will still be a union between a man and a woman and homosexuality will still be an abomination.
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)
I find it very peculiar that
I find it very peculiar that people who claim to be on the side of gay marriage think that the ultimate insult is to call someone gay. You guys are nothing but a bunch of hypocrates.
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)
Walt, pay no attention to
Walt, pay no attention to these hate mongers. I understood what you were driving at, and I'm sure others did too. The sad truth is that most politicians don't give you the time of day unless you have the means to contribute big bucks to their campaign.
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)
Religious people are your
Religious people are your fellow man too, veritas.
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)
Bob said: I am not a
Bob said:
I am not a Catholic, but I can see that the options are not as simple as the editorial suggested. And the portrayal of defending marriage as a "political" issue is grossly misleading. This is much more than a matter of politics. The way we define marriage largely defines society. To dismiss it so easily as unimportant is a disservice to readers. Marriage is one the few issues that touches upon the legal, social, religious, educational and cultural fabric of Maine.
I agree, only I wouldn't limit it to Maine. The issue affects all societies everywhere and civilization as we know it.
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)
angchief, I'm also an
angchief,
I'm also an "outside observer", but I can give you an example. A few years ago, the traveling Vietnam Memorial came to Lewiston. I was one of the many hundreds of bikers that met the caravan at the state line to escort them to Lewiston. After the ceremony ended, the bikers were invited to the Lewiston Armory for a "thank you" spaghetti luncheon in appreciation of their service. I was not only surprised, but very impressed to see John serving up spaghetti, and as he did so, he thanked each biker that passed by for taking time out to honor the memory and service of our fallen and missing in action.
John, thank YOU for YOUR service.
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)
Lil, The topic is science vs
Lil,
The topic is science vs faith not politics. We all know how much you detest republicans, you don't have to pound on them in every post.
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)
Veritas, Benefits,
Veritas,
Benefits, entitlements and privileges are not the same as rights, nor is the institution of marriage a right. Any and every legal issue that gay people have can be resolved without redefining marriage.
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)
Triumph, Very predictable. I
Triumph,
Very predictable. I figured you would home in on that. Just one problem... God does not make gay people. We are created male and female. If believing the Bible makes me a bigot, so be it. If you really want to get technical, you must think God is a bigot too. This is from Websters:
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
That fits God to a tee. According to the Bible, it's God's way or the highway.
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)
Why, because I disagree with
Why, because I disagree with you? That's nonsense.
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)
Why is it a gotcha
Why is it a gotcha question?
All they had to do was simply reply to the man and say they did not use a biblical principal because they considered it a civic issue. The Governor said as much when he signed the bill.
I don't agree with the Governor's conclusion, but his office could have had the courtesy to reply to Mr. Pulkinen.
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)
Inheritance is not a natural
Inheritance is not a natural right.
That is why one is advised to have a Last Will and Testament. Otherwise your estate goes into probate and the government gets to decide who gets what.
I will say it again. We are all born with the same amount of rights as the next person. We are all created equal. That is the premiss of our society. Rights are not granted by government, though far too often rights are infringed, denied and trampled upon by government.
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)
No, the 10th amendment does
No, the 10th amendment does not grant power. It says:
"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."
It refers to "...powers not delegated..." by the people. The Federal Constitution does not give States power or People power, it derives its power from The People. The People did not grant the Federal Government any power to redefine marriage. So the next question is, did The People authorize the State to define what constitutes marriage? If so, it would be in their respective State Constitution. Since it is not there either, then the government does not have the authority to redefine marriage.
I know this is hard for some of you to grasp, especially since you live in an age where the government seems to be all powerful, but that is NOT what the founders intended. That is not the government specified in our state or federal constitutions.
Oh, and loving your neighbor as yourself has nothing to do with sex or marriage, but you already knew that...
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)
I choose to be the person
I choose to be the person God made me.
It's interesting that you would use the term "straight". Do you mean to imply that those who claim to be homosexuals are "crooked"? (sorry, I gave in to the temptation to say that....).
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)
You said, and I quote "If
You said, and I quote "If you seek biblical exactness, you could move to Iran." Perhaps you miswrote.
I agree with Jefferson. Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. I never said it was. What I did say is that western civilization and governments were, and still are, heavily influenced by Judeao-Christian ethics that are found in the Bible.
I also concur with the second quote. History is replete with horrific examples of atrocities commited by so-called "religious" leaders. There are many examples of this even today all around the globe.
What's your point?
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)
No, marriage is not
No, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution because The People did not give government the authority to redefine marriage.
Constitutions, be they state or federal, do not restrict the people from, or grant the people, anything. The Constitution of the United States, and state Constitutions grant government specific authority to act on behalf of The People. Any power or authority not granted by these documents is retained by The People.
And what exactly do gay people need to be protected from that they are not already? They already have just as many rights as anyone else. We are born with equal rights regardless of gender or choice of lifestyle, and thanks to our government and a gullible public, gay people now enjoy special protection under the law here in Maine for their choice of lifestyle.
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)
I don't recall anyone
I don't recall anyone claiming that our government was a theocracy. To borrow a line from the silver screen... "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
The word Theocracy was coined by Josephus, a philosopher, historian and theologian who lived in the first century AD. He used the word to describe the government of the Jewish people, who claimed that God himself was their King. Now I may be wrong, but last time I checked, God was not the president of the United States. Oh, wait...
As for the Bible and Iran, you are confused. Iran is a Moslem nation. They adhere to the Koran, not the Bible. The Bible actually distiguishes between human government and God's moral laws. That said, much of western civilization and government is heavily influenced by the Judeao-Christian ethics found in the Bible. Where the United States differed from other countries of the founding era was that the founders purposfully prohibited the government of the United States from establishing a "State" religion. But it was NOT to keep relgion out of government, rather it was to keep the government from dictating religion, that is, what people were to believe (or not believe).
The truth is, it is impossible to keep religion out of government, especially when our system of government is Of the People, By the People, For the People. What one believes will influence the decisions one makes in life, be it in government or elsewhere. This is also true of judges, even though they are supposed to be impartial and follow the law.
And as for Life, Liberty and Happiness... you must have forgotten the Declaration of Independnece. That's where Mr. Jefferson writes: 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. Did you catch that? Endowed by their Creator. I wonder where they got the "Life, Liberty and Happiness" idea? I'll give you a hint, from the B I B L E.
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)
Really tron? Could you
Really tron?
Could you please show us where in the Constitution of the United States that government is given the authority to redefine marriage? Or where is marriage defined in any of our state constitutions, or state and federal law? The laws and statutes that do exist are there to protect the institution of marriage and the family, not to redefine them. The institution of marriage pre-dates human government, especially our young government.
And how is a question "biblical" or "secular"? The man asked a question. Someone could have answered him whether it was the answer he wanted to hear or not.
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)
No, he merely showed the
No, he merely showed the root in Latin for the word "marriage" as we know it in our language. That doesn't mean that the institution of marriage did not exist prior to that.
Marriage is not a right. Prohibiting gay people from being married does not infringe on any of their civil rights. Government has no authoirity to redefine marriage. From a legal standpoint, nothing in the Constituition of the United States, the State of Maine Constitution, or any other codified law gives government the power to redefine marriage.
The laws that do exist protect marriage because the traditional family is the basic foundation of a healthy society.
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)
Even with artificial
Even with artificial insemination there was a male doner and a female doner. So what's your point?
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)
Joe, we would be remiss if
Joe, we would be remiss if we did not recognize the positive impact unions have had on workers rights, fare wages and healthy working environments. However, they can also do more harm than good. It's not about fare wages anymore, it's about how much they can sqeeze out of an employer. In some cases it comes down to legalized extortion. When UPS went on strike a few years ago it not only hurt UPS the company, it affected every business that relied on UPS to distribute their goods and services. It also affected consumers that relied on the distribution of goods and services.
Unions are no longer necessary to keep employers in check. Legislation to protect workers rights and benefits have addressed most of the ills that made them necessary in the past. On the flip side, unions have been plagued with corruption in their quest for more power. What's there to love?
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)
Excellent points, Gil. John
Excellent points, Gil.
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)
Congrats Lou. You managed to
Congrats Lou. You managed to hit every hot-button topic with one post.
Triumph, there is a differance between rights and "perks". Most of the things you list have nothing to do with the institution of marriage, rather they are priviledges or perks granted married couples by society, because until recently, soceity has recognized the importance of strong traditional families. Society would not exist were it not for the traditional family, i.e. a father a mother and their children.
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)
Your logic, maybe. The point
Your logic, maybe.
The point that people are trying to make here is that kids will be kids. It is up to the parents to "train" them how to function in society. That involves love, support, reinforcement, correction, discipline and time. The fact that all kids are not the same or have more issues that others doesn't negate a parents responsibility. You do whatever it takes.
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)
Clarence, You need to get a
Clarence,
You need to get a few facts straight. There is no gun show loop hole. That is pure propaganda. Dealers who participate in gun shows must be licensed by the Federal Government, and they are required by law to run a NICS check on anyone they sell a firearm to. What gun control advocates are aiming for with such legislation are individual private sales. Generally speaking, an individual wishing to sell a firearm can get more from a private sale than they might get from a dealer.
If there were any evidence that criminals are obtaining huge amounts of firearms from private sales, that would be one thing, but there is not. Does this happen? Yes, but to a small degree. There was just a recent case here in Maine where a number of people were buying guns listed in Uncle Henry's and reselling them in Massachusetts.
Chris Coxe is correct in his assessment of the "no gun" list proposal. And as for your closing remarks, anything that prevents a law-abiding citizen from obtaining, keeping or bearing their private arms is not only unreasonable, it is unconstitutional. Please educate yourself on the National Instant Check System (NICS). Waiting periods are no longer necessary.
And finally, the only "limit" to our rights is in excercising our rights. We do not have the right to infring on the rights of our fellow citizens. There are penalties for abusing our rights or those of another individual.
Government has no authority to prevent me from speaking because I might yell "fire" in a crowded theater, nor does the government have the authority to prevent me from using my hands because I might make a fist and strike someone and government certainly has no authority to prevent law-abiding citizens from keeping and bearing their private arms because they might shoot someone.
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)
We haven't had a legitimate
We haven't had a legitimate two party system in years, perhaps decades.
Recent political events have blurred the party lines to the point where they are difficult to distiguish. Regardless of party affiliations, there's one thing you can always count on: a politician will say whatever they think you want to hear in order to get your vote. Once in office, they'll do whatever they please, "The People" be damned. There are very few exceptions.
The Founders envisioned a government where our representatives were truely representative of the people at large, and in the early stages it was so. Instead, we have a government of career politicians and elitists who have no clue what the people struggle with from day to day. The "issues" only become important to them on the eve of the next election, when once again, they promise to fix everything that's broken.
This has been coming to a head long before Bush, Clinton, HW or Reagan took office. You have to look all the way back to the early 1920's when the seeds of socialism were first sown. The resulting weeds of socialism have all but choked the life out of the Tree of Liberty.
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)
And because they knew human
And because they knew human nature, they warned us what would happen if we, the people, became complacent, and what to do to correct it.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the
facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half
without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if
their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people
preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is
to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a
few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It
is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson from a letter to William
Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On
Democracy
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)
Believing in something
Believing in something doesn't make it true whether a majority believe it or not.
Marriage is more than a word, it is an institution ordained by God, who created us male and female. Homosexuality is a behavior not a state of being.
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)
Is anyone really surprised?
Is anyone really surprised? Perhaps those who are new to American politics, maybe. But I have a hard time thinking of a single career politician who has actually remained true to their campaign promises. I'm sure there have been one or two, I just cannot come up with any names.
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)
Perhaps he knew exactly what
Perhaps he knew exactly what he was doing....
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)
"The Constitution . . .
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Abigail Adams (1804).
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)
Valerie, what you are seeing
Valerie, what you are seeing are "contrails", which is a short for "condensation trails". It is water vapour created by the hot exhaust gases cooling in the atmosphere. Depending on atmospheric conditions, they can can last for minutes or hours.
I am no meteorologist, but I do know that the "haze" you describe is not caused by "jet exhaust" but rather atmospheric conditions. Modern turbofan engines (what powers jet aircraft) are really quite energy efficient.
Agreed. There have been many
Agreed. There have been many crackpots who have changed history. There have always been and there will always be, those who refuse to acknowledge the atrocity that was the Holocaust. But there have been similar events even in recent times, yet we don't always hear of them.
Armenians in Turkey: 1915-1918 - 1,500,000
Stalin's forced famine: 1932-1933 - 7,000,000
Rape of Nanking: 1937-1938 - 300,000
Nazi Holocaust: 1938-1945 - 6,000,000
Pol Pot Cambodia: 1975-1979 - 2,000,000
Rwanda: 1944 - 800,000
Bosnia: 1992 - 1995 - 200,000
Darfur: NOW - 300,000 to 400,000
And this list is by no means all inclusive. It is imperative that we not only remember ourselves, but that we teach our children about these events.
Very well said Mr. Pitts.
Very well said Mr. Pitts. For better or worse, we are living in a new age where information (or misinformation) is disseminated at light speed around the globe. It is also an age that we find the bastions of mainstream media crumbling under the weight of political their own political opinions. Perhaps bias in the MSM has always been there, but too subtle to notice by the casual observer. In any case, the old adage "don't believe everything you hear and only half of what you see..." is certainly applicable in this age as any other.