Category Archives: In Reason We Trust

Nation founded on religious principals?

Nation founded on religious principals

The atheist Tom Waddell, president of the Maine chapter of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, in his diatribe of Aug. 3, says that the United States has a secular heritage. If he were to review the founding documents, he would find the Christian God and principles on practically every page. This includes The Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution (which had deficits corrected by amendments). Separation of church and state was mentioned only by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists to assure them that the government would not interfere in their religion. The U.S. Constitution reflects the Mayflower Compact. The early settlers to this country came here so that they could practice their Christian religions in peace and to get away from state-run churches. They wanted to freely be able to depend on Almighty God.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution “prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech…” In other words, we are free to express our Christian beliefs and mention God in government circles or anywhere else.

Atheists DO have a god. He and his angels, the demons, are mentioned in many places in the Bible. He is called the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4), Satan, the devil, Beelzebub, etc.

Mr. Waddell wanting to give the invocation for the session of Legislature to ask the Devil to bless the work of our Legislature when the Devil tries to do the opposite is utterly ridiculous.

For the Kennebec Journal to fill Godly M.D. Harmon’s spot on the editorial page with an atheist is also ridiculous!

Albert Boynton


Comments to “Nation founded on religious principals” letter

(It’s nice to know there is a supportive community out there for our point of view)

Do you pick and choose what parts of the bible we go by or do we go by the bible 100% ?

Thank you all so much for your supportive comments. It’s amazing how an attack on a voice of reason can bring out the best in people. Keep up the good work and thanks again.

My my, how the heathen rage at a simple explanation of the Godly origins of our country. Good for you Mr. Boynton.

Mr. Boynton’s delusion is stunning. Mr. Boynton, if you stop trying to dehumanize your fellows as demon worshippers, you will see that we are just like you, only not so intolerant. The purpose of the separation of church and state is to stop the tyranny of the majority (Christians) over minorities (Jews, non-believers, Muslims, and others), plain and simple. Who could say fairer than that? Why must Christianity dominate through political force? Is it so unsure of itself?

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” From the Treaty with Tripoli, 1796 (within 10 years of the Constitution.) It was passed unanimously by the Senate and signed by the President. It was printed in major newspapers of the time without any angry letters to the editor or opinions denouncing it.

The author of this letter is wrong.

It is curious how the letter-writer completely ignores the line against “any law respecting an establishment of religion”, which Thomas Jefferson called a “wall of separation” between state and church. You can believe your fairy tales. Just don’t ask the rest of us to play along.

Good for Tom! Freedom of speech and freedom FROM religion – you need to actually know our history and that the King of England was the head of the Church of England. Then there was this little revolution that occurred… You also might take some time to read our Constitution and see why amendments have been made. There is one easy example – the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787). Then speaking of the Bible how about – Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15, or And the man that committed adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committed adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20: 10-12 (wonder what President Trump thinks about that one). Anyways, have a nice day ;)!

You’re using your Bible to explain to atheists what they believe? You don’t get the irony?

Taking your bible literally has already caused enough harm.

Yet again, the grandiose propaganda drum beat continues. The origin theory of a religious nation is based on the convergence of common law traditions with religious incompatibles in England during the religious wars in Europe. However, the fact is of the original thirteen colonies, only four were conceived as religious refuges: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. All of the rest were chartered as economic opportunities for members of the English ruling class.

Even though Maine was then part of Massachusetts, it was initially a penal colony for non puritans who would not fight during the King Philip War. Colonists were summarily removed from their homes and forcibly settled along the various rivers along the Maine Coast and ordered to make sawmills that made lumber for the King’s Navy. Of course This does not fit the romantic notion of tough WASP fishermen carving out a Maine civilization, but The “real Maine at the time was the Siberia of New England.

I’ll have what you’re smoking.


Do you value your religious freedom? – The Trump Administration doesn’t.

Aug 2018 Do you value your religious freedom? – The Trump Administration doesn’t.

What ever happened to the separation of church and state? The First Amendment to the US Constitution clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” yet Attorney General Jeff Sessions referred to the Christian Bible as justification for separating children from their mothers. To quote Sessions “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order.” God has ordained them for the purpose of order? If the Christian God ordained Trump and his Cabinet for the purpose of order, why do we vote?

In an effort to further erode your religious freedom, Sessions formed a “Religious Liberty Task Force” this week specifically designed to grant religious privilege to fundamentalist Christians. Apparently, according to Sessions, religious freedom includes the freedom to act as one’s religion demands, even if such actions might curtail the civil rights of others, or run contrary to the law.

Fortunately the US Supreme Court reasoned in Reynolds vs United States (1878) that taking action based on one’s sincerely held religious beliefs is unconstitutional if those actions violate established laws. The Court ruled that “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices”. The Court asked: “Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?” To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

Andrew L. Seidel, a lawyer and Director of Strategic Response for the Freedom from Religion Foundation, reasoned that the Department of Justice doesn’t need a Religious Liberty Task Force, it needs a State-Church Separation Task Force” and “Until we get a president and attorney general who understand the Constitution and are willing to defend it against religious privilege, the Freedom from Religion Foundation will continue to guard the wall of separation that is so vital to our secular republic.”

FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor commented that “The creation of this so-called Religious Liberty Task Force is an affront to the secular heritage of the United States” and “It’s especially dangerous when combined with the Trump administration’s relentless packing of the judiciary with judges handpicked by the Federalist Society to legislate religious dogma into our laws and policies.”

We can expect more of the same from Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court who does not believe in the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. He argued in 2017 that the government should not “facilitate” an abortion for a 17-year-old illegal immigrant in federal custody despite the US Supreme Court’s long standing precedent that the government, her only resource, cannot place an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose. Kavanaugh argued that “the Government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion”. Kavanaugh also supports teaching Christianity in public schools. In short, both Sessions and Kavanaugh support Christian religious privilege even if it violates another’s Constitutional right to freedom of religion.

I urge you to think about what your freedom of religion means to you. Keep in mind that religious freedom applies to all of us, no matter what religion or humanist values you follow. The freedoms you want for yourself must be granted to everyone. In truth, Sessions and Kavanaugh’s desire to turn fundamentalist Christians into a religiously privileged class is one step in the process of denying you your religious freedoms. In effect Sessions and Kavanaugh, if he gets confirmed, are giving you a choice: Become a Fundamentalist Christian and enjoy special government sanctioned religious privileges or let your conscience be your guide and become an outcast in society.

The First Amendment guarantees everyone the right to hold any religious beliefs they choose and also prohibits everyone from forcing their religious beliefs onto anyone else. This is the true meaning of having the freedom of and freedom from religion. We cannot have one without the other.

Tom Waddell is president of the Maine Chapter of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. He can be reached at:

Remember in November

July 2018 – Remember in November

The primary election is over and now is the time to focus on the November election so you can decide which candidates or party is most likely to meet your needs. As I have said many times in this column, the majority of us, left, right and center, value the same things: religious freedom, cost effective healthcare, a representative government and individual human rights to name only four essential values. We never argue about these common goals, only about how to achieve them. Both the Maine Republican and Democratic Party platforms support these core values but differ on how to achieve them.

What matters to most of us is having a Governor and a Legislature that represents the collective will of the people. Remember in November which candidates have represented the will of the people in the past and which current party platform looks like it has a plan to achieve those goals in a way that is important to you.

The Maine Republican Party Platform supports religious freedom by: allowing everyone to impose their religious beliefs on abortion, same-sex marriage and who they choose to serve as customers onto everyone else. The platform wants to develop a cost effective healthcare system by: repealing the increasingly popular Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion; and advocating for a profit driven, employer based private healthcare system that denies coverage for preexisting conditions. The Maine Republican Party Platform also promotes a representative government by: repealing the majority based Ranked Choice Voting law in favor of a voting system that can elect candidates with only a small plurality of the votes; repealing Clean Elections that helps keep unlimited and anonymous dark money out of politics allowed by Citizens United; and requiring a separate state issued photo ID to vote. As far as human rights is concerned the Maine Republican Party Platform plans to insure that everyone’s human rights are respected by: defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, in direct opposition to the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage; forcing every pregnant woman, with few exceptions, to give birth; and forcing every terminally ill person to endure the indignities of pain and suffering until they die of “natural causes”.

The Maine Democratic Party Platform supports religious freedom by: defending everyone’s freedom of speech regardless of political or religious beliefs; defending everyone’s right to their freedom from religion; and defending the separation of church and state clause in the First Amendment. The platform supports a cost effective healthcare system by: defending the Medicaid expansion law; advocating for a universal healthcare plan that includes a woman’s right to make her own informed reproductive healthcare choices; and the right of everyone to determine their own end of life care. The Maine Democratic Party Platform also provides for a truly representative government by: defending the Ranked Choice Voting law that requires candidates to have support from more than 50% of the voters; defending the people’s Maine Constitutional right to use citizen initiatives and referendums to petition their government; supporting nonpartisan redistricting; and opposing Citizens United that allows unlimited and anonymous dark money in politics. The platform also has a plan to ensure everyone is guaranteed their human rights by: supporting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that gives constitutional equality to women and men; supporting equal pay for equal work; defending current laws that protect people of all orientations and gender identities; and protecting employees against unfair and arbitrary dismissal.

There are of course many other common values supported by both party platforms that could not be included here. Because no one knows right now how any candidate will interpret their party’s platform, let alone how they plan to implement those goals, it is up to you to get in touch with your core values and vote for the candidate and / or party that you feel meets your needs.

This article is not about telling you which candidate or what party to vote for, only you can decide that. It is about making clear, at least on four values common to most people, how each major Maine political party platform plans to meet the goals that you consider important. I urge you to vote your values in November.

Tom Waddell is President of the Maine Chapter of the Freedom from Religion Foundation and can be reached at

What voting “YES ON ONE”, Ranked Choice Voting, means in the June primaries.

June 2018 What voting “YES ON ONE”, Ranked Choice Voting, means in the June primaries.

A “YES ON ONE” vote keeps the current RCV law that only elects representatives who get a majority of the vote. A “NO ON ONE” vote reverts to electing representatives with only a minority of the vote.

RCV was approved 3 times (2 petitions and 1 election) by Mainers and is clearly the voting system an overwhelming majority of Maine voters want. A Yes On One vote will make RCV permanent. The first part of the question asks; “Do you want to “reject” the parts of a new law that would delay the use of ranked-choice voting?” The rest just summarizes the delay and repeal law. Clearly worded the question would read “Do you want to keep the current RCV law that elects representatives with a majority of the vote?” It really is that simple. Vote Yes On One to have more choice in electing who represents you.

All registered voters, including Independents and those who register on Election Day, can vote on Question One. Independents, 36% of Maine voters, overwhelmingly support RCV. Independents, want your voice heard? Get out and vote “Yes On One” to ensure RCV passes.

Arthur Brooks, CEO of the Conservative think tank American Enterprise Institution said in a recent interview that “70% of Americans are dismayed at what is going on in this country. They don’t like the polarization, bitterness, disrespect, hatred, and contempt” they see in politics today. “We are all looking for better leaders and we must stand up to the politicians on our own side” who promote polarization, disrespect and contempt.

RCV will: Reduce political polarization, disrespect and contempt, prevent wide political shifts from far right to far left every 4 years, elect representatives who have support from a majority of the voters, encourage politicians to campaign on issues so you, the voter, will know who the candidate is and how they plan to support your values, reduce negative campaigning because politicians know trashing your first choice candidate will not encourage you to make them your second choice candidate.

RCV will NOT: Force you to vote for someone you don’t like just to keep their opponent from getting elected, negate you and your friends vote if you support different but similar candidates, known as splitting the vote, thereby helping the candidate neither of you like to get elected, elect representatives with only 35% of the vote when 65% of the people didn’t vote for that candidate, polarize elections making the polling place feel like a war zone where your relatives, friends and neighbors become the enemy because they didn’t vote for your candidate, and it will not favor your candidate simply because of their party affiliation.

Former Republican State Senator Peter Mills supports RCV because “It would improve the likelihood that you would be nominating your strongest candidate for office in the general election, which would strengthen (your party’s candidate in the November election). I ask you, what party does not want to elect their strongest candidate?

Sen. Shenna Bellows, D-Manchester, commented that: “A lot of the opposition we’ve seen to RCV (from) the Legislature is rooted in opposition to citizen referenda in general, but the Maine Constitution explicitly says that our power as legislators is derived from the people and clearly lays out the citizen’s referendum and people’s veto processes” and “I simply disagree that the Legislature knows better than the collective will of the voters.”

Some politicians oppose RCV because they will have to work harder to get elected. RCV requires politicians to get 50% of the vote and to do that a candidate needs to understand and campaign on values and ideas that resonate with a broader segment of the voters. This is not easy to do. Think of how you may struggle to understand the values and ideas of some voters and you will see why some politicians oppose RCV. Amazingly, one political party that opposes RCV actually uses it to elect their party officers with a majority vote. Sadly, even though they use RCV to get good party government, they want to deny you RCV to get good state government.

RCV lets you vote for your preferred candidate without fearing you will help the candidate you like the least get elected. RCV elects politicians who have a majority of support from the voters. I urge you to vote “Yes On One”.

Tom Waddell is President of the Maine Chapter of the Freedom from Religion Foundation ( He can be reached at

Tired of Maine politicians saying “We know better” and “You don’t know what you voted for”?

May 2018 Are you tired of some Maine politicians saying “We know better” and “You don’t know what you voted for”?

I started to focus on just a few divisive statements politicians have made, but recently they became too numerous to keep up with. Fortunately numerous articles, focused on bringing us all together, asked if we preferred obstructionist politics where nothing gets done or would we prefer compromising for the good of us all? A Portland Press Herald editorial summed it up very well that obstructionist politics “shouldn’t be confused with normal ideological competition between liberals and conservatives” and that obstructionist politicians “would rather accomplish nothing than something, if accomplishing something would require compromise”.

George Smith wrote about his desire to have obstructionist politicians attend a symposium on civil discourse at which participants will be asked how incivility and divisive politics impact us all and what can “you” do to revive civility and respect in the face of differences.

We are all Mainer’s here, Left, Right and Center and we all want the same things from our government such as safe schools, fair taxes, economic opportunity, respect for who we are and for our voice’s to be heard. We never argue about these or any other common goals. What we argue about is how we get what we all need and rightfully deserve from our elected officials. The best way to get what we need is to vote for the candidates who will respect the people’s vote.

Some people say they don’t get involved with politics because they think nothing anyone does will make a difference. Cultural Anthropologist Margaret Mead came to a different conclusion: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Columnist Doug Rooks wrote “government can function effectively only if it truly represents the people’s will, as it plainly does not now”. To have a Maine government that truly represents the people’s will, we need to elect politicians that will respect the people and their vote.

Unfortunately some politicians show they don’t respect the people by making divisive statements. One politician “widely regarded as a polarizing lawmaker who frequently uses divisive rhetoric during floor speeches and press events” worked to further divide us by making the recent statement “leftist politicians are hell bent on silencing their adversaries in America’s escalating culture war”. It seems to me the speaker is a proponent of, and a leader in, the divisive Culture Wars.

Other politicians show they don’t respect the law by saying they may challenge election results if they get a plurality of first choices but fail to earn a majority of the votes with Ranked Choice Voting. In my opinion anyone running to represent you would abide by the results of an election run by the constitutionally compliant and Maine Judicial Supreme Court approved Ranked Choice Voting system.

Recently 68 Maine House members voted against a bill to prevent state licensed therapists from harming children by using conversion therapy, a practice the American Medical Association calls “a coercive practice that may cause long-term psychological harm, particularly to young patients”. One representative believes the bill is “an attempt by the LGBT community to legitimize the unnatural inclinations (over) the “natural” inclinations as taught to us in the bible”. Another representative claimed the conversion therapy ban would force therapists to follow the Liberal orthodoxy on gender identity if they don’t believe an 8-year-old is capable of knowing what gender they are.

Columnist Liz Soares wrote about how ingrained violence is in our culture. In my opinion anger, but not violence, is often justified when it comes from, in Liz’s words, “the ugly moral morass (our) country (and state) has fallen into, the rampant racism, the mistreatment of women and children, the apparent acceptance of social injustice”, from knowing we “are constantly being swindled, duped and conned” by, as an example, “a duplicitous tax cut that ultimately benefits the wealthy and corporations, while shredding social-welfare programs” nationally and in Maine.

I urge you to get out and vote for politicians who will end these injustices and who support the Maine we all want; one where politicians listen to the people, where you and your vote matters, a welcoming state where everyone, regardless of politics, race, religion, income, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity feel valued and included. We can have the kind of Maine we all want but only if you get out and vote for it.

Protect Your Religious Freedom – Defend the Separation of Church and State

April 2018 Protect Your Religious Freedom – Defend the Separation of Church and State

Some Christians interpret the First Amendment; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” to mean the government cannot prohibit Christians from freely exercising their right to establish laws that impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. Contrary to their beliefs, the First Amendment gives everyone freedom of religion and, necessarily, freedom from religion. They are two sides of the same coin and one cannot exist without the other. Everyone has the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs and to be free from secular laws that impose evangelical, fundamentalist Christian values on them. One look at Trump’s cabinet though, or the four Republican candidates running for Governor in Maine, will give one pause.

Most of Trump’s cabinet nominees are evangelical, fundamentalist Christians. Generally they believe that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, that men and dinosaurs co-existed, that everything is part of God’s plan and that Armageddon is just around the corner. Collectively they oppose Civil Rights, LGBT rights, a woman’s right to choose, public education, and deny climate change, all based on their Christian beliefs.

Many Cabinet members attend the Capitol Ministries’ bible study program, a Christian program specifically designed to bring the word of God to Cabinet members and to make them disciples of Jesus Christ. Cabinet members who help sponsor the group include Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Scott Pruitt, Mike Pompeo, and Betsy DeVos.

Mike Pence, Vice President, has said, “I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican in that order”. Apparently being an American comes in no better than fourth, if at all. He denies evolution, climate change, and believes employers have the right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

Jeff Sessions, USAG, ruled that all employers no longer have to provide birth control if it offends their religious beliefs because “We will not allow people of (Christian) faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore”, and supports the administration’s plan to create a DHHS religious freedom division so religious doctors, nurses and other medical professionals can legally discriminate against anyone who is Gay, transgendered or is a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy. Harper Jean Tobin, the director of policy for the National Center for Transgender Equality said “This is the use of religion to hurt people because you disapprove of who they are.”

Scott Pruitt, EPA Admin., said his Christian belief helped him conclude that “The biblical world view is that we have a responsibility to manage, cultivate and harvest the natural resources that we’ve been blessed with to truly bless our fellow mankind” without regard for the effects on other species, has called climate change a hoax, and believes evolution as an unproven theory.

Mike Pompeo, Sec. of State nominee, shows he doesn’t understand that the Sec. of State’s job is to promote and maintain world peace by claiming that politics is a “never-ending struggle until the rapture”, claims that “To worship our lord and celebrate our nation at the same place is not only our right, it is our duty”, and often mentions “God and Christianity” in official public speeches.

Betsy DeVos, Sec. of Education, advocates teaching the Christian creation myth in public schools, supports publically financed Christian schools and apparently places a higher value on an educational system based on mythology than on objective, verifiable facts.

All four Republican gubernatorial candidates in Maine have said they oppose women’s reproductive rights, opposition to which cannot be separated from their religious beliefs. Liz Hays, a member of the Maine Family Planning board reports that anti-abortion protests at the Augusta clinic have been going on for years. Although only a handful of protesters show up now, the election of yet another anti-choice governor could result in more protesters harassing women “who have every right to seek a legal medical procedure”. Make no mistake about it; all four Republican gubernatorial candidates heed the advice of the religious right to ignore your First Amendment right of the separation of church and state.

Louise Melling, the ACLU deputy legal director said “Religious liberty gives you a right to your beliefs, but it doesn’t give you the right to impose your beliefs on others or harm others, including (discriminating) against others.”

I urge you to learn more about your First Amendment rights to freedom of and freedom from religion.

Jackman, Maine – A Microcosm of American Values?

March 2018 Jackman, Maine – A Microcosm of American Values?

Let me be clear; Mr. Kawczynski’s views of supporting human rights for some groups and not for others are deplorable. I applaud Jackman for firing Mr. Kawczynski because they claim his views do not reflect the values of Jackman, but there is the rub. If Kawczynski should be fired because he doesn’t support equality of human rights, views that do not reflect Jackman’s values, then Trump should be fired because his deplorable views on human rights do not reflect American values either, or do they?

Sen. Collins said; “I want everyone to know what a warm and welcoming community (Jackman) is, a community that welcomes everyone regardless of their race or their religion or any other factor”, but those last three words make all the difference and begs the question; “By what standard do we know what value a community or country places on human rights?”

The Maine Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions shows Jackman voted against the human rights of same-sex couples to get married in 2012 by a margin of 66% to 34% (330 NO / 172 YES) and voted for Trump, whose deplorable racial views were well known before the election in 2016, by a margin of 76% to 24% (376 Trump / 121 Clinton).

Nationally the NY Times reports that Trump won the election by a margin of 57% to 43% electoral college votes (304 Trump / 227 Clinton) and the AP reports that the popular vote was 51% Clinton to 49% Trump (66 M Clinton / 63 M Trump). The voting records of Jackman and America bring into question the values both communities profess and the values both communities reveal through their respective votes.

Sen. Collins supported Jackman firing Kawczynski because he didn’t support human rights equally for every group and then voted to confirm former Kansas Gov. Brownback, “Trump’s anti-LGBTQ nominee for Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom”. This position requires one to support religious freedom for the worlds various belief systems and insure that individual human rights are not violated. At his confirmation hearings Brownback refused to answer if there were any circumstances where religious freedom would NOT justify “criminalizing, imprisoning, or executing somebody based on their LGBT status”. Still the Senate vote resulted in a tie (broken by Pence) to confirm Brownback, a well-known religiously divisive nominee, to become America’s spokesperson for religious tolerance and human rights. So much for America supporting human rights!

Alan Caron commented that the harm done by people who do not support human rights such as Kawczynski and “many like-minded political leaders in Maine and Washington can hardly be calculated, but they are real and lasting.” In my opinion Washington’s lack of support for human rights have embolden people such as Kawczynski and State Rep. Lockman who do not support human rights to come out of the closet and show their un-American values.

Rep. Lockman, R-Amherst, opposes creating immigrant welcoming centers because they represent the “left’s war on whites.” Like Kawczynski, Lockman makes no apologies for the values he holds. Does this mean Lockman should be fired because his views don’t reflect Maine values?

I don’t know the answer to the fundamental questions I have raised but I can assure you that if we, as a people, do not align our professed values with our voting behavior, the country will return, if it hasn’t already, to the McCarthy era when one powerful politician was allowed to wreak havoc on anyone who opposed his values.

In the early 1950’s Sen. McCarthy was allowed to go on an unchecked witch hunt for anyone he thought might be a Communist or a leftist. During his reign of terror McCarthy destroyed the lives of hundreds of individuals. It seems no one had what it took to end the damage McCarthy was doing to the country until Joseph Welch, the lawyer defending the US Army against McCarthy’s frivolous accusations, confronted him with; “Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. At long last have you no sense of decency, sir?”

How long do we have to wait for someone to ask Washington politicians if they have enough decency to stop the carnage? How long do we have to wait for American’s to elect politicians who reflect their real values? Unfortunately the answer to the second question, based on election results, might be American’s already vote their true values. That, my friend, is a sad commentary on America.