A+ A A-

We chose not to offend people at price of offending the Almighty

To The Daily Sun,
In response to Steve Earle's Letter of May 14, "Our nation was built on our founding fathers' belief in creationism." Steve, I for the most part appreciate your conservative view point on a multitude of issues. Also we seem to be on the same page as to our founders belief in creationism. To be more precise they were mostly Christians and those from schisms that splintered off from the Christian church.
I'm a Christian, Steve. To be a Christian it is not necessary to be a creationist. It is necessary to believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and that God raised Him from the dead on the third day to go to the Father to prepare a place in heaven for those who believe in Him and turn away from their old sinful life and follow Him and His teaching. These things are real, Steve, and Christians all over the world trust their lives to Him.
I am under no illusion that America as a nation is going to turn back to God and the influence Christianity exerted on our policies and institutions. Not on this side of the Lords second coming anyway. We are moving rapidly toward the demonic world government described in the book of Revelation. Yet it is important to talk honestly about where we are, where we have come from and where we are going.
The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, that means that the old testament writings are foundational to our faith. To attack it is to attack the foundation of our faith. Steve, the Christian faith is based on the actuality of the supernatural deeds of God now ,in the past, and in the future.
Steve, please if you are going to respond, please read my letters of 4/24/14 and 5/9/14 and save me the work of restating those points in detail again, as I work a 60 + hour work week besides managing a household.
Part of the problem evolutionists have, in understanding even what the debate is, is that they can't think outside of the evolutionary box. You said that creationism is not science therefore it doesn't belong in science class, that "religion depends on faith" and that there is "no science behind it." Just what does mean, Steve? Certainly there is reason behind biblical faith. God counts the witness of the creation as sufficient evidence of who He is and what He's like to cast those who disbelieve into hell. (Rom. 1:20). Our founders considered the Creator's self evident truth as worthy to lay down their lives for. For me the Bible and our founders carry more weight than David Hume. He is the philosopher whose thought underlies the rebellion against the evidence of creation.
As to the venue of science class, evolutionist have chosen the venue. They say that they have the authoritative actual account of how all things came to be, and save perhaps before the supposed big bang that God has not exercised His supernatural power. This is what the theory of evolution teaches. It is not neutral toward religion or God. It is theological. It is at worst atheistic,at best deism. Neither is macro evolution any more weighable, measurable, or quantifiable than the creation scenario, "It supposedly takes millions of years and you can't see it." But they teach it to our children as authoritative truth.
To sum up. God is real. He exercises His supernatural power daily. If we are to return to being a nation under God and the no nonsense blessings conservative writers constantly write about, we had better stop teaching our children that God either does not exist or that He is irrelevant, for "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." (Proverbs 1:7) It is the foundation upon which all wisdom rests. Otherwise you might just as well be howling at the moon. If we believe in Him; why do we, as a nation, chose to not offend people at the price of offending the Almighty.
I understand that much of what I imply goes against decades of case precedent, but please don't tell me things are unconstitutional unless you're willing to go back to that document, for too many of our justices have been defecating on our constitution for some time.

John Demakowski

Franklin

Last Updated on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 06:48

Hits: 101

Goal was to build library without town funds & that was accomplished

To The Daily Sun,
The Gilmanton Year-Round Library Board of Directors would like to respond to Ms. Marrion's letter of May 6. She asked the GYRL Board to provide verifiable documentation about its past stance on town funding for operation of the library.

The Board reviewed the selectmen's minutes of January 30, 2006. At that selectmen's meeting, the then GYRL president stated that "they have been trying to build the library for six years, and their goal was to build without having to come to the town for money. She felt it was premature to discuss operation of the library at this time. The president stated that if they succeed in getting the library 85 percent paid for, but can't go any further, she isn't saying they wouldn't come to the town, but their goal is to build the library without coming to taxpayers. She said the second goal is to try to get endowments for operating costs. The president said if they succeed in building the library and don't have the funds to operate it, she wouldn't be ashamed to come to the town and ask for operating funds."

Prior to that meeting, several other instances are reflected in the selectmen minutes (4/21/03, 5/17/04, 1/10/05) as to the intent of the GYRL Board of Directors. Their goal was to build the library without town funds, which was accomplished. The issue of operating expenses did not come up until the 2006 minutes.
The current Board of Directors is committed to continue to provide quality services for patrons, be fiscally responsible and work with residents as we move forward with long-range planning. A public meeting is planned for July so the board can hear from residents regarding library services and future direction.
Anne Kirby, President

Gilmanton Year-Round Library Association

Last Updated on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 06:45

Hits: 178

Lawsuit against my office was frivolous & their lawyers got paid

To The Daily Sun,

I am writing with regard to a letter sent to the editor and published on May 13, that letter having been written by Belknap County Commissioners Edward Philpot, John Thomas and Stephen Nedeau. The commissioners'
letter was written in response to Rep. Burchell's letter of May 7.

One paragraph of their letter read: " The commissioner's did not attempt to make themselves custodians of any funds. They did insist on the Register of Deed's compliance with internal control issues reported by the auditors. These controls have since been implemented and the funds in question are properly in the hands of the treasurer, as the statute requires. Unfortunately, it required legal action. This is not a cost that the taxpayers should bear. This has been explained many times."

I have remained silent for nearly three years regarding the lawsuit the commissioners filed in Belknap County Superior Court against me — not individually, but as Register of Deeds — an elected position and as such a county department head. During this three year time period the commissioners have not found it to be convenient to mention that at mediation of this suit, I prevailed. This mediation was attended by myself, my attorney Philip McLaughlin, Commissioner Philpot, County Administrator Deb Shackett, Finance Director Glen Waring, the commissioners' attorney Paul Fitzgerald and as Mediator Retired Judge Bruce Mohl.

The "difference of opinion" began when the commissioners received a letter from the county auditing firm, Melanson Heath & Co. urging the commissioners to require the Registry of Deeds to make a daily deposit of funds collected at
the Registry into the county's general fund rather than a daily deposit into a Registry of Deeds account. New Hampshire RSA 478:17-j is the law that states the requirement of the Register of Deeds. The commissioners did want
the county treasurer to have control, which is not what the law states. This would have given the county daily access to funds that do not belong to the county — the Registry is the gatekeeper of funds that belong to the state.

The commissioners commenced the suit against the Register of Deeds in October 2011. We had fruitless meetings to attempt to settle the difference of opinions.

On June 19, 2012, we met for mediation. After a day long discussion an agreement was reached. The Registry of Deeds would retain its' separate checking account, as required by law. The Registry of Deeds would continue to make its' daily deposit of funds into that account. The Registrar of Deeds would continue to pay — once a month, as always — the funds due to the State of New Hampshire and Belknap County, as required by law. The Registry would provide a daily copy of the bank deposit slip via e-mail to the finance director. The Registry would provide a daily copy of the break down of funds received — whereas previously this information had been provided monthly along with the checks sent to the finance office. This daily information is sent via e-mail. Checks would be signed by the Registrar and a second signatory. After discussion it was agreed this would be the county treasurer.

The agreement was signed that day by the attorneys, Commissioner Philpot and myself as Register of Deeds. These documents are on file with the Belknap County Superior Court.

This suit was a source of great distress to me, the underlying implication of the commissioners being that I was mishandling the funds in the Registry of Deeds. I successfully defended the RSA regarding the operation of the
Registry of Deeds. Defending myself as Register of Deeds did indeed cost me emotionally and financially. The taxpayers of Belknap County paid the legal fees incurred by the Commissioners for this frivolous suit.

Barbara R. Luther

Register of Deeds

Belknap County

Last Updated on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 06:39

Hits: 335

Progressives & liberals: paradise is so close; how can you resist?

To The Daily Sun,

Last weekend I traveled through beautiful parts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. These nearby beautiful states do all the things that New Hampshire progressives/liberals/socialists complain that New Hampshire doesn't do. It's a shame that we have so many unhappy citizens when these progressive paradises are so close.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York have huge governments with many thousands of employees providing almost every imaginable service including helping the truly needy and pretty much anyone else with their hands out.

They spend lots of money on public education and their universities so all their young people must get great jobs after school.

Their gas taxes are higher than N.H.'s so they must have perfect roads and bridges.

These states all jumped on board with Obamacare and Medicaid expansion so all their citizens must get outstanding medical care at no or almost no cost.

These states have strict gun control laws. Recent laws make it even harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns, thus these states are probably crime free.

These states all have income and sales taxes so government revenues are raised fairly, i.e., mostly from other people.

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York either have or soon will have casinos.

The death penalty has been eliminated for all offenses even for cop-killers and mass murderers (all offenses except for being inconveniently in the womb).

These states are on board with about every progressive idea, e.g., climate change, Agenda 21, common core, affirmative action.

Perhaps most important, there are few Republicans, let alone conservatives, to quibble about old ideas like freedom, faith, personal responsibility, school choice, self-defense, rule of law, equal treatment by government, small and efficient government, the Constitution, etc.

Paradise for progressives/liberals/socialists does exist on this earth just a few short miles away. There are no barriers to relocation in Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New York where progressives/liberals/socialists can find everything they complain is missing in New Hampshire. Why be unhappy and complain in New Hampshire when paradise is so close?

Don Ewing
Meredith

Last Updated on Monday, 19 May 2014 08:36

Hits: 317

We need a place for our dogs & we need it now more than ever

To The Daily Sun,

As a Laconia taxpayer and a responsible pet owner, I am extremely disappointed by the decision to make the Woodland Heights Elementary School fenced-in ball park inaccessible for dogs. My husband and I were grateful for the privilege of using the field on a regular basis to exercise our Great Dane and picked up after him, as well as, other dogs.
We need a place for our dogs and we need it now more than ever! For those who may not be aware, there is an off-leash dog park in the planning stages for Laconia. The Happy Tails Dog Park (www.htdpnh.org) committee needs to hear from the dog lovers in our community! There is an informational meeting on Tuesday, May 20 at the Laconia Community Center (306 Union Ave.) at 6:30 p.m. Please show up and offer your help to make our dog park a reality.

Lisa Bauman
Laconia

Last Updated on Monday, 19 May 2014 08:32

Hits: 257

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN