Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.


Generosity after disaster proved & and friendship are fire-proof

To the Daily Sun,

We would like to say thank you to the wonderful family, friends, and neighbors for their concern, well wishes, and generosity after the fire that destroyed our home. Love and friendship are fire-proof.

We would also like to say thank you to the Belmont Fire Department for their speedy response and skills that kept the fire from reaching a large wooden barn. In addition, the immediate assistance by the Red Cross is gratefully appreciated.

To the media, please note a correction in your reporting: There were several intact, working and blaring smoke alarms. One had been previously disconnected due to its over-sensitivity. Others were located a few feet away from the disconnected one and were functioning properly.

We are very fortunate to have our family safe after this sudden and devastating incident. Thank you to all who have helped, and continue to help us in the process of recovery.

The Raymond Family

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 304

This time of scientific paradigm is worse than that of Galileo

To the Daily Sun,

It is a fact that what we believe about our history affects who we are today, what we think about ourselves, how we behave, and how we view the future. Is it any wonder that the world is in such and upheaval today?

Consider: Even though within the scientific community there has been an ongoing, millenniums-old controversy over exactly what is the nature of scientific knowledge. Are scientists discovering the truth about how nature really is, or are they merely giving us theories that work in helping us to understand how certain things in nature function and how we can harness them? Or put another way, can we know as God knows, or is our knowledge, though useful, not not true with a capital T? Colleges courses trace these tensions all the way back to Socrates and Plato. I contend that they go back to the garden of Eden and the original sin, which was succumbing to the temptation to want to know as God knows.

Fast forward to today. Even though scientists today are aware of this controversy, consider why is it that the theory of evolution is taught in schools as established truth, to the point that when President Bush wanted science books to include a disclaimer that the theory of evolution was only one theory as to how life came to be, he was rejected with scorn by the scientific community. It's not because the theory of evolution is established so firmly on the evidence that it is irrefutable. It's not. As a matter of fact, if I were a betting man I'd be willing to wager a year's income, that there are scientists, somewhere out there, who in the course of researching ring species have found that there is a boundary beyond which micro-evolutionary changes cease to happen, and that these findings have not been allowed to come out. That's the way they do it.

This age of the scientific paradigm is worse than the time of Galileo for challenging conventional scientific wisdom. This is particularly true when a finding would indicate that there has been a special creation. For unbeknownst to these scientists, all the demons of hell gather on such occasions to harden these scientists against receiving such evidence and God will allow it for a season.

Back to the question of how we view history. The theory of evolution, that is macro-evolution has absolutely no effect on scientific discoveries that benefit mankind. Studies in genetics though they might take a different direction would go on. Physics, chemistry, engineering all would be largely unchanged. Medical research, except for perhaps some moral changes in how we view stem cell research and the lives of unborn babies, would go on largely unchanged.

What would change dramatically is modern philosophy, metaphysics,and how God is viewed and what we perceive our history to be. Today, those who hold to modern philosophy view religion as superstition. Belief in God, in the U.S. particularly, is tolerated by secularists because we have the First Amendment. As long as we are functioning under the authority of our Constitution, they must at least do lip service to that. But you can see their contempt for it even in the pages of this newspaper.

If science were to confirm that, yes, it is necessary that there has been a special creation all this would change. This would anchor God securely as a historical character and cause him to have relevance in current events, in the minds of the people. If this would happen while in the U.S. our constitutional protections are still in tact, it would strengthen those. If this is allowed to happen only after the U.S. has surrendered her constitutional government in favor of submission to a one world order, or the U.S. is destroyed because of God's judgment, watch out. For a false Christ will arise.

The choice that all men will face at this time will be to worship this false Christ and receive eternal damnation, to flee, or to be martyred. Many Christians will be martyred at this time. At the end of this time the Lord Jesus will return, in the clouds raise His saints both those who have died and those who are alive. He will then with His saints make war with this false Christ and his false prophet and those who follow them. Do you want to know the outcome of this battle? Read it in the book of Revelation, please.

These things, written in the 13th chapter of the book of Revelation, can be seen taking shape in the world today. You might want to ask yourself: How could these things be known by a fisherman almost 2,000 years ago?

John Demakowski

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 203