Thursday, December 5, 2013
(Continued from page 1)
As gray skies hang over the U.S. Capitol, letter writers say the federal shutdown shows there’s too much government and too much dependency on government.
The Associated Press
Both as people of God and inhabitants of an ailing Earth, we feel strongly that it is time to take up the challenge of addressing global climate change as a moral imperative, a practical strategy for survival and a matter of justice. Within that context, we must oppose any tar sands project.
As individuals and congregations, we feel we must work not only to stop what would be a disaster for Maine, but to act on the broader moral and ethical issues the potential project raises: to recognize the disproportionate burden that climate change imposes on the world’s poor, advocate for governmental action in support of clean renewable energy, take steps to reduce our dependence on oil in our own lives, and make environmental responsibility part of our collective agenda.
Above all, we must acknowledge the ethical task of healing the planet as a part of who we are.
In the name of protecting God’s excellent works, we have been called to repair the world for our children, our grandchildren and all who come after us.
Voting for the Waterfront Protection Ordinance on Nov. 5, and stopping any tar sands processing, is an excellent place to begin. Asked one of our sages: “If not now, when?”
Dead lobster not best way to take stand for live ones
Regarding the full-page People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ad Oct. 3, did it strike anyone as ironic that the lobster not wanting “to be dismembered alive” was, in fact, dead?
I find the idea of zombie crustaceans with an inclination to vote quite compelling.
On Page A10 of the Oct. 3 Portland Press Herald, PETA ran a full-page ad that read, in large print, “Hands up, all those who don’t want to be dismembered alive,” with the picture of a cooked lobster raising its claw.
If PETA is so concerned with animal welfare, shouldn’t they have used a live lobster?