Has the Mayor Decided to Solve Our Religious Problems Instead of ……..? Fill-in the Blank !

Henry Springer via bounce.secureserver.net
6:42 PM ….
to City Council
I sent the following to the city council
From Hank Springer
386 852 3178


19 thoughts on “Has the Mayor Decided to Solve Our Religious Problems Instead of ……..? Fill-in the Blank !

  • February 4, 2015 at 11:52 am

    The pastor at the meeting last night is from the church that Drew and Scott attend. I have no issue with what happened just think that facts should lead the way not just tossed out comments. Ask them whose idea it was?

    • February 7, 2015 at 12:10 am

      H e l l o. This was Scott and Drews pastor do you really think the mayor is religious He has stated so many times he is n o t! And how many times has Cory. Said amen before Don. Is he Jewish???????

  • February 4, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    Next thing we know we will have those nutty people who pray while handling rattlesnakes, maybe someone preforming Voodoo or killing a chicken at the dias. Anything to distract from the business at hand. What we don’t need is a sermon at a council meeting what we do need is ACTION on pending business. Incidentally I am not an atheist.

  • February 4, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    Get a life people, I don’t care who’s pastor it was, he did a very nice prayer! I feel Corey was out of line, but he is entitled to his opinion. I was told that the offer to open the meeting with prayer is open to all pastors, ministers, preachers, rabbis etc. etc. I thought it was a good way to open the meeting, and I was in no way offended by anything the pastor said at last nights meeting.

    • February 4, 2015 at 5:14 pm

      Get a grip and a life people! I gotta agree with Hawkeye. My understanding is that it is a rotational thing and open to all beliefs. I thought that the pastor last night did a great job and was appropriate. Corey, as usual, came of looking like the “Ass of Port Orange” instead of “Mr. Port Orange.” A little prayer in our City sure can’t hurt!

    • February 4, 2015 at 5:18 pm

      I believe Jesus said,” Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render unto God the things that are God’s.

  • February 4, 2015 at 6:12 pm

    Hawkeye and Needed That both get it. Most of us do.
    Corey doesn’t get it and never will. His battles are trivial and his approach and demeanor won’t change.

  • February 5, 2015 at 10:48 pm

    Those on this site spend a lot of time wrapping themselves in the Constitution then has no problem starting a public meeting with Christian prayer. Like the bible for most when it comes to the Constitution we tend to only follow parts we like best and screw the rest of the document. Like it or not there is a seperation of church and state. You want to pray…Go to church! Those of Jewish faith, as Cory stated he is, do not believe in Jesus so I imagine it might be a little offensive as well as alienating when you pray to your God or savior while those who may not beleive the same things are left out. These types of prayer can also make those of other faiths or those that do not beleive think they might get treated unfairly since we just basically put on record that tonights meeting is of Christian faith. Since the pastor was allowed to pray without interuption and Cory Berman was told to sit down and shut up am I to beleive the city council has something aganst the Jewish religion??? Its not a crazy question when you choose not to seperate church and state…
    It turns out our fore-fathers were pretty smart by adding that important seperation to the founding documents. My perception right now is that Port Orange has something against the Jewish faith because of what took place at a council meeting, of course I would not fel thsi way if they would have just read the Constitution and realized the seperation of religion and government exists so that no one feels like they might be treated unfairly because of their beliefs. I might also add that since different people tune in or show up to differnet meetings a rotation of prayer will only lead to more alienation of those in attendance on any given night who may not know its Muslum night at the council meeting.
    The only way to do this would be to let each religion have time for a prayer at each meeting then let those of Wicken belief, the agnostics and the athiests to have a moment to express their feelings then make sure there is no Scientoligist in the audience then start the meeting OR JUST FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION DUMMIES!!!

    • February 6, 2015 at 2:43 pm

      The bottom line is that the Council, Mayor, City Manager are not critical thinkers. The just leap into making decisions without any critical thinking or anticipating where their stupid decisions will lead. The continuous maelstrom of problems keep coming. Port Orange is the laughing stock of Volusia County.

    • February 7, 2015 at 10:48 am

      Really Thank God for atheists, that’s the best you can say. Thank God we live in a country where people can have a difference of opinions based on religious freedoms. If you or any other people do not want to pray then don’t, but to hate on those they do shows you are only a negative thinker and only preach hatred.

      • February 7, 2015 at 12:20 pm

        To Take Back Port Orange. I think you are very wrong about Mike Gardner, he doesn’t hate anybody. He has a very honest and easy approach to things and an inquiring mind able to dig up quite a bit of wrongdoing going on within our city. He is a critical thinker, a stakeholder within the city and a taxpayer who is looking out for the welfare of the citizens. What exactly do you mean by Take Back Port Orange? Do you mean that we should go back to the time when Green, Solona and Cardwell ran the city anyway they wanted to? That was more than 30 years ago and “them there days” are gone forever. A lot of things have gone bye bye such as Joe Kenny’s Bar, Anchor Inn. Showboat and hopefully pretty soon Mayor Green.

        • February 8, 2015 at 9:42 am

          No I mean 6 people do not speak for 56,000. The ranting and collective negative tone they show at the council meetings is a shame. Two ran for office and did not win, this should tell them they do not represent the citizens. As for the 5 that were elected they have not made one clear decision I the last 4 years. They talk a lot , some bury the face In Their hands and but on a good show but do not make decisions. What do I mean by take back PO, go the the meetings speak for yourself tell the elected officials you want better government. And stop using this site for speculation and do some investigation of your own to get to the bottom of issues.

  • February 6, 2015 at 8:12 pm

    Did any of you ever pay attention in college? Don’t answer, that is a rhetorical question. (if you don’t need to look up the word rhetorical, you may continue reading.)
    First of all, let’s get one thing straight, for all those citing the Constitution as their source, no where in the entire Constitution of the United States does the phrase “separation of church and state” exist. That is a phrase that people have inaccurately invented in an attempt to explain the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
    In its original context, this passage meant that the U.S. would not have an official “state Church” like England. The English government officially supported the Church of England, using taxes to support Anglicanism. The founding fathers, who promoted the Revolutionary War, did not want the same kind of church. This is the extent of this passage from the First Amendment. There is nowhere in the Constitution that forbids individuals from mixing faith and politics or from sharing their faith in a state-related function or location.
    Also, the following facts show that, historically, no one interpreted the First Amendment to exclude religion from the political sphere:
    The U.S. Congress used to hold Christian worship services at the Capitol on Sundays.
    The Supreme Court Building was used to house church services on Sundays.
    Twelve of the original 14 states required religious tests for those seeking public office.
    After the Civil War, the First Congregational Church of Washington used the House of Representatives as a worship building.
    In 1863, the U.S. Senate requested that Abraham Lincoln designate an official day of national prayer and humility.
    In 1944, Franklin D. Roosevelt (as well as many presidents before him) went on the radio and prayed nationally for our troops and our nation.
    When the First Amendment was implemented in 1791, it was intended to only limit the natural (federal) government and not the state government.
    We have seriously misunderstood what “separation of church and state” means. To the founding fathers of our great country, the First Amendment existed to keep the state out of the church, not to keep the church out of the state!
    Class dismissed!

    • February 7, 2015 at 10:28 am

      Now that the Mayor and Council have opened the door are invocations from Islamist preaching against the ‘Great Satin’ or from Atheists such as the one recently given in Lake Worth going to be in Port Orange’s future OR will someone be censoring the invocations that will be permitted ??
      Lake Worth Invocation
      “Our collective atheism — which is to say, loving empathy, scientific evidence, and critical thinking — leads us to believe that we can create a better, more equal community without religious divisions. May we pray together?
      “Mother Earth, we gather today in your redeeming and glorious presence, to invoke your eternal guidance in the Universe — the original creator of all things.
      “May the efforts of this council blend the righteousness of Allah with the all-knowing wisdom of Satan. May Zeus, the great God of Justice, grant us our strength tonight.
      “Jesus might forgive us of our shortcomings while Buddha enlightens us through His Divine affection.
      “We praise you Krishna, for the sanguine sacrifice that has freed us.
      “After all, if Almighty Thor is with us, who can ever be against us?
      “And finally, for the bounty of logic, reason, and science, we simply thank the atheists, agnostics, and non-religious, who now account for one in five Americans, and growing rapidly. [padding the numbers –ed.]
      “In closing, let us, above all, love one another, not to obtain mythical rewards for ourselves now, hereafter, or based on superstitious threats of eternal damnation, but rather, embrace secular-based principles of morality — and do good for goodness’ sake. And so we prayed. … So what?”
      The Port Orange Council has proceeded once again absent any critical thinking. If this ends well I will be more that a little surprised.
      Ted Noftall
      for responsible government – 2016

    • February 7, 2015 at 10:51 am

      Nice reply, this is wasted on most people on this site as they only want to promote negative thoughts and comments.

    • February 7, 2015 at 11:00 am

      Thank you for a great lesson ‘ Time To Hold Class ‘, may I ask a question and add a few observations.
      ? If wordsmith juxtaposition such that keeping the state out of the church vs keeping the church out of the state is more than a difference without a distinction and thus allows you to conclude that the first portion of the establishment clause of the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ” sanctions Councils recent Christian invocation, does the second portion ” or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” not sanction Jews or Muslims or any other sect from doing likewise in other parts of that chamber at the same time, And if not why not ?

      ” No where in the entire Constitution of the United States does the phrase “separation of church and state” exist ” That is true. .
      ” That is a phrase that people have inaccurately invented in an attempt to explain the First Amendment ”

      It wasn’t exactly ‘people’ who coined that term, it was Thomas Jefferson and he did so in the following correspondence .
      The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
      To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

      Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.
      Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
      Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States–and all the world–until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you–to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
      And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
      Signed in behalf of the Association,
      Neh,h Dodge }
      Eph’m Robbins } The Committee
      Stephen S. Nelson }

      President Jefferson’s Reply:
      Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
      A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.
      Washington, January 1, 1802

      Gentlemen,–The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
      Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
      I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
      Th Jefferson
      Jan. 1. 1802

      We would all do well to consider, as did Jefferson and those Danbury Baptists who came from a time that possessed a much greater appreciation than does our own (notwithstanding the daily lessons coming out of the Muslim world ) the tyranny that ensues and has always ensued when either Religion and Politics OR Politics and Religion are mixed.
      Religion at all times and in all places ought to be a matter between individuals and their God.
      The Port Orange Council would be wise to return to the moment of silence we previously enjoyed with our God immediately before their proceeding.
      Ted Noftall
      for responsible government — 2016

      • February 7, 2015 at 12:04 pm

        Thank you Ted. It is a shame that Stiltner and Bastian decided to bring their pastor to the city council to say a prayer. Was it in the name of Our Lord Christ, or Our Lord Savior? I forget.
        It is a shame that in this day an age and all of the real problems in Port Orange, that we have two city council men who look for wisdom by wishing on a star. It is a shame that we are diverted to have to deal with this arrogant showing of one’s religion when there are so many other problems for the city council to attend to. But let us remember, there is a voting base in the churches where the people come from. It is using religion to advance one’s political rewards instead of solving problems on behalf of citizens.
        This religious nonsense is part of the reasons why some have left the Republican party.
        Was it also the reason why the city of Port Orange has been a long time partner with the YMCA. They tell us it is only because the city rents the property to the YMCA. What BS. Thanks Ted. Hang in there and keep banging heads. I am so disgusted with our city council, but I feel no energy or stamina to get physcialy involved.
        I show my resentment towards this city council through the written word.
        — hank

  • February 8, 2015 at 5:38 pm

    I think John F Kennedy said it best;
    “These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues–for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.
    But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured–perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again–not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me–but what kind of America I believe in.
    I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
    I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source–where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials–and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
    For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew–or a Quaker–or a Unitarian–or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you–until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
    Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end–where all men and all churches are treated as equal–where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice–where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind–and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
    That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe–a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
    I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so–and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test–even by indirection–for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
    I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none–who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him–and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
    This is the kind of America I believe in–and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a “divided loyalty,” that we did “not believe in liberty,” or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the “freedoms for which our forefathers died.”
    And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died–when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches–when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom–and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey–but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.
    I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition–to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress–on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)–instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
    I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts–why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France–and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
    But let me stress again that these are my views–for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters–and the church does not speak for me.
    Whatever issue may come before me as President–on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject–I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
    But if the time should ever come–and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible–when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
    But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith–nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
    If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
    But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency–practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . so help me God.”
    – John F Kennedy


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.