The truth will out, and I stand by my scathing remarks about the former representative in the 39th legislative district.

Mr. Speigler:
Former representative Levadansky strong and principled? Rick Saccone, a veteran, and retiree of the Air Force, international representative, professor at St. Vincent's, displayed poor judgment? Sorry, Oren, but your facts don't hold up to scrutiny. Rick Saccone proposed a resolution, one of hundreds that the House proposes, and passes unanimously, and as you should know, resolutions are non binding. You are under no obligation to observe the year of the Bible. Most of Rick's constituents are of Judaeo-Christian faiths; he expressed the sentiment of the 39th legislative district. To take this singular resolution and use it as a weapon against a principled man of faith, who understands Duty, Honor, Country as few do (Air Force Intel in Iraq, North Korea (at one time the only US citizen in N. Korea), among other accomplishments, is an insult. Surely you're not going to pronounce "separation of Church and State"? You know those words do not appear in the Constitution.

And then there is Mr. Levdansky. Yes, the principled, 26 year legislator who had at various times voted for pay increases, voted for a fatter pension, for reasons well known, proclaimed his love for the Second Amendment, but voted against it time again. He does not deserve re-election to the House. Why vote for a guy that we just fired? Comparing Rick Saccone's record to Levdansky's, a 2 year period vs. a 26 year career makes the choice obvious. Vote Saccone. Hopefully the editor approves this.

Shocking that you would delete a Veteran's comment.......I am so tired of the Patch's alignment with people like Oren. You started as a great website and now you are just filled with garbage. Very little information about town affairs, too much garbage about elections and politicians. Are you funded by the Democratic party?

Sharon - There are many veterans on this board. Some of them are even Democrats!

I am patiently waiting for Oren's response.

Ed M. - What a strange thing to ask Oren. Whether or not he believes in your idea of God and the Bible is totally irrelevant to his assertion that Rep. Saccone should not be trying to impose his religious beliefs on others. America is a "republic", which means no tyranny of the majority over minority beliefs and interests. Religion is very personal and we are all entitled to our own beliefs in a multi-culteral society that is not a theocracy. Keeping politics and religion is separate spheres is so important. To combine them diminishes both. Some believe that the current backlash against religion is because of religion becoming too involved in politics. I doubt that you would want any representative declaring a year of the Koran, yet Muslims have religious freedom also. This is why the first amendment states that there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion. The Pennsylvania Assembly stating that the "Bible is the word of God" goes against the first amendment.

Deb,

I didn't ask if Oren believed in my idea of God. I asked if he believed in God. Based on Oren's rant, it is a valid question.

Nope, not a valid question. His comments questioned the validity of a political body imposing one type of religious belief on the Commonwealth. Whether he believes in God, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not relevant. And his beliefs are nobody's business but his own.

Excellent point, Deb.

Just because you don't like it, Deb, doesn't invalidate it. An who is imposing anything on anyone??? Pittsburgh declared 10/25 as "Pittsburgh Dad" day! Are they imposing something on people??? Nope!

The 1st Amendment also states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Law passed establishing anything? Nope. Freedom of religion? Yup.

Just to be clear, Ed, I assume from your comment that if the state assembly declared next year the year of the Koran and that the Koran is the word of God you would be okay with that? And then the next year to be the year of Voodoo, the one after that the year of Atheism you would be on board? After all, they also have freedom of religion, right? Sorry if you think I was invalidating your question because I don't like it. I just think it is inappropriate. What value is there for you in knowing his religious beliefs? Does he have to be vetted to have an opinion about religion?

Just because no law was passed saying PA is supporting the Bible does not mean that this is not a government endorsement. Please try to put yourself in another persons' shoes. If they declared that the Koran was the word of God, would you be okay with that? Really would like to know how you feel about that.

Actually Deb I wouldn't be OK with that but since it is meaningless, it wouldn't matter.

Inappropriate maybe. Binding, not in the least.

The reason I asked Oren if he believed in God was to understand where he is coming from.

Ed M, since you feel a declaration is inappropriate if it is about the Koran, perhaps you can understand why it is best to just keep this type of thing out of the political arena. I think part of Oren's point that there are much more pressing things for the assembly to do than what is basically pandering to one religious group with something that really has little meaning. Regardless of what one believes, we should all be upset that time is spent on this type of nonsense. Our country is diverse and we should all try to be as inclusive as possible. By pushing an agenda that is divisive, I feel that we lose what is best about America.

Deb,
Actually, by trying to be inclusive in everything we lose what is best about this country. As a Christian, living in a Commonwealth governed by our Constitution, I can live and enjoy fellowship with Muslim, but the three branches of government in the Constitution would be forbidden by the Koran. We dare not be inclusive of the Koran in law or practice. The countries governed by the Koran are tyrannical. That is why they are able to treat their women as property, for the most part. That is why in this country, if a Muslim man marries a non Muslim woman, that is to advance the propagation of the faith. However, a Muslim woman is never allowed to marry outside the faith by the law of the Koran. OUr schools neglect to teach that the churches are to keep a check on the government in this country by teaching natural law and discussing all aspects of government. Few are up to that task anymore, much to the detriment of our freedoms.

"OUr schools neglect to teach that the churches are to keep a check on the government in this country by teaching natural law and discussing all aspects of government. Few are up to that task anymore, much to the detriment of our freedoms."

This isn't the job of the church, Thomas. Never has been and never should be. Where did you come up with this?

Deb,
Sure there are more important things the GA could be doing but ya wanna bet this took all of a couple minutes of their time? I still see this as a non-starter and honestly wonder how many people even know this was declared!!!

Ed M, why do you think it was never the church's job? The church is not a building, nor a business. It is a people. The very same people who are sovereigns in this Commonwealth. How do you see the two being separated? We can act like they are, and lately we have been told that they are separate, but that is nonsense, and only has resulted in cowardly Christians.

Thomas, you are correct. In countries GOVERNED by the Koran tyranny rules. Tyranny can rule in any country governed by any one religion. People fled England and came here to escape being forced by the government to adhere to the gov't religion. That is exactly why it is best to keep ANY religion from dominating the gov't setting. From your Christian point of view you are okay with the gov't supporting YOUR religion, of course. But not everyone in PA is a Christian, and freedom is for all citizens, not just the majority. Even Christians should be wary of involvement of the gov't because it may not be YOUR idea of Chritianity that rises to the top of the power structure.

Deb,
Perhaps we have a different understanding of Christianity. It is not a religion, in the commonly used sense, it is a relationship with the Creator. As I said in a previous post, it is not a business, as most perceive it. Most buildings/businesses we call churches are not operated as the Church. If you have a 501c3 you are a business that is required by law to first answer to the government, then after you have served government, you can serve the Creator..
That is really an extension of the government, masquerading as Christianity.

Thomas, can you not even perceive that some people don't believe what you believe, whether you call it Christianity or a relationship with the "creator"? And that people who don't believe the same as you have the same civil rights as you? Your statement to Ed that the church is just the same people who are "sovereigns" in the Commonwealth is telling. The definition of "sovereign" is one possessing "extreme authority". Sounds like you think of our Commonwealth as a theocracy of church people. Of course, not just any church people, but as you identified yourself as a Christian, it would be a Christian theocracy. How does that differ from any religious tyranny in oppressing people of other beliefs?

I challenge you, Thomas, to produce facts to back up your statement

"OUr schools neglect to teach that the churches are to keep a check on the government in this country by teaching natural law and discussing all aspects of government. Few are up to that task anymore, much to the detriment of our freedoms."

I am fully aware the church is the people and not the buildings.

Deb,

Thomas is 100% correct. Christianity is not a religion. Catholic, Methodist, Mormon, etc. are religions.

Deb, of course I know others do not believe what I believe. That was the beginning point of my last post.
It is clear you have a very different understanding of Christianity than I have. The relationship cannot be forced as religion can be forced.
There in lies the difference.
To be a follower of Christ it must be fully voluntary. No tax on non believers, no threat. It is true that the Catholic Church in times past tried tyranny, but that is not, in my view, Christianity. In fact, Hitler claimed he was a believer, and included a cross on the belt buckle of the SS. That is kind of like standing in a garage and saying that makes you a car.
I had a preacher once who became Lutheran Minister, but did not become a Christian for years after he began to preach. He went to Seminary because it sounded like a nice job. If you want to know more, I suggest a book, "Mere Christianity", I think by C. S. Lewis. Or any book by Corrie ten Boom. Perhaps then you will know why as a mostly Christian nation we have only recently began to live under tyranny. Even yet we are in many ways more free than any other part of the world.

Okay Ed, this is just picking nits, but Oxford dictionary defines religion: "noun-
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.". Jesus Christ = personal God. Others are denominations or doctrines within the Christian religion. Just sayin'...

Dear Ed,
Are you familiar with Wall Builders? Or, during the founders time, the Black Robed Regiment? www.wallbuilders.com/ or www.truthinhistory.org/the-black-robed-regiment.html I also recommend a book, "From Sea to Shining Sea" by Peter Marshall

Thomas,

The Crusades were also in the name of God.

I should have been more specific - I challenge you to produce Biblical evidence of your statement

"OUr schools neglect to teach that the churches are to keep a check on the government in this country by teaching natural law and discussing all aspects of government. Few are up to that task anymore, much to the detriment of our freedoms"

specifically the part "that the churches are to keep a check on the government".

Quoting: "... Catholic, Methodist, Mormon, etc. are religions. ..."

No, these are denominations of the Christian church.

Please don't confuse religion with Christianity. Christianity is only about relationship with God, with God the active agent. Religion is only about man, and his futile attempts to reach God through self-imposed means. This is a huge difference.

With so much talk about being upset over the Bible, the comments posted here seem clear that few have even bothered to read and study the Bible. This is regrettable, but not unusual. As usual, the objectors are those who have notions and perceptions of what the Bible says, most of which are inconsistent with biblical teaching. Apparently, it is far easier to go off on a tangent with ranting than to actually spend time to learn the truths of the Bible. The Bible does not teach religion, rather offers many, many teachings that reject any notion of religion. Some of the strongest teachings of Jesus were directed against those who wanted to practice religion.

Ed M,
I can only lead you to the truth. You will have to invest $10 for yourself for the books, or study the videos on those sites or find evidence to refute my claim yourself.

Rodger, well said.
Deb, the Oxford Dictionary and Bible based Christians differ on the definition of religion. Religion is something you do religiously. Many who call themselves Christian are religious, but that is very different than a relationship with Christ, just as it is different that any relationship, whether family, or friend.

Actually, Thomas, you led me to a couple of questionable web sites. I'm gonna guess you don't have any Biblical backing for your statement, therefore, no backing, yet you claim to be a Christian.

Well, Roger, tell us what the Bible tells us about this.

WW,
Please do not be offended, but It appears to me that you neither understand this great experiment called Pennsylvania, nor Christianity.
William Penn and the founders of these United States took a brilliant, once in many life times chance and created a Republic. Not a Democracy.
Governor Penn and many of the founders of these United States wrote that freedom required a republic, and that this republic would soon end when it ceased to be predominantly Christian. Not one of them ever wrote to refute that claim.
I refer you to the references I gave to Ed M if you care to become part of the movement to restore freedom in this country, or even if you jsut want to prove me wrong.
Hint: Much of the art in the Capitol building, and especially in the Supreme Court, was to remind us of our Christian roots. The same in the primary buildings in DC. Why do you think they were so careful to remind us of our Commonwealth's relationship with Jesus? Some of the founders were deists, yet they too, even old Ben himself, believed this to be true.

Ed M,
The Bible has many functions, and one of them is to make clear how we are to govern ourselves. There is no part of the Bible that does not apply.
For example, the three parts of government, courts, executive and legislative, are taken from Leviticus, and the government Moses created for the Exedus. Ed, I have no idea how well you know the Bible, but if you want to know about Christianity, and ergo the Bible, I would be happy to meet with you and we can study that together.
As to governments: A republic is very minimal government, very close to anarchy. Many of the founders wanted even more anarchy, and if we were all like Jesus, that would be fine, each man always prepared to put the other first. However, that is not the case, even among Christians.
So not anarchy, but a republic.
A republic cannot work if the people in it do not generally put others ahead of themselves. The life paradigm that best approaches selflessness is Christianity.
Just as in the Bible, our Constitution is designed to let each of us work out our life as we see fit, as long as it does not hurt others.
Ed M, you ask me to put in a blog what took me years to assimilate, and still I learn more every day. As best I can tell you in the brief space, the structure of this country is largely from Leviticus, the Ten Commandments, and the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount.

To all:
If you have an open mind, and seek the truth with your whole heart, you will find truth wants to be found. I would like to help with that if you are sincere. I do not have all the truth, but I have some, and I know the Man who has it all. He is my friend and companion.

Exedus??????

I know the Bible fairly well, but I'm not an expert. And I still dispute the statement you made regarding the church keeping the government in check. There is nothing Biblical about that.

In my experience, the people that you have to watch out for most in life are those that tell you they have the truth and they can show it to you, if you just blindly trust them. Run from them.

Ed M,
Do you agree that the Constitution of this Commonwealth was based largely on the Bible? If not, I refer you to the reference I have already given.
If you agree, who would be better equipped to teach upon the Bible and its critical relationship to government? It is certainly not done by any other substantial group. As it is, few adults, and even fewer children are even aware there is a critical relationship, let alone have it scientifically taught to them.
I will admit that in history, the first Bible on this continent was printed by Congress.
I will even admit it was distributed by President Jefferson, mostly to children to study in schools.
I will admit that the hall of Congress was the home worship center for the largest churches in DC at one time.
I will admit that Congress once spent much of its official time reading and debating the Bible.
I will even admit that the other most used primer in schools was primarily Biblically based.
Even so, it is my opinion that even back then the preachers were for the most part better equipped to educate the people on the relationship between the Bible and government. Even more so now.
If this is not enough for you, then your needs exceed my skills.

Thomas,

I agree regarding the regarding the PA Constitution and the Bible, but that doesn't translate to churches being responsible for keeping government in check.

C'mon, Erin. You know very well that certain subjects are taboo in the Patch, whether selling firearms in the classified ads (an absolute no-no), or posting the truth, no matter how ugly, about a politico. Politicians are fair game, and my snarky comments, the ones deleted by Ms. Micco, fall under a under a different set of rules than an article posted, for example, about YOU! It is, after all, the Patch's game, and I try like mad to avoid mudslinging. Mr. Levdansky, however, brings out the worst in my character. I have had some run ins with him both in the community and in Harrisburg, and they were far less than professional or cordial on his part. His behavior on the floor of the House, an obscene gesture directed at myself and perhaps 50 others in the gallery upon passage of the Castle Doctrine, is but one example. That, by the way, was witnessed by several other members of the House. Shortly thereafter, he was voted out of office. His personal issues are a matter of court record, as is his voting record. I would suggest that anyone in the 39th look it up, become informed, and vote for Rick Saccone. Mr. Levdansky's attack ads on Rick, recently aired on cable TV stations, would, according to Patch rules, never be allowed on the Patch, if I read the Terms of Use correctly.

As to Ms. Couth's comment. I claim no special status or stature as a Vet. I use my military grade with pride, and because it really upsets the current administration.

John, there was information in your comment about Levdansky that was factually not true. That's a violation of the Patch Terms of Use, and that's why the comment was deleted. I appreciate that you've re-posted your comment without that statement.

The Terms of Use for this site are the same for everyone, and they are pretty straight forward. Patch isn't playing a game.

Patch has a liberal leaning?!? What a ridiculous load of nonsense.

How dare you say that a Huffington-Post owned propaganda blog is biased. Erin knows who signs her paycheck.

AOL owns both, but Patch fits the same model as the Huffington Post, except on a local scale. The intent of the message of the Huffington Post and Patch is the same, albeit through different paths.

Ariana Huffington left her post over the direction of Patch. Patch is being funded, but has large negative cash flow. Quoting the recent WSJ story,

====

Patch, however, has fallen well short of that target. AOL says the business is on track to bring in between $40 million and $50 million in revenue this year. That translates to an average of $50,000 for each of its 850 local sites. But the average Patch site costs between $150,000 and $200,000 a year to operate, Mr. Armstrong told investors last year, or a total of $160 million.

=======

Obviously, this cannot continue for a long time, before the plug is pulled. Patch seems to be doing all it can to generate site traffic. The local region added a Marketing Manager, apparently in an effort to generate more advertising revenue. The changes in the past few months with so many polls (by their very nature are divisive), are apparently another avenue used to generate more site traffic. All the political articles are divisive and also generate traffic (how many unique eyeballs? Or, just the same ones repeatedly?). At any opportunity, local editors are pushing for more bloggers to create more interest, albeit fluff.

There is good reason to make changes to attract more traffic (read: more sponsor money).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/local-voices-hyperlocal-b_b_857782.html

I think readers, such as Gerry, should know that we're neither bloggers nor propaganda tools. We are professional journalists who take our jobs very seriously. Please don't confuse Local News with the Local Voices section of The Patch.

You're right Erin. The Patch is not owned by The Huffington Post, It's owned by AOL who also owns The Huffington Post. This information has recently been removed from the "About us" link at the bottom of the page.

No, it doesn't sound familiar at all. It sounds like you're a bit over imaginative.

It should be noted that the above is a blog entry in the opinion section of this website, and was written by a reader. The blogging feature of Patch is open to all readers, and those who contribute to this section are not paid for their contributions.

The Professional (aka the journalists who work for Patch) vs The Delusional

@Mike... Right now it's the Patch journalists vs. Hurricane Sandy. We're posting a lot of great stories on each Patch about what western Pennsylvania can expect from this storm There also is extensive coverage by Patch.com reporters on the East Coast. Hoboken, NJ (http://hoboken.patch.com/) and Long Beach, NY (http://longbeach.patch.com/) have local and in-depth coverage up right now.

Excellent work Mike, Erin and all of the Patch journos!

Excellent video, except that it is not specifically about this Commonwealth. the info on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is similar, but the work in Pennsylvania laid the foundation for the other states.

Why not! It means nothing so it could be "The Year of Faucets" or "The Year of Great Danes" or "The year of Salsa".

Someone once told me "There are fights worth fighting". This isn't one of them.

Ed and Oren, are you two really so poorly educated that you cannot see the difference? Have you no respect for the basics of this exceptional nation? Do you prefer the nanny state concept, which inevitably leads to tyranny? And to your editors, Oren, since when is communist propaganda part of your agenda?

Mr. Speigler:
Since you have such strong feelings on this subject, I'd suggest that either you contact YOUR state representative and insist that HE present such a resolution in the House, or alternately, run for office yourself, and YOU do it. The idea that the concept of fairness and impartiality has anything to do with this resolution is absurd. This started out as an attack on Mr. Saccone, and your being Mr. Levdansky's champion. Please get back on point so that we may have another opportunity to challenge Levdansky's fitness to serve us in the House.

What are we not seeing the difference of, Thomas?

Jon, your comment was deleted because it contained a defamatory statement. You are welcome to continue commenting on this thread, but please follow the Patch terms of use. Thanks.

Ed M, Do you really not see the differences between honoring Faucets and the Book which serves as the basis for this Commonwealth's prosperity and general well being? Of course it might be done, just as we have an official reptile and bird. This Commonwealth was specifically founded to allow Christians to practice freely. How can you compare that to Koran, which demands you obey the religious leaders without question? That imposes special taxes on non Muslims, and recommends enslaving non Muslims?

Thomas,

This "Year of the Bible" means nothing! It's the same as the mayor declaring 10/25 as "Pittsburgh Dad" Day. Not a fight worth fighting. It seems people want to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Ahh, now I see the reason for the vitriol for Rep. Levdansky. It all comes back to guns for some people.

JS: It is not guns, it is the right to defend.
If you ask any cop, he will tell you it is not his job to defend. It is the obligation of responsible people. Most responsible police prefer to have the honest folks prepared. They are when off duty.
If you choose not to be prepared, you choose to be a victim. That is why the laws that aim to remove self defense are modeled after those passed in early NAZI Germany. Some are almost a direct translation.

How does what the GA did affect you, Oren? Does it create any inconvenience? Monetary loss? Anything at all? I highly doubt it. And I'll ask again, do you believe in God, Oren?

Oren:
First, of the two religious books you proposed, the Pentateuch, the prophets, the Psalms, and the Proverbs of the Torah are included. Is there some other portion that you find is essential to the daily business of our Commonwealth? In short, does honoring the Bible not bring honor to the Torah?
As to the Koran, it is a book of anger, not peace. Bitterness, not forgiveness. More to the point, Wm Penn and the writers of the Constitution of this Commonwealth did base the laws and structure on the Bible. It seems the further we stray from it, the less we prosper as a whole. I suggest you study the art on the walls of the Supreme Court in Harrisburg. I also suggest you acquaint yourself with your subject matter, both the Commonwealth law, its history, and the Bible. I suspect you will be very glad to learn what you find.

Thank you for the correction. I am working not from intimate knowledge, only recollection. I am sure that on one of the uniforms there was a cross, because some rejected Christianity because it was there, or so I was taught. Here I may well be in error. Thank you again.

WW
What you say has been said for thousands of years. It is not new. There is an ebb and flow of understanding.
If you are not closed minded, I suggest a quick read by the great author C. S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity". You may remember him for the allegory series "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe"

I have read Mere Christianity and it is not a quick read. The Screwtape Letters is another excellent book.

Thomas,

The series is titled "The Chronicles of Narnia" which "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is the 1st book in the series.

Ed, You appear to have made up your mind in advance what I am like and what I think. This will probably be my last effort to explain. Yes there are laws that the Bible reveals. However, if that is all you see, you read it with a closed mind. That is the point of view of a person suffering from codependency. Codependent people tend to want a nanny government, since they want someone to fix their messes and to blame their problems on. From Genesis to Revelation the primary themes are trust and relationship.