Dear President-elect Trump


This comes from “Yale Climate Connections”; per the notes in 4th paragraph, I am sharing it with you all.


Dear President-elect Trump

A Wisconsin retired lawyer has drafted an “Open Letter to President-elect Donald Trump” that he hopes will be widely shared, possibly signed and sent along to the President-elect, and used in a petition to him.

Requesting anonymity, he says that with Trump’s election, his legacy will be based more on his performance in office than on the “understandable pride” he and future Trump generations will take in the “Trump brand” and business. He calls climate change “one of the most important issues” affecting the Trump legacy and says his actions on that issue “will last long beyond your days on this Earth,” a clear appeal to Trump’s keen interest in his brand/image and thus his legacy. He points to a Trump-owned coastal golf course’s having already taken steps to manage risks it faces in a changing climate.

Reconsidering some of his earlier climate change statements as a candidate “would be good for the country, for the world, and for the legacy of Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States,” said the letter writer, who describes himself as “a concerned citizen.”

The letter follows in full and can be copied and shared with others, or signed and mailed to the President-elect or used as a template or model in a petition, the letter writer said.


Dear President-elect Trump:

Re: Climate change and your legacy

“Before I get to the subject of this letter, I want to offer my congratulations on your successful campaign for president. The outcome on November 8, 2016, will likely stand like no other in the history of presidential politics. The election changed America and I believe it will change you, particularly as it relates to the subject of this letter.

Had you lost the election, your legacy would be the Trump brand. In that case, in the future when people would seek to understand who was Donald J. Trump, their search of the internet would reflect your impact in the various communities where you built hotels, resorts, golf clubs, etc. that bear your name. Your children, grandchildren, and the Trump generations to follow would point to these accomplishments with understandable pride.

Your victory on November 8 changes this. Your legacy will now be a matter of what you do during your term in office. Unlike your legacy as a builder, which will be fixed when you die, your legacy as president will reflect the actions you take during your term in office – actions whose effects will last long beyond your days on this Earth.

One of the most important issues that will affect your legacy as president is climate change. In the weeks leading up to the election it was reported that one of your properties – Trump International Golf Links Ireland – filed an application with local zoning authorities for permission to construct a seawall. According to that report, the application explicitly cited global warming and its consequences – increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century.

If you were to roll back the U.S. positions on climate change, the dangers noted by your resort application will most certainly ensue, along with severe population disruptions in the U.S. and elsewhere when millions are forced inland to higher ground to avoid the coastal flooding from currently projected major sea-level rise. In the future, when Americans and others around the world are enduring the miseries of unchecked climate change, they will likely look back and point to your actions as a significant if not deciding cause.

Post-election reporting has revealed your willingness to adjust some of the positions you took during the election – e.g., keeping some features of Obamacare. My hope is that you will reconsider your stated opposition to actions to halt or lessen the impacts of climate change. It would be good for the country, for the world, and for the legacy of Donald J. Trump, 45th president of the United States.

Okay, here’s the plan.


First, we need to continually remind President-elect Trump that he is the President of the United States and not chairman of the board.  He cannot appoint friends and cronies who will loot the United States Treasury for their own personal well-being.

He is the President of all the people but just as some of his supporters say that we need to support him, so too do we remind us that he must lead us all and not those who curry his favor or his temperament.  The Constitution remains in effect and he will take the pledge to preserve, protect, and defend it.  If he so desires to dismantle laws designed to protect people, if he so desires to dismantle laws design to ensure that this planet on which we live is safe to live on, if so desires to create and extend divisions between the people because of race, religion, economic status, gender, then he will have violated his oath of office.

And the second part of this plan is to remember that there is an election in 2018 and that every member of the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate are up for election.  Despite the efforts of the Republicans to strip individuals of the right to vote, to return to the days when only a select and privileged group of old white men with property could decide the future of this country, the people still have the right to vote.  Any member of Congress who works to insure the equality of all people, to maintain this planet as a safe place to live and work, and works to advance the rights of all people has nothing to fear.

But any member of Congress who seeks to limit equality, who does not care about this planet on which we live, or seeks to limit the rights of all people needs to be voted out of office.

The American Revolution was a long and sometimes frustrating period in the history of this country.  And these next few years promise to be as frustrating.  But when one thinks of the future, it is what we must do.

What does it mean to be a conscientious objector?


There is a movie currently in release that describes the life and actions of the only conscientious objector to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.  This individual felt that he needed to serve in the military during World War II but he also felt that his beliefs would not allow him to carry a gun or kill anyone.  After some difficulty, the Army allowed him to serve as a combat medic and it was in that role while on Iwo Jima in 1945 that he repeatedly risked his life to save the men of his unit.

When I was in college and faced with the possibility that I would be drafted into the Army, I contemplated seeking conscientious objector status.  But merely being opposed to the war and the draft was not sufficient conditions for such a status and I had to consider other options.

In the end, the effects of acne on my back was sufficient for me to be exempted from the draft and I went on to teach high school chemistry.

Now, before going on, let me point out that as the son and grandson of military officers, I was not, at that time nor am I now opposed to military service.  I am opposed to the draft because of its inherent inequality and the use of military power to solve a world problem should always be the last option and never the first.  Unfortunately, I do not believe that many people feel that way today, thinking that we should just bomb our enemies first and then seek a peaceful solution.

But more to the point, what does it mean today to object to something because it goes against one’s religious beliefs, what I believe to be the major point in considering conscientious objection.

When I was teaching college chemistry a few years ago, I had a Muslim woman in my class.  And as an article of faith, she wore the hijab.  I will be honest; this did not bother me but I was worried about the safety issue of having the fabric of the covering being close to any open flames.  But rather than make a big deal out of this, I simply conferred with her about being careful in the lab.  And that was the end of the discussion.

Later in the course, the question of ½-life and radiometric dating came up.  This was, for a few students, a problem because it was an article of faith that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.  And again, you have the problem of dealing with an article of faith and a matter of scientific fact.

In the end, my counsel to the students was because this topic was highly unlikely to play a factor in what they were going to do.  I simply suggested that they understand the mathematics behind the problem so they could solve the one or two questions I was likely to answer and any discussion about the meaning of physical evidence with relationship to issues of faith should be discussed within their faith community.

But there are situations where the article of faith is, in my judgement, faulty.  And to use faith as a reason for holding onto a false belief is wrong and a discredit to the faith in question.

There is in this country and around this planet a crisis of faith.  There is a need for faith in these times as there is a need for reason.  And the need for faith requires more than just blind acceptance but an examination of the reasons.  There are those who say that you can never question the articles of faith for it will destroy your faith.

But if you say to me that I must accept a statement of faith, then you must also show me why.  And you must allow me to decide.

Understand, there are some articles of faith that I do not question.  I trust that I understand what I believe and I know that I must work to make sure that is true.

But there are also articles of faith that I have discarded because it is clear to me that they were false in their basis and run counter to the basic tenets of faith.

In the end, you may claim that you cannot do something because it runs counter to what you believe.  But if what you believe is based on false assumptions or false teachings, then you will have a problem.

Saturday morning thought


Why have so much of our factory work been outsourced? Hint: It has nothing to do with trade deals.

But it has everything to do with cost. The American buying public doesn’t want to pay a whole lot for what it buys. Second, plant owners are more interested in the bottom line than they are the workers (there are exceptions).

Steel plants in the mid-west closed because it was cheaper to produce the steel overseas. Our plants were inefficient and dirty. If we were to reopen the closed steel mills in this country and use the same old processes as before, our air and water would get dirty (all one must do is look at the skies over Delhi to know what happens when you don’t have regulations to keep the air clean).

Ending trade deals by itself will not necessarily restore greatness to America.  But demanding quality goods made by workers paid a fair and living wage in conditions that are fair and equitable and by processes that do not damage the environment will.

And for the record, the evidence shows that this can be done.  There are sufficient examples that paying workers fair wages and having decent working environments does work and does not decimate the business climate.

The only ones who don’t want regulations that keep our air and water clean, who don’t want to pay workers fair and living wages, and prefer massive profits are the owners and the wealthy elite.  They will do whatever they can to keep their money and they, frankly, do not care what happens to the workers (as long as the workers keep them in power and wealth).

What Can We Do?


When we opposed the Viet Nam war and marched for Civil Rights, we were often told “my country, right or wrong”, often followed by “love it or leave it.” But the quote that so many people used was always incomplete. To paraphrase the complete quote, “I will support my country when it is right and I will work to make it right when it is wrong.”
 
And I remember that night in 1969 when I stood with my friends in Baldwin Hall protesting the inequity of housing in Kirksville, Missouri (much to the dismay of my parents and grandmother), staring out the door at those who would just as soon bash my head in as agree that there were inequities in life.
 
I made a decision a long time ago to follow Christ, not the Christ that promises wealth and prosperity to a select and limited few, but the CHRIST whose sacrifice gave freedom to all who seek Him. I knew it then and I know it now that the struggle isn’t over and that struggle must continue and I will continue to fight for what is right and just.
 
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

A Review of “The End of Protestantism” by Peter J. Leithart


The full title of this book is “The End of Protestantism – Pursing Unity in a Fragmented Church.”

The first thing that has to be stated is that I received my copy of this book free with the promise that I would review it and post the review.

When I agreed to review this book I presumed that this book in some way would address the idea of Christianity in the 21st century.  We live in a time of great moral uncertainty and, at a time when there needs to be a source of moral certainty, there is none.  The one institution that should be the source of moral certainty, the Christian Church, is both part of the cause of the moral uncertainty and is dying.

There may be a number of reasons why one can say that the Christian Church is dying but it would seem that the lack of a clear and concise statement of purpose by the variety of churches and the varying degree of interpretations offered by the denominations of the church are part of the cause.

In this book, Dr. Leithart suggests that unifying the church again will solve the problems.  And while unifying the church may solve its problems, I feel that the solution that Dr. Leithart offers fails to achieve that goal.  I will address this in later paragraphs but, for me, Dr. Leithart’s solution is to turn the clock back, back to a moment prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.

Second, Dr. Leithart’s solution is theological in nature and thus can only be considered by those with a sufficient theological background.  To be honest, as a lay person, I understand that there are differing opinions as to who may be baptized but I do not totally understand the theological basis for baptism and why that would cause splits in Christianity.  For the average lay person, they would simply say that they understand how baptism works in their denomination but not why it works that way.

To resolve such issues must take place within the laity as well as in the clergy and I am not convinced this is addressed in the book.

Second, while Dr. Leithart does address a number of issues that have are the basis for the many theological issues that have divided Protestantism over the years and arose from the Protestant Reformation, I don’t think he addressed what I would consider the major one and the one that lead Martin Luther to seek a reformation of the church.  And this singular issue was the corruption in the church and the effect that corruption had on the church.

For me, the central issue behind Luther’s efforts was the rationale for the issuance of indulgences as a means to bankroll the church in Rome while offering a false promise to the people who bought them.  This issue is still prevalent in today’s society with the prominence of pastors preaching what is called the “prosperity gospel”.

The second issue that Dr. Leithart does not address directly is the dominance of a particular conservative brand of Christianity that seeks a return to a rigid, authoritarian style of faith that fails to recognize that each individual is just that, an individual capable of making their own decisions.  And it is this point which is the primary cause for the failure of the church in today’s society.

The conservative church in today’s society seeks a church where the identity of the individual is second to the identity of the group and subject to the decisions of church authorities.  I am not saying that liberal church is succeeding in this, for while it may offer the individual the freedom to be the individual, it does not offer a framework under which the freedom can be successful.

My impression throughout the entire book was that Dr. Leithart was advocating a return to a more Biblical and perhaps conservative approach.  But in stressing the Bible, I feel two questions were not asked nor addressed.

First, which Bible would be the basis for any discussion?  Shall we use a more modern translation?  Or we will perhaps use the Bible as it was originally written, in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.  If we were to use the original versions, then will it be a requirement that all members of the church have a working understanding of these languages?

I believe that Dr. Leithart acknowledges part of the difficulty representing in deciding which Bible would be used by the way he treats denominational differences on other topics.  The rise of denominations within the Protestant Church arose from legitimate concerns about theological differences.  Unless these differences can be completely and totally acknowledged and there be a complete and total acceptance of all viewpoints, then unity will be a goal and a dream never realized.

And, second, where does science fit into this mix?  One of the great issues in today’s society is the view by many conservatives and fundamentalists that the view of Creation as expressed in the opening verses of Genesis is the only acceptable version of Creation (which tends to ignore the other versions expressed in the Bible and other societal versions as well as the acceptable scientific explanation).  There are also other societal issues expressed in the Bible that would run counter to current societal views; views as how slavery is viewed in the Bible or the role of women in the Old Testament, for example.

Dr. Leithart also expressed that thought that communion should be at least a weekly occurrence in the new church.  In the case of Methodism, this was also the expressed belief of John Wesley, who took communion on a daily basis.  That not all current United Methodist Churches do so today is more a reflection of the historical nature of communion and the requirement that only ordained clergy can offer communion than a decision by the pastor and/or congregation to forgo a weekly schedule.  In the early days of the church, when the ordained clergy where circuit riders visiting a church once every four to six weeks, weekly communion was not possible.  This is the basis for the schedule of communion in many churches today, at least in the United Methodist church, not some obscure or profound theological difference.

In the end, I applaud Dr. Leithart’s effort to find a way to unify the church.  But in a world that must move forward, I don’t think that moving backwards will work.  And while acknowledging and recognizing the differences that have generated the broad and diverse nature of today’s church, I don’t think that one can ignore the causes that lead to that diversification.

A new and unified church will be one that looks to the future with unity defined in terms of the goal we all seek to reach rather than the methods by which we reach that goal.

I Am a Citizen of Two Kingdoms, Are You?


If by chance, I had been born some one hundred years earlier than I had, in 1850 instead of 1950, I would probably have proclaimed that I was a citizen of Virginia (where I was born) first and a citizen of the United States second.  But one outcome of the Civil War was that people no longer necessarily saw themselves as citizens of the state first but citizens of a United States first (though there are some even today who hold onto those old allegiances).  So it is that I was born in Virginia, the son of an Air Force officer and the grandson of an Army officer.

And it should have been that I would have become an Air Force officer as well, choosing to follow in the family tradition.  But when it came time to make that choose, we were involved in the Viet Nam war.  Granted, growing up as I did, that should have had no effect on any decisions I might make about military service.  But with the Viet Nam war came the draft.

And long before I opposed the war, I opposed the draft.  When you are brought up in a system whose stated purpose is the defense of freedom and one of those freedoms is the freedom to choose, being told that you will serve in the United States Army and that you will being sent to Viet Nam, all without goes against the very notion of those freedoms and what this country stood for.

And as this country found its way falling deeper and deeper into the morass of Viet Nam, we were also engaged in a struggle for civil rights, another battle that came about because people saw the inconsistency and hypocrisy of saying that this was a nation founded on the notion of freedom and equality while denying both freedom and equality to many individuals, solely because of their race or creed (and even today, their sexuality).

And while this was going on, I was discovering that I was not only a citizen the United States but a citizen of God’s Kingdom.  At first, I didn’t understand that I was such a citizen or how that all came to me.  Quite honestly, I figured that access to God’s Kingdom came from what I did in the secular world and the more I did, the better my chances were that the door to this Kingdom would open for me.  Opposing the war and standing for civil rights were things that I had to do if I wanted to enter God’s Kingdom.

But I was wrong.  Doing what was and is right doesn’t necessarily open a door that had already been opened.  It was, of course, my acceptance of Christ as my personal Savior that had opened to this Kingdom.

And once I understood that I was living in and a citizen of God’s Kingdom, doing good wasn’t a pre-requisite but a requirement, the responsibility of citizenship.  And I also understood that there were times when the requirements for citizenship in God’s Kingdom conflicted with the requirements for citizenship in the secular world.

The challenge of any citizenship is to do what is right and when the requirements for citizenship in God’s Kingdom are in conflict with the requirements for citizenship in the secular world, then you have to follow the requirements for God’s Kingdom.  But when you live in both kingdoms, you have to be careful that you know which is which.  You had better make sure that what you feel are the requirements for God’s Kingdom are what you say they are and not what people say are the requirements.

When I began my journey with Christ I also began a journey that would lead me to become a scientist and a chemist.  And as I looked at the secular world around me, I marveled at God’s creation and I searched for the evidence that would allow me to understand that creation as well as marvel in its beauty and complexity.  But there are those today who say to me that one cannot be a citizen of the Kingdom if one does not blindly and totally accept the notion that this world and this universe were made in six days some ten thousand years ago.

Somehow, I have never accepted that idea of kingdom citizenship.  If anything, seeing the development of the universe in all of its complexities only makes the wonder that much more and pushes me to learn more about the world and the God who created not only the universe but me as well.

I know this today.  I seek answers to nature’s questions and in finding those answers I am able to better understand who I am and who God is.  And the better that I understand who I am and who God is, the more I need to help others to do the same.

And my job, my responsibility as a citizen of God’s Kingdom is to help those who live in the secular world, people who are hurt, physically, mentally, and spiritually.  I cannot enter God’s Kingdom and ignore the secular world.  I cannot enter God’s Kingdom and then try to shut the door that I never opened in the first place behind me.

I have a responsibility to live in two worlds, the world of God’s Kingdom and the secular world in which it resides.  It is not part of my responsibility to make others citizens of God Kingdom; it is my responsibility to help others find God’s Kingdom.  I cannot, as a citizen of God’s Kingdom, ignore the hurt, the sick, the naked, the lonely, the abandoned because someone told me that they were not worthy of being a member.  God has proclaimed that all are worthy and can come in if they want; I must help to remove that pain and anger that prevents that from happening.

Many years ago, I made decisions that allowed me to be the citizens of two kingdoms.  Did you?