Category Archives: Politics

What Should We Do?

Posted on by
Reply

Submitted for publication

I start with the note that the following are my thoughts and my conclusions.  I will also note that I made no use of any AI technology in the creation of this manuscript.

I offered some thoughts on the use of AI technology in “The Questions We Ask AI – https://godandnature.asa3.org/mitchell-questions-for-ai.html.   

I am writing this from the perspective of a chemist and chemical educator.  Those who are in other sciences may have episodes in their lives which echo what I present in this manuscript.

I was also a lay speaker/minister in the United Methodist Church and while that was not part of my teaching, it was part of my thinking.

Why do we “do” science? 

Is it because we can create new things?

Is it because we see a problem and we want to know the answer. 

Or are there other reasons for doing science?

No matter why we “do” science, we must also understand that while science may provide us with an answer, it cannot always answer all the questions we may pose.  We must also understand that the answers we obtain are not always going to be the answers we sought.

And we must also consider that results of our work may lead to consequences that we may not have anticipated when we began our research.

Early in my own studies, I was given the idea that science was neutral.  You “did” science to answer a question or solve a problem.  But science, nor any other subject, can never be neutral, for we use the information we have gained for our own purposes, whatever it may be and whether for good or evil.

What would you do if you discovered something that could make you rich beyond your wildest dreams?  What if it didn’t make you as rich as you might have wanted but it made society better?

In the fourth Star Trek movie, “Voyage Home”, Scotty gives Dr. Nichols the necessary information for making “transparent aluminum” in exchange for some plexiglass panels so the Enterprise crew can make a holding tank for the whales they will transport back to their time to repopulate the species and save the Earth.

Dr. McCoy had promised Dr. Nichols would become rich beyond his wildest dreams if he accepted the information.  He also asked Scotty if, in doing this, they were not changing history’s timeline.  Scott asked, “How do we know that he didn’t develop the process”, thus preserving the timeline.

We are beginning to see such questions arise from the development of AI (artificial intelligence).  While the possibilities for good seem endless, there are too many examples to suggest this approach still has a lot of work before we can rely on it – link to my AI paper. 

When I was still teaching in the classroom, I would spend the first couple of days discussing “The Processes of Science” (The Processes of Science | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com)).  I did this because most of my students did not understand how science worked and knowing how science worked was essential for success in my courses and in their later coursework and after they got out of school.

One year, during this discussion, one student commented that science had eliminated God from the equation (not his exact words but close to the point).  As many before him, this student pointed out that humankind had long created gods (lower case) to explain natural phenomena and as science developed and began to offer physical explanations for natural phenomena, the need for a god disappeared.  There was only a need for God to explain the material that science could not explain.  The student made the argument that science would ultimately find an explanation for everything and thus God would be eliminated.

I responded by saying that science could not explain the presence of good and evil in the world.  Were good and evil measurable quantities?  Or were they somehow encoded in our DNA?

If good and evil were part of a person’s DNA, what was society going to do?  That is a question that has haunted society since the idea of good and evil were first defined.  And history has shown that bad things happen when society has tried to make evil to the property of being a human being.  As I pointed out to the student, that was a path that I was not willing to go down.

If good and evil are not measurable quantities or part of our DNA, what then are they?  More to the point, what are we to do?

This is not about the concept of free will.  I believe that the choices we make are of our own volition, and based on what we have been taught, knowingly or otherwise.  From my own life experience, I know that, knowingly or otherwise, good and evil can be taught (see https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/its-not-about-a-piece-of-cloth/).

What then should we do with the discoveries we make today or will make tomorrow? 

When Alfred Nobel saw the consequences of his inventing dynamite, he created the Nobel Prizes. 

Do we limit what we teach to limit evil? 

Or do we focus on the good and hide the evil?  And who decides what is good and what is evil? 

Do we do something for the good that it provides now and wait to see what happens later?

Do we limit our work today because others may use the results for their own malevolent purposes tomorrow? 

Do we limit our work today knowing that it will make reaching tomorrow harder to reach?

Should we create courses that study the mistakes of our past (Agent Orange and Times Beach, MO; Love Canal, thalidomide) so we do not repeat those mistakes in the future?

Do we see the present and seek options for the future?  (see https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2023/03/23/alternative-energy-resources-reading-assignment/ for some thoughts about alternative energy resources).

And while the combination of good and evil may be the result of the “Law of Unintended Consequences”, we must still answer the question, “What should we do?”

We created a class of chemicals now known as “forever chemicals” that had a unique set of properties.  Now we know that those same properties are leading to disturbing environmental questions.  Should there have been more study concerning those environmental questions been completed before releasing the compounds for public use?

Whatever we do, we must first ask what we, individually or collectively, should do?

It should be noted that I have never watched an episode of “Breaking Bad.”  This is because episodes in my life echo much of the plot.

When I began studying chemistry, one major chemical manufacturer’s advertising slogan was “Better living through chemistry.”  Because of many factors, this slogan was changed.

Early in my chemistry career, someone approached me at a party and asked me if I could make them some LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide).  I replied that I could, but it would cost that person $250,000 with ½ up front and ½ upon delivery.  This person was shocked that I would put such a price tag on a reasonably easy synthesis.  To which I replied, if I made this compound, it would probably mean the end of my career, and I wanted to make sure that I was covered. 

What I didn’t tell him was that I really didn’t have the skills, the equipment, or a place to do the work.  This person went looking for someone else to make his life better through chemistry.

A few years later, I was in graduate school.  One morning, there was a note in every graduate student’s mailbox telling them that effective that morning, any materials or chemicals that they might need for their research required a signed note from their research advisor.  It turned out that one of the graduate students had been making amphetamines in his research laboratory.  Since it looked like a typical project, no one questioned what he was doing.

This graduate student was so proud of his work that he bragged about it at a campus watering hole.  The weekend before the memo, the DEA and other law enforcement agencies raided the laboratory, seized his materials and equipment, and arrested him.  His life got worse through chemistry.

In 1986, NOVA broadcast an episode entitled “The Case of the Frozen Addict” (https://archive.org/details/TheCaseoftheFrozenAddict).  It described the health concerns of several addicts who had become “frozen” after taking what they thought was heroin.  It turned out that it was another compound, synthesized by a local chemist. 

This chemist had taken advantage of a loophole in the drug laws by synthesizing a molecule with the properties of heroin but with a different structure.  Unfortunately, the material that was sold on the street was contaminated and the containments caused neurological problems, resulting in the patients being in “frozen” or catatonic state.

The patients were “cured” by treating them as if they were stricken with Parkinson’s disease and several research areas developed from this discovery.  The chemist was arrested on a tax charge (failure to declare income) rather than any drug-related charge (the drug he synthesized was legal under the laws of the time).  While he denied making the drug, it was evident that he was suffering from the same effects from the containment in the product he made.

While an examination of the by-products provided an insight into the onset of Parkinson’s disease and offered a possible pathway for a cure, it also illustrated the problems involved with the synthesis of drugs.

In 1938, Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn published a paper that described nuclear fission and the subsequent release of energy.  At that time, most physicists felt that this would allow nations to develop a weapon of immense destructive power.  Would they have felt this way if the winds of war were not blowing and getting stronger every day? 

Many of those who worked on the development of the first atomic bombs did so because they saw it as a problem to be solved and were appalled at the degree of devastation it wrought and argued against the further development of such weapons.

Others wanted to develop the hydrogen bomb with its increased destructive power, arguing that knowing that the devastation that would come from its use would prevent its use.  We have come to know this as Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD. 

Others sought to use the promise of unlimited energy in a more controlled manner and develop nuclear power as an energy source, saying that it was cheap and clean.

We have learned that even the peaceful use of nuclear power produces waste that would haunt society for untold generations.

Was the development of atomic weapons and atomic power truly worth the outcome? 

In 1909, Fritz Haber developed a method for converting atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia under high pressure and high temperature with a suitable catalyst.  Carl Bosch took the method Haber had developed and scaled it up to produce ammonia on an industrial basis.  Haber would be awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1918; Bosch would be awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1931.

The Haber-Bosch process (named after its inventors) requires high temperatures and high pressures. The cost of production is directly related to the price of fuel; as the cost of fuel rises, so does the cost of fertilizer.

And as we have become accustomed to using ammonia-based fertilizers, we have stripped our farmlands of natural sources of fertilizer. One reason for rotating crops is to allow land to recover from repeated usage.

That is why farmers plan soybeans.  Soybeans are one of the major agricultural crops of this country, not so much for what can be done with them (which is a lot) but for what they do when it is in the field. The soybean plant is one of the few plants that contain a bacterium that take nitrogen from the air and “turns” it into fertilizer.  However, we do not have a complete understanding of how this is done.

Are there other alternatives?  Do these alternatives come with hidden costs?

In 1914, Haber worked on the development of chemical weapons such as chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas, believing that the development of such weapons could limit or reduce warfare.  And the legacy of the development of chemical weapons during World War I remains with us today.

Regarding war and peace, Haber once said,

“During peace time a scientist belongs to the World, but during war time he belongs to his country.”  This was an example of the ethical dilemmas facing chemists at that time. (Novak, Igor (2011). Science: a many-splendored thing. Singapore: World Scientific. pp.247–316. ISBN 9814304743. Retrieved 16 September 2014 – from Wikipedia)

Do the needs of the country outweigh the needs of society?

Does loyalty to one’s country outweigh loyalty to one’s conscience?

I began this manuscript with the note that I was writing from the standpoint of chemistry and chemical education and my own faith.  These are areas that deal with the future.  The challenge I present to you today is to see how you will prepare your students for the future to maximize the good and minimize the evil.

Will We Have a Future?

Posted on by
Reply

This will appear in the June issue of the Fishkill UMC newsletter.

——————————————————————————————————–

What is your vision for the future?  Do you fear the future or look forward to what it may bring?

My great-great-grandfather John August Schuessler and his twin brother, Nicholas, came to America from Germany in 1840.  I do not have any information about why they came to America or why they moved from New Orleans, their point of entry, up the Mississippi River to St. Louis.  One can assume that they sought to escape the turmoil and war that dominated Europe at that time and seek freedom and a better life in America.

It is a story that most Americans understand.  Many, if not most, Americans have roots in Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, or South America.  They all came to America because they wanted to escape the troubles of their homeland and seek the freedom and opportunities that America has always offered.

Some 13,000 years before John and Nicholas came to America, another of my ancestors (we have members of the Creek Nation in our heritage) stood with his family and friends on the west end of the land bridge connecting Asia to North America.  All they saw was a wall of ice with an opening that suggested a pathway beyond the ice.  They knew nothing about what lay beyond that imposing wall of ice and it was probably simple curiosity that drove them to see what might be at the end of the corridor.

And while we know that many individuals made the passage across the land bridge before the ice melted and the land bridge disappeared under the waters of the Bering Strait, just as many or perhaps even more turned away, preferring the life they were living over a life in an unknown country.

Today we stand on the edge of an unknown country called the future.  It is a land clouded in the mists of uncertainty and the unknown.  We cannot see what might lie on the other side.

There are some today who feel that the future will bring Armageddon and the destruction of the world.  They do not fear the future because they have “been saved” and will be lifted to Heaven before the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (conquest, war, famine, and death) reek havoc upon those who are left behind.

But conquest, war, famine, and death are part of the human condition, and we have the capability to prevent them.  (We may not be able to prevent death, but we can work to improve the health of people, and we can seek research to find the cures for many diseases.)

To say otherwise is to say that you have no desire for the future and are, perhaps, only interested in your self-preservation.

There are those today who fear the future because the future brings change.  They have no vision for the future, and as the writer of Proverbs wrote, “those without vision will perish.”  The Message offers “if the people cannot see what God is doing, they stumble over themselves.” (1)

Heraclitus wrote, “No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he is not the same man.”  Those who fear the change the future brings feel they can stop the flow of the river.  But when you build a dam to stop the flow of the river, you must spend all your time and resources keeping the dam intact so that it will not break and flood the present, destroying all one tried to save. 

Our journey into the future requires that we have a set of skills that allow us to adapt to the changes that come with the future and faith that will carry us through.  My great-great-grandfather came to America with a set of skills that would allow him to create a new life in America and a strong faith in God (as evident by the number of Lutheran ministers among his descendants).

In 1962, Robert Kennedy said,

The future is not a gift: it is an achievement. Every generation helps make its own future. This is the essential challenge of the present. (2)

Albert Einstein once remarked,

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking.  It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” (3)

We cannot create a vision for the future when people try to take away the tools that will allow us to feed the people, find cures for the diseases that threaten the health of the people of the world(all the people and not just a select few), and remove the causes that allow people to seek conquest and war as the solution to the problems of society.

We cannot create a vision for the future when we, our children, and future generations, do not have the ability to develop the skills that will allow us to solve the problems that will come tomorrow (we can solve today’s problems but even those skills are stripped away).

We cannot create a vision for the future when secular and sectarian fundamentalists demand a society based on a single thought and obedience to those who have that one “true thought”.  The vision for the future will come when there are many thoughts working together.

During his visit to South Africa in 1966, Senator Kennedy said,

The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment [- – -]

Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is [ . . .] neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live. (4)

Today we stand on the edge of an unknown country called the future. 

To borrow a thought from Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, the future will either be the best of times or the worst of times.

The future will either be an age of wisdom or an age of foolishness.

The future will either be the epoch of belief or the epoch of incredulity.

It can be the season of light, or it will be a season of darkness.

It will either be the spring of hope or the winter of despair.

Everything lies before us but only if we step into the mists of uncertainty and the unknown.  To take those steps, we must develop the skills and abilities that will provide us with the abilities to solve the problems we encounter.

To take those steps, we must strengthen our faith so that we have the strength to move forward.

To take these steps, we must be a community of all people and not just a select few.

Notes

The Commencement Address I Might Give

Posted on by
Reply

Were I invited to give a commencement address this year, this is what I might say.

I graduated from Nicholas Blackwell High School in 1968.  Historians tell us that 1968 was a year that changed America.  But, as we were in the midst of that year, we did not know that and while certain events had occurred, we had no idea of what was to come.

1968 began with what has become known as the Tet Offensive.  We had been at war in Viet Nam since 1961 (though our involvement probably began as early as 1953).  The Tet Offensive was a coordinated attack by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces against population centers in South Viet Nam.

Up until January 1968, the people of the United States had been told that we were winning the war and perhaps with a few more men we could bring it to a successful completion.

This attack caught our military forces completely off guard and, while it was tactical defeat for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, it destroyed the image that we were winning this war.  After the Tet Offensive, public opinion began to shift from support for the war to a desire to end the war.

On March 31, 1968, President Johnson spoke to the American people and outlined a plan for a cease fire and the beginning of peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese.  He concluded his speech by announcing that he would not run for reelection as President.

President Johnson was elected in 1964 with one of the biggest election victories in the history of our country.  And with the mandate given to him by the people and with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, he set out to establish what he called “The Great Society”.

But as the cost of the war increased, both in terms of personnel and finances, his support evaporated, and he felt that he could not run for reelection.

Four days later, on April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in Memphis.  While his death reverberated across the nation, it was perhaps the loudest in Memphis, my hometown (Where Were You On April 4, 1968?).

This is what we knew as we walked across the stage on graduation night.  Still, as we walked across the stage that night and saw a world in disarray, we also saw a world of promise and opportunity.

But it was a view that was tempered by what we knew and the uncertainty that is always a mark of the future.

We knew that there would be an election in November, but we could not vote and express our thoughts on the direction America should take (the law that lowered the voting age to 18 did go into effect until 1972).

For the young men who walked and were 18 or about to become 18, the walk also meant that we were now faced with the draft and probable deployment to Viet Nam.

As we walked across the stage that night in Memphis, we did not know that Senator Robert Kennedy would be assassinated a few weeks later. 

We did not know that the Democratic National Convention would be marred by riots in the streets of Chicago and the Democratic Party would be almost destroyed by the riots and differences over the war.

We did not know that Richard Nixon would become the Republican candidate for President or that he would win a narrow victory over Hubert Humphrey in November.  We did not know that he would go on to reelection in 1972 with the greatest electoral victory in the history of the country or that his desire for an “imperial Presidency” would lead to the Watergate affair and his resignation in 1974.

And with all the trouble and turmoil, both what we knew and what we didn’t know, 1968 ended on an optimistic note when Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and William Anders would crew the Apollo 8 spacecraft to the moon and return to earth.  It was the first mission to leave the boundaries of earth’s gravity and marked a four-year period where we explored the moon.

Sadly, just as the Viet Nam war took away many young men and demanded more and more of America’s resources, it would take away our exploration of space.  Our exploration of the moon ended in 1972, and we have not been back since. 

We, as graduates in 1968, were beneficiaries of the science and math explosion that began in 1957 when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I.  The end of the Apollo program also marked the end of funding for science and math education.

I know that you didn’t expect a history lesson as part of the commencement address, but I wanted you all to have a framework for what lies before you as you shortly walk across this stage.

As you walk across the stage tonight, we are a nation technically at peace.  We have no combat operations taking place, but it is not a peaceful world.  It seems as if war has become the norm and we are the arms supplier to many nations.  I know that many will disagree with me, but we have allowed some of our allies to commit what would have been called war crimes in previous conflicts.  We have allowed innocent people whose only fault was to be in a war zone to be called terrorists to justify the actions of our allies.

We support dictators and tyrants because it serves our interests (or at least the interests of some politicians).  We, or some politicians, are quite willing to repeat the appeasement of Munich in 1938 that destroyed the nation of Czechoslovakia and laid the foundation for World War II simply because they and their minions place their own personal interests before the values of this country.

We say that we are the land of opportunity but call those who seek that opportunity criminals and terrorists.  While Richard Nixon may have secretly subverted the Constitution, we have watched politicians openly subvert the Constitution and other politicians turn a blind eye to the crimes being committed by officials of this country.

We no longer have a viable space program, relying on other countries to send our astronauts into space while turning our space program into a billionaire’s playground.  Just as the rich and powerful exploited the natural resources of this country, I do not doubt that today’s rich and powerful are seeking to find some way to exploit the resources of the moon, Mars, and the asteroids.

One outcome of the diminishing support for science and mathematics education in the 70s was that we now see a growth in disinformation and the apparent lack of discerning what is good and what is bad.  We are seeing the rise in AI technology which, while it seems to have some good, is also capable of generating more disinformation (1).

The dissent that marked 1968 and the years before did not just appear “out of the blue.”  It was, to the dismay of many, the product of an educational system that challenged students to find the answers for themselves. 

Today, many authorities seek to change that system, because they do not want to be challenged in what they do, and they do not want to explain why they feel that only certain individuals are worthy, and all others are not.  Theirs is a system, rigid and unbeing, with allegiance not to the ideas on which this country was founded but allegiance to an individual and his or her supporters.

This is not a pretty picture.  But there is one shining ray of light.  While we who graduated in 1968 could speak out (and many did), we had to rely on others to make the changes that needed to be made, for we did not have the vote.

You, the graduates of 2025, have the vote and that gives you a degree of power that we, the graduates of 1968, did not have.  We have seen in the past few years the results achieved when the youth of the world spoke out.

I challenge you today to speak out against the injustices that you see.  I challenge you today to speak out against the crimes being committed against people whose only crime is that they may have the wrong skin color or the wrong sexual orientation or the lack of money in their back account.

This may be the end of one part of your life, but it is also the beginning of a new chapter.

How you move out into the world that lies beyond this stage, how you respond to the needs of the neighbors, your friends, your family, and the people with whom you share this planet will determine how 2025 will be viewed by historians.

Through your works, your words, your thoughts, and your deeds, 2025 will be known as the year that changed the world.

Notes

 Encroaching Fascism Accelerates

Posted on by
Reply

Additional thoughts from my brother

Folks, it’s pretty obvious what they are trying to do.  Musk is ransacking the gov. dept. by dept. They are moving quickly to try to overwhelm us.  They will fire all those who are too scared to quit.  They will fill whatever is left with minions (I personally expect to see “loyalty oaths” required of all govt. employees), then trump will personally direct each agency to do whatever his angry, distorted mind can come up with.  Holy Moroni, I wish this wasn’t happening – but this is not a drill.  Trump wants to take over the country.

First and foremost, this is not a political problem, it is an American problem.  The issues that divide us will still be there after this over – we can deal with those things later.  Right now we have a country to save.  Since my last message, trump has seized control of the Kennedy Center.  (Then what?  Trump-approved art only?  How Soviet can you get?)  The Senate, cowards that they are, has voted to confirm every one of trump’s unqualified nominees.  (Interesting that Mitch McConnell has voted against these people.)

Musk has announced that “the Department of Education no longer exists” and that it will be “necessary to eliminate entire agencies.” This is criminal, period; I would call it traitorous, but Musk is a foreign national, not a citizen, which makes it all the more egregious. No one, not even trump, can empower one man to dismantle our government.  Remember that trump want us to believe he is empowered to do all these things; then remember that he isn’t.  Fortunately, it appears that the Judiciary is holding the line as best it can.  But the muskrats won’t rest so neither can we.

None of this, you will note, has anything to do with America, with the American people, or the price of eggs for that matter.  Trump is trying to make himself dictator – and he is being enabled by cowardly republican senators.  Our country’s democratic republic is hanging by a thread, but I believe we can still save it.  Some of the links below might help.

https://www.commoncause.org/  – Common Cause has been in the fight for decades.  Now they need our support as much as we need their efforts. 

https://www.aclu.org/ – The American Civil Liberties Union has also been leading the charge for a long time.  Now the situation is the most serious our nation has faced since the Civil War.  Please consider supporting the ACLU in its efforts to uphold the Constitution (which even Republican Senators are required to do) on our behalf.

https://solidarity-project.org/fighting-fascism-is-a-full-time-job/ – Don’t know anything about these people but the article is worth a read.

https://thesurvivalway.com/how-to-survive-fascism/ – The same topic from a survivalist perspective.

Okay, so you get the point.  Here is the Attorney General of Arizona issuing a scathing indictment of the trump/musk power play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrE0DOEcbRE

Also check out videos by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Adam Schiff, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders.

More ideas:

Own any stock?  Then send a letter to the board, the president, all the VPs for that matter, demanding that they take a stand against trump, musk, the destruction of our government and this encroaching fascism.

Buy any consumer products?  See above.

If you are in a blue state, call all your reps – local, county, state, national – and give them your voice of support.  They will very much appreciate it.  If you are in a red or mixed state, call them all.  Tell the repubs that you expect them to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution, that you are ashamed of them for their cowardice in refusing to call out trump for what he is trying to do.

I have sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune asking him to stand up to trump before it is too late, that America needs real leadership – and unity – right now, and that he is in a unique position to lead.  I’ll be sending a version to various media outlets. Next to write to:  Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.

Write!  Call!  Speak up! 

Be part of the solution.  Do something.  Join The Resistance.  Please forward as you see fit…tm

A Call to Arms; or, to pen, or voice, or . . .

Posted on by
Reply

The following is from my brother.  Consider what he writes and what he asks us to do.

To all:

America is being tested as it has never been tested since the civil war. We have elected a president, a convicted felon, serial liar, and fraudster, who has openly vowed to destroy our constitution and is in the process of destroying our government:

  • His trillionaire buddy is running wild through our government departments like a spoiled rich kid and now has access to our nation’s most sensitive financial systems.
  • He deliberately appoints unqualified – even dangerously so – people to critical posts who are beholden only to him, not to us.
  • He floats outrageous ideas – Gaza, Greenland, Gulf, and more – to distract us from the carnage he is inflicting on our government, daily, by shuttering entire departments, threatening recriminations, and trying to bully people into quitting.
  • He ordered the release of all the water from two reservoirs in northern California, saying it would be useful in fighting the fires further south when in reality all that water, stored for use in summer irrigation, has been wasted. Thus we see an example of how he intends to punish specific states.
  • He has removed the security details assigned to former officials who he deems disloyal, a chilling act in and of itself.
  • He is trying to purge the DoJ and the FBI and fill each with loyal minions.
  • His people are already talking openly about how to manipulate (or simply ignore) the Constitution, trying to lay the groundwork for his becoming a “president for life.”  If that happens, America would be no different than Oligarchic Russia.  Which seems to be the plan.

This is not insanity; it is a very cold, calculated attempt to destroy our system of government. It is up to us to stop him. All of us. This is not a political issue; it is an American issue. We have to come together as Americans and stop this Man Who Would Be King before the damage he does becomes irrevocable. So what can we do?

  • Listen to people like Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Adam Schiff (all have YouTube channels with excellent content); they speak the truth and have workable ideas.
  • Specifically, Bernie recommends contacting your Senator – especially if he or she is a republican – and making your voice heard, politely but firmly. He says they do react and respond to letters and phone calls.
  • I heard that the Senate switchboard ((202) 224-3121)) is flooded and their voice mail is full. Information for contacting US Senators by mail can be found at the Senate website. This is a good way to contact Senators in other states. (I’m not including links in this message because they often get stripped out by various levels of email security.)
  • Watch a YouTube video by Ezra Klein called “Don’t Believe Him.” Klein is a columnist with the New York Times and is one of the most intelligent people in journalism today. His take on all of this is as cogent – and urgent – as any I’ve found.
  • Join an organization. I belong to a union, also to Common Cause, and will be joining the ACLU, whose sworn purpose is to protect and defend the Constitution of this country. Consider People for The American Way, founded by Norman Lear. Find a group whose work you can get behind, give a little money if you can. In unity there is strength.

We are not alone. There is a rapidly growing resistance to trumpism. Just do an internet search.

I believe that republican Senators hold one of the keys here. It will only take a few to stand up and others will follow. Accordingly, I intend to write to every Republican Senator, starting with John Thune (Majority Leader), asking them to stand up to Trump and stand up for America. As in, now. No, they won’t listen to me, as a single person, but the more letters they get, the more they will begin to understand how Americans really feel. When it reaches a critical mass, when they believe that Trump is no longer winning public opinion, they will find their spines again.

It Can’t Happen Here is a 1935 dystopian political novel by Sinclair Lewis. Set in a fictionalized version of the 1930s United States, it follows an American politician who quickly rises to power to become the country’s first outright dictator (in allusion to Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Nazi Germany). It isn’t the best book Lewis wrote, but it is eerily prescient. Specifically, every move the trumpians make is right out of the Nazi playbook, up to and including The Big Lie. The reality is right in front of us, and if we don’t act America is going to be destroyed.

Reach out to your Republican neighbors and friends and open a dialog . No recrimination, no name calling, but honest questions and honest answers; did they really think this is what they were voting for? If they are hard-core magattes, move on. Contact your republican politicians at every level and let them know in no uncertain terms it is their responsibility to stand up to this encroaching fascism in this country, and that they will be held accountable if they don’t. This isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. This is about America. If we don’t come together and fix it we’re not going to have a country left.

Do you write? Then write an editorial for your local paper (if you still have one), or the paper in your state capital, an epub, find an outlet. Do you sing? May be time to channel a little inner Woodie Guthrie. Paint? Draw? Act? Compose? Preach? Choose a medium and send a message. When we raise our voices as one, we will be heard. Read “Letter From A Birmingham Jail”, or anything by MLK for more ideas and inspiration. Reach out to everyone you know and ask them to do the same.

I don’t know the final answer, but I do know this: we are Americans, and we figure out how to do stuff. So, let’s get with it. They aren’t wasting time; neither can we.

I’m interested in any thoughts you may have about this. Please forward as you see fit. Meanwhile, I’ve got a letter to John Thune to write.

Terry Mitchell

What Will You Do?

Posted on by
Reply

This will appear in the upcoming issue of the Fishkill UMC newsletter.

In one of my first messages as a lay speaker, I stated that I saw Jesus as a revolutionary and a radical.  Paul Schuessler, my cousin and patriarch of the Schuessler family (my grandmother’s family) was visiting my church that Sunday.  Paul was also one of the many Lutheran ministers in the lineage of the Schuessler family.  Afterwards, Paul chided me for being so bold in my pronouncements about our Savior.  Yet, a year later, he would state that Jesus was a revolutionary and a radical.  When I asked him about this change, he just commented that such a change is possible with Christ.

As I have written before, I grew up in the South during the 50’s and 60’s so the schools that I went to were segregated.  Even in high school in Memphis, TN, from 1966 – 1968, I, along with my classmates, experienced the effects of segregation.  I doubt that my classmates truly understood that because it was the system they grew up in.  However, because of the moves my family had made, it was a bit easier for me to see and feel those effects.

And those effects, while not as obvious, were still present when I went to college.  In 1969, the Black Students Association of NE Missouri State College (now Truman State University) organized a sit-in of the administration building in protest to the lack of off-campus housing for black students.  Because I knew those who were involved in the protest, I was inside the administration building in support of their efforts.  It should be noted that I was the only white student inside the building.  The campus ministers, including the Wesley Foundation minister, were busy helping negotiate a safe conclusion to the standoff between the students inside the administration and the administration officials and police outside.  Most white students were on the outside but not in support of their fellow students. (note 1). 

I went into the administration building that evening because the people inside were my friends, and one needs to stand by their friends at times of need. 

Later that same spring, I would come to understand that my acceptance of Christ as my Savior allowed me to receive God’s grace. And this meant that my life could never be the same again. As Methodists, we understand that our lives can never quite reach the level of perfection of Christ; but that doesn’t mean that we stop trying.

I work for justice, freedom, and good not because it will get me into heaven but because it is what is expected of me because I am a citizen of the New Kingdom (Note 2).

What did you do when you sat in the synagogue and heard Jesus tell the people of Nazareth that he come to preach the Good News to the poor, to pardon the prisoners, give sight to the blind and set the burdened and battered free?

What did you do when Jesus fed the multitudes, not once but twice?

What did you do when the people sought out Jesus to heal them, their family, and their friends?  Did you help the four friends who found a way to lower their friend through the roof so that Jesus could help their friend walk again?

What did you do when the people gathered outside Jerusalem and pooled their resources so that all could share?

What did you do when Jesus turned no one away?  What did you do when Paul suggested that the message Christ gave was for all and not just a few?

What did you do when the early Methodists created the first credit union so that people could pay their bills instead of being thrown into debtors’ prison?

What did you do when the early Methodists created the first health care clinics to provide health care to the many people who did not have access to health care?

What did you do when the early Methodists created the first schools so that children could learn to read and write?

What did you do when the early Methodists opposed the sale and trafficking of human beings?

Because the early Methodists sought to change society and help those that society considered unworthy, they were considered threats to the organized/established church.  Our spiritual ancestors were considered outsiders and troublemakers because they sought to bring the message of the Gospel to the people!

Why was there no bloody revolution in England when there was one in France at the same time?  Some historians believe that because of the efforts of the Wesleyan Revival, England did not experience a bloody revolution like the French revolution of the same period (note 3).

Some years ago, I used the phrase “vision with action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world” in a message.  (from “What’s The Next Step?”)

Now, as it happened, eight months later I was at that same church and I used a phrase that Willie Nelson said, “one person cannot change the world but one person with a message could.” As I recall, he pointed out that Jesus and the message he carried on the back roads of the Galilee was one prime example. (from “What Does Your Church Look Like?”)

Two thousand years ago, we were given a vision for the future.  Some two hundred and fifty years, a mission was begun to make that vision possible.

John Wesley first expressed the vision of the church and its need to minister to the community in this interchange with Joseph Butler, Bishop of Bristol:

Butler – “You have no business here. You are not commissioned to preach in this diocese. Therefore, I advise you to go hence.”

Wesley – “My lord, my business on earth is do what good I can. Wherever therefore I think I can do the most good, there must I stay so long as I think so. At present I think I can do the most good here. Therefore, here I stay.” (Frank Baker, “John Wesley and Bishop Butler: A Fragment of John Wesley’s Manuscript Journal)

And when the church becomes a part of the community, its impact is wide. Bishop Earl Hunt, who served as President of the United Methodist Council of Bishops spoke of the impact of the church in a community.

“. . . whenever the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is turned loose in a community to help human beings and meet their needs and lift up the name of Jesus Christ, that church becomes indispensable in the community.”  (Pages 173 – 174, New Life For Dying Churches! Rose Sims) (note 4)

We, the people of the United Methodist Church in the 21st century, see a world that is not unlike the world of Israel two thousand years ago or England some two hundred and fifty years ago. 

We see poverty and the widening gap between the classes; we are beginning to see health care denied because people cannot afford it; we are seeing the oppression of many simply because they seek freedom, or they are somehow different.

What will you do?  Will you stand aside?

Or will you remember what those who came before you did, and do the same?

Notes

Note 1        see Side By Side | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/side-by-side-2/) for information about this protest

Note 2       from “The Changing of Seasons” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/the-changing-of-seasons/)

Note 3       Notes on the Methodist Revival and the non-English Revoltuion are in Generations | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2018/06/23/generations/)

Note 4       from The Family Business | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/the-family-business/)

A Path of Science and Faith

Posted on by
1

This is my contribution to the 2024 Religion and Science weekend, sponsored by the Clergy Letter Project, and Boy Scout Sunday. It will also appear in the upcoming February issue of the Fishkill United Methodist Church newsletter.

——————————————————————————————–

I had no idea when I began my journey with Christ back in 1965 where it would lead or what I would do.  It wasn’t until I drove across the plains of north Missouri back in the 1990s that I was reminded that I had entered a covenant with God and that I needed to fulfill my part of the covenant.  I then began exploring ways to become a lay speaker/servant and ultimately a lay minister (A Reminder | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/a-reminder/).

Similarly, when I choose to become a chemistry major in 1966, I had no idea what I would do with the degree.  To be honest, on the day I graduated from Truman State University, I thought that I would be going to graduate school at the University of Memphis.  But I received a phone call from a local school district shortly after graduation and, a few hours later, sign a provisional contract to teach chemistry and physical science.  This diversion from graduate school to teaching would provide the impetus for my later graduate studies and the completion of my doctoral studies at the University of Iowa.

In one of my classes at Iowa, we discussed the issues of creationism and intelligent design and the impact these issues would have on science education.  This was not the first time I encountered these issues.   

In 1980, the Missouri state legislature was preparing to pass a bill that would have told biology teachers how to teach biology, by including creationism in the discussion of evolution.  I suppose I could have ignored this because I only taught chemistry, but one must be careful when individuals who do not have any knowledge of the processes of science (“The Processes of Science”) try to tell science teachers what to teach and how to teach it.  I was prepared to resign if the law passed and was surprised to find that my department chairman, a devout Southern Baptist layman and biologist, was also going to resign (No one told me: Thoughts on the relationship of science and faith | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2021/07/23/no-one-told-me/). 

I don’t believe that I have ever had a conflict with my faith and my science background.  I accepted the idea that God created the earth and the heavens, but I never accepted the idea that it was done in six days.  And the more I studied things, the more I began to see the hand of God present in creation.

And as my studies and work in the areas of faith and science began to converge (“The Confluence Between Religion and Science” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2019/02/06/the-confluence-between-religion-and-science/) I began to discover two things.

First, those who argue for a science only or faith only approach to life do so only for their own power.  Each group seeks to impose its view on the people as the only acceptable view.

The second thing I discovered was that many of the individuals that I studied in chemistry and physics were men of God as well as men of science (A Dialogue of Science and Faith | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/a-dialogue-of-science-and-faith/).

It is entirely possible that I could or would have come to Christ without having been a Boy Scout but that is clearly a question for another time and place. Besides finding a path to God through the God and Country award, I also began to develop an appreciation for the world around us. I cannot call myself an environmentalist but clearly, having seen the beauty of the Rocky Mountains when camping with my troop and seeing the physical wonders of this country and then seeing the awesome view of galaxies far away, I know that there is a Creator out there. And if there is not a Creator, then how was this all done?  (“Removing the Veil” | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/removing-the-veil/)

I did not need to know that Boyle and Priestley were men of God to understand their work and what it meant to me as a chemist.  But knowing that their work helped them better understand how God works is also true for me.

Can I use the skills that God gave me (allowing me to use other words from Genesis that state that you and I were created in His image) and begin to work out the mysteries of the universe, from the moment of the Big Bang to the present day and perhaps far into the future?

The author and activist Stephen Mattson wrote.

Some people mistakenly believe that trusting in God requires them to distrust science, history, art, philosophy, and other forms of education, information, and truth.

But intelligence is a friend of faith, and ignorance is its enemy.  God loves knowledge and truth, and any faith that objects to either is terribly misguided.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote,

Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge that is power; religion gives man wisdom that is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary.

In a world that is fast dividing, it is the joint study of faith and science that will be one means of bringing people together.  For as science brings us knowledge of the physical world, faith brings us an understanding of the spiritual world and together we can bring the world together.

What Shall We Do?

Posted on by
Reply

Here is my contribution to the November 2023 issue of the Fishkill United Methodist Church newsletter.

In view of certain world events and with Veterans’ Day this month, I want to offer some comments about what we, as Christians, can do concerning war.

My grandfather, Colonel Walter Lee Mitchell, Sr., kept a diary of his time while serving in the Army from 1918 to 1944.  The first part of the diary deals with his time in France as part of the American Expeditionary Force during World War I; the second part deals with his Army service and travels with his family following the war.

While in France he served as the adjutant for the 34th Infantry Regiment, which was part of the 7th Division.  While the Division did not see combat as a unit, parts of the division, including the 34th Regiment did.  Based on information I gathered from other sources, it appears that my grandfather used his diary to draft his notes for the official reports.

As such, his thoughts about the nature of war are rather limited.  On October 11, 1918, he noted that a member of Company C was killed.  In his diary entry for October 4, 1918, he wrote “We are no longer strangers to gas”, referring to the use of chemical weapons by the Germans.  He also noted when American forces used gas as a weapon.

Perhaps the one thing that was a constant was his acknowledgment that he was far from home and his wife, my grandmother.  They were married in January 1918, approximately three months before he left for France.  He longed to receive her letters and noted the days that he received them.

On Christmas Day, 1918, Colonel Mitchell wrote the following in the diary,

December 25, 1918 – CHRISTMAS DAY in a foreign land 5,000 miles from home.  Nothing much to do, it is hell.

Perhaps Colonel Mitchell was channeling William Tecumseh Sherman who on several occasions said that war “is a terrible thing”, “is cruelty and you cannot refine it” as well as “war is hell.”).

He would return home in 1919 and serve until 1944, retiring as a Colonel.  My grandfather was one of the fortunate ones.  He came home from two wars to live in St. Louis with his wife and experience the birth of three grandsons.  He would die at home in 1955 during a period of relative peace. 

My father was commissioned as an officer in the Army Air Corps in 1943, following his graduation from Cornell University.  He served in the Southwest Pacific theater of operation with the 5th Air Force.  While he served in combat zones, I do not believe that he saw actual combat. 

With one exception, he never discussed his experiences during World War II.  The only time he volunteered any information was to confirm the briefing he had received just prior to the proposed invasion of the Japanese mainland.  It was estimated that Allied casualties would be over a million; it was this information that convinced President Truman to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

My father served as an officer in the United States Air Force for just over twenty years, often stationed at bases that were prime targets for Soviet missiles.  My father would also die at home in 1995 in a period of relative peace. 

My mother was a secretary in the War Department (now the Defense Department) when she traveled to post-war Germany.  To the best of my knowledge, she never discussed the devastation and destruction she saw there.

What I do know is that while my parents disapproved of my anti-war activities, my father was visibly relieved when I failed my draft physical in 1971 and my mother told Petra Mitchell (her granddaughter and my niece) that she was glad that neither my two brothers nor I were drafted.

Other families were and are not so lucky.  Their fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters are sent off to war, even if it is not called a war.  Some die in faraway lands; others return home, some with visible wounds, many with invisible wounds.

They understood what the Greek philosopher Herodotus wrote,

Nobody is stupid enough to prefer war to peace.  Because in times of peace children bury their parents, whereas, on the contrary, in times of war parents bury their children.

I shall not presume to know what either of my parents or my grandfather thought about war.  My grandfather most certainly experienced the effects of combat.  Some of the pictures that Colonel Mitchell collected show the devastation and destruction of property and human life, but he very seldom wrote about those horrors.

Neither my father, who saw the destruction and devastation of Japan when he was stationed there after the war, nor my mother, who saw similar devastation and destruction when she was in Germany after the war, said anything about what they saw or experienced. 

We find that our parents, our siblings, and our friends are not willing to talk about their time in combat or combat zones.  Perhaps there is something about war that takes away the glamour.

Following the Battle of Fredericksburg, General Robert E. Lee wrote to his wife and said, “It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.” (Letter dated 13 December 1862).

But I am afraid that some 160 years later, we have grown fond of war as we see it as the solution to our problems, never realizing that war only creates conditions for future wars.

War is certainly not glamourous, and it is perhaps the one activity that does not discriminate between the old and the young, the rich and the poor, sinners and the righteous.  War feeds on our fears and our anger.

When a parent loses a child, do you not think that they would like to see another parent lose their children?  And how must children feel when they lose a parent, sibling, or friend?  Do you think that they will not want to find some way for another child to lose their parents, siblings, or friends?  And thus, each generation continues the process of war.

And when we oppress people, because of their economic status, their race, their gender, or their lifestyle, does this not allow the conditions for war to fester and grow?

The patch worn by members of the 34th Infantry Regiment shows the Cross of Lorraine (the part of France where they were stationed).  The area of Alsace-Lorraine lies between France and Germany and has been the target of wars between the two countries.  How many other areas of land on the planet are the focus of conflict between groups of people?

We have turned war into a reason; we say that we must fight to ensure our security. Yet, not too many people think we are safer or more secure today as compared to a few years ago. We see terrorists around every corner; we have bought into the argument that we must give up our rights and freedoms so that we can control terrorism.

Yet terrorism grows in the presence of fear. Terrorism grows in the slums of the world, where those without the necessities of life are taught to hate those who have them. And we do nothing to remove that cycle of violence and hate. 

In his speech to United Nations on 25 September 1961, President John Kennedy said, “Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.” 

So, what do we, as Christians, do?  The answer was given to us in the Nazareth synagogue some two thousand years ago.

On that day some 2000 years ago, in the Nazareth synagogue, When Jesus stood before his family, friends, and neighbors and began his ministry, he noted that He had come to heal the sick, bring sight to the blind, and free the oppressed.  Are those not the same conditions that bring war?

We need to find ways to bring equitable healthcare to all people, not just a select few, not just to those who side with us.

We need to educate all the people of the world so that we are not blind to the problems of the world and are able to solve them.  And again, we must do this for all, not just for a few or those who side with us.

We need to set the prisoners free, free from the hatred that fuels war, free from conditions that allow people to seek violent solutions, free from the prison walls of economic status, race, gender, and lifestyle.

While there are some who call themselves Christian, they do not show the love that has been shown to them.  As children we memorized John 3:16, “for God so loved the world that He gave us His only begotten son.”  Are we not to show that same love to all the people of this world, even those who may hate us and seek our destruction?

The challenge is before may seem impossible and we may see it as beyond our capabilities.  In his commencement address at American University on10 June 1963, he said, “ Our problems are manmade–therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable–and we believe they can do it again.

It is our time to show God’s love to all the people of the world; it is our time to fulfill the goals that Jesus laid out before us some 2000 years ago.  It is time.

We Are Destroying Our Future.

Posted on by
1

For those who do not know, I am the son of an Air Force officer and the grandson of an Army officer.  I spent most of my pre-college days living on or near Air Force Bases, many of which were prime targets for Soviet missiles (if there was to be a third World War). 

A friend of mine who was married to an Air Force officer told me once that she had been briefed that, in the event of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, the western portion of Missouri (where she lived at the time) would be dead within a few moments (because of the Titan II missiles and SAC bomber bases nearby) and the remainder of Missouri would probably be dead from the radioactive fallout within the week.

After a briefing at the beginning of his presidential term, President John Kennedy was told that our response to a Soviet attack would be a full and complete response with all our nuclear weapons, resulting  in the deaths of countless millions.  As he left the briefing, President Kennedy is supposed to have said to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, “and we call ourselves a civilized nation.”

The only thing that kept the Soviet Union and the United States from going to war during the 60s was the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (appropriately named MAD).  Fortunately, for our generation and the ones that followed, this doctrine kept the world at peace, albeit an uneasy one.

Today, while the destruction of the world using nuclear weapons may not be as real as it seemed in the 1960s, it is still a possibility.

We still see violence as the answer to violence.  But violence begats violence. 

From the beginning of humanity, we have sent our children off to war.  If our children are killed on the battlefield, who will be the future?  Remember what the Greek philosopher Herodotus once wrote,

Nobody is stupid enough to prefer war to peace.  Because in times of peace children bury their parents, whereas, on the contrary, in times of war parents bury their children.

And yet, that is what we do.  How can there be a future when there is no one to live in it?

And what of those who come home wounded, sometime physically, sometimes mentally?  It seems, based on our budget priorities, that we tell those who return from the battlefield to take care of themselves for we, as a society, often do not.

We have a budget where we spend more on the military-industrial complex than we do on education and development.  When you spend more on destruction than construction, there will come a time when we will not be able to rebuild this country. 

There is a feeling in this country that the budget for the military-industrial complex cannot be touched or questioned.  Funding the military-industrial complex is a way for legislators to tout their patriotism and ensure their own power and position.  Are not greed and the seeking of power other ways of destroying the future?

When the Apollo 11 mission was launched, there were those who wanted the money spent on the Apollo program to be spent on other social programs.  But this was at a time when the Viet Nam War was stripping our financial and personnel reserves at a much faster rate.  And when it came down to dollars, the Apollo program was cut because the war was becoming too expensive.

And this continues today – we fund the military-industrial complex and cut the funding for social programs.

It is not just the countless and seemingly endless wars that continue to destroy our future.  A greater threat may be our own ignorance. 

We are neglecting this world in which we live, ignoring the damage we have done to the environment, ignoring the sides of change.

We have ignored the health of this planet, this world in which we live, for too long.  Despite the claims of some, climate change is real and, if we do not act immediately, it will not be nuclear war that destroys our future, but our own ignorance.

In a world where more is spent on destruction than construction, where will get the individuals who will rebuild our country?  Where will the spark of creativity come from when monies for creativity and construction are the first to be cut.

It is my opinion that the rise in pseudo-science, climate change deniers, and anti-vaccination proponents can be attributed to a decrease in the funding for schools.

We are neglecting our youth when it comes to their education.  Our schools no longer focus on creativity and free thought, choosing to or being forced to teach the “answers in the back of the book” and not even considering how to solve problems that have not been discovered.

Perhaps because they fear the future, there are those who would prefer that our children and youth not find out who they are but rather conform to a particular set of rules.  But each person is unique, and we have seen what happens when we try to make people conform to one single set of rules.  Those who push for conformity in society do so to hold onto their power and position.

Conformity to a single set of rules ignores and increases the inequalities of society.  For there to be a future, we must be a society of equality, not inequality.

There is a moral factor involved in all of this.  The church today seems rather silent on the issue of war, education, and equality; in fact, many churches seem to want war, no education and inequality, again because it would increase their power and position.

The numbers tell us that people are moving away from the church because it tends to support the status quo.

But it must be the church which speaks out if we are to build the future, not destroy the future.

If we are to build our future, we must, individually and collectively, speak out against a society that places the military-industrial complex before the needs of the people. 

We must, individually and collectively, speak out against an educational system that does little to prepare our children and youth to solve the problems of the future, the problems that are not in the back of the book.

We must, individually and collectively, speak out against a religious system that moves us further from God’s Kingdom through the encouragement of repression and inequality.

The call to build the future is a call that must come from the church.

“I Made a Mistake.”

Posted on by
3

Published in the April 2023 issue of the Fishkill UMC newsletter. Will be published in the Spring 2023 issue of “God and Nature.”

————————————————————————————————————————–

In April 1970, I was a junior at Northeast Missouri State College (now Truman State University).  After a rather tumultuous sophomore year and a change in the academic calendar at the beginning of my junior year, I was beginning to feel things were smoothing out.

But I made a mistake.  The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970, and I ignored it.  In retrospect, I probably should have paid more attention. 

When I began writing this piece, my memories told me that nothing happened on campus. 

But thanks to Dan McGurk, one of the reference librarians at Pickler Memorial Library, I discovered that that it was an announced event, that the town of Kirksville had issued a proclamation in support of the day, and there had been a meeting of some 300 students that focused on the topic.

But my mindset was otherwise.  My academic plan was almost back on track, I was in a relationship, and I was involved in a chemical research project.  Things were looking pretty good.  And we still had the Viet Nam war to worry about (the Kent State Massacre would occur twelve days later, on May 4, 1970).

What I did not realize was that the movement that began that day was a continuation of what I had learned and done while in the Boy Scouts.  Now, I do not consider myself an environmentalist but, as anyone associated with Scouting will tell you, you cannot be involved in Scouting and not come away with an appreciation for the environment.

But one does not have to have been a Scout or be currently involved in Scouting to have an appreciation for the environment.  At the beginning of Creation, God charged humankind to take care of the earth and all that was in it (Genesis 1: 26 – 28).

For a long time, humankind held the view that the charge in Genesis to be good stewards of this world meant that we could do anything we wanted.  We dumped our trash in the streams, the rivers, lakes, and oceans, confident that there was always going to be fresh water left over.  We filled the atmosphere with noxious gases, confident that the atmosphere was big enough to diffuse the pollutants.

In our greed and ignorance, in our lack of care for the welfare of this world, we have sown the seeds of our own destruction.

Perhaps it will not be through nuclear war or some other violent process, but we are beginning to see that if we do not change our ways right now, we will destroy this world and ourselves.

The writers of the Old Testament emphasized that this world was God’s creation and that we must answer to Him when it is done. 

In Deuteronomy, God reminds us to look at what He has done for us.  At the end of the Book of Job, God reminds Job (Job 38: 1 -18) that it was He who was responsible for the creation. 

That alone should remind us of the role science has in our daily lives, for it is through science that we find the ways to take care of this world and those with whom we share its resources and space. 

We are beginning to see that what we once thought were unlimited resources are beginning to run out. 

We are also becoming aware that our continued use of fossil fuels and the emission of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) have an effect not only on the physical world, but on those who live here as well.  Climate change is not just a science problem; it is a social and economic problem as well.  As the climate changes, this forces changes, welcome or not, on the people of this world. 

We have made great strides in reducing air and water pollution, but we still seem to have a cavalier attitude towards the materials we use to maintain the style of life we seem to desire.

There are solutions to the climate change problem.  There are things that one can do, individually and collectively, to counter the effects of climate change (see How Four Churches Flourish by Caring for Creation – Science for the Church – https://scienceforthechurch.org/2022/10/11/how-four-churches-flourish-by-caring-for-creation/?mc_cid=4c1d68fa2f&mc_eid=a90f1704f9) for a discussion on what individual churches have done.

But is our concern for God’s creation limited to just the physical world?  In Matthew 5: 21 – 29, Jesus speaks of the Ten Commandments and our relationship with others.  Our concern for the Earth must include how we care for those with whom we share this planet.

The solutions offered to offset climate change may not be as optimal as one would like.  It does no good to develop a solution that generates its own source of problems.  (When I was teaching introductory college chemistry courses, I would ask my students to consider the pros and cons for various alternative energy resources – see Alternative Energy Resources Reading Assignment | Thoughts From The Heart On The Left (wordpress.com) – https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2023/03/23/alternative-energy-resources-reading-assignment/). For example, there is a push to develop electric cars, but the batteries require minerals that must be extracted from the earth.  And the extraction of those minerals will impact those who live on the lands that will be mined.

The future belongs, as it always has, to the next generation.  But it is our generation that must teach them how to see the future.  But we have lost our ability to imagine and envision the future, preferring to live in the present and teach for the moment.

We have become quite good at answering the questions when the answers are in the back of the book. 

The recent report on the state of the climate tells us that we have time to fix the problems but to do so requires other changes as well.

We will not find the solutions to climate change, what it is doing to this world and the people who live here, in the back of the book because that book hasn’t been written yet.  And unless we change our mindset about the present educational process, that book will not be written.

We once taught people how to think analytically and creatively.  And this allowed us to go to the moon and begin to see what we were doing to this world.  We must return to this style of teaching.

Fifty-three years ago, I made a mistake because I wasn’t paying attention.  But I recognized that I had done so and have worked to correct that mistake.

Today, we have heard the voices of the modern prophets warning that we are about to make the same mistake, of ignoring the signs that we have not cared for the world that has been our task since the beginning days of humankind.    Unless we change what we are doing, unless we find new and innovative ways to meet the needs of society without endangering society, we will find that our vision and the vision of the next generation will be dark and society will come to an end.

I trust that we will not make that mistake.