Richard T. Fowler

Offering Christian and Christ-centered commentary about climate- and energy-related issues.

Paul on Judgement

“But he who is spiritual judges all things”

I Corinthians 2:15

“Let the prophets speak two or three , and let the other judge”

I Corinthians 14:29

“For the love of Christ constrains us ; because we thus judge , that if one die for all , then were all dead : and that he died for all , that they who live should not henceforth live for themselves , but for him who died for them , and rose again .”

II Corinthians 5:14-15

Advertisements

3 responses to “Paul on Judgement

    • Richard T. Fowler 2015/05/02 13:20 at 13:20

      Greetings Oliver,

      I deliberately haven’t been back there since . I decided to give people 24 hours to ‘get it out of their system’ , so to speak , and then go back and see what’s there . So it’s hard to know exactly what you’re looking for at this moment . But , with that said , I could certainly state that a large , organized political movement is required to put pressure on Tea Party and other Republicans to go much further than just saying there’s fraud or bad science , but to also begin the process of getting these people fired and hopefully find some way to claw back at least some of the money they’ve been paid . Plus , we need concrete support from the Congress in order to pursue our own lawsuits against government agencies . Only if the courts perceive that one (or both!) of the other two branches are taking a strong position against the fraud , will they possibly be fair in their rulings .

      The Left has a massive and highly organized political movement for pushing their office-holders and other leaders to toe the line on climate policies . What do we have in response ? Not much beyond what I said , which is basically a lot of media-savvy commenters and some occasional high-ticket conferences (the latter of which are perceived totally differently by most people than the way you and I perceive them — i.e. , opaque , inaccessible , and largely irrelevant .) As I said , it doesn’t necessarily hurt , but it’s just not enough at this juncture .

      We have a rare opportunity right now to mount a major movement to effect change in these policies . And the greatest impediment I perceive right now comes not from the Left , but from our own quarters : a great percentage of us (not you!) openly state that they despise this sort of activity . In other words , they are implying that they simply don’t care whether we make any further progress . But I can tell you from personal experience that we’ve opened a window of public good will within the last 6-12 months , and if we don’t exploit it quickly and as professionally and seriously as possible , it will close! A lot of the folks who comment over there are starting to go in the opposite direction , suggesting numerous times that it’s up to the public to come to their senses and take some kind of mass action , and if they don’t , then so be it . As a former political activist , I know that there is more that can be done , but everyone who , like you and me , has some awareness of the scope of the fraud will have to pitch in and volunteer their time , including regular meetings . The closest thing I’ve seen to that is that Tony seems to appreciate inviting people to meet him at bars or taverns , but of course a serious political movement has got to move beyond such places if it wants to succeed .

      I would very much appreciate people taking this advice I’m offering seriously , because these things cost money and most of us don’t have a lot of money like Ross Perot to self-fund a nascent movement . So , given that fact , without a serious commitment of time by at least a few people , there is no way of getting something real off the ground . Moreover , due to the direction my life has taken in the last 15 years , I am not in a position to be the one kick-starting something like this . I can be as full of “advice and consent” as people can tolerate , but I simply cannot be a major player . I certainly would meet with anyone who is interested in conversing with me . So far , all I’ve done is try to get people on board with the idea of a single demonstration at Penn State , and I only got one supportive comment (from Hugh K , who I believe to be British) , and he couldn’t make it , which is understandable if he’s in the UK . Plus I have tried a couple of times to get people to concur with me that paper petitions are an essential part of an effective campaign , but I seemed to really get the cold shoulder when I said that . People today don’t seem to understand that a large paper submission of petitions (versus online) is taken much more seriously because A) it shows much more effort , which shows how seriously people are taking the issue , and B) it has a degree of legal validity which online petitions , e-mails , and letter-writing campaigns lack , and C) because if we can demonstrate the ability to crank those out on a routine basis and deliver them to key persons in government , that also indicates a strong ability to mount large demonstrations or rallies , which are absolutely essential if we want to make any progress . The ability to turn people out would mean we are highly organized , and that in turn leads to an ability to turn out votes , which is what moves politicians to change their policies (besides lots of money , of course .) Another thing that is aided by a high level of organization is the ability to bring successful lawsuits , or at least lawsuits that aren’t a complete embarrassment .

      One other reason why in-person meetings are important is because , as many of us have expressed in the past , our opponents are capable of shutting down online communication if they feel the need . And there is no question that if we manage to make good use of this “window of public good will” that we’ve opened , they will feel the need , and they will also likely take the opportunity to change “data” again since they will have “gagged” the people like Tony who have posted more correct versions on their sites . (I put data in quotes because we both know that a lot of what’s passed off as data today is far from it.)

      If there’s a bottom line here , perhaps it’s that when political novices get involved in something big , they perceive the difficulty of it , and I think there’s a tendency to rationalize that “we don’t need that kind of thing” , simply because they’re afraid to try something that might prove too much for them . To a certain extent , that happened in the Reform Party in 1998 and 1999 when I was involved with them as an officer . But it was not nearly so insipid back then , as it is now with the Tea Party and other conservative groups , and with the libertarians . This tendency to rationalize that a self-destructive lack of action is actually a kind of success , is something that I thought of a name for , since posting that comment last night . I am calling it Rumsfeldian politics , because its approach to politics is the same approach that Rumsfeld and his friends take to planning a military campaign , i.e. less = more , and the results are similarly disastrous .

      If there’s some other way I can be of assistance , or something I’ve left out that you feel I might address , please do leave me another comment . Thank you .

      Richard

      • Richard T. Fowler 2015/05/02 13:29 at 13:29

        The above comment has been corrected to read : “we’ve opened a window of public good will within the last 6-12 months , and if we don’t exploit it quickly and as professionally and seriously as possible ,”

Post a comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: