Lie #1 - Darwinian Evolution "A Cosmic Accident"
C) History: Is society evolving or has anything really changed?
A previous post addresses this point in some detail. Please skim that before continuing here, so that this will make sense.
If we take the viewpoint that human cultures are evolving, would we not expect to see a change in human behavior over the course of the centuries? And yet we have not seen this change happen in a positive direction. Just look at war over human history; there was very little peace in the ancient world, the Middle Ages, the 20th century was the bloodiest to date. Nothing has changed, we see people attempting to dominate other people throughout all the cycles of human history. So far within the 21st century, we have seen more of the same. So far we have not experienced the worldwide open conflict as the 20th century, but in Africa we see a continent ravaged by war, with the resulting poverty and famine. We see most of the Western world so terrified of a major conflict that they dance to the tune of petty dictators in North Korea and Iran, calling appeasement 'diplomacy.' I would challenge those who think our efforts in North Korea and Iran commendable study the policies of England and France in regards to Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. The comparison is chilling.
Another interesting point to consider is abortion. In our 'progressive' society, we decided in 1973 that this should be permitted, and our Supreme Court decided it was a Constitutional right. So how does the impact of abortion on society, not to mention the women who suffer through it, differ from the impact of child sacrifice to Chemosh in the Old Testament? Is the impact different on the babies who are aborted/were sacrificed? Either way they are dead. How is it we would label our society 'civilized' but theirs as 'barbaric?' Is the difference in the presence of doctor, versus a pagan priest? Or is the difference between the operating table and the stone altar? I do not ask to mock, I ask in an attempt to reconcile what we seem to believe with reality, as it truly is. We want to say that things are different now, that we have advanced. Where is the evidence?
Now we must acknowledge that technology has advanced, and this is a point I don't deny. I would challenge you to think on technology, and break down the net result of our collective advances. Do some live better, longer lives due to advances in medicine and machinery? Absolutely. Does a majority of the population of the world live better lives? Or has the gulf between the technologically advanced and others led to contempt and indifference? Is a gun superior to a bow? What of nuclear weapons? Have things like iPods and cell phones brought us deeper, more fulfilling relationships? Has the Internet increased wisdom, or merely knowledge? How do we define 'better?' What makes one life better than another? This is not to say we should reject technology; we just need to understand its place in an historical context.
These are critical points to consider. I hope the result of our contemplation is humility, an enlarged sense that we are not better, or superior, to those who have come before us. How can I learn from the lives of those in the Bible? Because they struggled with the same things I do. What motivated them, motivates me. What hurt them, hurts me. And when we start to see ourselves in the proper light, knocked down several pegs and in desperate need of the same grace God has given throughout history, it will change the way we think about our present day world. Without a sense of the past, you cannot properly understand the present. Without a sense of the past, we cannot understand the working out of God's plan throughout human history. Too many of us, as Christians, have no sense of the bigger picture because we deny it even exists. Perhaps we don't deny it in our minds, or our words - but what of our actions?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Lies Assaulting Our Ministries, Part 2
Once again, we are trying to cover a tremendous amount of ground in a short time. Please email or comment with questions and I will be happy to expand or explain as requested.
Lie #1 - Darwinian Evolution "A Cosmic Accident"
B) What is our identity? Where does it come from?
Ideas have consequences, and here we begin to see that the long reach of Darwinism extends far beyond the science classroom. If we are the result of random, purposeless forces - what is our value as human beings? What is the worth of a single human life? What is the value of an unwanted baby (or fetus, some would prefer)?
"When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife." Ingrid Newkirk's statement is a chilling one, once you think it through. Reading on from PETA's own website, we find that we shouldn't discriminate, even on the basis of species. An animal should have every right that you do. Now, some would say that PETA is a rather extreme choice for an example of the evolutionary mindset. But taking that viewpoint to its logical end, their ideas makes perfect sense: what is the difference between the species? We are all made of the same stuff, we all come from the same place, and we all have our spot in the natural world. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy; don't bother me with a starving child in Africa when an entire insect species is going extinct. What is the life of one child when measured against the extinction of a species? If I say - as the compassionate heart would like to - that a child is worth more than even millions of bugs, what is my basis for saying so? If I say "Well, in my heart I know what is right," then how do I establish moral superiority over someone like Newkirk, who "knows" a different truth in their heart? Who is right? Where do I go, what truth do I claim, to win this argument? For that matter, from a purely evolutionary mindset, why do I care about a starving boy, anyway? If he can't feed himself, let him die. He was clearly not fit, and natural selection is taking its natural course.
Thank God for Scriptural truth! For we find in the very beginning that man is created in the very image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). His value is innate, his worth established because it is ordained by the Creator. Every unborn child, every starving person on some distant continent - they are all created in the image of God. Human life has greater value than that of the natural world, over which we were given stewardship and authority (Genesis 1:28-29).
We further find that, in addition to being created in God's image, mankind has specific purpose in this world, even before sin entered it (Genesis 2:15-24). Man created to work, woman created to help him; we have distinct roles in both responsibility and relationship.
What does the world say? Just a few days ago, a report on gender (in regards to terrorism) was given to the UN. This viewpoint, that gender is a social construct and not part of who we are created to be, is taught to children everyday in this country in the public schools. And this conclusion follows logically from evolution as well. With the natural world established as the boundary of reality, it follows that there is no behavior that we can engage in that can be considered unnatural. If a man chooses to act as a woman, this is natural. If a woman chooses the life of a man, this is natural. In short, there is no particular role or relationship that cannot be redefined, since these things are merely social constructs in the first place.
Reality doesn't line up with this worldview, however. Read the news, check the Internet. We are surrounded everyday by more and more broken people, wearing themselves out trying to be something they were not created to be. As Christians, this should break our hearts, and here is where we often go wrong: we focus on the sin, and not the sinner. Where we have the chance to show the love of Christ, to show hurting people that it does not have to be like it is, that there is a better way, a plan - instead we judge, so intent on being self-righteous that we forget our own moral corruption. That is, we forget that sin is sin and we are no better than anyone else, we are just saved by grace. None of us are righteous (Romans 3:23). God's grace in our lives is all that separates us from anyone, not that we do anything to deserve it, but that God gives it freely (Ephesians 2:8-9) to those who believe.
In addition to different roles in society, we see different roles within marriage. The Bible teaches clearly that God's order for marriage is the husband in a position of leadership and the wife in a position of submission (Colossians 3:18-39, Ephesians 5:22-33). But here again we need to be careful about using Truth as a bludgeon. The example of our - husband's - leadership is Christ as we witness him here on earth in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Christ willingly surrendered his rights as God to take on the role of Savior, remaining God as He was here on earth but using only the authority given Him by the Father. Jesus set aside everything He was in order to meet the need of a fallen world for a Savior, ultimately dying on the Cross for the forgiveness of sins. Somehow I don't think that kind of leadership is a problem for women, were they to see it properly lived out by the men in their lives. As for women, their submission is to be that of the Church to Christ. Christ did not give the Church a list of do's and don'ts, expecting simple mindless obedience. No, a Christian's life should look different because it is a response to a loving relationship almost beyond comprehension. A wife's submission is the loving, respectful response to the husband's servant leadership and sacrifice.
But the toughest aspect within marriage is the call to do our part, regardless of our spouse's choices. As a reflection of God's unconditional love for us, we must be loving to our wives and respectful to our husbands; the direction of the Bible here is clear (Ephesians 5:33) and unconditional. And this extends to Christians within society as a whole: we need to be living out lives full of grace so that others can see Jesus Christ in us. We need to worry about what we can do for others, and not what others can do for us. We need to focus on our responsibility as Christians, and not our rights. We need to follow the two commandments Jesus Himself gave as the greatest: to love the Lord, and love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:28-34).
To review, we have looked at the authority of the Bible in relationship to evolution; that is, the Bible has no authority if evolution is true, because they cannot coexist. The Bible claims perfection, and if this perfection is lost (due to falsehood in the Genesis account) the whole effort is a waste of time, other than perhaps to "feel good" in some vague religious sense.
And if we embrace evolution, we see that society suffers because the roles of men and women are no longer defined in an absolute way. A person has no greater worth than an animal. A man has no different a role than a woman, and in turn neither has a call to be anything more than an animal here on earth. In contrast, the Biblical model for society lived out offers the greatest joy a person can have. A loving father, a caring mother, obedient children, and a family as a whole putting the needs of others before their own. It sounds Utopian, and yet it is society as it was created to be. Will we embrace it? Will we live in such a way that the world will begin again to see the value in God's social order?
Lie #1 - Darwinian Evolution "A Cosmic Accident"
B) What is our identity? Where does it come from?
Ideas have consequences, and here we begin to see that the long reach of Darwinism extends far beyond the science classroom. If we are the result of random, purposeless forces - what is our value as human beings? What is the worth of a single human life? What is the value of an unwanted baby (or fetus, some would prefer)?
"When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife." Ingrid Newkirk's statement is a chilling one, once you think it through. Reading on from PETA's own website, we find that we shouldn't discriminate, even on the basis of species. An animal should have every right that you do. Now, some would say that PETA is a rather extreme choice for an example of the evolutionary mindset. But taking that viewpoint to its logical end, their ideas makes perfect sense: what is the difference between the species? We are all made of the same stuff, we all come from the same place, and we all have our spot in the natural world. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy; don't bother me with a starving child in Africa when an entire insect species is going extinct. What is the life of one child when measured against the extinction of a species? If I say - as the compassionate heart would like to - that a child is worth more than even millions of bugs, what is my basis for saying so? If I say "Well, in my heart I know what is right," then how do I establish moral superiority over someone like Newkirk, who "knows" a different truth in their heart? Who is right? Where do I go, what truth do I claim, to win this argument? For that matter, from a purely evolutionary mindset, why do I care about a starving boy, anyway? If he can't feed himself, let him die. He was clearly not fit, and natural selection is taking its natural course.
Thank God for Scriptural truth! For we find in the very beginning that man is created in the very image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). His value is innate, his worth established because it is ordained by the Creator. Every unborn child, every starving person on some distant continent - they are all created in the image of God. Human life has greater value than that of the natural world, over which we were given stewardship and authority (Genesis 1:28-29).
We further find that, in addition to being created in God's image, mankind has specific purpose in this world, even before sin entered it (Genesis 2:15-24). Man created to work, woman created to help him; we have distinct roles in both responsibility and relationship.
What does the world say? Just a few days ago, a report on gender (in regards to terrorism) was given to the UN. This viewpoint, that gender is a social construct and not part of who we are created to be, is taught to children everyday in this country in the public schools. And this conclusion follows logically from evolution as well. With the natural world established as the boundary of reality, it follows that there is no behavior that we can engage in that can be considered unnatural. If a man chooses to act as a woman, this is natural. If a woman chooses the life of a man, this is natural. In short, there is no particular role or relationship that cannot be redefined, since these things are merely social constructs in the first place.
Reality doesn't line up with this worldview, however. Read the news, check the Internet. We are surrounded everyday by more and more broken people, wearing themselves out trying to be something they were not created to be. As Christians, this should break our hearts, and here is where we often go wrong: we focus on the sin, and not the sinner. Where we have the chance to show the love of Christ, to show hurting people that it does not have to be like it is, that there is a better way, a plan - instead we judge, so intent on being self-righteous that we forget our own moral corruption. That is, we forget that sin is sin and we are no better than anyone else, we are just saved by grace. None of us are righteous (Romans 3:23). God's grace in our lives is all that separates us from anyone, not that we do anything to deserve it, but that God gives it freely (Ephesians 2:8-9) to those who believe.
In addition to different roles in society, we see different roles within marriage. The Bible teaches clearly that God's order for marriage is the husband in a position of leadership and the wife in a position of submission (Colossians 3:18-39, Ephesians 5:22-33). But here again we need to be careful about using Truth as a bludgeon. The example of our - husband's - leadership is Christ as we witness him here on earth in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Christ willingly surrendered his rights as God to take on the role of Savior, remaining God as He was here on earth but using only the authority given Him by the Father. Jesus set aside everything He was in order to meet the need of a fallen world for a Savior, ultimately dying on the Cross for the forgiveness of sins. Somehow I don't think that kind of leadership is a problem for women, were they to see it properly lived out by the men in their lives. As for women, their submission is to be that of the Church to Christ. Christ did not give the Church a list of do's and don'ts, expecting simple mindless obedience. No, a Christian's life should look different because it is a response to a loving relationship almost beyond comprehension. A wife's submission is the loving, respectful response to the husband's servant leadership and sacrifice.
But the toughest aspect within marriage is the call to do our part, regardless of our spouse's choices. As a reflection of God's unconditional love for us, we must be loving to our wives and respectful to our husbands; the direction of the Bible here is clear (Ephesians 5:33) and unconditional. And this extends to Christians within society as a whole: we need to be living out lives full of grace so that others can see Jesus Christ in us. We need to worry about what we can do for others, and not what others can do for us. We need to focus on our responsibility as Christians, and not our rights. We need to follow the two commandments Jesus Himself gave as the greatest: to love the Lord, and love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:28-34).
To review, we have looked at the authority of the Bible in relationship to evolution; that is, the Bible has no authority if evolution is true, because they cannot coexist. The Bible claims perfection, and if this perfection is lost (due to falsehood in the Genesis account) the whole effort is a waste of time, other than perhaps to "feel good" in some vague religious sense.
And if we embrace evolution, we see that society suffers because the roles of men and women are no longer defined in an absolute way. A person has no greater worth than an animal. A man has no different a role than a woman, and in turn neither has a call to be anything more than an animal here on earth. In contrast, the Biblical model for society lived out offers the greatest joy a person can have. A loving father, a caring mother, obedient children, and a family as a whole putting the needs of others before their own. It sounds Utopian, and yet it is society as it was created to be. Will we embrace it? Will we live in such a way that the world will begin again to see the value in God's social order?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Lies Assaulting Our Ministries, Part 1a
This post is to clarify what is meant by 'evolution' during our discussions.
Evolution is defined as:
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Evolution is defined as:
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
A reader brought up some good points, which I quote here (originally posted on Facebook):
Hi, Charles. I'd like to read more of what you have to offer, but I think it would be helpful to your point to, at least, shift your terminology in-line with accepted definitions. First, a "species" is a breeding population. Two species may still be genetically compatible, but do not normally breed with each in nature. In addition, typically, the union of two different species often produces a "mule," or a sterile offspring. What is sometimes called "microevolution" - a term that is falling out of favor - is more commonly termed "speciation." Speciation is simply when one species gives rise to a new, novel species. Speciation has been observed in the field and in the laboratory. "Macroevolution" -- again, a term falling out of favor - simply describes evolution over the categories of taxa - species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom. However, really, "macroevolution" is just countless generational "microevolutionary" steps...
The concern I have here is the subtle shift in definition that has attempted to change the argument. As I stated before, we see variations within types of organisms, but we don't see the change from one type of organism into another. Given all the time requested, even billions of years, the small steps still have to result in one type of organism becoming another one (for evolution to be true). This is what we don't see. If we then say that the time required is far beyond that of the human life span, then we have a scientific problem: our hypothesis cannot be measured or observed, and so can never be proven.
And the 'big picture' questions remain: how do random, purposeless forces give us a universe of order? How did the living arise from the nonliving? Why is there something rather than nothing? How is it we can look at systems many times more complex than, say, a desktop PC, and cry 'random chance?' The PC on which you are reading this blog is incredibly complex, but you yourself are many times more so. Yet I know the PC to have been designed and built according to a plan. How then can I say that you are the result of random processes over billions of years? How do we rationally say that complex order arises from chaos? The fact is, we have to try very hard to deny the design we see in systems all over the world. A very good question is: why is it so important to so many for evolution to be true? What are the consequences if it is not? And once we say that no design exists, that all we have are purposeless, natural forces - we swim in some very dangerous waters, as we will explore going forward.
An excellent resource in the evolutionary debate is a book titled Darwin's Black Box, written by Michael Behe, who is not a Christian - just a scientist presenting issues with evolution. A great resource from a young-earth Creationist viewpoint (the one I defend throughout this series) is Answers in Genesis. Their website and other resources are great for teaching the Biblical viewpoint.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Lies Assaulting Our Ministries, Part 1
This series is taken from a talk I did at the Arizona AWANA Conference 2009 at Palmcroft Baptist Church. Several people asked for information more in-depth than just my handout notes, so here they are.
The purpose of my presentation was to discuss 2 critical lies that face the Church today. These lies come at our families - and the kids coming to our AWANA clubs - from several different cultural places. School, media, the Internet, even sometimes from with the Church... we can't fight knowledge with mere knowledge. 2 hours of AWANA, maybe a couple more hours of church on Sunday can't undo the damage of 80+ hours a week of indoctrination into a conflicting worldview. But we are aware of the effects of the lies in question, and if we truly care about these kids, we can make a difference. The world seeks conformity to its belief system, but it doesn't - and never will - care about these kids as people created in the image of God. We must.
Lie #1 - Darwinian Evolution "A Cosmic Accident"
A) It Erodes the Authority of the Bible
The lie of evolution has probably done more damage in our current America than any other, primarily because of the philosophy marching silently behind it. Many Christians feel cowed by the "scientific" community into some kind of compromise between the Bible and evolution, and many more see it as something that's not worth fighting about. We will first look at evolution in the realm of science, compared to what the Bible teaches: can a Christian who believes Scripture to be inerrant also believe in evolution?
No. In Genesis 1, the Hebrew word for day used is "yom." Yom doesn't always mean a literal day, but when used in conjunction with the phrase "evening and morning," it always refers to a literal day, not a passage of time. A second problem between Scripture and evolution is that, in addition to lots of time, evolution needs lots of death. According to the theory, it takes nearly countless generations for one species to turn into another. A Christian who believes the Bible has another problem at this point: nothing died before Adam sinned. Romans 5 is clear on the point that "through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death by sin." If nothing is dying, nothing is being selected for or against, and thousands or millions of years aren't helping the evolutionary process.
The simple fact of the matter, scientifically, is the lack of any evidence for evolution, anywhere. Finch beaks, dog breeds, moth color - all we can witness are changes within species, not the transformation of one species becoming another. No transitional forms are recorded in the fossil record. We see an earth, as we observe it, where everything continues to produce after its own kind (Genesis 1). And while the existence of a designer cannot be proved according to the scientific method, neither can the purposeless forces of Darwin's theory. The fact comes down to your assumptions before you look at the evidence. Everywhere we look, we see evidence of design, and we believe in the Designer. Proponents of evolution see this same design, complex nearly beyond understanding, and attribute it to natural selection over billions of years. And it is in this moment, as an evolutionist acknowledges that no Designer, no God, exists, that we come to the greatest danger. Evolution is not an assault on true science alone, but on every subject we can study. This is a lie whose reach stretches across the human experience.
How does this all erode the authority of the Bible? We serve a God who claims perfection, in Himself and His Word as it was given to us. If one point of the Bible is false, the whole book is a waste of time. It is not a book of good intentions and tips for living; it is a book of Absolute Truth, or it is a colossal waste of our lives. We don't have the space here to give the whole conflict its just discussion. But you need to understand that your issue, as a Christian, is not with science. Your disagreement is with the false assumptions of many who study science and draw incorrect conclusions because of their prejudice when studying the evidence.
The purpose of my presentation was to discuss 2 critical lies that face the Church today. These lies come at our families - and the kids coming to our AWANA clubs - from several different cultural places. School, media, the Internet, even sometimes from with the Church... we can't fight knowledge with mere knowledge. 2 hours of AWANA, maybe a couple more hours of church on Sunday can't undo the damage of 80+ hours a week of indoctrination into a conflicting worldview. But we are aware of the effects of the lies in question, and if we truly care about these kids, we can make a difference. The world seeks conformity to its belief system, but it doesn't - and never will - care about these kids as people created in the image of God. We must.
Lie #1 - Darwinian Evolution "A Cosmic Accident"
A) It Erodes the Authority of the Bible
The lie of evolution has probably done more damage in our current America than any other, primarily because of the philosophy marching silently behind it. Many Christians feel cowed by the "scientific" community into some kind of compromise between the Bible and evolution, and many more see it as something that's not worth fighting about. We will first look at evolution in the realm of science, compared to what the Bible teaches: can a Christian who believes Scripture to be inerrant also believe in evolution?
No. In Genesis 1, the Hebrew word for day used is "yom." Yom doesn't always mean a literal day, but when used in conjunction with the phrase "evening and morning," it always refers to a literal day, not a passage of time. A second problem between Scripture and evolution is that, in addition to lots of time, evolution needs lots of death. According to the theory, it takes nearly countless generations for one species to turn into another. A Christian who believes the Bible has another problem at this point: nothing died before Adam sinned. Romans 5 is clear on the point that "through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death by sin." If nothing is dying, nothing is being selected for or against, and thousands or millions of years aren't helping the evolutionary process.
The simple fact of the matter, scientifically, is the lack of any evidence for evolution, anywhere. Finch beaks, dog breeds, moth color - all we can witness are changes within species, not the transformation of one species becoming another. No transitional forms are recorded in the fossil record. We see an earth, as we observe it, where everything continues to produce after its own kind (Genesis 1). And while the existence of a designer cannot be proved according to the scientific method, neither can the purposeless forces of Darwin's theory. The fact comes down to your assumptions before you look at the evidence. Everywhere we look, we see evidence of design, and we believe in the Designer. Proponents of evolution see this same design, complex nearly beyond understanding, and attribute it to natural selection over billions of years. And it is in this moment, as an evolutionist acknowledges that no Designer, no God, exists, that we come to the greatest danger. Evolution is not an assault on true science alone, but on every subject we can study. This is a lie whose reach stretches across the human experience.
How does this all erode the authority of the Bible? We serve a God who claims perfection, in Himself and His Word as it was given to us. If one point of the Bible is false, the whole book is a waste of time. It is not a book of good intentions and tips for living; it is a book of Absolute Truth, or it is a colossal waste of our lives. We don't have the space here to give the whole conflict its just discussion. But you need to understand that your issue, as a Christian, is not with science. Your disagreement is with the false assumptions of many who study science and draw incorrect conclusions because of their prejudice when studying the evidence.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
An Open Letter to President Obama on Health Care Reform
Dear President Obama,
I am writing to ask you specifically to keep your promise. I wholeheartedly agree that a transparent and open government leads to a better society, and that citizens can (and should) contribute to our legislative process.
The issue of our day appears to be health care, and how health care reform should look. A bill will soon come out of the Senate Finance Committee that would appear to save citizens money and reduce the deficit. While I don't like the idea of being forced to have health insurance, and I don't see that the Constitution grants either Congress or the President power over health care, I do believe that additional input and debate would be very helpful to the process.
Let us be candid: those who differ with Democrats - Republicans, some Independents, and other Conservatives - cannot stop the passage of the bill. The Democratic Party at this point in American history can do what it chooses to do because they hold the majority of seats in our elected government. All I can do is ask that you do what you said you would do: maintain that government in an open and transparent manner.
My concern is that the bill out of committee, nicknamed the Baucus Bill, will be heavily amended after committee approval - to the point where what was approved, versus what actually gets voted on in the Senate, are two completely different things. My concern arises from the treatment given to the Stimulus Bill; namely, that an enormous bill which no one could have possibly read before voting on it was passed quickly into law.
Again, I fully acknowledge that you have the power to do what you want to do, and you have been given that power - along with your political party - by the American people, according to proper Constitutional process. To be clear then, here is my request: that the final version of the bill be posted online for a period of at least three (3) weeks prior to a final vote by the House and Senate. I request that any changes from the current draft, which the CBO reviewed, be clearly identified as such in the interest of constructive public dialogue.
Health Care is an enormous and extremely difficult issue that affects every American. I ask simply that this issue be given the careful consideration that it deserves, with proper weight and respect given to the viewpoints of all Americans, regardless of their political or ideological positions.
In addition to voicing my concerns here, I will continue to pray for both you and our lawmakers, as you discuss this important issue. May God grant to each of you His wisdom.
Sincerely,
Charles Baldon, Concerned Citizen
I am writing to ask you specifically to keep your promise. I wholeheartedly agree that a transparent and open government leads to a better society, and that citizens can (and should) contribute to our legislative process.
The issue of our day appears to be health care, and how health care reform should look. A bill will soon come out of the Senate Finance Committee that would appear to save citizens money and reduce the deficit. While I don't like the idea of being forced to have health insurance, and I don't see that the Constitution grants either Congress or the President power over health care, I do believe that additional input and debate would be very helpful to the process.
Let us be candid: those who differ with Democrats - Republicans, some Independents, and other Conservatives - cannot stop the passage of the bill. The Democratic Party at this point in American history can do what it chooses to do because they hold the majority of seats in our elected government. All I can do is ask that you do what you said you would do: maintain that government in an open and transparent manner.
My concern is that the bill out of committee, nicknamed the Baucus Bill, will be heavily amended after committee approval - to the point where what was approved, versus what actually gets voted on in the Senate, are two completely different things. My concern arises from the treatment given to the Stimulus Bill; namely, that an enormous bill which no one could have possibly read before voting on it was passed quickly into law.
Again, I fully acknowledge that you have the power to do what you want to do, and you have been given that power - along with your political party - by the American people, according to proper Constitutional process. To be clear then, here is my request: that the final version of the bill be posted online for a period of at least three (3) weeks prior to a final vote by the House and Senate. I request that any changes from the current draft, which the CBO reviewed, be clearly identified as such in the interest of constructive public dialogue.
Health Care is an enormous and extremely difficult issue that affects every American. I ask simply that this issue be given the careful consideration that it deserves, with proper weight and respect given to the viewpoints of all Americans, regardless of their political or ideological positions.
In addition to voicing my concerns here, I will continue to pray for both you and our lawmakers, as you discuss this important issue. May God grant to each of you His wisdom.
Sincerely,
Charles Baldon, Concerned Citizen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
