• Yes, I believe • Broken promises, pledges and principles Yes, I believe In regard to the numerous letters lately concerning religion, perhaps an atheist will be allowed a word or two. After decades of long and careful consideration I
• Yes, I believe • Broken promises, pledges and principles
Yes, I believe
In regard to the numerous letters lately concerning religion, perhaps an atheist will be allowed a word or two.
After decades of long and careful consideration I have decided in my old age that I am an Atheistic Christian Ecstatic. I think that the existence of a “God,” as most people think of “Him,” is so unlikely as to be practically impossible, but I follow the teachings of Jesus as best I can, and this makes me very happy. So, when asked if I believe in “God”, my answer to “The Question” is:
Oh, I’ve been judged a thousand times/as if measured by a rod/by a multitude of folk who’ve asked,/“Do you believe in God?”
Well it seems to me that faith/is more a lifelong quest/than a question to be answered/by such a simple test.
A hundred thousand holy ones/from genius to insane/have struggled to agree on this/through centuries in vain.
There must be something more involved/than just what meets the eye/when the deepest mystery we may know/one word is answered by.
In fact I think it’s obvious/the question’s so absurd/that it has a meaning other/than what at first is heard.
What people ask of strangers/since first the race began./What group do you belong to/what family, tribe or clan?
A need to know the “us” from “them,”/who’s welcome, whom to curse,/and not too many years ago,/to burn and sometimes worse.
Now I have never known a god/all-powerful, all-knowing/who sits in heaven on a throne/with robes and long hair flowing,
But surely love is in my heart/and God and Love are one/nor have I heard of cause or man/any other way was won.
And my belief each day is tested/when I trust my fellow man/to choose love instead of hatred/as often as he can.
So when I’m asked if I believe,/I answer, “Yes, I do./I have God within my heart,/and faith my friend in you.”
Martin Mills, Kapa‘a
Broken promises, pledges and principles
In the 2004 legislative session Senate Bill 3092 was passed and signed into law by Gov. Linda Lingle.
The bill “Relating to Solid Waste Management” intended to “Distribute(s) fines collected under HRS 342H-30 (Hawaii Revised Statutes) to the enforcing agency (Dept. of Health [DOH]) and awards 50% of the fine collected to a person reporting the illegal dumping activity.” In essence a “Whistle Blower’s” bill providing an incentive for citizens to report violators of our state and federal environmental rules and regulations dealing with illegal dumping — a positive step forward in attacking rampant illegal dumping statewide taking effect on July 1, 2004 as Act 145.
Within 5.5 months of becoming a law, on Jan. 28, 2005, Kaua‘i’s very own “environmental” state Rep. Hermina Morita introduces House Bill 1430 entitled “Solid Waste Disposal: Violations” described as follows: “Applies the offense of petty misdemeanor disposal of solid waste to the illegal disposal of volumes equal to or greater than one cubic yard and less than ten cubic yards. Exempts green waste.” This bill’s apparent intent was to define the parameters of size to an illegal dumping of solid waste — so it appeared.
On Feb. 24, 2005 the “JUD recommended that the measure be passed, with amendments.” How was the bill amended? The attached amendment repealed/revoked the “Whistle Blower’s” award-sharing, language as stated in Act 145.
Why such a drastic reversal of policy in such a short period of time and why would an environmental advocate, Morita, introduce such a bill? The answer lies in the Hawai‘i state archives, in the minutes of the various testimonies during public hearings.
Testimony from the public was against removing the “Whistle Blower’s” award-sharing language. Such as the Windward Ahupua‘a Alliance on O‘ahu, three residents, the mayor of Hawai‘i, Harry Kim. Legislators all merely “deferred) to the Attorney General on any explanation of the details of the bill or the legal justification for the bill.”
Again: Why remove the award-sharing language? In the words of J. Kalani English, chair of the Committee on Energy, Environment, and International Affairs:
“Your Committee has amended this measure (ACT 145 – 04)) by deleting the fine splitting language in order to provide the authorized agency (DOH) an incentive to enforce this measure, and to provide it with the resources to do so.”
Apparently our DOH has a negative “incentive” posture when it comes to doing the job it is being paid to do? By removing the “fine splitting” award-sharing language, will not this discourage citizens reporting illegal dumping sites? Who needs the incentive more: the citizens or the citizens’ employees (DOH) who are paid by tax dollars and have the law enforcement capabilities behind them to set and collect the fines and enforce the laws? The DOH needs “incentives”? I would think keeping your job would be incentive enough!
Again, broken promises, pledges and principals.
John Hoff, Lawa‘i
