Bill Moyers' Warning About Fundamenatlists

Juhrahnimo writes me:

quote:

---

The specific topic you're talking about (Decemember 31, 999 or 1000, whichever) is discussed in detail in The Vatican Billions and other publications. Your specific topic is covered in Chapter 6. These hypocrites are still at work today; they just use additional tools (along with the old ones).

---

True enough, but I think you may have missed my point. I was saying that even when people's beliefs are used against them in order to rob them of their property (or indeed, as we've seen much more recently, to rape their children) they still go right on believing.And thanks for pointing out my date error. I should have said "December 31, 999".

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Yep, I know. Bad science (or science advice) and downright scientific illiteracy coupled with "Gee, this guy may donate large sums of money to my re-election if I don't tick 'em off" is a bad combination - and seems to be driving many of our government's policies. OTOH, global warming is a hypothesis in search of a valid model - not to mention actual unequivocal evidence. I personally think it's occurring, but that it's a natural cycle accelerated by industrial and vehicular release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. Meaning this cycle could be a lot worse than previous ones. Of course, my friends and I used to share a grim joke: the effects of greenhouse gasses are being off-set by the increase in the Earth's albedo caused by deforestation. (The joke is that in either case most of the planet's population won't be alive to see who's right.) None of those are intractable - they just require a will to accomplish. The start has to be real sustainable development in the developing world. Actually holding nations' collective feet to the 2015 poverty alleviation targets will go a very long way towards solving some of this. As to the fishies - it's part of a continuum that points up the abysmal ignorance of most Americans (among others). It is something that every individual can do, not just governments. It's part of a pattern of ignorance that can easily be addressed.Overpopulation is a problem in Latin America certainly. However, each of those nations (with one or two exceptions) has sufficient resources to support their own populations sustainably into at least the medium-term future - assuming their governments have the will (and ability) to implement sustainable practices. Draconian laws like China's are not necessary.

Hard to believe we both agree with something Sy wrote, isn't it? What's the world coming to? Anyway, I never intended to say that Moyer et al didn't have a point. After all, you know I'm as adamantly a fundy-basher as anyone on this board. However, my concern with the equation fundy = environmental destruction is twofold:1. There is no evidence beyond rhetoric and hypotheticals that lends validity to the claim. Or at least none has yet been presented. Moyer made a great speech - worth cheering for. However, it was very short of specifics (in fact, practically non-existent).2. Given 1, I greatly fear that the equation itself will obscure the
real issues and preclude effective response. Without evidence, all it takes in this country today is some nutjob proclaiming religious persecution and all actual work stops cold. Without evidence, any such supposition becomes borderline stereotyping - which you of all people should know is a fool's game at best.I totally agree with the remainder of your post, especially this bit: Well said. That and: The dumbing down of science education in this country is the worst crime we can commit against our children and the future, IMO.edited to fix 2$@#%@#$@# UBB code.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-25-2005 13:23 AM

My understanding of your support for Moyer's (and Ned's) position is that you agree with the equation fundy worldview = environmental destruction. This position is not a hypothetical, it is an assertion that requires supporting evidence. If I have misunderstood you, please correct me. Really? Well, I certainly understand the basic economic factors. However, I have yet to see anything to support the religious aspect you again mention. Is it theoretically possible? Of course. So is the existence of a Vast Worldwide Evilutionist Conspiracy to turn US high-school students away from God. In fact, you can make a better case for the latter. Doesn't mean there's any evidence for either one. If you have some, I have been asking for two threads now for someone to present it.

I never supported Moyer's/Ned's position.Furthermore, I don't believe said position is as simple as "fundy worldview = environmental destruction"; my last post stated that quite clearly. I also don't believe it is as simple as "greed = environmental destruction", which appears to be your position - correct me if I am wrong.When you asked for evidence of this position (which I never stated), you did so in the form... ...which is asking for specific evidence for a hypothetical situation I brought up. That hypothetical situation was that if people with the belief system forwarded by Moyer were running the US government, that it would have a major impact on the environment. Syamsu said that "some people" had that worldview, but with little to no impact, and said so without presenting any evidence that I see. (Perhaps you should be berating him for unsupported assertions.)My point was that if those people were in a position of power they would have greater impact; in other words, the Syamsu ranking system with the "Moyer-fundy-factor" at #128 only holds so long as those people don't hold significant power. Perhaps you'll get farther if you engage the people actually making the assertions.

Precisely! To suggest that any one thing explains the problem is way overly simplistic.We know we have tendancies toward greed and shortsightedness. We hope that we have the smarts to override those.When individuals both try to rip down education in the very areas that enable us to make good decisions about these things and add a view that says that we either don't have to worry or should encourage them then we need to reduce our estimates of the chances of our 'smarts' winning out.I don't think that anyone would ever suggest that all fundies are anti-environmentalists. However, is anyone suggesting that there aren't a disproportionate number who espouse the views that Moyers is warning us about? If you read his speech he give specific reference to individuals (some of power and influence) who make it clear what side they are on.The problem does exist. How bad it is remains to be seen.I'd agree with Moyers that it is serious.

I understand. But the road sort of "forks" from that point. Either the people continue to believe (sometimes compulsively, whether by internal or external forces) or completely REJECT everything that has anything to do with any given faith. Since we've mentioned Charles Chiniquy, his father nearly became a Catholic priest, but "having been the witness of a great iniquity in the high quarters of the church" (first paragraph in chapter one of his book), he dropped everything. I can identify with Charles, because MY OWN FATHER went through something similar; he was an altar boy headed for the priesthood at one time. Today he hates Christianity and wants NOTHING to do with it. He won't tell anyone what he witnessed (it wasn't something he "experienced", just "witnessed" it), but it was obviously bad enough to create that much hatred in him. And THAT is EXACTLY what the devil wants; to screw us up really bad. The devil sometimes transforms himself into an "angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14(think, hypocrites), and can lie, deceive, or just leave everyone with a bad taste in their mouths for God.

Ahh. I see: hypotheticals. Okay, hypothetically speaking, if religious fundies with an end-of-the-world-is-coming-and-we're-gonna-help-it-along viewpoint came to positions of power within a government, then obviously this might have a severely negative impact on environmental policy. Happy? No, that is an incorrect statement of my position. I have consistently stated that there are three primary factors leading to environmental degradation as it is occurring today:1. human greed - self-explanatory, I assume. However, I have numerous examples if you want documentation. This bit - the one you focused on - I see as the primary motivation of the US government's environmental policies. I emphasized it only in that context.2. human need - land for subsistence farming is the most prevalent and pernicious cause of deforestation in Central America and the African tropics. They literally have no other choices. Other, similar, non-sustainable land-use patterns are directly responsible for such problems as accelerated desertification and subsequent famine in the sub-Saharan belt.3. human ignorance - utter and complete lack of understanding of both what individuals do and the impacts of those actions on the environment.Yes, it is a complex problem, with many different aspects. There is no one solution. Obscuring the issue with fundy-bashing seems counterproductive to me.

Yes Ned, I read Moyers speech. And yes, he names names that are both anti-environment AND fundy. However, he does not - nor has anyone else yet - actually made the causal connection between the two. See what I'm asking for? You want me to join (gleefully, I might add) in the fundy bashing, give me the meat to go with the rhetoric. Otherwise, the approach is counterproductive.

You seem awfully concerned with inappropriate "fundy-bashing" in every reply.Who "fundy-bashed"? Where?Talking about the beliefs of a subset of Fundamentalists and their potential impact on our world is not "bashing". Is it to you?You list your "consistent three" leading to environmental degradation: human greed, human need, and human ignorance.What underlies these three immediate factors? Culture, religion included and perhaps especially, has played and plays a huge role in what is now manifesting itself as greed, need, and ignorance.

Did you actually read Moyer's speech cited by Ned in the OP? Don't you consider that fundy-bashing? He ends a section on the idiocy of the rapturists and immediately - as though there were a direct linkage - begins talking about the insanely greedy environmental policies of the current administration. His ONLY real evidence is an oft-quoted statement by Reagan's EPA guy Watt - who was truly a nutjob. He doesn't provide anything else except rhetoric to link the current stupid policies with the rapturists. The point is, if there were any linkage whatsoever - beyond scare rhetoric - I would be in the forefront of leading the charge against them. But there isn't.I'm absolutely flabbergasted that you can't see the parallels between the way Moyer is presenting "evidence" and the way the US administration presented "evidence" to justify the invasion of Iraq. I don't care WHO'S doing it - I'm going to call them on it.So yeah, I consider it fundy-bashing. There are a million reasons to challenge these morons - this ain't one of them. It only makes us look bad, and as I mentioned to holmes, will do nothing but obscure the real issues. Really? Where do you see this? Humans in general have had a highly unenviable record of environmental destruction since the Late Pleistocene. If you think religion and culture have played such a strong role, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to the specific factors that link Polynesian oceanic voyagers, New Guinea tribesmen, the Maori, European sailors, and modern industrialists into a common "anti-environmental" worldview. I mean, beyond the three factors I already listed - which taken together DO explain all of the damage we've caused over the last 10,000 years or so.

And on a completely unrelated issue: what does "tert" mean?

True enough. It just seems to me that such a position is easily refuted, and so is not such a hard problem to contain. But there may be some hesitation to pass judgement on the criminal nature of such practices, due to respect for the religious basis of them.I think it is neccessary when you are arguing people who do criminal things out of religious motives, that you posit some kind of belief in hell. When the motives are more religious the point is not so much to argue the suffering of the victims, but more so the suffering of the perpetrator. The suffering of the perpetrator is also established secularly more or less, without reference to hell, in Dostojevski's writing.I think a good, although entirely subjective, way to estimate the amount of pain someone is suffering, or is going to suffer in hell, is to think about how much you would not like to be that person. So for instance how much would you not like to be some guy who dies from pollution at a young age, compared to how much would you not like to be some guy who causes people of young age to die of pollution. Certainly if this pain-o-meter is correct, if you let the standard bad guys of history pass throuh your mind a bit, it is horriffic to think what amount of pain may be actual.I think that particular sentiment is missing much in criticism, but that sentiment is neccessary to forcefully engage any kind of deep motives, such as religious ones.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So...the people who believe and obey the Bible are causing the devastation of the environment? Yeah...I don't suppose GREED has anything to do with it. Does the Bible promote wanton wasting of the earth? Would those who believe it is 100 percent truly the word of God (i.e., us fundies), advocate such abuses? Between attending federally funded schools to listen to federally-approved curricula, and spending time doing federally-approved homework assignments (maybe 60 hrs/wk) and watching very-un-Christian trash on Moyers's approved TV shows and movies, and being engulfed with commercials, how much are the Bible believing Christians influencing children to do anything? Is Bill Moyers concerned that people are gonna stop lying or committing fornication if we don't stop these fundies? Or, worse, start loving their neighbors as themselves (in which case, one might think twice before opening up a plant that pumps 14000 gallons of wastewater into the environment per hour).Yeah...don't worry about the vengence-filled, violence-filled, sex-laden movies, don't worry about a corporate world driven by greed and deceit, don't worry about a government that funds and approves all a child learns...worry about the Bible-believing Christians, who teach stuff like "God made you," "obey your parents," "Don't lie," or "Don't fornicate or commit adultery."(Am I missing something? I have never felt very influential! My church finds it challenging to get people to listen to us or take us seriously. Now, Moyers, OTOH, he is influential...but I wouldn't worry about him...he, like all involved in the media, use their influence only for good...honest. The media never lies and is never used by governments to propagandize the public...that's a historically proven fact!) Well, we Floridians aren't all that bad, once you really get to know us. (I bet I dislike the Bushes more than most environmentalists and for better reasons.) Oh, so I guess Bill actually thinks Bush is GREAT, then, cuz Bush is the one that decided to "war with Islam."When the Bushes get done slaughtering Muslims overseas, maybe they should start slaughtering us Christians (just the fundamental ones, I mean); I'm sure Mr. Moyers would be overjoyed--global warming would come to a grinding halt. To top it off, maybe some governments should get together and eradicate the fundamental Jews, for a "final solution." Eh?Nice guy, this Bill Moyers.--TheLitPS...Quetzal...I didn't read all your posts, but I thought you made some very excellent points.AbE:
This Bill guy should be in Bush's cabinet or something...he'd fit right in with the other people who seem wierdly focussed on torture and who seem to have an utter disregard for the Constitution's Bill of Rights.AbE:
Hey Ned, I'm not ticked off at you, btw...in case it sounded like I was...I'm not too happy with this Bill Moyers fella, though.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 02-06-2005 16:00 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 02-06-2005 16:15 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 02-06-2005 16:32 AM

Thank you. I found myself in an odd position: defending a group whose worldview is the antithesis of my own. In other contexts it would likely be a different story, but this particular accusation is unsupported and serves no useful purpose, IMO.