Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   By their fruits shall ye know them. (re: Fundamentalists and the environment)
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 1 of 39 (257283)
11-06-2005 11:05 AM


Moose showed some interest in seeing this where it could be debated, rather than standing out of reach on Phat's no-reply Soapbox; then I received a few e-mails suggesting similar interest, some friendly, some...not.
A source of puzzlement to me: Evangelicals/Creationists mostly find their home in the Republican Party, along with big business.
Why are they so anxious to despoil the earth? If God created this beautiful place and made us stewards of it, why are the Republican-identified Evangelicals/Creationists so ardent about valuing profit over conservation? Why are they so sanguine about the loss of entire species?
One would think this world would sparkle to them with the sacredness of their Creator, and every creature in it would be precious. Instead, they seem to delight in rolling back environmental protection laws, in proposing higher tolerances for mercury in their air and children, in profit over preservation, in war over peace.
Did God lard the earth with life so we could gleefully slaughter it?
Calling themselves conservative, they thirst to suck every last drop of oil (and all other resources) out of the earth, leaving none for the generations to come and without regard for the impact on the planet, its people, and its wildlife. Why do they support filling the national parks and wildernesses with Machine Heads until the gate rangers have to wear gas masks against the clouds of exhaust?
Why are so many environmentalists and lovers of all creatures secularists? Where are the voices of the faithful? Why is there no chorus rising from the churches to stop the destruction of this gorgeous world?
{Added the "(re: Fundamentalists and the environment)" part to the topic title on 1/17/06. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-17-2006 02:20 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 11-06-2005 12:17 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 11-06-2005 12:23 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 11-06-2005 12:57 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 6 by GDR, posted 11-06-2005 5:51 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 12 by clpMINI, posted 11-07-2005 6:56 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 11-09-2005 8:10 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 10 of 39 (257358)
11-06-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ringo
11-06-2005 7:25 PM


Ringo writes:
But the questions in the OP are not about government
Indeed, Ringo.
My comments about the Republican evangelical/corporate alliance were not intended to take on questions of governance per se. I merely wanted to show that this political alliance unquestionably exists, and to suggest that it has severe consequences which the evangelicals either ignore or approve.
One could argue that the evangelicals held their noses for reasons of social policy that they find of overriding importance. But some Republicans do object to environmental despoilation for profit; there are Conservatives who still believe in conservation. One of the most potent alliances being formed at present is the one between outdoor sportsmen and environmental groups: the outdoor sportsmen have realized you cannot hunt without wildlife habitat or fish in a poisoned stream.
Even if we toss all the political narrative out the window, the question remains:
By evangelical lights, this world is a miraculous gift from God. Why aren't the churches leading the struggle to treat it that way?
Edit: typo
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-06-2005 08:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 11-06-2005 7:25 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 11-07-2005 12:47 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 13 of 39 (257796)
11-08-2005 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by iano
11-07-2005 12:47 PM


Be back later
Hi, iano. I look forward to reading your post again more carefully and offering a response. My own net connection is down, and I'm borrowing a coworker's for just a moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 11-07-2005 12:47 PM iano has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 14 of 39 (257801)
11-08-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by clpMINI
11-07-2005 6:56 PM


Re: REP America
Hi, clpMINI.
I am familiar with REP; they seem legit enough in ther beliefs, but, as you point out, environmental concerns are not voting issues for them.
As to how much clout they have in the GOP--none. The real heavyweights in Rep. environmental matters are the members and funders of the Coalition for Republican Environmental Advocates, an Orwellian-named organization founded by Gale Norton in 1998 and funded by energy and manufacturing corporations. REP has condemned CREA as "greenscam" since its inception in surprisingly strong terms for a fellow Republican group--one of the reasons I take them seriously.
The con game of green names on polluter-funded coalitions has proliferated in response to the conservatives' discovery that American people actually do care about protecting the environment. When their direction is opposed, they do not change course: they lie about the destination.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-08-2005 04:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by clpMINI, posted 11-07-2005 6:56 PM clpMINI has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 15 of 39 (257973)
11-08-2005 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by iano
11-07-2005 12:47 PM


Hi, iano. Thanks for your patience.
I truly don't want to debate whether a liberal or conservative government could better protect the environment--or whether any government could or should even try: the first is moot (given history ) and the second, irrelevant to this topic. Still, just to even up, I'll make my pitch, too, and then maybe we can leave the political philosophy behind.
At best (as the world stands now), national democracies with strong constitutional protections for individual rights decide what government can and should do; at worst, the moneyed classes appropriate that power. You won't be surprised that I feel that appropriation has taken place in the U.S.
In my view, the destruction of every creature's right to a healthy natural environment ranks as one of the greatest crimes ever against humanity, and against all conceptions of life, love, and simple decency. Motivated by greed and indifference, industry has pocked our world with sores that bleed poison and death. In its toll on humanity alone, leaving all other living things aside, it is evil in the purest sense, a great intentional wrong--something that might, indeed, occur under the dominion of the devil. I would expect any "true" Christian (more about that later) to resist this evil being done to her and her neighbors.
As ever with greed and indifference, there are victims, the pollutants afflicting the poorest most because of their employment in it and their ghettoization near it. This is not Marxist analysis, this is demonstrable fact; Marxist analysis would be something like, "The capitalist class is wringing the excess value out of the working class to support their own decadent lifestyles and military adventures."--and we don't see anything like that going on, do we?
Okay. I didn't want to do that, but it seemed a necessary balance stone for this thread.
iano writes:
a) that someone is called an evangelical or a Christian doesn't mean they are indeed a Christian
Let's be clear. We are talking about a specific political demographic in the U.S. which has not only identified itself as conservative, evangelical, and Christian but has also organized (as they have every right to do) to affect political issues in ways sympathetic to their faith. They are part of a grand coalition with other social conservatives and business interests. The deal they made to steer social policy is the deal that lets industry continue to steal the right not to have asthma from millions of American children. If they wanted to use their well-oiled political machine to stop it, they could.
You may have a True Christian Magic Test, but I don't. I will take them at their word. But I promise to count every environmentalist I meet who claims to be a Christian as a true one. I don't know what more I can do about that problem.
b) As far as a Christian is concerned, the highest priority is that people get saved. Everthing else comes or should come second. If it was a choice for example, between a system that retained teaching God in the classroom vs a system which, in promoting secularism, eliminated all such teaching then the former would likely get more support - for all the other downsides
Shoot, iano, I'd let you teach the catechism in Yiddish in public schools if I thought it would get right-wing U.S. Christians off their butts about what industry is doing to their children's future. But I don't see why that is relevant to the topic: I'm not proposing anything about education here. As to the prioritization of salvation (eat your heart out, Jesse Jackson)--why should indifference to evil promote the acceptance of one's faith by another? Perhaps stout resistance would yield better results. I hear it worked pretty well for Jesus of couple of times.
c) A Christian knows that the world is under the dominion of satan and is headed for a showdown. They would see it as illusion, the idea that man, by government is going to save the planet.
....
Man has never been any different. A liberal government won't change that fact
Boy, talk about a slippery slope to hell!
We're going there in a handbasket, and the sooner we get there, the better? There are "global forces at work" promoting ever more murders so there's no point in trying to prevent them here? I don't want to change human nature, iano, I want to change or prevent some destructive behaviors with billions of victims: all people long for secure, comfortable lives; mad consumerism is cultivated by the same people who profit from its polluting consequences. If "man, by government" is powerful enough to devastate the globe, than we are powerful enough to restore it.
Let's be clear again. American governments that enforced the law for more than a quarter-century made a tremendous environmental difference, not only bringing back species from the brink of extinction but improving the healthfulness of our air and water, in many places dramatically, improving the quality and span of millions of lives. Laws to continue making it better are still in place; the Bush administration has used executive fiat to nullify them, doing by regulation and directive what it cannot yet do by legislation. There is no question the environment can be moderately well-protected and rather quickly much-improved: it was done most notably in the Nixon 70s by the admirable coalition of "True" conservatives, liberals and real lefties that passed the laws (during a conservative administration) that neo-conservatives now abhor.
But, as I said, all that political stuff is really just a distraction from a simple question. Maybe this is a regional difference, or a doctrinal difference, maybe the gap between city and country, but when I was a kid we learned that the grand, breath-taking beauty of the world displayed the power and majesty of God, that every wonder of the earth and the firmament sang hosannas to the Creator, and that all this blazing jaw-dropping wonder was one of the most powerful arguments for our faith in His goodness and love. Our churches were lovely buildings with stately trees, the windows (at great expense in a low income community) were stained glass scenes of faith framed by trellised vines and songbirds. For Easter we filled the church with flowers, for Christmas the animals were honored right there with baby Jesus in the creche. Many of the people there had worked the land or their parents had, and I don't think they would grant you that satan had dominion over all that.
So, for me, someone who no longer shares that faith but still honors that vision of the world, I cannot but wonder, "This world is a miraculous gift from God. Why aren't the churches leading the struggle to treat it that way?" Regardless of which party is in power, the evangelical right has the political clout to stop environmental depredations that are immoral, illegal, and tragic in their consequences to all.
So I wonder why. You haven't told me yet.
Edits: nuthin' but typos
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-08-2005 08:34 PM
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-08-2005 11:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 11-07-2005 12:47 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by iano, posted 11-09-2005 8:03 AM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 11-09-2005 8:21 AM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 21 by clpMINI, posted 11-09-2005 5:45 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 19 of 39 (258056)
11-09-2005 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by iano
11-09-2005 8:03 AM


Thanks, iano. As usual, I will digest, actually do some work for my pay this morning, and then reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by iano, posted 11-09-2005 8:03 AM iano has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 20 of 39 (258058)
11-09-2005 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phat
11-09-2005 8:10 AM


Re: Amy Grant Lyrics
Yes, Phat, that captures the regard that I recall and hold--though, of course, minus the theology .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 11-09-2005 8:10 AM Phat has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 22 of 39 (258432)
11-10-2005 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by iano
11-09-2005 8:03 AM


Thanks for your reply, iano. I appreciate the evident thought and reflection. I will be brief in reply mostly because of a nasty flu-like bug, but also because I don't see much new.
iano writes:
Communist leaders with dachas, fine caviar, large automobiles etc. They are called communists but they aren't in fact. "By their fruits ye shall know them". If a peoples individual and collective behavior screams "contradiction" then contradiction is possibly a part of the issue. 95% of people in Ireland identify themselves as Christian. But they have no interest in God in any way, shape or form as far as I can tell. Christian in name only as far as can be seen.
Your point about the Soviet leadership is inarguable. I agree.
But we are a democracy here still, and it is the voters who are content to sacrifice the healthy future of their own families to ever-greater business profits.
What he did resulted in his death. What the apostles did resulted, according to tradition - in their deaths. A Christian is told many times in the bible to expect persecution if they stand for Christ. In America it may not mean physical death. But it may mean death to peer approval, death to political career, death to power, death to influence. Big business is a powerful and voracious beast. And anyone who decides to stand up to it will be exposed to the full fury.
Well, we born-once secularists seem able to weather the fury pretty well Perhaps the evangelicals need a more robust model of Christ.
Right-wing evangelicals in the U.S. have tremendous political clout. They do, in fact, nonetheless have a religious persecution complex of the sort you describe. More relevant is that no one knows how you vote unless you tell them; the evangelical right both actively chooses representatives who exploit them and wink and nod at their corruption and depredation. You may be right: perhaps they are not Christians, since they seem to have sold their souls to Caesar.
If it {satan's dominion over this world} was theirs to grant then fine. If not then what they think doesn't matter I'm afraid...
Do you see songbirds and flowers as satan's? Is it Christian doctrine that satan owns this house entire, and resistance is futile?
I am frankly curious here: should we resist no evil, then? Should we have no concern with social justice?
The Socialists of the early 20th century had a tremendous debate about ameliorism--should we try to make things better for the working folk, or should we let things come to such a terrible pass that capitalist structures crumble faster. Is it like that in the Christian church? Has the church turned its back on social justice to hurry up the Apocalypse?
It is difficult for me to reconcile that notion with Christ's injunctions about loving your neighbor, sacrificing for another, giving wealth to the poor, etc. He didn't just walk the walk, as I recall, he told his followers to do the same.
You point to a time when government could make big differences. That was then and this is now. Resources are dwindling, appetites have increased. The world is a more competitive place. Business has gotten bigger and more powerful, people more materialistic.
The concept that Government is free to dictate what business can and cannot do is a fallacy. Clean air is important - everyone recognises it. If it could be achieved without cost to the economy then it would be done. But it ain't that simple. Polluting processes are far cheaper to run (in the short term - the term which politicians find impossible to ignore) than clean ones. America has to compete with countries which it didn't have to before. Countries which pose a serious economic threat and which don't give a fiddlers about the environment. It cannot do so by adding untold cost onto its manufacturing industries. A Christian is as beholden to this reality as anyone else.
The most important environmental laws, passed when government could make a big difference, were passed in the 1970s. Since then, the wealthy have become obscenely more wealthy, and the incomes of the working class and the middle class have stagnated. The mockery of those laws is a recent development of the past five years.
I agree that the infinite greed of capitalists/industrialists drives the problem. But even a rice Christian might be expected to object to the poisoning of his children. I am not trying to restore a nostalgic good ol' days: I am trying to preserve the progress made until recently and to resist the reversals only recently begun.
I'm left with they may not be Christians, they may be cowardly Christians, and there aren't as many true Christians in the West as there used to be. I think I may better understand some Christian perspectives, but my puzzlement remains.

"It's hard to admit the truth."
-randman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by iano, posted 11-09-2005 8:03 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by iano, posted 11-10-2005 1:48 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 23 of 39 (258437)
11-10-2005 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by clpMINI
11-09-2005 5:45 PM


Re: Environmentalism
Omni,
Perhaps we need to look at how strongly environmentalists 'feel' about the environment. I feel strongly enough that environmental concerns guided by education, my occupation (I am an environmetal scientist), my politics, my car, and day-to-day activities. Maybe some of the Christian types look at these strong feelings and actions and think of Environmentalism as a religion of its own, and thus the confict.
`clpMINI
I take your point, clp, and Phat made a similar observation above.
But the evangelical disregard--even disdain--for the environment is new, and the support for environmental protection among the American people--a clear majority--suggests that many of the rank and file of the evangelical right do favor such protection, yet apparently remain passive observers.
I suspect that a large part of the explanation is that conserative politicians have co-opted the evangelical movement and managed to associate environmentalism with hot-button social issues: thus, the stereotype of the liberal, gay-loving, tradiation marriage-hating, plain folk-disdaining, Commie-loving, America-betraying, Muslim-loving...environmentalist. The political leaders get richer, and the evangelical rank-and-file get screwed along with the rest of us.
I have witnessed enough unseemly eagerness to despoil what environmentalists seek to protect--especially what environmentalists seek to protect, out of all proportion to the actual economic value of the exploitation--that I suspect there is more to what you say than I would prefer to believe: it is such a hateful desire to desecrate, the kind of impulse we see in religious wars.
BTW:
I feel strongly enough that environmental concerns guided by education, my occupation (I am an environmetal scientist), my politics, my car, and day-to-day activities.
Wonderful. Thank you.

"It's hard to admit the truth."
-randman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by clpMINI, posted 11-09-2005 5:45 PM clpMINI has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 25 of 39 (258520)
11-10-2005 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by iano
11-10-2005 1:48 PM


Re: Okay Okay...I'm a cynic....
iano writes:
p.s. Get well soon
Thanks, iano, but I fear the bright path to wellness lies through the dark valley of mucus.
So...if would just be a nice Christian and consider any additional arguments you made soundly and eloquently refuted, me and my immune system would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks again for your thoughtful replies.

"It's hard to admit the truth."
-randman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by iano, posted 11-10-2005 1:48 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by iano, posted 11-11-2005 1:21 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 33 of 39 (280082)
01-19-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2006 2:15 PM


Re: EVANGELICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM STINGS SENATOR - by Jim Hightower
minnemooseus writes:
Apparently there is a significant splitting from the neo-con mainstream by a significant body of evangelical Christians.
Well, it's about time.
I'd welcome a Green Christian cavalry; I've long been puzzled about the lack of one. I see these folks describe themselves as an educational ministry. I'm still poking around at their site & links to see what they do.
I found some of my old favorites, though:
Psalm 19:1-4: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."
Psalm 96:1, 11-12: "Sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth . . . Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let the sea resound, and all that is in it; let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy."
Amen enough for you, jar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2006 2:15 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Omnivorous, posted 02-08-2006 4:37 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 34 of 39 (285028)
02-08-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Omnivorous
01-19-2006 6:29 PM


By their fruits shall ye know them...Eureka!
Well, shiver me timbers! Ask and ye shall receive...do you suppose this thread caused a reawakening of...naw, no way.
But credit where credit is due, and my hands are smarting from applause. From the Washington Post:
Evangelicals urge action on global warming
Bless 'em, one and all. Here's a brief excerpt:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of 85 evangelical Christian leaders on Wednesday backed legislation opposed by the White House to cut carbon dioxide emissions, kicking off a campaign to mobilize religious conservatives to combat global warming.
The group which included mega-church pastors, Christian college presidents, religious broadcasters and writers, also unveiled a full-page advertisement to run in Thursday's New York Times and a television ad it hopes to screen nationally.
"With God's help, we can stop global warming for our kids, our world and our Lord," the television spot declared.
The campaign by evangelicals coincided with a call on Wednesday by a leading U.S. think tank for the United States to take immediate steps to fight global warming, including working with other nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Amen.

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Omnivorous, posted 01-19-2006 6:29 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coragyps, posted 02-08-2006 5:23 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 36 by ramoss, posted 02-08-2006 6:47 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024