Bill Moyers' Warning About Fundamenatlists

From:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1206-10.htmBill Moyers gave the above referenced speech on accepting the Global Environmental Citizen Award.In it he warns about the literalist attitudes toward the environment and the lives of our children and their children.For example:
"A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed -- an essential conflagration on the road to redemtion."He suggests that the fundamentalists (including many in government) feel that there is no reason to care about the environment when ecological collapse is part of the signs foretold in the Bible. Why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?The bad news is that I think the concern Moyers expesses is valid. The good news is that for those who believe this stuff they will get an awakening before death.That awakening may come to late but at least they will find themselves here on Earth with the rest of us when their delusional ideas prove to be false. When the oil runs out they will find that, indeed, God helps those who help themselves. Sometimes I almost hope some of the consequences of global warming happen sooner then the general conscensus suggests. I want to see Jeb Bush interviewed as most of florida is washed over by whitecaps on a breezy day.I wish I could think of something more optimistic but you take what you can get, I guess.

The same could be said from a fundamentalist point of view about environmentalists/evolutionists.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

NosyNed writes:

quote:

---

The good news is that for those who believe this stuff they will get an awakening before death.

---

Yeah, but that's happened plenty of times before and it didn't seem to destroy people's belief in the illogical.I remember when I went to Europe being told that many of the great cathedrals there date from the 11th century. The reason is the dramatic upswing in giving to the church in the year 999. Christians were utterly convinced that the end of the world would come at the end of the day December 31, 1000. All over Christendom, people donated valuable property to the church in order to be in good graces with God when the end came. Everyone was rather surprised when the next day arrived just as the last one had, and the day after that came as well.The church, it seems, decided not to give the property back to the people but instead went on a building spree, and thus we have lots of beautiful cathedrals which date from the 11th century.Lots of these dates for the end-of-the-world have been predicted by various groups as you know, of course. My point is that even when the church takes unfair advantage of believers, to the point of virtually confiscating their property en masse, they dutifully keep on believing.So your bad news is much more bad than your good news is good.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Ned explained what he meant, perhaps you could explain your statement. What negative environmental impact are environmentalists/evolutionists likely to have, and the fundamentalists are warning them about?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This doesn't make much sense. It is like saying "oh the end of the world is near, let's forget about marriage and have an orgy".I think you are using the term fundamentalist very broadly here, to lay the environment to waste, doesn't seem to me to be very congruent with fundamentalism. Even if one would believe that the end of times are near, there is still no instruction given to make a mess of things.I'm sure there are some people who believe the end of times are near, but the rationale to then stop caring at the end of times is still very weak. I think such theology will easily be shown to be nothing but greed. I would rather think that if you really believe the end of times are near, you would show your best, and be very goody-goody, for fear of God.Let's make a list about what political, and societal forces are at play which destroy the environment.1. consumerism
2. nothing
3. nothing
4. nothing
5. nothing
6. government progress / development programs
7. nothing
8. nothing
9. nothing
..
128. some people who believe the end of times are near, and just don't care about the future earthregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I, Quetzal, being of (relatively) sound mind, do hereby declare that for the first time in the history of EvCForum I actually agree with something Syamasu has written on any subject. There was a recent thread on this very subject. No one on that thread was able to show any causative connection between fundamentalism and environmental destruction - neither Moyer, nor any of our EvC participants - that could not be better explained by human greed, human need, and human ignorance. When the major mainstream environmental protection and conservation organizations fail top note this causative connection, IMO the evidence beyond rhetoric is lacking. The key causative factors impelling environmental degradation are (in order): bioinvasion, deforestation, and pollution. The million-fold increase in bioinvasion (as an example, Hawaii has gone from an estimated one new species established every 70,000 years prior to human occupation to an estimated one new species every 18 days today - Devine, R 1998, Alien Invasion, NatGeoSoc, pg 10), is due to globalisation; the acceleration of deforestation is due to increased population pressure and corporate greed; and pollution is caused by consumerism and corporate greed. None of these factors have anything to do with religion of any stripe, and no correlation has been proposed that stands up to scrutiny.The US Department of Agriculture alone imported on the order of 50,000 exotic species into the US between 1890 and 1920 - about 4500 of which have become invasives (see OTA-F-565, "Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States", Office of Technology Assessment, 1993). Let's deal with the REAL environmental destruction causes and leave the religion-bashing where it belongs.

Quetzal, I suppose governments might be able to do something about these problems if they really wanted to. I think Moyer's point is that if you have a group of leaders who believe in an imminent end of times, then they are not going to do anything. On the contrary:"millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse"--(from the speech).However, if governments can do nothing about the globalisation (people traveling around a lot?), corporate greed, population increase, and consumerism--no matter their religious beliefs or lack thereof--then the changes are inevitable.But I guess your point is that the real culprit has to do with economics.

I myself believe that the problem of economic destruction is too vast, too international, and too politically cumbersome for there to be any practical solution.In the US, for example, the two cities which vie each year for the being the most polluted are LA and Houston--cities which rely on freeway systems to move people around, with a minimum of public transport. The problem is there are too many privately owned vehicles. There are petrochemical plants in the Houston area but the Gov. has cracked down on their emissions, with some strict controls.
Cars are inspected more rigorously for emissions problems, although less strictly in Houston than LA., but still much more strictly in the last 10 years or so.If you really wanted to solve the problem, you would severely limit the number of privately owned vehicles.Try pushing that through congress.

Right, and the reason they don't is primarily economic. One of the biggest failings of US administrations past and present has been their failure to take the modest measures necessary to prevent environmental degradation. It's not only stupid and shortsighted, but it costs way more in lost productivity and biodiversity than could ever be spent on simple control, containment and public education - until it becomes a crisis. Why? Because environmental policy in the US has been handicapped by large industrial concerns who are more interested in increasing their dividends by a few cents in the short term than by any long term costs. The current administration is truly the culmination of this trend. What the idiots don't seem to understand is that the expenditure of a few million $$ now can save billions later. A few efforts that show the ability of government to succeed in this type of endeavor include control of the Asian Gypsy Moth in the Pacific Northwest of the US and Canada - at the cost of a couple million dollars in containment and pest control (using Bacillus thuringiensis) they've prevented an estimated 50 billion dollars in agriculture and timber losses.However, it's not just governments. People are ignorant. The OTA report I referenced listed 27 species of exotic aquarium fish that have established breeding populations (mostly in the South), many of which are destructive. It wasn't government inaction - these fish were released by people dumping their aquariums into local watersheds because they didn't want to deal with them anymore and didn't want to dispose of the "poor widdle fishies" themselves. Gardners in Florida accidently released Asian Figs into the wild - now a major pest species - because they were nice and pretty in their gardens (until frankenstein got loose when its pollinator showed up).None of this has anything at all to do with religious attitudes. Corporate greed, human ignorance, and human needs are the driving factors, whatever Bill Moyer might think. Changes are NOT inevitable. If you think that, then we might as well give up now. Blaming fundies for the problem - especially when everyone is responsible - is just another way of avoiding confronting the issue and doing something about it. Next time you think of cheating on your customs declaration (oh, that won't hurt anything), or releasing your hamster into the wild when you're tired of it, or importing some exotic for your garden - STOP and think about what you're doing.Unsustainable development policies, corporate greed, emasculating environmental control laws, failure to deal effectively with poverty in the developing world, and sheer willful ignorance are what we need to fight. We can do something about all of it.Edited to add: Even the outdoor enthusiast movements have been guilty! Release of mountain goats in the Olympic Range in Washington state imported from BC have caused incredible destruction in an area where they are non-native. The local mountain ecosystem - isolated as it has been for millions of years - is simply not equipped to absorb this species. They are destroying native grasses and lichens at an incredible rate. They DO look picturesque, however. Flipping eco-nuts are the proximate cause of habitat destruction because they wanted to "restock" a species in an area where it never lived!This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-25-2005 11:22 AM

Your list all depends on the identity of "some people" in #128.If the US president and administration happen to be the "some people" with that view, suddenly #128 rates in the top ten.

Hey Pink: And you're able to show evidence that it's the administration's religious outlook rather than its being in the pay of corporate and industrial interests that is the cause of their gross negligence and utter disregard for the environment?

Please don't use a group of religious masqueraders as the standard for Christianity. The type of people that you mention robbed their followers over and over in the name of God for centuries (and it hasn't stopped). If you like reading, you might enjoy an eye-opening book that was writen by Charles Chiniquy a while back (50 years in the Church of Rome) that covers alot of this subject in depth. If you click ahead to chapter 5 you can read about the abuse of a poor widow (just one example) that continues to make my blood boil when I read it (not only because it happend back then, but also because it CONTINUES to happen today!). But the Bible mentions this and clearly points out that these kinds of predators are not followers of God: But it gets even worse than that as is pointed out in: 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).The people who do such things are not led by the Holy Spirit; instead, they are working for the enemy; one way or another. Please don't compare hypocrites with true Christians.

I'm just saying that a certain religious attitude might be a factor in that it would bias politicians or other people in decison-making positions from taking scientists seriously. It might have nothing to do with end-of-the-world views. Some politicians have said, I think, that global warming is either an illusion or a natural change that the earth's climate is going through.And I don't think we can equate the problem of people throwing pets out into the wild with poverty in the developing world in terms of the intractibility of such problems. I can see a public ad campaign that could work--"Don't throw your pets into the wild! You can be fined!--But poverty? And population control?China has a law forbidding a couple from having more than two children (something like that). One might have a problem passing such a law in a democracy. Especially a Catholic-dominated democracy.

While I agree with your overall point (and yes unbelievably Syamsu as well), that does not mean that Moyer's and Ned and Pink don't have a point at all.I would say that the fundementalist (and remember I am just talking hardcore fundemantalism) Xians do have an attitude which makes possible worse environmental decisions. The fact that they are leading many of those corporations and the US gov't at this point, has some impact on how they will treat eco policies.I might add that it doesn't help that they are actively trying to dumb down kids regarding science, and feed the scientific ignorance in adults today. You talk about the dangers of speciation, yet these people do not believe in new species emerging or moving without the will of God.Indeed much of our tracking mechanisms on that subject are being undercut by the ID movement of which Bush is a fan, and so are his appointees (including in education).I had a thread challenging IDists regarding that very subject, tenets of evolutionary theory were used to identify and track the source of a new environmental biohazard. If ID held sway, where would we be, or who would listen/fund those doing the work?There is something about an apocalyptic biblical-literalist viewpoint which simply does not help people make good decisions, or learn what is necessary to make good decisions.That said, I would stand right behind you in mocking the efforts of self-professed eco-friendly people who turn around and do more damage than the fundies and corporate fatcats. At least the latter groups have a good excuse.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

I didn't know I was required to show evidence for a hypothetical situation.Though I must say that greed-based decision are made more readily with religion as underlying, almighty moral justification.Imagine there are two administrations, both motivated by greed. One follows a religion that promotes trashing the environment. The other follows a religion that forbids trashing the environment.Which one is more likely to trash the enviroment based on greed?This is not a black-and-white situation, though it seems some are trying to make it out to be that way. It is not economic or religious factors that guide policy, both come into play among other factors.