NEWS: Environmentalism and the Church

POLITICS: Environmentalism and the Church

As President Bush’s second term begins, it might appear that very clear lines are drawn throughout the American political landscape. However, consider the domain of environmentalism, which is presently changing. That is, it is increasingly being espoused as an issue by the right—the Christian right, specifically. Reporting in The Washington Post (free registration required), Blaine Harden writes:

"There are significant and compelling theological reasons why it should be a banner issue for the Christian right," states Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Evangelical Association. His group (which boasts 30 million members) is playing no small part in this phenomenon:

What this will mean for policy is obviously difficult to predict. However, it does seem that the movement may have to be reckoned with in the near future:

These developments have been noted by the existing environmental lobby. The question is, then, one of strategy. Environmentalists are trying to figure out how to bridge gaps between their own groups and the Christian right:

But there are obstacles. One such example comes from a peculiar strain of messianic believers:

According to John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, groups like the one mentioned above are becoming increasingly marginal, while more moderate voices—e.g., that of Ball—are gaining ground:

President Bush is done campaigning for re-election. therefore he is done pandering to the religious right. He used them to get re-elected, and he isn't "in their pocket".

this sits nicely on the line between a good thing and a bad thing. However, if overzealous right wing super christians start shooting corporate polluters instead of homersexials and pro choicers, that'd be cool

There are some very large christian based environmental organizations in the country. I don't know the names of any off the top of my head, but I had some come and speak in one of my environmental studies classes a couple years ago.

Interesting, I always hear just the opposite from Christians, something along the lines of "God gave us the Earth so we could rape it."

Why is it anything like bad if conservatives agree with you? I think it's great when conservatives agree with me, and I think it's great when liberals agree with me.

Liberals and conservatives aren't antitheses of each other. We're all Americans here, and we agree more often than not. Partisan politics tends to highlight the disagreements and often blows them way out of proportion. If most of us didn't agree on most of the basics (US Constitution, market economy, democratic government), the country would be ungovernable and would disintegrate. Red and blue would be armed camps rather than political dispositions.

Sweet. About time the church got it together and started putting it's weight were it belongs. This is definately something Jesus would do.

I think this is only new in the United States.

A radical movement that has been around for some time advocates the Ecotheology of Liberation. This is based on a justice model (not a charity model) and engages in praxis.

There's lots of sources on the internet regarding ecotheology of liberation.

I don't really see this happening, but I hope it does.

Most environmentalism IS based on religion.

http://suicidegirls.com/boards/Current+Events/62442/

Should I be celebrating that yet another large proportion of the populace has, through a leap of faith & illogic, deluded themselves into being overly sentimental about the spotted owl?

Why should I find this a suprise, much less welcome it?

[Edited on Feb 08, 2005 by Derrida_Died]

well this is all good except they elected someone who promises to serve yet destroys all that comes in his path...ie:the economy , the environment , other nations , va benefits etc...shoulda thought before "y'all' voted...

regarding the information presented, i say this: duh.

for the problems, let's see.

wouldn't it be HILARIOUS if the people who voted for bush because of their beliefs asked him to do something for the environment and then found out he's totally been deceiving them about how much he cares about their agendas and opinions from the get-go?

or even better, if the collective hive-mind of the target-constituency come eleciton time ACTUALLY LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

i dunno, maybe my sense of humor is a bit off, but i still think it would be funny to see them squirm when they find out he's just another liar politician and an asshole to boot.

i mean, he says he's got god on his side. me, i have an ingrown hair on my side. it hurts sometimes, but it doesn't talk to me. maybe he's just a nutjob and his mandates from god are actually mandates from a pusbag.

or maybe god/pusbag will tell him to go along with it since all of his policies thus far have been directed at destroying "god's creation" for profit, and if i was god, i'd sure be upset about that shit.

[edited for gross typographical errors)

[Edited on Feb 09, 2005 12:51AM]

Michael Chrichton said it -it must be true. There's logic for you.
I guess next you're going to tell us Evolution is also a religion, and has no basis in science? It's the same argument, really.
There's a difference between something being treated like a religion by people and something being a quote unquote religion. Celebrities, for example.
And yeah, all environmentalists focus severely on endangered populations, not bigger concerns like overconsumption of resources and rising C02 emissions. We just care about saving them owls!

No, what Michael Crighton happens to be saying makes sense. I wouldn't care who wrote it. It is what it is.

For example, http://www.fumento.com/erinwsj.html ; http://www.fumento.com/brocklett.html .

and their going to march to washington with their demands that a fellow christian also become a shephard of the land.

and upon arriving they saw a golden calf

and around the golden calf were all the members of Bush's administration, bowing their heads in reverence to this false idol. Bush turned from his worship, and addressed the crowd.

"Be Gone from Here Fellow Christians!!! The Golden Calf has spoken, and it is money, and riches we need, not green pastures and fresh air."

and the christians were shocked.

THE END

(no despite my story, this is a good thing, glad to see them on board)

The air seems fresh enough to me already.

pandering to the religous right? Excuse me, but Bush IS the religious right.

I don't care if it hasn't been proven 100% if something is carcinogenic or not. If its POSSIBLE it may kill me, I don't fucking want it it my water supply. That simple. Maybe if we stopped worrying about having luxury left right and center, and started living more simply, these problems would start to lessen.

No, Crichton cherry picked his examples to try and make straw man for his case against environmentalism. He also neglects to mention what in his book is fact and what is fiction (it is a work of fiction after all.) Much of his "evidence" is fabricated because it smooths the plot lines out. This wouldn't be such a big deal if people weren't foolish enough to take what a schlock fiction writer puts in his books as gospel truth.

As for the larger issue, I think it's a good sign. Remember that the feminist movement didn't really start to make legislative progress until the largely secular core of the movement that begun it allowed themselves to be allied with the more conservative christian temperance movement to work towards a common goal of suffrage. Credit Susan B. Anthony for her skills in forming a marriage of convenience to achieve a common purpose. The lesson being that you don't always have to like everything about your allies.

Edited to fix quote.

[Edited on Feb 10, 2005 by legionnaire]

First of all, a head of lettuce has not been proven 100% carcinogenic or not. Toast is carcinogenic. If you want to live a completey risk-free life, don't leave your house and don't cross the street. In fact, live in a bubble.

Second, what we are talking about here, is the difference between imposing criminal penalties for a company dumping something that is measurably harmless, but probably shouldn't be there on the one hand; on the other hand, allowing 100 people who are sick for a completely different reason (bad luck) to bilk a company for $300 million in a civil case based on claims that any reasonably trained person can tell is false. The first case is perhaps reasonable regulation, the second case is scapegoating. Notably, if you read Fumento's analysis of the Erin Brockovitch case, you'll find that he is scientifically correct. Erin Brockovitch, in her response, cheats the facts. Whatever the case, she's dodging the truth about it, and those people as a group didn't deserve the $300 million dollars that they got.

Third, there is a difference between saying:

(1) "All the studies indicate that compund X is not a carcinogen. We're all but 99.99 % certain that it poses no risk to humans, and if there is any risk, it will effect less than 0.001 % of the population, which is less than the risk of crossing the street. But I feel like we should ban it anyways."

(2) versus: "Why can't the government get all of those goddamn bad 'chemicals' that are carcinogens off the surface of my lettuce."

Environmentalists do far more of (2) than they do of (1), which makes them liars and exaggeraters. Which is, for the most part, why I can't stand so many of them.

The greenhouse effect, there is enough data to suggest it is real. The only question is how much it is going to matter, and how much it is going to cost to avert it.

What problems? So far as I can see right now, things are better than they have ever been in the history of the human race.

[Edited on Feb 11, 2005 by Derrida_Died]

I'm not talking about Michael Crichton's book. His book is an experiment in fiction.

I'm talking about his speech. Admittedly, the speech does not provided references, because it's a speech. But you can look up most of the information & draw from your own experiences and realize that they are generally true.

Environmentalists will still claim that their beliefs are not motivated by a religious belief. Some environmentalists may actually not be motivated by a religious belief. But to a majority of environmentalists, interest in the environment is primarily motivated by spiritual belief & is not motivated by science.

If you don’t believe me, consider that conservatives may also claim that their values are not motivated by religion. Sexual abstinence, abstinence from drugs, abstinence from alcohol, promotion of marriage, opposing homosexuality, connecting with your communities through church; all of these behaviors can be promoted on secular grounds. For example, such values can be justified by a desire to avert unwanted pregnancy, avoid venereal disease, avoid addiction, and discourage risky behaviors. In most cases, conservative values do promote personal emotional well-being. But, let's not kid ourselves. How these people prioritize and structure their world is highly influenced by their religious beliefs.

Identifying spiritual beliefs is important, in particular because environmental policies place so many restrictions on other people’s behavior. There needs to be a catharsis where environmentalists come clean about the nature of their beliefs. Only then will we put a grasp on what the real risks are, and in what circumstances, and aquire some notion about what acceptable risk is. Too many environmentalists are intent on fudging and “exaggerating” the facts for what they believe in. I don’t approve of that.

Really, I don't see the difference. Generally speaking, environmentalism = religion.

[Edited on Feb 11, 2005 by Derrida_Died]

This entire statement screams fucking ignorance man.

Not the complete ignorance but the kind of ignorance that comes from A LITTLE BIT OF KNOWLEDGE used in the wrong way.

For example. In your statement "A" you bring up a chemical, chemical "X". You then state that "we're" all but certain that 99.9% blah, blah, blah, blah. But you fail to state who the "WE" is.

You also fail to notice, or you atleast do not indicate what the 99.9% number repressents. Which, coming from a family of biology professors is the larges hole in your arguement.

Is this under constant exposure?
Daily exposure.
Is this the entire population base of the united states?
Or is it a select community with a historically small gene base (ie the community has had long time residents, and thus a limited gene pool)

See the problem with people like yourself, is that you use A LITTLE BIT OF SCIENCE to try and disprove scientific evidence that is supported by countless amounts of evidence. Such people think that by dropping a few well placed numbers here, and a few "studies (if you can call them that) there will "disprove" ALL of the science that they DON'T WANT TO HEAR.

Well that works on some people, people with say a junior high level of understanding in the scientific method. But anyone that understands the basis process involved see's right through your fucking lies man. All it takes is researching the organizations supporting the "studies" sited to see the conflict of interest involved in whatever the anti-environmentalists use as their RHETORIC for their counter arguement.

It's all right though man. All of the scientists working right now to save the water shed, stop global warming, limit our use of nitrogen based fert. and so on are working to save you too. When the shit hits the fan we won't leave you out.

Oh, and if you want fresh air. Go to Pasedina TX live there for 40 years, and tell me if you feel the burn yet!!!! (average cancer age there is about 45 years of age for long term residents)

What stuck with me when I read your posts were insults and Blah Blah Blah.
That is a reasoned agument that will sway people to your way of thinking.......or not. Right now I would prob go with Derrida_Died said over you if I didn't have anything else to go on.

yep understandable.
still doesn't change the fact that what I said was accurate though. The insulsts were simply more direct then those "hinted" at by people like Derrida.

I'm sick of trying to find common ground with neo-conservative's so I don't.

But I concede to your point I have a tendency to be abrubt, and cuss a lot. People really hate it when I'm right, and rude at the same time.

It may be accurate, but how would I know. You didn't back any of it up. You said she didn't know what she was talking about, never directly addressed her statments, and gave no support for your arguments. It make me wonder, is this facts or feeling.