Christian Environmentalism
In light of the evidence and the conflict raised here since my Whimsical Creationist post earlier this week, I think this site might be worth reading:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/
This site gives reader feedback:
http://www.grist.org/etc/letters/2005/01/21/letters-godly/
While the main article articulates my own concerns about biblical literalists, big "A" is well represented in the feedback. Clearly, there are two schools of thought within American Christianity regarding the environment. Unfortunately, the school now in control of our government seems not to represent either big "A" or myself. While the conservative political right in America does not enjoy my support, however, it does seem to receive the support of the majority of Christians. The only thing I can point to for an explanation is the thoroughly recognized complacency that Christians have toward the environment. They are not complacent about abortion or homosexuality or the fear of terrorist attack, but they are about global warming, pollution, fossil fuel consumption, protection of the forests, etc. So they vote right-wing based on their fears and sit idly by while they allow powerful corporations to rape the environment. But along come big "A" types who claim that indeed Christians do care about the environment, "prove otherwise."
Go figure...
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/
This site gives reader feedback:
http://www.grist.org/etc/letters/2005/01/21/letters-godly/
While the main article articulates my own concerns about biblical literalists, big "A" is well represented in the feedback. Clearly, there are two schools of thought within American Christianity regarding the environment. Unfortunately, the school now in control of our government seems not to represent either big "A" or myself. While the conservative political right in America does not enjoy my support, however, it does seem to receive the support of the majority of Christians. The only thing I can point to for an explanation is the thoroughly recognized complacency that Christians have toward the environment. They are not complacent about abortion or homosexuality or the fear of terrorist attack, but they are about global warming, pollution, fossil fuel consumption, protection of the forests, etc. So they vote right-wing based on their fears and sit idly by while they allow powerful corporations to rape the environment. But along come big "A" types who claim that indeed Christians do care about the environment, "prove otherwise."
Go figure...
posted by Bill | 10:28 PM
6 Comments:
Your logic is flawed. You assume that since Christians vote in favor of Republicans because of their views on abortion and gay marriage then they must also agree with all of their other views. Then you deduce that since Republicans feel we must strengthen corporations in order to improve the economy, and since these corporations take and inch when you give them an inch when it comes to the environment, then Christians must be in favor of trashing the planet. That's a big leap, and I don't think you are correct in making it.
I decided to not be anonymous anymore. What do you think of the name?
Perhaps now I should call you "Smart A.."
And I assume no such thing. I assume (as has been well documented here in the past week) that Christians generally are complacent about the environment and really don't give a damn what happens to it as long as they can maintain or improve their standard of living.
God Bless America
Because so many of the political issues are intertwined, like the economy and the environment, education and poverty, abortion and gay rights, sometimes we have to make tough choices when we vote. I am a Christian environmentalist. I work every day in my job to protect our waterways from pollution. I also know that many environmental activist groups, such as the Sierra Club and Clean Water Action, get it wrong. They don't understand the science, the facts, and they pressure politicians into bad decisions. The recent EPA bypass guideline is a perfect example of that. So I will not vote for politicians who base their decisions on recommendations from the environmental lobby. I don't trust them. But I will vote for politicians who will vote pro-life, even if it means they make mistakes in other areas. Because millions of children are being murdered and I can't have it on my conscience to not fight that. I can't be complacent about abortion because it's like watching someone put a gun to someone else's head right in front of me. To me that takes priority over protecting a tree. I'm an environmentalist but I believe people are far more important than trees or animals. And yes, of course I believe in Intelligent Design, but I also believe many aspects of evolutionary theory, such as the fact that the earth is significantly older than 10,000 years.
Oh yeah, and big A is wrong when he said in Gen 9 God promised never to destroy the earth again. He said he would not destroy the earth BY FLOOD again. Big difference. Oh yeah, I believe the end is near, but I sure as hell don't think cutting down trees is hastening it. I don't know how many more generations will inhabit this planet but God commanded me to conserve and protect it, so I will.
Thank you, MM, for your comments. It's nice to see a sane comment in here once in awhile. :)
First, what is this "EPA bypass guideline" that you referred to?
You say this with respect to your choice between voting anti-abortion and voting pro-environment, "To me that [the murder of abortion] takes priority over protecting a tree." History over the past century has demonstrated, if nothing else, that environmentalism is more than merely saving trees. Somehow I think you must be aware of that, but if not, then perhaps you should do some research. You weren't around in the late 60s when the sunrise over Pittsburgh illuminated the purple-green clouds that hugged the city. You weren't around to witness the stench of the green water pouring down over Niagara Falls or the sickening sulfur smell of the Androscoggin River in New Hampshire and Maine or the paint peeling from cars and homes across the rivers from Maine's paper mills.
But you are around now and if you cared to look, you could witness the warnings against eating Maine's fresh-water fish because of mercury pollution still being emitted by Midwest power plants. You could stand on a northern Maine hillside far from any industry and witness the mile-deep layer of smog so visible now at sunset, smog that simply was not there when I was your age. You are around to witness the melting of the Arctic ice sheet. Perhaps you or your children will even witness the melting of the Antarctic ice cap and the flooding of the entire ocean shoreline that will result from that.
Environmentalism isn't a simple matter of saving a few trees, nor is it simply about reducing the rate of pollution, minimizing within economic reason the amount of pollution that urbanization and industrialization and the commercialization of agriculture release into our air and water. Environmentalism is about learning how to live without destroying our environment. Environmentalism is about learning how to live differently, about how the world needs to live a sustainable lifestyle. Environmentalism is learning how to live in such a way that in the end, we don't all wind up killing our own children and grandchildren, killing our survivors, and taking with us all of God's earthly creation. Environmentalism is about projecting the way we live now into the future and measuring the disastrous results. Environmentalism is about changing our selfish ways.
MM, I think you know this in your heart, but for some reason you are blinded to it by your Conservative Christian passion against abortion. There is a reason why the pro-life politicians are pro-war too. There is a reason why anti-abortion politicians are also anti-environmentalism. The reason is because those who promote power and wealth in this country know that you will vote for them no matter what if they stand with you against abortion, even if their stand shows no sign of being genuinely pro-life.
Well there you go making wrong assumptions and character judgements about me again. I know exactly what environmentalism is about and I do quite a few things to help the effort. Including my job, which is designing wastewater treatment facilities to be able to treat more water to higher and higher degrees of purity. There are wastewater plants whose effluent I would drink and not be afraid of. Because I know the science. I know environmentalism is more than saving a tree, I have studied many many of the issues at hand. I have traveled all over the world and seen all kinds of manmade damage to nature. I have looked out over the L.A. basin many mornings and have not been able to see the mountains just a few miles in front of me. I have seen the effects of acid rain on marble monuments all over ancient Europe. I have witnessed the devastated landscape left behind all over Pennsylvania from strip coal mining. I have seen houses black with ash from power plants in East Germany. I have seen wild penguins and baboons injured from trash left along roads through the plains of Africa. I have cleaned the dirt off my skin and glasses after it rains in Italy. I know all about environmentalism. I also know about the beneficial use of chemicals and fossil fuels, and how we should be balancing the two. And no, I would not vote for someone who would pillage the environment because they once claimed to be pro-life. I am not a one-issue voter. I just have priorities in my issues. I study many different positions AND the records of the candidates I vote for. You are wrong once again.
Oh yeah, and eventually I'll get around to posting on my own blog about the EPA wastewater bypass fiasco, but its too complicated to explain right now.
Post a Comment
<< Home