In the NYT, this push by the National Association of Evangelicals is described as bringing a "surprise ally" to the environmentalists. The Association's point man on this topic, Richard Cizik, said,
"Genesis 2:15," citing a passage that serves as the justification for the effort: "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."This, of course, is not always a viewpoint conservatives agree with. The NYT quoted Senator James Inhofe (R-OK),
"We believe that we have a rightful responsibility for what the Bible itself challenges. Working the land and caring for it go hand in hand. That's why I think, and say unapologetically, that we ought to be able to bring to the debate a new voice."
"You can always find in Scriptures a passage to misquote for almost anything," dismissing the position of Mr. Cizik's association as "something very strange."
Mr. Inhofe said the vast majority of the nation's evangelical groups would oppose global warming legislation as inconsistent with a conservative agenda that also includes opposition to abortion rights and gay rights. He said the National Evangelical Association had been "led down a liberal path" by environmentalists and others who have convinced the group that issues like poverty and the environment are worth their efforts.
Will environmentalism become a piece of the Christian political agenda?
8 comments:
He said the National Evangelical Association had been "led down a liberal path" by environmentalists and others who have convinced the group that issues like poverty and the environment are worth their efforts.
Huh? Is he implying that dealing with issues like poverty and the environment are NOT worth the effort? How could an evangelical claim that poverty is not worth addressing? How could Christians (who speak so often of stewardship, at least in reference to money) NOT protect the environment?
Mind boggling.
As I understand it, the traditional conservative perspective was that the Earth was ours to have dominion over. Preserving it was not of utmost importance since it's only a temporary home.
Jason, yeah, I thought the same thing when I first read that part. It definitely has left me somewhat confused. My hunch is that the second half of that sentence is just poorly worded by the author. (Although, we'd need to see the senator's entire quote to be sure.)
Would Kyoto actually devastate the U.S. economy, though?
Or would it just cut into certain entities' profit.
I find it hard to believe that the economic devastation from signing Kyoto would be greater than the economic devastation of year after year of record breaking hurricane seasons slamming into the Gulf coast and Florida. While I am by no means an expert in this area, there are indications that rising sea temperatures (which are fueling these mega-hurricanes) are resulting from global warming. This isn't really about cute little owls or whatever Sierra Club is after, it's about human lives and human habitats.
>>just cut into certain entities' profit<<
right on westy.
>>the developing world is free to ignore<<
others' failure to live up to godly standards does not mean that we should not. that is what integrity is; steadfast adherence to our morals regardless of consequences.
...rising sea temperatures...
As far as I know, there is little evidence that the current upturn in hurricane frequency caused by higher sea temperatures is anything out of the ordinary pattern.
In addition, it is likely that even full implementation of the Kyoto protocols would not affect the weather enough to affect something like this if it were the cause.
However, I don't think that there's anything wrong with attempting to work out a solution to the problem. It's easy for the US to say right now that they'd sign it if China and India would, but what can we do in the interim? How about take some meaningful steps to eliminate mercury pollution. Here's a situation in which the cost surely is less than the benefit. And I don't care how many peoples' jobs it costs, if it's saving peoples' lives, it may be worth it.
Dude, did you see the movie "Erin Brockovitch"? Ok, this lady took down the big evil utility company. Many people (mostly innocent I'm sure) likely lost their job in that company. But was that not okay considering the devastation they were causing?
>>And I don't care how many peoples' jobs it costs, if it's saving peoples' lives, it may be worth it.<<
amen. americans in general can perhaps make arguments based solely upon the economy, but i believe christians are called to a much greater responsibility.
Post a Comment