'The Legend Of Soccer Mom': One More Myth Of Inexhaustibility

It may be true that America's "religion" involves exploitation of nature to great extent. However, I would like to clarify that this is certainly not encouraged by the Bible.

The passage mentioned is Genesis 1:28. In Hebrew, the word "dominion" means "higher on the root of a plant". This does not imply that Man has absolute authority over Nature. Rather, we are dependent upon it for our survival. If the roots are cut from under us, we will perish.

I care for God's Creation because He has trusted me with it.

I vote for Eric Cartman. BEEFCAAAKE!

thad,
the bible may not encourage exploitation, but the church traditionally has. Christianity spread the idea that everything on Earth was here for our uses, that clearing wilderness was virtuous. The church also viewed nature as a false idol, since many pagans worshiped trees, animals, etc.

If you follow the spread of christianity around the world, it is no coincidence that environmental degradation accelerated shortly after it's arrival in a new region.

Aj

seriously....

Believe it or not, I am actually a tree-hugger and a Christian. It's not only possible, in fact there a lot of us. And there would be a LOT MORE IF STUPID PEOPLE WOULD STOP TRYING TO POLARIZE CHRISTIANITY OUT OF ENVIRONMENTALISM!!! *stops yelling to catch breath.*

Really, environmentalism can use more Christians. And to get them on board, you just simply have to stop repeating myths like Christian's believe they rule over nature and so they are all evil and stupid. If you draw a line in the sand and say you are either a Christian or you are an environmentalist, Christians are going to pick Jesus every time. But if you speak nicely and say that recycling is a way of pleasing God and honoring his creation, Christian will start recycling.

So I say one last time: PLEASE STOP TRYING TO POLARIZE CHRISTIANITY OUT OF ENVIRONMENTALISM!!!

"If you follow the spread of christianity around the world, it is no coincidence that environmental degradation accelerated shortly after it's arrival in a new region."

Oh, really? What about Easter Islanders? They managed to destroy their environment quite nicely, without the aid of Christianity.

Have you ever seen the environmental devastation of former Soviet Bloc countries such as Czechoslovakia? Or industrial regions of the People's Republic of China? These societies were or currently are athiest by statute. There is really nothing to compare the level of destruction in any other industrialized so-called "Christian" nation.

Now I know that it is fashionable (and tiresomely quite predictable) for self-styled "progressives" to denounce all manifestations of Christianity -- but you'll really have to do better than that.

@rob

Which church is "the church" of Christianity? Generalize much? Technological advancement (industrialization) and human expansion is truly the mode in which your environmental degradation expanded.

Now I know that it is fashionable (and tiresomely quite predictable) for self-styled "progressives" to denounce all manifestations of Christianity -- but you'll really have to do better than that.

OK. How about the whole "the Earth is not my true home" belief prevalent among a good many evangelicals? Or its cousin, the belief in all sorts of prophecies about the world coming to an end through conflict in the Middle East, and thus incenting people to cheer on chaos over there? How does that work for the planet?

My favorite is when people say it's "arrogant to think that Man can hurt God's creation." That's a beauty.

The point is, those are many times unconscious assumptions which lead to tangible destructive behavior, particularly among many American Christians, with respect to the environment, and we can readily observe it in the SUV, big tough guy, rah rah kill the Muslims attitude that has had such a powerful resurgence over the past 25 years or so, and particularly the past 6 years.

A good amount of what passes for debate, regardless of which side, is based on the easy strategy of finding the most extreme examples of opposition to one's own views and attributing that view to everyone you think disagrees with you.

This is what the most prominent media opponents of climate change action in Australia do consistently - and believe me, it isn't that hard to find apocalyptic comments unsupported by science - such as equating every single extreme weather occurrence to global warming - to lampoon.

Let's not do that here. I have no doubt that in America you can find any number of exotic views. But mainstream views might be a better basis on which to assess the position of Christianity towards the environment.

Let's start with the Catholic Church. As reported by the Catholic News Service last month, the Vatican's oberver at the UN, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, told a gathering in Columbus on April 14 that every Catholic can do something about climate change by adopting a life of voluntary simplicity,

To quote from the CNS story:

Citing Genesis' call to humanity to oversee creation while protecting it and the church's social doctrine, the Vatican diplomat outlined the Holy See's position on the need for Catholics to heed the environmental dangers the planet faces.

"The denigration of the environment has become an inescapable reality," the archbishop said.

"There is no doubt that the latest assessment has established a strong connection between human activity and climate change," he said, referring to a February statement by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Archbishop Migliore acknowledged that although not all scientists agree that climate change is occurring other environmental threats, such as indiscriminate deforestation, water pollution, the lack of potable water in many parts of the world and the depletion of fish stocks, demand action from the world community and individual Catholics alike.

"We need to drink deep from this frustrating foundation of knowledge and wisdom, known as the aggressive and progressive degradation of the environment, that has become an inescapable reality," he said.

Archbishop Migliore called God's placing of humans in the Garden of Eden with the instruction not only to tame nature, but to keep, or preserve, it as well. God's instruction was not so much a commandment but a blessing "to perfect, not destroy, the cosmos," he said.

Any steps to protect the environment must depend on more than the use of technology and traditional economics; they must depend on "ethical, social and religious values as well," he said.

Perhaps part of the reason there are Christians that remain dubious or sceptical about the environmental movement is because there is a residue within green circles who identify with the historical "left" (whatever that now means) and express hostile (and misinformed views) that don't make those of faith feel welcome.

That seems pretty clear-cut to me.

That's words from one person. What does that have to do with the average American Christian's mindset and actions with respect to the environment? It is not an "exotic" view for an American Christian to live in a McMansion, drive his Yukon to the corner store, tow a big fat boat, and vote for politicians who have incredibly destructive policies. Recycling? Energy saving? Renewables? Local food? Hah! These things are nowhere in their minds, and if they are, it is a hostile thought towards them.

Even if they believe they care for the Earth, their actions certainly don't correspond with it. See the above ways of thinking I mentioned. They are commonplace, not exotic.

Wow again with environmentalist ignorance. Yes all people who live in big houses and drive SUV's are Christians...*roll eyes*

Although I'm enjoying this comment thread, it has gotten off a bit on the religious foot, leaving the other key aspects of pop culture mythology behind.

My two cents: Many years ago I was deeply affected by and still remember the thesis of "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism" a rather old and academic tome. For context on the issues being discussed here, one does need to feed back to European roots of North American culture. The current fusion of American politics and religion seems to have surfaced those same old alignments.

What does that have to do with the average American Christian's mindset?

That's a good question. About the same, i guess, as being green has do with the average American agnostic's mindset, or the average American Jew's mindset, or the average American Muslim's mindset.

Or for that matter, the average Indian mindset, or the average Chinese mindset, and so on.

The point is that sheeting home blame for environmental problems to anyone's religion is silly and counter-productive - unless their religion is actually materialism and consumerism.

For mine, if I were to attempt to persuade the people you are talking about to be more green, I'd start with the mainstream Christian view that we are stewards of God's Creation and responsible for preserving it in all its bounty for the equal benefit of all humanity, both now and in the future.

Then I'd point them to the gospel story about rich people, heaven and the eyes of needles, and all those exhortions to forsake greed and share what you have with those less fortunate.

I wouldn't start by telling them it's all their religion's fault.

Wow again with environmentalist ignorance. Yes all people who live in big houses and drive SUV's are Christians...*roll eyes*

Speaking of ignorance, please point me to where I claimed that all people who live in big houses and drive SUVs are Christians. Thanks.

The point is that sheeting home blame for environmental problems to anyone's religion is silly and counter-productive - unless their religion is actually materialism and consumerism.

Unfortunately, there is a clear link between the ideology of a large number of American Christians and destructive environmental attitudes and actions. It's not some random concurrence, so your strawman assertions about there being no link have no basis. For example, one can draw clear lines between Taoist ideology and care for the Earth. So, for example, if the US were predominantly Taoist, one would likely see a vastly different environmental situation.

I know you and others are clearly hypersensitive about this relationship between belief and action, but it is what it is. It's not endemic to Christianity per se, but more to how it manifests in the most widespread fashion in the United States, which has a lot to do with the blurring between the religion and consumerism, but more broadly comes from basic beliefs about the relationship of oneself to the Earth as contrasted to beliefs about God, the role of heaven as the "true home", wishing for apocalypse and so forth.

I wouldn't start by telling them it's all their religion's fault.

First of all, I have never in my life ever addressed someone in such a manner - blaming their religion for hurting the environment. But that doesn't mean I can't have a discussion about whether there's a clear relationship between certain beliefs and environmental destruction. There's a distinction between understanding why things are a certain way and strategies for dealing with it.

Andy, I think we almost agree. A large number of Americans who profess to be Christians also implicitly support an ideology that is destructive to the environment. But there's a big logical leap to say the latter is inextricably tied to the former. It isn't: it's a quirk of your national circumstance. You may as well place the blame for your nation's problem with the environment on it being American rather than it being Christian.

Now, that argument does appeal to me, but I suspect there would be Americans who would regard it as unfair.

You must fight whatever fight you see fit, but I reckon, from a strategic point of view, you might achieve more by seeking to persuade those SUV-driving Christians of yours that environmental responsibility is a good Christian thing to do (feel free to quote the bible and the pope) rather than attempting to persuade them it would all be so much better if they turned Taoist.

I think we almost agree.

I think that, too.

A large number of Americans who profess to be Christians also implicitly support an ideology that is destructive to the environment. But there's a big logical leap to say the latter is inextricably tied to the former.

It's not a logical leap if one can point out explicit beliefs which directly lead to destructive actions. For example, if one views Earth as a fallen place and Heaven as one's "true home", then it would be very easy to treat Earth like a trash pile. If one thinks there's some sort of predestined Second Coming which is precipitated by chaos on Earth, then it follows that people who believe that work to make those conditions manifest. This is a very common mindset nowadays, frigthening and disturbing though it may be.

It isn't: it's a quirk of your national circumstance.

Well, I wouldn't really call it a "quirk". You're talking about a couple of hundred million people from one of the most resource-intensive countries on the planet. And the predominant mindsets here (again, which are variations/interpretations of Christian theology, not universal to all Christian sects and peoples) certainly aren't limited to this country.

You must fight whatever fight you see fit, but I reckon, from a strategic point of view, you might achieve more by seeking to persuade those SUV-driving Christians of yours that environmental responsibility is a good Christian thing to do (feel free to quote the bible and the pope) rather than attempting to persuade them it would all be so much better if they turned Taoist.

I didn't say I try to persuade Christians to be Taoist, any more than I ever try to guilt people into the correlation between their religious beliefs and their personal impacts on the natural environment. I raised Taoism to point out that one can correlate religious beliefs with treatment of the natural world, and posited that if Taoism were the predominant religion as compared to the main American forms of Christianity, one would readily observe a drastic difference in how the Earth is treated. That is to say, one can clearly link religious ideology with enviornmental issues.

There's plenty of scriptural support for treating the planet well, but people are going to twist the Bible in 10,000 different ways to fit whatever ideological arc they want.

Again, this isn't a discussion (for me) about tactics in engaging people who have their Christianity as a high-level value, but rather a simple acknowledgment that one can draw a very clear line between widespread religious beliefs and deleterious environmental outcomes. To me the best tactic is to either use the approach you favor (ie, finding scriptural support for treading lightly), or better yet, to transcend it and work on universal values and incentives that don't involve some sort of conceptual debate.

Accepting that we humans have the power to reshape all life on earth, and even the earth itself, asserts a god-like power for ourselves, something surely absent from any creation story.

I would like to comment that Psalm 38 states ...", Yea are gods"...

I believe this refers to the powers that we possess, including the power to change our world. First of all, it is such an injustice to assume that all who drive SUV's are Christians. Second of all I would like to say that I am a Christian (and African-American if someone should decide we pose as a resonable target) and I am very concerned about the enviroment. Christianity began as THE founding religion of this country and I won't go into detail on the direction this country has taken since opposition to it became so fashionable, but I will agree with other comments that argue along the lines that pollution is just as, if not more, prevalent in Japan, yet they are NOT a Christian nation. Our country has arrived at its current state largely because of our need to be "new." We've lost our sense of values, our heritage, traditions, and our respect for this planet and each other out of the desire to "keep progressing"..."don't look back." We think the old ways are "old ways," but where have they gotten us? America's biggest sin (pardon to pun), is our selfish demand of convenience. Even our families are disposable, so what is a paper cup?

Andy R. --

"OK. How about the whole "the Earth is not my true home" belief prevalent among a good many evangelicals?"

I count "a good many" evangelical Christians among my friends and extended family, but I have never heard of this belief, which you claim is prevalent. Are you sure you're not talking about the Heaven's Gate cult, or Scientologists, or something? You seem a little shakey on the facts, son.

"Or its cousin, the belief in all sorts of prophecies about the world coming to an end through conflict in the Middle East, and thus incenting [sic] people to cheer on chaos over there? How does that work for the planet?"

Is that really any more creepy or psychotic than imagining the world is going to come to an end due to a few people driving Hummers or not recycling their newspapers?

I don't know where you're getting your ideas, but I've never heard of any Christian, Evangelical, or otherwise, "cheer on chaos". I have, however, seen naive white kids dressed up like Yasser Arafat,with their ethnic-chic keffiyeh scarves (calling themselves "peace activists"), holding noisy rallies, and doing exactly what you describe. I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure they weren't Evangelical Christians. If only you were with me that day, you would have known for sure, as you seem to be able to spot Evangelicals a mile away.

"My favorite is when people say it's "arrogant to think that Man can hurt God's creation." That's a beauty."

Although I'm not a Christian, and I've personally never heard a Christian say this, there does seem to be some sense in the statement. I don't believe the Earth is going to go spinning off its axes simply because I failed to recycle my pop cans. But then, perhaps I lack your omnipotence?

"The point is, those are many times unconscious assumptions which lead to tangible destructive behavior, particularly among many American Christians,"

And you know this, how, exactly?

"with respect to the environment, and we can readily observe it in the SUV,"

My SUV was built in Japan. Possibly by Buddhists.

"big tough guy, rah rah kill the Muslims attitude that has had such a powerful resurgence over the past 25 years or so, and particularly the past 6 years."

Hmm, yes. I guess that explains all those Presbyterians declaring jihad. Not to mention all those Southern Baptists and Anglicans blowing up shopping malls with their suicide vests and hijacking airliners. And I must say, seeing all those videos on the Internet of Roman Catholics chopping unbelievers' heads off is starting to get quite dull.

But seriously, Andy, I don't know if you've looked at a newspaper lately ...

"It's not some random concurrence, so your strawman assertions about there being no link have no basis. For example, one can draw clear lines between Taoist ideology and care for the Earth."

Maybe you should tell all those Taoists in Taipei that? Or perhaps they just have a different interpretation of Taoism over there, compared to the one in your imagination?

To be blunt, Andy, I'd like to say I've never seen such a jaw-dropping display of ignorance and disconnect from reality as yours, but sadly, it seems more prevalent than ever nowadays. Your absurd expressions of bigotry (oh, but it's not bigotry so long as it's directed at, ugh! Christians!) would be amusing, if they weren't so sad.

Are you sure you're not talking about the Heaven's Gate cult, or Scientologists, or something? You seem a little shaky on the facts, son.

Try again, son.

http://carolschefer.vox.com/library/post/this-world-is-not-my-home.html

The particular phrase comes from an old gospel song entitled "This World Is Not My Home". You can read the following, which discusses a critique of the belief by a fellow Christian.

http://www.fumc-a2.org/worshipserm/sermon20050529.htm

incenting [sic]

Why would you put "sic" after that? It's a real word and it's used correctly, son.

Is that really any more creepy or psychotic than imagining the world is going to come to an end due to a few people driving Hummers or not recycling their newspapers?

First off, no one believes that a few people driving Hummers and not recycling newspapers is going to make the world come to an end, so you can dispense with that silly straw man. Second, in the case I mentioned, people have made themselves instruments of wanting the world to come to an end, where in the latter (ie, environmentalists), you're dealing with people who wish to protect the planet, life. Try again, son.

I don't know where you're getting your ideas, but I've never heard of any Christian, Evangelical, or otherwise, "cheer on chaos".

I'm not responsible for your myopia, son.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2003/0312apocalypse.php

I have, however, seen naive white kids dressed up like Yasser Arafat,with their ethnic-chic keffiyeh scarves (calling themselves "peace activists"), holding noisy rallies, and doing exactly what you describe.

Wishing for and acting in the direction of bringing the world to an end? Again with the strawmen, son. Interesting insight into what you think of people protesting -- that somehow exercising 1st amendment rights is akin to destroying the planet to you.

Although I'm not a Christian, and I've personally never heard a Christian say this

Again, your mypoia is not my fault, son.

I see variaitons of this sort of comment all the time: "It takes an arrogant people to thing that they can destroy something as balanced as this world."

http://news.ncomn.com/dir/Current+Events

there does seem to be some sense in the statement. I don't believe the Earth is going to go spinning off its axes simply because I failed to recycle my pop cans. But then, perhaps I lack your omnipotence? [sic]

Back to the absurd straw men again. No one believes the Earth will come to an end because they don't recycle pop cans.

And you know this, how, exactly?

Obviously you can't follow simple logic or relationships between one thing and another.

My SUV was built in Japan. Possibly by Buddhists.

Dumb, meaningless non sequitor and quoting out of context. Nice work, son.

Hmm, yes. I guess that explains all those Presbyterians declaring jihad.

You sure love straw men, son. Did I say that ALL Christians were like that? No. I mentioned a clear, obvious attitude that anyone can readily observe. Except mypopes, apparently.

Not to mention all those Southern Baptists and Anglicans blowing up shopping malls with their suicide vests and hijacking airliners.

Another non sequitor, and in case you haven't noticed, "pro lifers" have a habit of blowing up abortion clinics and shooting at their employees. Some also blow up people at the Olympics.

And I must say, seeing all those videos on the Internet of Roman Catholics chopping unbelievers' heads off is starting to get quite dull.

Another non sequitor with no relationship to what I said.

Maybe you should tell all those Taoists in Taipei that? Or perhaps they just have a different interpretation of Taoism over there, compared to the one in your imagination?

You think that Taiwan is primarily a Taoist society? Your ignorance is quite boundless. It has an influence on people's beliefs there, naturally, but it doesn't play the kind of role Christianity does in this country. But asking myopic Mr. Strawmen/Nonsequitor to understand these kinds of delineations is a pipe dream.

To be blunt, Andy, I'd like to say I've never seen such a jaw-dropping display of ignorance and disconnect from reality as yours

Finished with a juicy, unfounded, and richly ironic insult, son. Good job. Great debating.

Your absurd expressions of bigotry (oh, but it's not bigotry so long as it's directed at, ugh! Christians!) would be amusing, if they weren't so sad.

A bigot is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ". I am none of those things, though I can see how a hypersensitive, dull-witted, hostile, myopic person would confuse someone being able to describe and analyze reality based on clear empirical evidence as somehow being biased towards some extremity and intolerant of others.

Thanks for your fine effort, son.

First of all, it is such an injustice to assume that all who drive SUV's are Christians.

No one assumed that all SUV drivers are Christians.

Christianity began as THE founding religion of this country and I won't go into detail on the direction this country has taken since opposition to it became so fashionable

Opposition to Christianity is "fashionable"? Is that why George "Jesus Is My Favorite Philosopher" Bush is the leader of this country? Again, I don't oppose Christianity, but that doesn't mean I can't understand the relationship between belief structures and action.

but I will agree with other comments that argue along the lines that pollution is just as, if not more, prevalent in Japan, yet they are NOT a Christian nation.

And what relevance does that have? If I hold Belief A which leads to either an ambivalence or hostility towards the natural world, and someone holds a much different Belief B which also is ambivalent or hostile towards the natural environment, Belief B having a causal relationship with negative environmental outcomes does not exclude Belief A from also having a causal relationship with negative environmental outcomes.

Our country has arrived at its current state largely because of our need to be "new." We've lost our sense of values, our heritage, traditions, and our respect for this planet and each other out of the desire to "keep progressing"..."don't look back."

So, somehow, Americans of antiquity were respectful of the Earth? Would those be the ones who slaughtered the bison, tried to commit genocide on the Native Americans, or the ones who chopped down all the forests? Perhaps it's the Americans of antiquity who put up smoke belching factories and worked children to the bone. The first settlers arrived here clueless about how to deal effectively with the natural environment and would have starved to death without the assistance of people who were better at it.

Gee, this thread has turned quite nasty, hasn't it.

I read your links with interest, Andy.

However I'm not persuaded that Christianity is inimical to taking care of earth on the basis of 1) a southern gospel song (which draws inspiration from a spiritual tradition forged in oppression, and whose very words can hardly be read as an invitation to "trash the planet"); 2) a article with which you agree (which despite its surfeit of references - mainly to articles with which its authors agree - is a tad short on actual quotes demonstrating the sentiments it is ostensibly illuminating); and 3) a random post on a website from one individual (moreso, I hazard, than your suggestion that the statement of a Vatican spokesman represents only his own view). Indeed it's quite possible that some wacko fundamentalist could link to your comments to demonstrate that environmentalists are hostile towards Christianity - which would be unfair, wouldn't it?

But if you've got anything else to I'd be happy to have a look.

Peace and love.

But if you've got anything else to I'd be happy to have a look.

It was not my intent to catalog the entirety of all people who hold these views, either consciously expressed on the Internet, or simply unconsciously and to themselves. If you actually pursued any of the angles I mentioned by searching the Internet yourself (or engaging with people online or simply encountering such things on a regular, daily basis), you would readily observe it as being widespread.

However I'm not persuaded that Christianity is inimical to taking care of earth

And for the umpteenth time I have never made that assertion. Please stick with things I have actually asserted, namely in this case, that one can draw direct, logical links between certain, widespread beliefs of Christians in the United States and their hostile/destructive and/or ambivalent approach to the natural environment.

That this even needs to be pointed out is surprising, as it's flat-out obvious to most people.

Here's a nice summary of the issue with many more concrete details, specifically addressing the apocalyptic mindset among many American Christians and its effect on their environmental attitudes and actions.

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/

I have nothing else to add about this.

Perhaps you should reread your posts to see why people took issue with you.

Perhaps you should reread your posts to see why people took issue with you.

Did you read the article I linked to, Tim? No response?

I guess not, because it points out very clearly that everything I said has a sound basis.

Have a good day.

Perhaps you should reread your posts to see why people took issue with you.

Perhaps you should admit you were incorrect and stop making this about me. My argument is sound, I proved it was sound. If you'd care to take issue with the latest link I provided, go right ahead.

Mate!

Now you're arguing against yourself - and sounding rather dogmatic to boot.

Here's a gentle suggestion: follow your own advice by searching the internet and equate yourself with the controversy that surrounded that Grist article. At the very least read to the very end and note the correction, which shows the key quote in the article was apocryphal and something which the author clearly didn't bother to verify with original sources (which would have been prudent given it's so kooky). Good journalists know the importance of checking original sources, and they don't accept that everything they read (especially on the internet) is necessarily true. As to the artcle proving your argument is sound, well, I'll leave that to others to decide. though I am reminded of that Latin saying: "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus."

Now you're arguing against yourself - and sounding rather dogmatic to boot.

I'm arguing against myself? I see. And thanks for continuing to attack me instead of addressing the topic, even though I encouraged you to do otherwise.

Here's a gentle suggestion: follow your own advice by searching the internet and equate yourself with the controversy that surrounded that Grist article.

Here's a gentle suggestion: give me a link or two. Or better yet, why don't you address what it's saying? Your whole argument (and the argument of that cretin upthread) rests on the "see no evil, hear no evil" approach -- that if you don't notice something, it doesn't exist. The rest of the other arguments are silly strawmen and illogical constructs.

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus."

Wonderful. You have yet to demonstrate the falsity of any of my assertions, and I have documented the basis for my observations with references. Every time I've been told "I don't know of X existing", I show you.

What's silly, as I have said repeatedly, is that all these things are baldly obvious and noncontroversial to the average person who doesn't suffer from some sort of persecution complex. So American Christians tend to have whacked-out assumptions that lead to bad environmental behavior. So what? It is what it is. Doesn't do any good for anyone to deny it. The alternative is to assume that people trash the environment because they're inherently evil or something. I'd rather go with the reality that they're just ignorant and supplanting reality with non-empirical concepts.

Either way, as I have said (and you have amply proven the wisdom of), I make it a habit not to confront people who have all sorts of unprovable religious beliefs and motivations with a dose of reality. And I'm certainly not going to be judgmental or disapproving of their individual choices. But it's disheartening that you and others can't even have intellectual honesty when analyzing the reality of what goes on in this country and why.

For the benefit of other readers, these responses to that all too recycled Glenn Scherer article (though usually without the correction) provide some perspective:

http://www.grist.org/etc/letters/2005/01/21/letters-godly/index.html

For the benefit of other readers, these responses to that all too recycled Glenn Scherer article (though usually without the correction) provide some perspective

Funny - I don't see a single one of those letters actually contending against the thesis of apocalytic mindset being fairly widespread and that it leads to an ambivalent and/or hostile attitude towards the natural environment. That's been my thesis, and it's the one of that Grist author.

Most of the responses were along the lines of yours - hypersensitive and defensive, going off on the tangent that the Bible doesn't tell us to trash the planet. None of that has anything to do with the fact that the apocalyptic mindset is widespread and hurtful to the planet.

Thanks for helping my position yet again.

Honestly Andy,

If you're going to put things in quote marks - Every time I've been told "I don't know of X existing", I show you. - it should actually be a quote.

For your benefit, let me make my position very clear: I'm quite sure the crazy ideas you're fixated on do exist, I'm just not convinced they're nearly as widespread as you would like to think they are, and I think it is unfair, counterproductive and divisive to insist on attributing them to more people than actually hold them.

This is you getting irate with someone you think is misrepresenting you:

You sure love straw men, son. Did I say that ALL Christians were like that?

This is you again:

So American Christians tend to have whacked-out assumptions that lead to bad environmental behavior. So what? It is what it is. Doesn't do any good for anyone to deny it.

So forgive me if I think you're arguing against yourself.

The nitpicking gets more trivial and more off-topic as we go along.

or your benefit, let me make my position very clear: I'm quite sure the crazy ideas you're fixated on do exist, I'm just not convinced they're nearly as widespread as you would like to think they are, and I think it is unfair, counterproductive and divisive to insist on attributing them to more people than actually hold them.

The degree to which those beliefs are held is independent of your willingness to acknowledge the degree to which they're held. The issue is clearly with your attachment to your identity as a Christian and hence you are unable to acknowledge unpleasantness about your faith, even when it has no relationship to the specific way in which you believe and practice that religion. That's a very insecure attitude, if you ask me. People will always misapply ideas. It should have no bearing or relevance to how you personally believe or apply those beliefs.

This is you getting irate with someone you think is misrepresenting you:

More ad hominem. I wasn't irate. I guess you think I should just accept completely false arguments and then accept the conclusions based on those false arguments.

My apologies for assuming you were able to engage in a discussion of the facts. I forgot I was dealing with the kind of person who willingly suspends rationality in the most fundamental aspects of existence.

So forgive me if I think you're arguing against yourself.

You obviously have a lot of notions which have no basis. Doesn't really have anything to do with whether the thesis I posited is valid or not.

It's amazing how much energy you've put into trying to diss me as opposed to simply addressing the arguments made and the factual, referenced basis for those arguments.

To you these numbers do not indicate that something is widespread:

A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks.

So, let's see - the United States does about 25% of world environmental damage, and 59% of the country believes in the Biblical prophecies, chief among them the Apocalypse and the Second Coming. And if one believes in such a thing, there is no logical reason to improve the Earth, especially if it runs against the grain of the progression of those prophecies (ie, makes them less likely to come true). That being the case, that belief can roughly be, at a minimum, responsible for .59*.25 = roughly 15% of global environmental damage. At a minimum.

But you're so right -- it's all just fringe craziness. Polls are actually all made up to discredit Christianity as a whole and you particularly.

More ad hominem.

Indeed. Mostly by you unfortunately. I suggested you were irate at being misrepresented - but clearly you're not irate so I take that back and apologise. You have suggested that, well, see above.

This article by Jim Ball may be of assistance to your musings:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/161/story_16141_1.html

His conclusion:

Are there real differences between evangelicals and environmentalists? Sure. There always are between subcultures. Will these differences make us uncomfortable with each other at times? Of course. Is common ground to be found through reducing pollution that hurts people and caring for all of God's creation? Absolutely. The time has come for olive branches all around.

I'm assuming when you say the United States is doing about 25% of world environmental damage you're referring to carbon emissions. Now that's a fact, but it might, just might, have something to do with level of economic development, the design of cities, overconsumption (can't wait to see your stats correlating obesity to religious views), love/reliance on cars (contributing 45 per cent of world carbon emissions from road transport, according to recent reports), oil dependency and the influence of large corporations over government policy.

My country, Australia, isn't an overtly religious country - many would say we're the most secular nation in the Western World - yet our per capita carbon emissions are THE HIGHEST in the world.

Among the reasons: the nature of our economy, including reliance on coal to produce electricity (people do seem to love big TVs and airconditioning), a preponderance of carbon-polluting export industries (mining, agriculture), reliance on cars for transport (covering longer distances), and the influence of polluting industries over government policy.

Our prime minister John Howard, is a conservative Christian, as are others in his cabinet, but then again the leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, who is committed to signing the Kyoto Protocol, also is a Christian and social conservative, and the Opposition spokesman on the environment, Peter Garrett (one of the highest-profile environmentalists in this country) is also a Christian.

Anyway, once again...

Peace and Love.

More ad hominem.

Indeed. Mostly by you unfortunately. I suggested you were irate at being misrepresented - but you say you weren't irate so I take that back and apologise. You have suggested that, well, a whole lot of things, but as I'm not an evangelical christian, nor even particularly religious, I take it all with a grain of salt.

I am however interested in how to reach out to people of faith and co-opting them to the cause.

This article by Jim Ball may be of assistance:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/161/story_16141_1.html

His conclusion:

Are there real differences between evangelicals and environmentalists? Sure. There always are between subcultures. Will these differences make us uncomfortable with each other at times? Of course. Is common ground to be found through reducing pollution that hurts people and caring for all of God's creation? Absolutely. The time has come for olive branches all around.

I'm assuming when you say the United States is doing about 25% of world environmental damage you're referring to carbon emissions. Now that is a fact, but it might, just might, have something to do with level of economic development, the design of cities, overconsumption (I look forward to seeing your stats correlating obesity to religious views), love/reliance on cars (contributing 45 per cent of world carbon emissions from road transport, according to recent reports), oil dependency and the influence of large corporations over government policy.

My country, Australia, isn't an overtly religious country - many would say we're the most secular nation in the Western World - yet our per capita carbon emissions are THE HIGHEST in the world.

Among the reasons: the nature of our economy, including reliance on coal to produce electricity (people do seem to love big TVs and airconditioning), a preponderance of carbon-polluting export industries (mining, agriculture), reliance on cars for transport (covering longer distances), and the influence of polluting industries over government policy.

Our prime minister, John Howard, is a conservative Christian, as are others in his cabinet, but then again the leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, who is committed to signing the Kyoto Protocol, also is a Christian and social conservative, and the Opposition spokesman on the environment, Peter Garrett, and one of the highest-profile environmentalists in this country is also a Christian.

Now it may be that Americans are a race apart, special and unique in the world, but it might also be that right-wing Christian politicians resisting action on the environment are simply checking in their religious beliefs at the door when it comes to anything to do with economic issues.

So it might well be argued the real problem is that their actions aren't influenced enough by what they've heard in church or read in the bible, rather than being influenced too much.

That's hardly a unique problem. The void between belief and action is a common trait, I've lost count of the number of times I've had to listen to self-proclaimed progressives rail long and hard against conservative Christians and their ignorant beliefs, but when asked what they themselves are doing to minimise their own environmental footprint there's a deafening silence: they think it's someone else's problem, not their own.

I'm sure you're not one of those people, and I congratulate you for your care, but no doubt you've met these types too.

Anyway, once again...

Peace and Love

You're 100% right. I now see that.

Wow! I've gone from being a person with a lot of notions which have no basis, who willingly suspends rationality in the most fundamental aspects of existence, and unable to engage in a discussion of the facts, to being 100% right in a single post.

Now I do believe in miracles.

Yes, you're 100% right and I was wrong. Now take care. No need for further discussion.