Additionally, Dawkins's statement that "God is a delusion,* religion is a virus, and America has slipped back into the Dark Ages" is right on the mark and totally relevant.  We have no chance of reversing human environmental or ecological destruction without winning the "hearts and minds," and we'll never do so while so many believe in delusional religions that puts everything behind selfish human concerns.  This is a totally important issue, not one we should shy away from or pass off as minor.

Finally, one doesn't need science to take care of the Earth, thank you.  Traditional indigenous people do the best job of taking care of their environments, and they certainly don't rely on what you'd call science.  Disciplines like conservation biology can certainly help undo some of the harm we've done, but a proper attitude toward all life is far more important than all of the science in the world.

*("God is a delusion" is a bit strong.  I think a better view is that whatever God is, the "major" religions badly misconstrue him/her/it.  There is certainly something that creates life and keeps everything alive, and it can't be explained just by science.  However, it's so ubiquitous -- it exists everywhere in the universe and is in everything and everyone -- that there's no point in worshipping it, and it's so incomprehensible to our tiny minds that there's no point in trying to explain or put a human face on it.  That's one major area that the major religions have totally wrong.)

Jeff Hoffman

Just yesterday, I remembered that I had never read it (I might've agreed with its premises back then). So I hauled it out, knowing that I would now disagree with it. I haven't gotten too far, but I can tell it gives MANY more reasons why some orthodox/evangelical Christians spurn environmentalism than just the apocalyptic theory spouted by James Watt.

From what I've gathered, these authors think that "radical green spirituality" treats  environmentalism like a religion (eco-religion), animals (supposedly soulless) as equal if not superior to men (purportedly the only beings with souls), and the entire subject of caring for the Earth as if it is God (paganism, in a word).

They start out by making sport of some religion-and-ecology books: "Green Christianity" by Tim Cooper, "The Greening of the Church" by Sean McDonagh, and "Greenhouse Theology," by Ron Elsdon, to name three.  

I think they're trying to make the case that Christians should be concerned about the environment but should not dare work in tandem with "green" secularists. For example: "This chapter has attempted to set out some of the reasons for which Christians might want to give the Green movement a wide berth.... (p. 48).

"The Cross and the Rain Forest" should make Dave feel even more secure in his atheism. I wouldn't blame him. But just know, Dave, that there are plenty of us Christians out here, even evangelicals, who do NOT fit into the closed-minded, evolution-spurning, sin-consumed, guilt-mongering, "Left Behind"-believing, neocon-supporting stereotypical Christian that the media defines as today's "Christian right."      

"The whole creation owns Thy power"

I don't care what a person's religious beliefs are as long as they keep it to themselves. It's none of my business. And don't tell me I have to take care of the earth because god wants us to. Next week they'll be telling me to do something else because god wants us to. I'll put my faith in rationality and feelings of solidarity with others. I want no part of doctrines that divide people, that set people apart, that make invidious distinctions because of a person's belief. Doesn't it ever occur to them their beliefs are largely an accident of birth? It is like nationalism and all other tribalisms: Americans think this is the best country, Italians think Italy is the best country, Kyrghiz likewise. All those gods out there--and THEIRS is the true one?

So, yes, come join us in making this a better place to live. I'm happy to have you along. But leave your religion at home. It only gets in the way of everyone else.

Tauting science as the answer as opposed to religion is nothing more than a ultimately unsubstantiated belief that the way humans "figure things out" is "correct" in some meaningful way.  Sounds like a leap of faith to me.  We're probably not as smart as we'd like to think.  We'll never "know" anything more than what our senses and faculties tell us--the tricky bastards.

Or worse, make a plea to rationality--spout your beliefs about the way others should think and then tell everyone you don't want to hear what they believe.

I'm not a particularly religious guy--somewhere between agnostic and pagan.  What I do believe is that people are searching for answers and it's most likely that no one has it exactly right--and quite frankly we're screwed if any religion or science does.

Religiousity certainly has a place in environmentalism.  We're all fighting for (or at least hoping for) things we can't really explain when it comes down to it.  Although any given worldview, on any given day, might be dangerous to people, plants, animals or the whole darn ball of existence, I'm not so sure anyone should be doubting the concept of religion wholesale.  It's that kind of blind confidence that I think we're trying to avoid, not just certain kinds of blind confidence.

This certainly doesn't make anything easy, but simplistic notions cannot compete with the utter complexity of the problems and joys we face together.

Andy

If Christians or other religious people want to fight for the Earth, great and I'm glad to have them aboard.  However, the teaching that the body and spirit are separate does much harm, regardless of individual exceptions.

Furthermore, Christians are the enemies of traditional indigenous people.  I have Native American friends who were kidnapped by Mormons and forced to attend Mormon schools.  (They all ran away back to their reservations as soon as they were old enought to do so.)  How many Native Americans were killed by the Christian missionaries in California alone?  Converting those with Earth-centered beliefs to Christianity allows them to begin destroying the Earth.  For those who defend this particular religion, what is your evidence that it is not an anti-environmental, anti-indigenous religion?

Jeff Hoffman

Even apart from the fact that atheism is nothing but a fool's dream, I can't find any value in the atheistic conception.  If nothing is eternal, then what's the purpose?  Atheism does not even know any real difference between life and death, or between the essence and the appearance.  

In Isopanishad, verse 1, the rule of environmental conduct is clear:

"Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong."

I cannot speak for those who claim to be religious, but who do not know Sri Krishna; their religion is empty.  However, one who knows Sri Krishna sees God everywhere.  To such a person, everything is sacred.

Hare Krishna.

Why "protect" the earth at all?  Why "save" the earth?  What's the difference?  It's one thing to actively harm others, and I suppose that's the strongest argument supporting environmentalism (that anti-environmental actions harm people and things, i.e. cause pain).  But on a more general level, why does the earth need to continue to exist indefinitely?  Why must it exist beyond this very moment?  The BIG assumption that it's somehow intrinsically "good" to 'save' the earth is quite a leap of faith in and of itself.  Who ever told us that it's necessarily better to sustain the earth rather than just enjoy it while it lasts and ride it down to the bitter end?  If one day we all disappear, who will be around to count the time it took?  Was it a million years or a billion years?  Will it have made a difference?

I know that's a pessimistic way to look at it, but my point is to play the devil's advocate.  The post above mine which mentioned hypocrisy also captures this point -- that environmentalists should force upon themselves just as much humility as they demand from the religious, even if they believe that they themselves are RIGHT and the religious are WRONG.

Me?  I'm an agnostic atheistic pantheistic secular humanist zen buddhist progressive satanist roman catholic. ;)

Lastly, I want to respond to your Christianity = anti-indigenous religion.  I make no bones for Christianity, Jesus claimed that he is the only way to everlasting life, and I uphold that belief because I am a Christian.  A devout muslim, buddhist, etc., would say the same thing.  We all have the right to believe that as long as we hold the utmost respect for one another.  So yes, if you are saying that Christianity is anti-indigenous on religious grounds, then okay I concede the point, but do not forget that every other religion including atheism (which would disregard the spiritual aspect of indigenous religion) is anti-indigenous under these terms as well.  And yes, I am just as horrified as you are over the disgusting things that have happened in the past and still happen today.  I am in Canada, and in my area it is residential schools that still plague the Native culture and society.  But do not blame God, it was the selfish 'command and conquer' mentality European men that did these things.  I am native, and my family is native.  My family belongs to the Pegasis band of Manitoba.  And we are Christians.  It is not the Christian religion that drove people to do this to my people, it was their own selfish desires and perversion of their so-called faith.  Whether you are aware of this or not, Christianity is very popular among natives of North America because Christ does not destroy culture.  You do not see Buddhist drum circles and sweat lodges, but you do see Christian sweat lodges and drum circles.  And the Bible's stance towards creation is very much in accord with the native American indigenous views on creation and creator.  I shutter and get just as pissed off when I think about past atrocities done in the name of God under the shadow of the cross, but that is not Christianity, in the same way that the 9/11 hijackers was not Islam.  So there is my evidence that Christianity is not anti-religious and anti-indigenous, I am a walking talking Native Christian environmentalist.

Brother, get down on your knees and say AMEN! Clearly you are not familiar with Christian Brothers Investment Services (CBIS). It combines faith with finance and manages $4 billion in assets for the Catholic Church.

Last week the company introduced a proxy resolution that will go before investors at ExxonMobil's May 25th annual shareholder meeting.  If approved, the resolution would require the company to reveal the science it used to determine that climate change is just pretend. (I suspect it's similar to the science used to determine that the earth is flat and tobacco is an herbal supplement, but that's another story.)

ExxonMobil, of course, is one of the last big energy companies walking around with clinched teeth, white knuckled fists and veins bulging from its neck as it spits out the words, "There is no climate change!" CBIS has politely asked the company to "Prove it. Please."  

Anyway, I too am an apathetic, agnostic, antibiotic, athiestic acidophilis.  But after reading about the CBIS resolution, I'm almost willing to take a running leap of faith, throw my arms in the air, look up at the sky and yell, "Dude. Is this, like, you know...a miracle?"

I consider myself an environmentalist, but above all else, I am a follower of Christ. I am a Christian-environmentalist. And for a lot of people in the environmental world, that sounds like an oxymoron. I have come to the conclusion over many years that to be a true Christian requires that one be of an environmental mindset. The world that has been created for us is a gift to be cherished and loved and protected. You wouldn't go out and destroy a nice gift that a friend or family member gave you, so why would a person cause wanton destruction on the greatest gift of all, creation? We require a healthy earth for life, therefore we should all be the stewards that it needs to sustain its health.

As for science, I am a huge fan. I teach environmental education to elementary students daily. Science is how we understand creation and all its complexity. The only way to truly protect and conserve the earth is to understand it and how all the pieces fit together, including the human one. To love science, does not imply an unbelief in God. God created the scientific principles upon which our Earth functions. There are a lot of great Christian scientists trying to prove this point. One of the best I've come across is Dr. Hugh Ross and his organization, Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org). They are devoted, as am I, to showing the scientific community that science proves the existence of God, it does not disprove His existence. The more science I learn, the more I am certain that a creative, loving God does exist and that He wants us to show our appreciation for our home by taking good care of it.

I have been debating this point since I was a high school student arguing with my "evolution is fact," biology teacher. I have discussed it with Earth First activists while attending school at a small, environmental college in Wisconsin and I have encouraged many fellow Christian students while I completed my degree at a Christian university. The best discussions came, though, as I worked through my master's program in Environmental Studies at a public university. I know there were other Christians in my classes, but I was the only one to stand up for my faith and for science. But it only takes one voice to make a difference.

I think the main problem is that the unbelieving world mixes up religion and Christianity always equating them as the same. Religion, by definition, is a specific form of belief and practice. Christianity may be a religion, but being Christian is more than being religious, it involves having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, walking daily with Him as our guide. Something that religion cannot define. Those that truly know Christ, know that we must love and cherish this earth until He decides it is time for it to end, which none of us knows. The Bible says, He will come like a thief in the night, the time and day, noone knows (1 Thess. 5:2).

I am pleased to see that discussions like this are taking place. Ideas need to be shared and discussed. It is difficult when it is something of such a personal nature, but we shouldn't not share because of that. I was really excited when I read the Spring 2005 issue of onearth, the journal published by NRDC, a well-respected environmental organization. They printed a piece by Joel Gillespie on this very topic of Christianity and the environment. It is encouraging that some in the environmental movement are realizing that the Christian community has a lot of environmentalists in its numbers and they need to be reached out to for help, not discarded because they believe in the one, true God, and therefore can't possibly think the earth is important.

God bless all of you, may we learn to be accepting of others' beliefs, be less argumentative and focus on the shared goal of protecting the planet we all call home.

Just to add to the diversity of this forum, I am a Mormon environmentalist and I find several of the negative, almost vicious comments about religious environmentalists not just disturbing but, at the very least, counter-productive.  The way I see it, one of the main environmental challenges we face in this country is the divisiveness created by absolutists on both the right and left.  They have earned the label of extremists by telling other people what they have to believe; and both extremes seem to be telling us that you can't be religious and environmentalist, even though there clearly are millions of religious environmentalists.  Why is that?  Because for them it's not about what is right but about WHO is right.  

A recent poll by the Pew Charitable Trust showed that something like 70 percent of Americans support stricter environmental regulation, and this includes a MAJORITY of people who identify themselves as religious.  A major barrier to the will of the majority on this matter is petty divisions between people who refuse to work with anyone who is not a purist (read: just like them).  I'm tired of hearing, "If you're not with me, you're against me," whether it's George W. Bush speaking or someone else.  As for myself, it doesn't matter whether someone is atheist or of a certain religious denomination or of no denomination; if we can work together to create something better, I'm all for it.  

I'd also like to thank danzac for setting a few things straight:

"I am not sure where you guys are receiving your information about Christianity from, but it is incorrect.  Body/mind dualism is a Greek mindset, not a Judaeo/Christian mindset."  

I couldn't have said it better myself.  Also:

"It is not the Christian religion that drove people to do this to my people, it was their own selfish desires and perversion of their so-called faith.  Whether you are aware of this or not, Christianity is very popular among natives of North America because Christ does not destroy culture."  

Guilt by association is a simplistic, faulty argument commonly used to manipulate.  If you go to the literature or teachings of any religious tradition I am aware of, you will find a basis for treating all people with dignity and yes, protecting and caring for the earth.  People who identify themselves with a certain religion but then blatantly violate its tenets by destroying the earth or other people are obviously just using religion to further their own power and selfish desires (e.g. GWB) or they are ignorant (e.g. GWB).  For every one of these people, there are many others who live the tenets of their faith.  Most of these people are not well known, although some are (e.g. Mother Theresa or Gandhi).  There are of course numerous people who are agnostic or atheist on both sides of the environmental divide as well.  The point is not to find what divides people, but to find what common beliefs people share, in this case caring for the environment.  People with diverse backgrounds, beliefs, and values can work together; in fact, that is our only hope.

Let's direct our anger and frustrations towards building something better, not turn it uselessly towards each other.

Danzac, regardless of what you personally believe, Christians as a whole, along with Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, and others, believe that when one dies, his or her spirit goes somewhere or does something.  By definition, this means that they believe that the body and spirit are separate.  Aside from the foolishness of trying to know the unknowable -- what happens to a person after he or she dies -- one cannot believe that there is an afterlife without believing in the separation of body and spirit.  As I pointed out in an earlier post, this belief gives license to do really horrible things, including destroying the Earth and indigenous cultures, which is exactly what Christians have done.  What the followers of a religion do is what's important and relevant, not what the religion supposedly teaches.

I also must point out how sensless your religious ideas are.  You claim that "[t]he notion of heaven and life after death is portrayed in the bible as being physical (ie. the physical body is with God)."  This is ridiculous and provably false.  One's body decays and returns to the Earth after death ("ashes to ashes") and I challenge you to cite any evidence to the contrary.

Finally, I do not "blame God" for what Christians did and still do to traditional indigenous cultures and people, but I do blame Christians.  You are correct that there were many white people who were selfish and wanted (and are selfish and still want) to conquer traditional native people, but there were also the Christians who wanted to force their religion down the natives' throats.

Rbnmn, a Mormon environmentalist is almost an oxymoron, you must feel very lonely.  When I worked with Earth First!, we couldn't even wear our Earth First! t-shirts in Utah for fear of being physically attacked.  A large percentage (most?) Mormons are ranchers, supporting the industry that has more environmental damage to the western U.S. than any other.  They also strongly support off-roading, another horribly destructive activity.  Most importantly, they practiced polygamy, which helped overpopulate the Earth by producing unnaturally large families.  Mormons still believe in producing large families even though the Earth is so overpopulated.

Finally, it was Mormons who kidnapped my Native American friends and tried to make mormons out of them, and I have learned that this was a common practice.  What I said to danzac applies to all religions: I couldn't care less what a religion supposedly teaches, the only thing that matters is what its follwers actually do.

Jeff Hoffman

You persist in using guilt by association to torch anyone who disagrees with you.  Your statement -- "I couldn't care less what a religion supposedly teaches, the only thing that matters is what its follwers actually do" - is really absurd.  If that's your schtick, then you must blame atheism for Stalin's purges.  It would be better to back off of that blame game and move on to something more positive.  But then, you still seem to be more interested in trying to prove everyone else wrong than you are in actually doing something about real problems.

Contrary to what you might say about me, you are the one who is alone because you are sealing yourself off from the rest of the world and anyone who might disagree with you.  You use highly charged, misleading, and propagandistic language to smear and verbally assault others.  Your approach is negative and caustic, mimicking the destructive forces you claim to oppose.  As long as there are public relations geniuses like you in the environmental movement, we can expect to remain largely cut off from those who could be our friends.

No lasting, positive change ever took place through violence, verbal or physical.  

I also want to comment on the beginning of your initial post:
[blockquote]
The way I see it, one of the main environmental challenges we face in this country is the divisiveness created by absolutists on both the right and left.  They have earned the label of extremists by telling other people what they have to believe; and both extremes seem to be telling us that you can't be religious and environmentalist, even though there clearly are millions of religious environmentalists.
[/blockquote]

Exactly!
While we're on religion here, we might as well invite Buddha over:
[blockquote]
Avoiding these two extremes the one who has thus come has gained the enlightenment of the middle path, which produces insight and knowledge,
and leads to peace, wisdom, enlightenment, and nirvana. (First Sermon)
[/blockquote]

Andy

That is why I have hope for the future.  People have done amazing, seemingly impossible things when they work together for nonviolent change.  If you're interested, read Jonathan Schell's The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People.  It's a fabulous book by a writer from The Nation.

Sadly, the middle path seems to be less traveled in the US nowadays.  But that may change if people realize their power, as the people in 1980s Eastern Europe and 1930-40s India did.  Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.

My statement, that what people do, not what they believe, is what's important, is "really absurd"?  Sounds like you need a serious reality check.  People can keep their beliefs to themselves, but their actions affect everyone and everything else.  If that's your schtick, then you must blame atheism for Stalin's purges.  It would be better to back off of that blame game and move on to something more positive.  But then, you still seem to be more interested in trying to prove everyone else wrong than you are in actually doing something about real problems."

I won't respond to the remainder of rmbnm's post, except to say that I'm an environmental activist turned environmental lawyer and have done plenty about "real problems."  Instead of responding to the issues I raised rmbnm has resorted to the name calling typical of those who clearly lose an argument because they have no evidence or logic on their side.  I'm not interested in dividing people, but this was a discussion about whether religion is compatible with environmentalism, and I merely pointed out the severe negative effects of religion.  If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

Jeff Hoffman

My post is not about blaming people for what others do, but for being part of a group that has done and still does very harmful things (see the Nazi example).  Believe whatever you want, but please don't support conventional Christianity in any form, because it's one of those groups.

Jeff Hoffman

Your original statement was, "I couldn't care less what a religion supposedly teaches, the only thing that matters is what its follwers actually do."

According to your logic, if members of NRDC went out and dumped battery acid in rivers, clear cut forests, and polluted the air with toxic chemicals, it wouldn't matter that their actions were completely in opposition to the core ideals of the organization.  All that would matter, according to you, would be the fact that they were members of NRDC.  Their actions, by association, would tarnish the entire organization and anyone associated with it.  Then, according to your logic, if someone needed evidence that NRDC was bad and responsible for environmental destruction, all she or he would have to do is point to the actions of those individuals, completely ignoring that what they did was actually opposed to the core ideals of the organization AND that there were numerous contrary examples.  You could even accuse all environmental groups of the same thing, because all environmental groups are basically the same, right?

Keep in mind that your lumping together of Christians into one group and holding them all responsible for environmental degradation is even more absurd than this example since Christianity is as much a cultural phenomenon as it is a religious one, comprising 1.1 billion people worldwide.  But you go beyond that, accusing all religion (wrongly) of maintaining what you say is an environmentally destructive belief in separation between body and spirit, encompassing most of the world's population in your condemnation: just about everyone except you that is.  Say anything you want, but that really is absurd!

Finally, the "severe negative effects of religion" seem not to have negatively affected social movements such as the civil rights movement under the leadership of the Reverend Marin Luther King Jr. or the freeing of India from British colonialism under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, who was an environmentalist before there was such a thing.  In fact, if you read the book I mentioned earlier, Jonathan Schell's  The Unconquerable World, you will see that religion has often been a leading part of successful grassroots social movements.  Even in many secular grassroots movements, as with Eastern Europe's break with the Soviet Union, religion played an important part.  So it seems illogical to cut yourself off from other people just because you don't agree with their religious beliefs.  In fact, the strength of all three of those social movements was the willingness of people to work with one another for the greater good, even though they might not have agreed with each other about religion.  Perhaps you really are willing to work with Christian environmentalists, but that won't work very well as long as you continue to hold them guilty by association and call them an "oxymoron," "foolish" and "senseless."  

We can agree to disagree but we do need to respect each other, especially if we want to make any positive changes in this world.

Nearly every organized religion claims theirs is the 'true God', and most condemn the souls of those who disagree. This is the trap that lies waiting, and catches most followers; if 'we' are the chosen ones and 'they' are the damned, then don't 'we' deserve a bigger slice of the pie? Wouldn't 'they' be better off if we took over their lives and forced our ways on them? This line of thinking leads to discrimination, nationalism, and environmental destruction. It's not explicit in religion, but implied, and it must be consciously avoided if we are to get along.

  For centuries, those who saw the Divine in Nature were persecuted by organized religion. Can you blame them for being a little leery of those who claim to be on both sides? The Christian religion has made it clear that the physical world is separate from the spiritual; the pleasures of Earth are  a temptation, a test which we must pass to earn our salvation. The ones they persecuted rejected that idea; they saw the Divine as existing here on Earth in all people and in all of Nature. You may claim to love me as much as the guy in the pew next to you, but  you believe that I will burn in Hell because I reject your dogma. How can you have any respect for me if your God hates me so much as to make me suffer eternally for seeing him in trees and rocks instead of in Heaven on some other plane of existence? Why would you try to save my life if you believe my soul is owned by the Devil?

  I used to think I was a Christian- I have recently discovered that I am a Pagan. I was not converted; I simply learned what it really means to be a Pagan, and realized that I have always been one. It does not mean what the Christian conquerors said to justify their acts of violence- it means little more than believing that everything we need to reach inner peace and oneness with the Universe is found in Nature. That's it- nothing more is required to be correctly called Pagan. Since most agnostic and atheist environmentalists could probably say the same, it means you too may be a Pagan! Since there are no rules in Paganism, except to respect and love Nature, you can still believe in Jesus or Buddha or whomever you like. It's all good, as long as you harm none and take no more than you need and thank the life force for what you take. This 'religion' is not only compatible with environmentalism, it is the Original Environmentalism. There is no mystery about why we want to preserve the Earth- we are the Earth and it is Divine and therefore beautiful and the beauty is what makes us peaceful and loving- it's simple.

Organized religion is a box. Get outside, and Blessed Be.


a liberal in redsville

Birdboy agreed with your sentiments that religion is to be judged by what its followers do.  First off you must understand that I am very much in agreement with you that the church who legitimated the crusades and residential schools, etc need to be held accountable and make restitution, but religion is not just the actions of people.  Religions also include basic belief systems, and usually a sacred text or set of teachings. If these basic teachings or sacred text is being contradicted by its followers, does the religion change? I tend to see it the other way. The Mormons that kidnapped your friend were nt representative of Mormonism (and for the record Mormonism is not Christianity, they have a different sacred text and belief system that would not condone kidnapping).  Should we judge the laws by what some stupid lawyers and cops do? Should we judge the constitution by the evils of George W? I tend to see these people acting out of their own selfishness, delusions, and perversions of their confessed beliefs.

Birdboy, just for the record, you are not a pagan (pagans and neo-pagans worship a plurality of gods). The way you described yourself, you are clearly a panentheist.  I also would be weary of speaking on behalf of every historian (beginning of your post), there are some that would disagree with your premise.  And by the sounds of some of your comments, you have had some bad experiences with Christians (I think we all have). God does not hate you.  I am enjoying our interaction, and will continue if it persists, lets just remember that all of us have a common purpose, we care about the earth. Let's learn from each other. Peace

I can't tell you all the conversations with "nice" Christian guys I've had over the last 20 years that involve smirky frat-boy comments about tree-huggers.

The Christian Right is the number one reason that Bush is in the Executive Mansion and --by extension-- that makes them Enemy Number One on front in the fight for any environmental sanity.

They MUST be fought and beaten before we get "W.v2" in 2008.  

  Of course, there is no point in throwing blame around, but to respond- the United States IS blamed for the actions of GWB, and laws ARE blamed for the actions of unscrupulous lawyers and cops. 'W' would like to change the constitution, some preachers have effectively changed the Bible with their interpretations, and those on the outside cannot help but associate the actors and the script. Fact is, if I were to come out of my Pagan closet in my Bible-thumping red-state, I WOULD be persecuted by those who believe that God hates me for my perspective. You take from the Bible what works for you- others do too. My point (and I think jdhlax's), is that some of the 'core beliefs' of Christianity are wide open to abuse and excuse. I can think of several Christian 'basic beliefs' that work against environmentalism, and are often used to justify environmental destruction, even by those who consider themselves devout and righteous. I hope you can counter me, and the ministers touting these examples, in their sermons every Sunday.

• Nature was put here by God to serve man. Can't quote the verse, but I've heard it countless times. It may be a perversion of the 'original' teachings of Jesus Christ, but we can't use them, because they are not widely accepted. This is usually taken to mean that we can and should use Nature however we want- it's ours now. You may call it a 'gift' and say it should be preserved, but that is your decision- a gift belongs to you and you decide what to do with it. (Pagans believe that Nature is Divine- it must be preserved).

• Man is far more important than any animal or plant, because only Man has a soul. Maybe contradicted somewhere in the Bible- I'd love to hear that. Instead, I hear that no beast has any value other than what Man can take from it, be it love from a pet or meat from a cow or wood from a tree. The very idea that man should limit his expansion to preserve plants and animals is considered ridiculous based on this assumption- he is far more important than any other part of creation.

• God will take care of us, as long as we believe in Him. It matters not what we do to the Earth- God will supply whatever we need and take care of whatever mess we make (even bring our rotting bodies back to health for us), as long as we believe as He says to believe. Again, maybe preachers go out on their own here, or misinterpret some verse, but we hear it from the pulpit. It is a license to abuse Nature.

• It is our duty to increase our numbers. Mormons take this one to the extreme- there is no mention of restraining ourselves to harmonize with Nature, since (above) God will provide for us all. There is no limit to growth, and to say otherwise is to doubt in God's ability to provide. This is a major source of trouble, and justifies distrust in science and scorning of environmentalists who dare suggest that we are too many.

• Evil exists in Nature and must be subdued by Man. This is a good reason for killing anything we don't like in Nature- those beasts and weeds only impede the progress of man- God wants us to get rid of them. The Devil and the Beasts are closely associated; animal lovers are seduced by Satan- just look at the way they copulate! Diversity is irrelevant since some are evil (snake!) and others are blessed (doggie).

The origin of the Nazis was a back-to-the-land movement, well before Hitler.  That's the reason I used Nazis as an example (though Christians are just as repugnant to traditional indigenous people and I agree with them).  A back-to-the-land movement is certainly compatible with environmentalism.

Jeff Hoffman

I came upon this post rather late but I see others are still commenting on it so I will also. The fact that Grist has the courage to say things that make people uncomfortable is what sets it apart form other magazines that are controlled by profit motive or conservative power brokers.

I am an atheist also and share Dave's concerns. I just finished reading all 673 pages of my signed copy of Dawkin's latest book, The Ancestor's Tale.

Religion is not going away. Luckily, not all Churches were created equal. Russell ministries for example champion environmental causes.

A guy from Texas named Geroge H. Russell has reserved a pile of URL.org names and has handed them out to churches that meet his standards. The sites have names like godlovessnakes.org, abortionbusters.org, biblethumpers.org and so on. His picture can be seen on the last site referenced below. It is interesting to me to see so much religious energy supporting causes that I am sympathetic to. God is being rallied for environmental causes.

http://www.salvationnetwork.org/
http://www.patriotnetwork.org/

We are born without a religion and are then taught one. Which explains why most people have their parent's religion. The former Soviet Union is the best social experiment to answer the question, "What would happen if the chain of indoctrination were to be broken?"

1. Religion goes away.

2. People do not dissolve into amoral monsters without it.

Human beings are the same with or without religion. You can burn your enemy's at the stake, rewarding them if they recant with strangulation before being consumed (inquisitions) or send them to Siberia to be starved and frozen (Stalin's political purges). People can be monsters, regardless of their religion or lack of.

Recongnize this species?


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Listen: While I can appreciate that some maverick has registered "americangulag.org" it's never going play at the Southern Baptist Convention and it's not the Power were talking about that put...  

James ("Focus on the Facism") Dobson
Tom ("The Hammer") Delay
Bill ("Nuculer") Frist
George ("Errand Boy") Bush
Pat ("Fuzzy Logic") Robertson

...into the White House and the EPA.  

Saying this Russell guy is a ray of hope is like saying Bonhoeffer (Christian pastor & theologian) was evidence that things were not really so bad in 1940 Germany.

1. Birdboy, if you look at my previous post, I said you were a panENtheist, not pantheist.
   
2. Birdboy asked if I could counter a few 'Bible truths' that he hears all of the time.  First off let me say that on the whole Christianity is popularly represented by its fundamentalists, which are a minority in Christendom.  It is no different for other religions, the most we hear about Islam if the Fundamentalists that are declaring jihad on everyone. They are a small fraction of Islam, and Fundamentalist evangelical Christians (the dominionists fit into this category) make the most noise but are a minority, centered in the US.  I hesitatingly label myself an evangelical (though I tend to shy away from it in forums like this where evangelical = Bob Jones, Benny Hinn, and anything in the deep south).  Here is my point, what you have been exposed to and what the media talks about are a minority of Christians in global perspective.  I think the 'Left Behind' series is trash and thoroughly unbiblical, I shutter and am as pissed off as you at the amount of control these conservative Dominionists have in the US, etc..  There are a couple hundred associated Bible colleges and universities in Canada and the US, and only a handful of them would fall in this fundamentalist theological category.  So basically all of the theologically educated in the church are NOT fundamentalists.  For some reason the fundamentalist Christians have taken as part of their theological stance, a smugness towards environmentalism, etc.  This forum has flushed out some reasons why, which has been helpful for me.  But as many others have pointed out, there are many Christians who care for the environment, probably none of them Fundamentalists.  I hope this dichotomy is somewhat helpful, if you judged my beliefs by the Fundamentalists around you, I'd rather you call me a Davidian.
   

Okay, now I am done. I guess I have fulfilled one of the caricatures of preachers, long-winded. Hopefully I have been a little more interesting.  Peace out.

You've got your core Christian theology right. I concur, but you're still focusing on what Christianity (as you said) "ought to mean" and ought to be, not was it really is --to the 95th percentile-- in actual practice.

And it's no good just harping on the fundies for directly or indirectly "enabling" environmental destruction. This is a mucho deeper, systemic problem with Christianity.

Reading your post, I feel like I was reading myself five years ago. I would have said much the same things and with much of your good passion as well.

Sure, Christianty "ought to mean" stewarding the earth, but it doesn't do it.  I quit Christianity for good after 20 years of trying my best because I came to sad conclusion that it could never rise above its own self-preservation long enough to do anything of real value for the world.  As a 2,000-year-long experiment, I see it as a colossal failure for humanity and a disaster for the earth.  

You may still think Christianty (in some form) is  salvagable, or that it's a road to somewhere, but I no longer can.  

Ironically, Church service promotions, books, record covers, pamphlets, posters, calendars and the like, often display glossy sentimentalized photographic visions of "the beauty of God's nature". But do not make the mistake of thinking this means that they care enough to do anything of significance to preserve it for another 2,000 years. The proof of this is in the history books and in the newspapers.

The proof is in the Church's silence. A hush all over the world.

As the wholesale destruction of the habitable earth, the biosphere - land, air and oceans - is reaching holocaust proportions, Christianity-at-large meanders blithely. Having time merely to object to the latest Harry Potter book, pontificate over some Hollywood trash, or form a color consensus committee for the new carpet in the sanctuary. Churches "strain at gnat and swallow a camel". (Matthew:23:24:"Ye blind guides...")

Meanwhile, the larger sanctuary outside is burning like hell.  

The proclaimation that we need not worry about the environment, that God will provide for us all, no matter how many, was from something recently pointed out here at Grist; I forget the source, but the author was one of the loud-mouthed fundamentalists who have gained so much power in American politics today. If this is really such a minority view, seen as absurd by the majority, where are all the voices of dissent? Where is the objection to the fundies taking over? Where was the objection to the war? Where is the shock and horror over their association with the party of greed?

As for evil in nature, Scoyle has it right. Humans have a natural tendency to be violent and sexual. The source is obvious if you don't refute evolution- just watch the critters. But fundies deny the link, and explain the natural urges as the influence of the devil- sexual temptations, violent behavoir, these are the things we must fight, because they are the evil within us. What I call natural is what you call evil. To attain eternal life, we must repress these evil urges, the same ones the animals give in to.

A thought experiment; imagine a dense area of woods; the undergrowth is high, and it is quite dark from the shade of so many trees. Think about walking into it- what do you imagine? Do you see a multitude of species, all moving about busily, enjoying their lives, interacting, communicating, harmonizing? Do you feel kinship, a sense of oneness? Do you want to sit and stay awhile, to soak it all in?

Or, do you think of bugs biting, stinging, crawling on you, snakes sneaking up on you, wild animals watching you, waiting for the perfect time to pounce on you and gorge on your flesh? Do you want to turn and run, pick up your cell-phone, and call someone with a bulldozer to come and clear this mess, plant some grass, and spray for bugs? Should we mourn the loss of these wild, murderous, soulless beasts? Don't be silly, they'll just go somewhere else and eat non-Christians.

Which vision do you think is the most common one? Do I blame religion? Well, I would first blame our intellect for finding so many ways to effectively subdue nature, leaving us disconnected from it, unfeeling toward it. We have severed our roots, and we scorn the earth from which we sprang. But did religion play a role in the development of this attitude toward our Mother? You betcha! I submit that if Christianity had proclaimed from the beginning that we owed a huge debt to all of nature, and had a religious obligation to protect it, and all the creatures in it, even if it meant a few sacrifices to man's own advancement, things would never have gotten this bad. Instead, Christianity has provided ready-to-use justifications for clearing the land of all that is not human. Humanity is far more important, the Earth is God's gift to us, it is our duty to tame it, subdue it, cleanse it of evil and fill it with humans (who, unlike the animals, are made in His image). Faith requires us to believe that He will provide for us, that His power is infinite, and that the only thing that really matters is that we believe, and Heaven awaits us. Maybe these are misinterpretations, even perversions of what was really meant, but they are the popular aspects of Christian faith, and very little is being said to refute the use of these principles by those who profit from the destruction. Worse than 'no comment' from the pulpit, we hear about the greatness of the 'American way of life', which does NOT exclude our gluttonous appetite for the Earth's resources at the expense of the rest of life on Earth. The religious right even supports the current war, openly, as the 'correct response to terrorism'. Can you think of a more environmentally destructive action than war?

Aggression and sexuality are undeniably common to humans and animals; once useful traits, they are harmful to society, and must be subdued, repressed. It is of course, natural for young boys to behave aggressively, and sexual desires are as natural as hunger. But these aspects of human nature are vilified; this is the evil that tempts man and must be defeated. They are closely associated with nature- 'unguided' human behavior very closely mimics animal behavior. But the association puts nature to blame for the worst in humans- when we subdue the wild places, we are subduing our own animal urges, clearing our souls as we clear the land. Now it is so organized, peaceful, and quiet. The beast is dead, and the human wins eternal life. No, the words don't appear in the Bible, but the connection is clear, the associations are everywhere, and the effect is the same. Tame Nature to tame Man. The bulldozer is the purifier.

a liberal in redsville

In mild forms, fundamentalism, whether religious or not, leads to intolerance, because the assumption is that it is impossible for people who have different worldviews to get along.  The fundamental principles must take precedence (although, ironically, some of the core principles such as "Love thy neighbor" are often ignored).  In out-of-control forms, fundamentalism leads to violence--bombs at abortion clinics, roadside bombs, ELF, etc.  Of course, fundamentalists usually get the most press because, though usually only a small section of the overall movement, they are louder than others, aggressively using either their voices or violence to get their message out.  

I believe the overarching question we are trying to answer is whether Christianity and environmentalism can coexist and even build upon each other.  Is a Christian environmentalist a contradiction in terms, and can Christians (and religious people generally) work together with other environmentalists for a common purpose even though they might disagree about religion?  

Clearly, there are some people on this forum who would answer no.  They are arguing that in order for a Christian to contribute to the environmental movement, that person has to renounce his or her religion because it will inevitably lead him or her down the path to environmental destruction, etc., etc.  In other words, one's religion determines one's actions and only by altering one's fundamental principles can one become a truly enlightened environmentalist.  I see a weird parallel there.    

Simultaneously, the same people are arguing that a religious person's actions (or the actions of someone else who claims to be a part of the religion) determine what a religion "really is": e.g., "I couldn't care less what a religion supposedly teaches, the only thing that matters is what its followers actually do."

So which is it?  

If actions determine what a religion "really is," then you have to allow for the possibility of Christian environmentalists (several have been involved in this forum) because their actions show them to be both true Christians and true environmentalists. On the other hand, if beliefs determine what a religion "really is," you cannot ignore recent polling done by the Pew Charitable Trust showing that 60 percent of Americans are in favor of stricter environmental regulation, including an EVEN STRONGER majority of social conservatives.  

The whole argument is a red herring.
The real question is this: if a strong majority of Americans are for stricter environmental regulation, why aren't more positive changes happening?  Why, in fact, are so many negative environmental changes being made that go against most people's core values?  

A basic answer is that our representative democracy is dysfunctional.  The disconnect between values and actions is not limited to Christians but is pervasive throughout American society.  One problem is that people assume (often correctly) that the government will not be responsive to them but rather to corrupt lobbyists with money.  There is also extreme pressure on both the right and the left to join one fundamental camp or the other.  The rhetorical bludgeon, "If you're not with me, you're against me" is not limited to the right wing.  It can be used and is being used by those on both sides of the political spectrum.  

However, the Pew study showed a complex mixture of beliefs among Americans that did not line up with the simple Christianity equals anti-environmentalism argument.  See http://people-press.o