By the way, speaking of blindsided people, did anyone here ever consider the idea of polar cities to house possible survivors of climate change events in the year 2500 or so?

See my blog or google the term or Wikipedia the term "polar cities". I wonder if David Roberts would be interested in discussing polar cities, as a concept, in a future post here? I tried to contact him several times but he never relies, too busy I am sure. Still, David, pop a line. We are in this together, no?


Polar Cities in the future? Maybe? Yes? No? What's your POV? http://www.dailymotion.com/songsterhiragana/video/x398cu_global-warming-song-how-on-earth

That is difficult for me to write.  There is very little about them that I like or admire, and nothing about them that I respect.  Therefore the prospect of having to engage them seriously and, yes, even respectfully is daunting.

DR, I entirely agree with your religious assessment of their pro-life anti-taxes policy.  But no doubt they do not see these things at all as you and I do.

From what I understand of their attitudes, which is neither much nor reliable, they consider themselves to be a beleaguered, nearly powerless minority, struggling as best they can amidst a boastfully godless and hedonistic majority who have for too long commanded all access to power.  Republican leaders such as Reagan, Gingrich and Bush, as well as televangelists and right-wing talk radio, may have given them some hope and direction; but they still live in a land dominated by hostile forces.

From this perspective, their dedication to "family values" is most certainly self-sacrificing, courageous, even heroic, since they expose themselves to the scorn of the wicked and selfish majority by upholding those values.

And similarly, their desire for lower taxes is not aimed at personal enrichment for selfish, pleasure-seeking ends.  George W. Bush speaks their language, when he says things like, "The American people's money does not belong to Washington, it does not belong to Congress, it belongs to the American people, and it should be given back to the American people."  What that means is, first, taxpayers' money in the hands of government typically gets misdirected through corruption; secondly, even if it is not misdirected but is spent as Congress directs, it is spent on projects that are either useless and wasteful, or positively wicked; but thirdly, if taxpayers got to keep their money, they would rightly find themselves able to fulfill their good and necessary duty to raise their families in an America-loving, God-fearing way.

As narrow, blindered, crazy and delusional as this is, it is necessary to appreciate that these people are quite sincere in espousing these values.  They are not being ironic or hypocritical.  Similarly, when such Gore-bashing hysterical right-wing commentators as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity say, incredibly, that the US military is the greatest "agent for peace" in the world, and that the US military should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, we should put aside how very bizarre, and indeed grotesque and offensive, that sounds, and try to understand the values and world view that lie behind that kind of assertion.

It is not surprising that with their mentality of a beleaguered minority, the evangelicals demand an uncompromising orthodoxy on matters regarding their political agenda, and have no tolerance for any ideas that may encourage their fraternizing with liberals and secular humanists, such as those concerning environmentalism, creation care and global warming.  Jim Wallis is no doubt perceived by many of them as being far too comfortable schmoozing with liberals, so it is a wonder that he was invited at all.  And Kate does not mention if Rick Warren and Richard Cizik (old friend of Grist) were present, but I should not think they would be allowed any prominence as if they at all represented the evangelical way of thinking.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Second, your description reminds me of similar ones about other "conservative" religious groups.  When you wrote, ". . . they consider themselves to be a beleaguered, nearly powerless minority, struggling as best they can amidst a boastfully godless and hedonistic majority who have for too long commanded all access to power," Arab terrorist, Israeli Zionist, Hindu extremist, etc could easily be subsituted for conservative Christian.

Similarly, your assertion that "It is not surprising that with their mentality of a beleaguered minority, the evangelicals demand an uncompromising orthodoxy on matters regarding their political agenda, and have no tolerance for any ideas that may encourage their fraternizing with liberals and secular humanists, such as those concerning environmentalism, creation care and global warming." could be applied to why there is as yet no peace in the Middle East.  It also explains why any number of countries such as Yugoslavia, Lebanon, and India suffered bloody civil wars.

It is absolutely right and necessary to try to compassionately understand the motivations of all "extremists".  It is also absolutely necessary and right to call a spade a spade and unveil for all their narrow-minded and un-Christ-like beliefs as DR does:
"These "values" uniformly require sacrifice and pain from other people, and bring only benefit (tax cuts!) to those who hold them. Awfully convenient, isn't it, when all God asks of you is to hate, condemn, and marginalize Others."
"Almost like He's just there as a hovering, ghostly justification for fear and tribalism. Almost like a certain kind of person is drawn to a religious perspective that offers maximum sanctimony and asks minimal sacrifice."

I hope that the "moral minority" seriously ponders one day "What would Jesus do?".  Surely he would not advocate the murderous invasion of Iraq or the wanton, wasteful destruction of the environment and squandering of natural resources.
And I find it difficult -- practically impossible -- to consider Richard Land and other such "religious leaders" as Christian.

 

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

Here's a link to the Scientists and Evangelicals Initiative. A documentary about a scientist-evangelical climate change tour of Alaska was filmed for the PBS program `NOW' and will be aired October 26, 2007.

Ped Shed Blog

Still, it should be recalled, as the Telegraph article says, that the prejudice against environmentalism, as a far-left, ultra-un-American creed of lies and wickedness comparable to communism, remains strongly rooted among many evangelicals, not least among their leadership.  Also, the Telegraph does well to remind us of that frightening piece by Bill Moyers, in the New York Review of Books, early in 2005, on how evangelicals of an especially fundamentalist and apocalyptic sort, e.g. Tim LaHaye and his followers, consider concern for the environment to be offensively disrespectful of (alleged)biblical doctrines concerning the imminent end of the world.

Therefore, when Cizik and his allies started speaking out about "creation care," it seems that that at once provoked a powerful reaction against it, though for the most part the reaction was expressed outside the attention of the MSM.  (It would be interesting to know if Cizik's interview in Grist received much notice or comment among evangelicals.  Nor was he the only one; there were a couple of other evangelical Christians whose words appeared here, but I forget their names.)

This so-called Values Voters Summit wants especially to marginalize people such as Cizik and Jim Wallis, as the Republican candidates are being scrutinized one by one.  Apparently, the term "values" is still exclusively about abortion rights, embryonic stem cell research, and the "gay agenda," especially same-sex marriage.  Everything else is a dangerous distraction; and any attention paid to what Jim Wallis is talking about gives the impression that the core "values" are ever so slightly negotiable.

Naturally, the candidates would never say a word about global warming in that climate (so to speak).  Talking with Wolf Blitzer the other day, Richard Land seemed to be steeling himself to support Mitt Romney; he said he has known people in his family who have been "converted" from wrong attitudes about abortion, so he can tell that Romney's "conversion" was the real thing, not a politically convenient flip-flop.

The leading candidate whom the Religious Right love to hate, Rudy Giuliani, seems to have comported himself well, receiving some strong, if measured, applause.  By one account, though, he fell short by failing to sound savagely homophobic enough.  And anyway, Land had made it clear to Wolf that he could not in good conscience vote for anyone who supports abortion rights, as presumably Giuliani will continue to do.

In fairness to the Republicans, the Democratic candidates do not seem themselves to have been historically radically committed to global warming mitigation at the beginning of their campaigns; their serious thinking and sophisticated policy proposals on the issue have tended to follow their awareness that it is an issue that matters a great deal to the Democratic base.  We should always be careful to distinguish the campaign promises of a candidate from the heartfelt passion that drives him or her.  So far as I can see, in answer to the question "Why do you want to be president?," the only Democrat who would at once answer something like "I want to lead the nation and the world in combatting global warming" is famously not running: Al Gore.

Or am I being unfair to Dennis Kucinich?  I doubt that even my pal John Edwards would put that answer as high as second place.  Just possibly Bill Richardson might, but surely not Barack Obama.  And as for Hillary, for whatever she should decide to answer out of that frigid mouth of hers, may God forgive her.

And in the general election, depend on it, we are going to hear even less about global warming than now.

Green Granny,
I agree with everything you have written here.  You draw some very good connexions, about deplorable religious conduct everywhere.  It is so hard to avoid cynicism!

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

It is unfortunately very true that there is lots and lots to deplore both in religious doctrines and in religious practices.  Of the four great Paths of Knowledge which human beings have historically tried to follow, Religion, Art, Philosophy and Science, all of which can be destructive when they are followed in a thoughtless and self-regarding manner, the first and the last seem especially destructive.

The properly humanist attitude is to recognize in the religious faculty of human beings something uniquely precious and good, and to seek to reform the various religious practices when they have stopped promoting their own enlightened values.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

The state of Indiana has indeed produced some very questionable characters.  Of course, to its credit, we must never forget that our very own Biodiversivist, that diamond in the rough, comes from there.

In case you missed it, you might be interested in this excellent editorial from the New York Times, in response to Mitt Romney's speech on his Mormonism, and the growing bad habit of putting candidates to a religious test:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07fri1.html?em& ...

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/07/religion_ ...


Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

On another matter, by contrast, while faith tests should be abolished, it seems highly appropriate, even necessary, to judge presidential candidates on whether they accept such science-based facts-in-progress as the 4-billion-year age of the Earth, and the descent with modification of living beings, aka Darwinian evolution.  Cf. this curious piece, on the lawsuit of an aggrieved creationist fraud:

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/12/07/bi ...


Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

"TORONTO, Ont. -- A 16-year-old girl has died after allegedly being choked by her father over a dispute with her family over her refusal to wear the hijab, the Islamic headscarf worn by some Muslim women.

Peel Regional Police arrested a 57-year-old man Tuesday morning after receiving a 911 call from a suburban home in Mississauga from a man saying he had killed his daughter, according to a Toronto newspaper Web site."

From: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/14831144/detail.html

I  hope the girl has time to reflect on how her short life actually ensured preservation of moral values on God's Earth. I mean, imagine what her father might have done without learning a bit of morality from his holy book. I just hope she's not a suicide bomber's Heavenly entertainment now. Maybe that is why God recalled her... with all the violence in the Middle East, there is probably a shortage of virgins upstairs.

In general, it is because we are enlightened enough to know that it is not good to show disrespect to other people's traditions.  (Not that criticism is necessarily disrespectful.)  And we dread seeming to support the anti-Muslim prejudices of others.

And more specifically, we dread seeming to be allied with the fundamentalist or evangelical Christians who are totally supportive and uncritical of the state of Israel, the greater-Israel Zionists and the Israeli Defense Force, and with the neo-conservatives and the security-conservatives who believe in the Clash of Civilizations.

And so, because of our befuddled speechlessness, we commit such blunders as allowing the celebrated Somali-Dutch ex-Muslim (an "apostate," therefore Muslims will try to kill her), Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a great promoter of women's rights and an admirer of liberal Western values, to be co-opted and asylumed by right-wing neo-con pro-Israel groups.  Really, she ought to be a liberal hero, as Salman Rushdie was and is.

Also, it is interesting that while you, WiscIdea, who I think it is fair to say are agnostic, but possibly atheist, and the GOP base are alike horrified by the murder of the girl in Ontario by her own father, in the name of religion, you are horrified for not exactly the same reason.  You seem to be saying, "Religion is an aberration and derangement of our rational faculties, which regularly drives religious people to commit abominable actions."  The GOP base, on the other hand, would say, "Islam is a false religion, and it is correct to understand all Muslims to be essentially at war with Christians and Jews, the worshipers of the true God; therefore sincere God-loving Christians will stand up and resist Muslim incursions, by means as violent as necessary."

A few weeks ago, when Mitt Romney was asked by a Muslim American if he would appoint a qualified Muslim to his cabinet, Romney understood at once that the GOP base would not forgive him if he said, "Yes," but everybody else would attack him for saying, "No."  So he finessed, awkwardly, and said that the percentage of Muslim Americans is too small in the population to justify his committing himself to hiring a Muslim.

We should be concerned that the religious right may push the Reverend Mike Huckabee, that snake, through to the nomination.  He was already plenty slimey for the mean things he said in the past about gay people, and people with AIDS, and for denying the Darwinian theory of evolution.  But it was really wicked of him, lately, to ask in passing, as if innocently, in a conversation with a NYTimes Mag writer, the question, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?"

(Also, for reasons of my own, as you can imagine, I was not pleased by his apparent endorsement of dog-fighting, in something he said yesterday to Wolf Blitzer: "In the South we have a saying, 'It doesn't matter how big your dog is in the fight, but how big the fight is in your dog.'")

In yesterday's extremely boring debate, if that is what it was, between the Republican candidates, John McCain at least made an Al-Gore-like statement on the morality of GW mitigation, a bit convoluted but climaxing in how bad it would be to leave a wrecked world to our children.  In the past, McCain shamelessly pandered to Jerry Falwell; it is fairly obvious that that was not altogether sincere; but we shall see how he proceeds.  If the Republican primary voters decide to give him a chance, in spite of their disliking him for being a "maverick" who turned against the GOP leadership now and again, but seeing that he has the best chance of winning against the Democratic nominee, well, that might be the best that we can hope for from that corrupt and unenlightened party.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

From...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html ...

"NEW YORK (CNN) -- A Muslim man jumped to the aid of three Jewish subway riders after they were attacked by a group of young people who objected to one of the Jews saying "Happy Hanukkah," a spokeswoman for the three said Wednesday.

The New York Police Department's Hate Crimes Task Force is investigating Friday's incident on the Q train.

Friday's altercation on the Q train began when somebody yelled out "Merry Christmas," to which rider Walter Adler responded, "Happy Hanukkah," said Toba Hellerstein.

"Almost immediately, you see the look in this guy's face like I've called his mother something," Adler told CNN affiliate WABC.

Two women who were with a group of 10 rowdy people then began to verbally assault Adler's companions with anti-Semitic language, Hellerstein said.

One member of the group allegedly yelled, "Oh, Hanukkah. That's the day that the Jews killed Jesus," she said."

Hmmm...

Praise the Muslim gentleman for intervening... probably not the result of something he read in his holy book. But what about those folks who wished someone a "Merry Christmas" and then assaulted them when they found out the people were Jewish? Where did they learn THAT from? I guess Churches don't cover the "Love your neighbor..." stuff anymore. It is soooo first century.

I suppose the victims were fortunate that those assaulting them were Christians... otherwise, the attackers, not restrained by the moral teachings of their holy book, might have inflicted even more damage. We are all fortunate to live in a society built on Christian values.

Happy Solstice! And please don't hit me!

WiscIdea,
it is no admirable pinnacle of post-Enlightenment rationalism, to use the actions of those bellicose anti-Semitic bigots on the Q train as evidence in the case against religion.  There are all kinds of totally non-religious reasons why thoughtless people so identify themselves with one group that they feel it is right and just to commit violence against other groups: patriotism, nationalism, sports-team-fanaticism, racism, sexism, speciesism.

That said, it is true that religions associated with the biblical tradition, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and such off-shoots as Mormonism, often emphasis exclusivity, and a hostility toward the heterodox, the heretics, the infidels, the apostates, the gentiles, the pagans.

That is a great sadness in the story of religion.  As you know, there are many non-biblical religious traditions that are not like that at all.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.