Democratic leaders are initiating a media campaign targeting Christian radio stations to create support among Evangelicals for upcoming climate change legislation. While outreach is usually admirable, Democrats are barking up the wrong apple tree in this particular case.
We will not effectively address the issue of global warming if we appeal to religion. For millennia, Christianity has taught that humans are special in the eyes of the god and that the world is made for their benefit and use. This is made clear in Genesis 1:1, which states:
God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him; male and female he created them.God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.
That mandate for man to use the land to his purpose is not exactly an environmental manifesto. These biblical passages give humans the special status of being made in god's image, unlike any other creature on earth, and clearly imply human dominance over all other living things. Humans are told to "subdue" the earth and "rule over" the air, land and sea. These religious teachings not only condone but actively encourage humans to view the environment as separate from them, put here for their pleasure. In this world view, no deep moral obligation exists to preserve resources for future generations.
The explicit religious mandate to exploit natural resources remains clear and unambiguous, in spite of recent efforts to harmonize religion and environmental sciences by numerous academic and international organizations, including The Forum on Religion and Ecology, the largest international multi-religious project of its kind, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, founded in 1936 by the Vatican to promote scientific progress compatible with the Church's teachings.
The argument used by those seeking reconciliation between religion and environmental protection points to the integrity of all creation, or reverence for all things created by god, insisting that religion and concern for the environment are not only compatible, but have been so all along. Those are welcomed sentiments. In fact, as is frequently the case, the Bible contains contradictory passages about the natural world, reasonably allowing for such an interpretation. Old passages can also simply be reinterpreted to fit the facts or to be compatible with newly adopted ideas. Pope John Paul XXIII said in 1961:
Genesis relates how God gave two commandments to our first parents: to transmit human life--'Increase and multiply'--and to bring nature into their service--'Fill the Earth, and subdue it.' These two commandments are complementary. Nothing is said in the second of these commandments about destroying nature. On the contrary, it must be brought into the services of human life.
But the harsh facts of human history belie this benign revisionist interpretation of the meaning of "subdue". The preponderance of unambiguous passages in the Bible giving mankind dominion over nature's bounty argues against any idea that religion is environmentalism in disguise. As Renaissance scholar Lynn White famously wrote in 1967, "We shall continue to have a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man."
His words remain true 40 years later, when religious conservatives in the United States view resource extraction as an inalienable right. For the past eight years our natural resources were under an accelerated threat from a torrent of new laws that encouraged mining on federal land, weakened protection for species, habitat and wetlands, encouraged deforestation, and promoted drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. All with the enthusiastic support of the Evangelical community. Perhaps such enthusiasm comes with the idea that destruction of the environment will bring on the Apocalypse, a happy thought for those awaiting Rapture, but a bit less appealing to the rest of us.
Seeking support from Evangelicals for climate change legislation is a bit like asking Rush Limbaugh to campaign for Arlen Specter. The attempt is ill-advised. We should not be reframing the debate to make the issue tolerable to Evangelicals. That type of accommodation is the dangerous first step onto a slippery slope, and soon we'll be compromising on teaching Intelligent Design next to or in place of Darwin's "theory."
Have you ever wondered why the evidence to support Einstein's idea is never questioned by Evangelicals even though his seminal work is also "just a theory" on par with evolution? Because Relativity is not widely seen by the faithful to threaten religious beliefs (although in fact the case can be made that Einstein is a greater threat than Darwin). This dichotomy between the perceptions of Relativity and evolution reveals the real problem to be that only certain scientific issues have been selectively politicized by the right, with evolution and climate change serving as exhibits A and B.
Think for a moment on what basis someone would not "believe in" climate change. For somebody to take the position that climate change is not real, he must claim that he knows more about climatology than 2500 atmospheric scientists from 166 countries. The claim is absurd, and has absurd consequences. Somewhere along the line "belief" superseded "evidence." Once that happens, science loses all meaning, and for that society suffers.
If belief replaces evidence in public debate, why not make the claim that atoms, or DNA, or black holes, or any other scientific discovery is not real? Once you agree that evidence is subservient to belief, you dismiss the entire enterprise of science. How else could we explain on what basis climate change is seen as a liberal conspiracy but not electromagnetism? If we are not professional climatologists we can no more dismiss their conclusions than we could those of a physicist working on atomic fusion. We don't have the expertise in either field, and I don't hear anybody challenging our nuclear scientists. How odd that we only dispute the science that threatens to undermine our political or religious beliefs but accept all else with no hesitation.
No, rather than reframing the issue to satisfy a faith-based approach to science, we should insist that our schools refrain from 16th century teachings. Rather than bend in the face of ignorance, we should elect politicians capable of evaluating scientific evidence at face value. That does not require a Ph.D., only common sense, and the commitment to keep god out of the laboratory. The intrusion of religion into science is every bit as dangerous as its infiltration into politics. That we still debate evolution is proof enough. Any effort to dilute the arguments about global warming to appease religious sensibilities does nothing but corrupt the integrity of science in public debate. Faith and evidence do not share equal space in the sphere of science, and we would make a terrible mistake in giving faith a seat at the table of hard data.
Democrats need to push climate change legislation by making the most cogent, fact-based, scientifically-sound arguments possible given the evidence in hand. Any deviation from that course is irresponsible. If those who wish to pursue faith-based science are left behind, then so be it. If on the other hand we fail as a country and as a species to address a changing climate, then we deserve the consequences. Let the market of ideas choose the winners.
Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffSchweitzer
Bron Taylor: Dark Green Religion and Stephen Colbert's Quest for a New Faith
Truth is, the Quaker activist or Jesuit monk who lives the life of poverty, works for the empowerment of the oppressed, seeks acceptance of gays and engages in environmental or peace activism sees these things as a much a natural expression of Christianity as the "right"-leaning fundies see their positions as the natural outgrowth of their theological viewpoint. If you can see this, then you can understand why Zanti feels affronted and unfairly characterized. His religious faith is central to his existence and wants people to view this a great positive.
On the other hand, JohnFromCensornati is in a position to feel he is part of a disenfranchised minority that is discriminated against. He sees the outspoken fundamentalists railing against him and he assumes this is what Christianity is all about. Who is going to want accept something that is fomenting hatred towards your very personhood?
What I see is majorities voting against gay marriage and they do it because their ministers tell them to. I also see people like Zanti arguing that somehow these voters are a minority among xians. The numbers obviously tell a different story.
As long as all xians continue to revere that homophobic book as their source document, I don't feel the need to differentiate.
Then, when the product of those beliefs are something xians don't like or agree with, they make excuses like:
Those people aren't REAL xians like me.
They're not following the TRUE teachings of Jesus.
MY xianity isn't any thing like that.
I'm a xian, but I'm more SPIRITUAL.
When you're a member of a large group that you have to constantly distance yourself from, what does that say about the group, and what does it say about you?
John, by all means, show us those numbers.
I keep asking for proof that Christians, as a group, are mainly conservative, and no one provides it. If you have it, let's see it.
You clearly have talent for communication. I wish you would consider the possibility of using that talent to help seek those areas where we are the same, rather than trying to exploit the areas where we are different. Clearly you have stimulated lots of discussion, which is good... it makes all of us think and attempt to communicate. But Is there a middle ground here that we can reach that gives us a foothold for moving forward?
We don't respect their "views". Their "views" may very well make their lives more comfortable, but they make mine considerably more uncomfortable.
You see, there really isn't any middle ground with people who believe that I'm not gay, I'm a straight person that "sins", so when the religious stop meddling in my private affairs, I'll gladly cease my "mean spirited attacks" on their "views".
Don't hold your breath.
I do not consider gay people anything but part of nature's plan. What exists is part of nature. Nor do I consider gays anything less than fully equal citizens.
So, whose dang views are you talking about??
And there is a reason it is easy to criticize (or "ATTACK") faith. (Believers always use these hyperbole words. It reflects the victim mentality that goes along with the need to "believe" things in the first place. By inflating the situation it allows them to rest with a conclusion unfounded.)
Why is it, that when some one detects what they see as a flaw, they should be criticized as "exploiting areas where we are different?" (More defensive victim jargon?) Maybe they just see it is negative for society and are pointing it out.
The ground we need to move forward on may very well not be right in the middle. And the foothold we need should be on solid ground, not delusions.
You tell me, at what point do you choose to potentially hurt someones feelings to achieve clarity?
It's not an attack anyone I'm accused of holding back gay rights, hurting science education, or stifling progress in general? Heck, yes, it is. I strongly suspect you'd take offense to even a fraction of those charges if they were directed at you.
So sorry if I don't simply fold up and admit responsibility for ills that I have absolutely nothing to do with. And especially when I'm on the same progressive page.
I don't attack people who don't share my beliefs. Please stop accusing me of that!
No, Christians don't "dominate every aspect of life" in a country that boasts separation of church and state. Frankly, I wish we had sep. of business and state--that way, maybe big polluters would be barred from writing our environmental laws, and maybe big co.'s would be forced to pay their dang income tax like everyone else has to. Separation of rich people and state would be grand, too--having mucho $$ wouldn't entitle someone to extra rights and advantages.
"Being tired of faith bashing in a country totally dominated by faith is downright scary."
It's all over our pop culture. Which is great, because it shows we're no dictatorship--and definitely no theocracy. On the other hand, I'm sick of the over-the-top tone--I fear for the sanity of anyone who thinks we're two steps away from a theocracy. The simple fact is that religion has been turned into a convenient (and false) metaphor for neo-con evil. I suspect that too many liberals are too close to the right wing in the degree to which they value power, money, and privilege.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/why-mortimer-zuckerman-ha_b_201943.html
George Carlin was one of my favorite comedians. My parents thought Lenny Bruce was the ultimate cultural critic. So, come on--I'm no stranger to faith being questioned and criticized. If I woke up one day in a country in which people were okay with religion, I'd know I was dreaming or dead.
Most people of faith are where I'm at in that regard. It's just that the volume on faith-bashing has gotten insane. I'm tired of faith being scapegoated for our country's scientific illiteracy and the dangerous turn toward the right that started with our idiotic prez Ronnie Raygun. Problem is, it's hard to criticize the values and behavior of the right without indicting some of our own, no? Ah, but if we define faith as something separate from liberalism and reason, then we have the perfect carnival target. And there's no chance we'll hit ourselves in the process--not once we have a perfect "other" in place.
However, to paraphrase Jesus, we ARE that other.
1) we will never elect an athiest president in my lifetime, and perhaps never
2) no national politician could get elected without professing a belief in god
3) my tax payer dollars go to putting up Christmas decorations in public spaces
4) my tax payer dollars go to pay police officers to direct traffice in and out of churches every Sunday
5) churches do not pay property taxes, so I have to pay more
6) we lost 8 critical years in stem cell research
7) we are still arguing about evolution, the only country in the Western world to do so
8) I still can't buy beer or alcohol on Sunday before noon -- so religion restricts my ability to buy a legal product when I want to - like the time my wife needed beer for a recipe for guests coming over Sunday afternoon
9) a woman's rigth to choose her own reproductive destiny remains threatened
10) we waste time talking about who can get married
we know that you're not a one-tooth, snake-handling hick (not that there's anything wrong with that, lol), and that there are many stealth atheists in church. We probably agree more than we disagree. So now just to be fair, please give Kamran Pasha a hard time for blaming neocon philosophy on atheism. (I supplied link above)
A few things commanded in the Bible:
-- After a certain period of time, God commanded that land be returned to those who originally owned it. If this were followed today, the Native Americans would not be in the situation they are now.
--those who produce goods and services were commanded to set some aside for the poor.
--Nations that mistreated the poor were often judged harshly by God and even destroyed. See Sodom and Gomorrah.
Words such as "subdue" have different meanings in English than what they were translated from. It is necessary to study the original words to understand what God was really saying. From my studies, it appears that what he commanded was that man should cultivate and take care of the earth, not destroy it.
Even if you think that the Bible is ambiguous on environmental stewardship, then look what it says about taking care of the poor. Climate change is affecting the poorest countries inordinately more than the richer ones. As Johann Hari lamented on this very site, the country of Bangladesh stands in real danger of drowning, leaving 150+ million people to an uncertain fate. For Christians to ignore climate change is a very real affront to the God who created those people.
Why not just admit you have your own opinion and you are not one of these undefineable "Christians."
Why must you drag that ancient book and cult around your neck like an albatrose?
It is you who have defined your own religion, not christians, Catholics or Jesus. Let it go.
So, you'd have us obey to the letter an ancient text containing such attitudes and details? Wow.
Why?
This is too much to cover with the limited space allowed here.
There were many pod casts that covered these points well.
Do some Google-ing for good refutations.
I suggest these pod casts:
skepticality
the atheist experience
american freethought
the non prophets
point of inquiry
the skeptic's guide to the universe
Go to iTunes store. They are all free subscriptions.
- Hitler bolstered his hatred and the holocaust on the belief that the Jews killed the son of God -- as well as the strange view that Christ was a warrior:
___________
"Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude." One thing was for certain by his own words, that Hitler always spoke of "a God", in many of his speeches and writings.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_religion_did_Hitler_say_he_was_if_any
____________
As an outsider, it seems that what the Bible ACTUALLY says about dominion over animals and nature and such has very little bearing on what Christians do. There are Christians out there who are promoting an environmentally minded stewardship approach to their charge of "having dominion" over the earth. I know because my grandparents' pastor thinks this way, and they regularly send me his sermons. We should do everything we can to encourage this view. And I think that as environmentalists, we should NEVER shun an ally, no matter where they're coming from.
You make a very good point. Almost any position can be validated, using the bible. Christians have made an art of picking & choosing.
But most people who are listening to christian radio are more likely to be the fundamentalist evangelical type who believe a god will take care of things for them, if they pray hard enough. They are more concerned with an "after life" they BELIEVE in, than they are with the only life we KNOW we have.
Climate change, I'm afraid, is not a concern that will ever be high on their list ... until it's too late.
You're right, we should never shun an ally, no matter where they're coming from, but we need to spend effort where it will be the most effective.
Religious fundamentalism often breads ambivalence to the here and now.
So why cant that be turned into cultivating and keeping it healthy for future cultivation? Its as if there is an embargo on being able to spin their stuff another direction
Yes, I can find significant differences between Catholics and Evangelicals -- after all, that split occured because of differences in interpreting Scripture. But those differences are trivial compared to the commonalities among all Christian religions from the perspective of someobody who rejects the idea of god as anything other than bad writing.
Don't get offended every time somebody challenges your beliefs, instead, turn the other
Total Christian adults in US: 76.0%
Total non-Christian religions 3.9%
None/ No religion, total 15.0%
Other demographics are listed as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Religious_self-identification_of_the_U.S._adult_population:_1990.2C_2001.2C_2008
To reject speaking to 76% of the population about something as dire as climate change because you believe their theology doesn't allow them to believe the science is unrealistic and unwise. It is our responsibility to speak to all demographics of people. Those who have a wider affinity for reason will listen, those who do not will either not listen or will soften up over time (as they see their family and friends change).
Younger Christians are proving to be more scientifically and politically adept, and so all the more reason to be speaking to the conservative element on this issue.
Jeff never said anything about targeting "right-wing radio audiences". Re-read the first paragraph.
"Your reasoning is that Christians all practice the same kind of dominion-based theology, which as an open-minded free-thinker, I know is not the case."
You KNOW this is not the case, but in your very next sentence you KNOW that it IS the case with conservatives. I hate being forced to defend conservatives, but do you really think that's fair? I'm just looking for a little consistency.
"To reject speaking to 76% of the population..."
Jeff was speaking of evangelicals (again, first paragraph). Do you think that 76% of the population are evangelicals?
Pat Robertson asserts that, too. And I don't agree with him, either.
"Don't get offended every time somebody challenges your beliefs, instead, turn the other"
Cheek? Anyway, you've yet to challenge any of my beliefs. I'm not in the habit of blindly accepting (in a literal fashion or otherwise) claims made in an ancient document, nor am I in the habit of confusing myth with fact. I believe, as do most Christians, that the Bible is the work of men trying to express humankind's relationship with the infinite. As such, it has enormous value--it doesn't have to be the literal word of "god." I don't know why you keep insisting so.
I do know that I'm tired of being labeled conservative, uneducated, and opposed to science.
I do not insist that the bible is the leteral word of god. I am saying it has to be that or not; and if not, my interpretation of the book is as valid as yours. And believing in talking snakes or rebirth after death or that females came from a male rib is confusing myth with fact. If you believe none of that creation myth, or that god made everything in 6 days (and then had to rest, implying fatique, an un-god-like quality), you are selecting what parts of the bible you do believe -- no different than what I do, except I believe none of it instead of just parts of it. My logic in rejecting all of it is the same that one would use to reject some of it - I just include more the text that is rejected.
76% of population (!) -- certainly needs to be engaged over human-induced climate change.
My advice: stop assuming you know how all these people believe; they all believe differently as individuals. Openess of mind towards the fact that many of them have open minds is essential. No one has a monopoly on Truth. No one even comes close. But, what little we do really know about needs to artfully communicated, especially on such a serious matter.
The current wave of unprecedented warming is due to natural changes. To the extent there is warming going on, it is due to the sun. The southern hemisphere has not been experiencing climate change over the last 30 years. The last time I checked, that's part of the globe. While these facts do not conclusively prove that global warming is not occurring - it is impossible to prove a negative - they certainly suggest that it is not.
Christians can choose to drive how they wish without fearing that their actions contribute to Global Warming. This does not mean that Christians do not need to consider God's desires in what they choose to drive. God clearly expects his servants to keep their families safe. It simply means that Christians have no reason to consider the effects their car might have on the climate when purchasing a new vehicle.
God is still up there.
But why stop your challenge with this field -- why not claim that we have little empiracle evidence for the existence of viruses, or bacteria, or that DNA is the genetic code?
Perhaps you only claim expertise in this field, but not high energy physics because you have a political agenda, and wish to fit the data to your preconceived ideas? Just a thought.
for a repudiation of the Naomi Oreskes articles on which Gore based his contention that there was a "consensus" among scientists about global warming. The empirical data for anthropogenic global warming is only overwhelming if you take on faith the fact that CO2 is a cause of it. I submit to you that is a religious, not a scientific belief.
Praise Je$u$!