Would Jesus have multiplied fish contaminated with mercury and given them to pregnant women among the multitudes?
I don't think so.
But for supporting decreased mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants -- and framing the matter in pro-life terms -- the Evangelical Environmental Network faces the wrath of some conservative religious groups and Republican lawmakers.
Talk about an unnecessary turf war.
Defining "pro-life" as broader than "anti-abortion" increases the odds of diverse religious traditions working together to create healthy environments for our children to live, learn, play and pray.
"We understand the gift of creation as a sustainable gift empowering and providing for human life," the Rev. Mitch Hescox, president of the Evangelical Environmental Network, told the U.S. House Energy and Power Subcommittee last month. He testified in support of the EPA's new national standard reducing emissions of mercury and other pollutants by 90 percent in the next five years.
Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., pushed back: "The 'life' in 'pro-life' denotes not the quality of life, but life itself. The term denotes opposition to a procedure that intentionally results in dead babies."
Similarly, the conservative Family Research Council and the Cornwall Alliance, which has ties to the oil and gas industry, dismiss environmental challenges presented in pro-life terms, arguing such challenges pose minimal threat to human life.
Yet the U.S. Centers for Disease Control report that one out of six newborns are at risk for developmental disorders due to maternal exposure to mercury. And mercury from power plants has resulted in fish consumption advisories in every state.
The EPA says decreasing mercury emissions would prevent 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks every year, and save as much as $90 billion in annual health services. In addition, the upgrades at power plants will create an estimated 45,000 temporary construction jobs during the next five years.
Some members of Congress may be upset about the Evangelical Environmental Network's marketing campaign last year that raised awareness about mercury and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants. The ads focused on the sanctity of life and targeted legislators -- including many who oppose abortion rights.
In one ad, a woman named Pastor Tracy introduces herself with her young child and says, ""As an evangelical mom and church leader, I believe every life is a precious life from God....and I expect members of Congress to protect the unborn." She explains that coal-burning power plants have contributed to rising mercury levels in local waters and threaten the health of the unborn.
When I watched these ads, including one aimed at Sen. Kay Hagan in my home state of North Carolina, I felt hopeful that people of faith were advocating for the health of my children, as my family lives only 15 miles from a coal-fired power plant.
As a pro-choice Episcopalian, I first interacted with the Evangelical Environmental Network and Rev. Hescox while working on a book last year. We didn't talk about abortion or gay marriage, which often divide faith communities. Instead, we discussed how we could work together for the care of creation.
Later, he described his walk from Ansted, W.V. to Washington, D.C., to highlight the negative impacts of coal-fired power plants and mountaintop removal. Along West Virginia rivers, he saw signs that warned people not to eat the fish because of mercury contamination.
It's almost cliché now to ask: "What would Jesus do?" But we must continue to ask the question.
I believe Jesus wants a world where people of all faiths use their talents so we have clean water, unpolluted air, and fish we can eat.
Ensuring our environment supports healthy families and communities is, in my book, a more complete definition of what it means to be pro-life.
Is Mercury Pollution's Effect on Newborns a Pro-Life Issue ...
Religious Right: It's Not 'Pro-Life' To Protect The Unborn From ...
Cornwall Alliance :: Press Releases :: Pro-Life Leaders Call for End ...
Evangelical group holds firm on 'pro-life' link to EPA rule - The Hill's ...
I don't mean to go off the deep end here, but that kind of thinking immediately conjurs slavery to my mind. Specifically valuing the unborn baby over living women (and men) is a direct admission of a dehumanizing ideal that he subscribes to.
Dehumanizing others is, aside from sociopathy, the only step needed to enslave, murder, rape, and torture people. If they're not human, nothing is forbidden because natural "god given" rights don't apply.
Do you think He would have supported abortion? I don't think so.
So what is that you think is "horrendous" - terminating the tragically compromised WANTED pregnancy to save the woman's life and/or to prevent the suffering of the doomed fetus? - or the depraved indifference to the health of the woman that refusing a legal termination would demonstrate?
When unfortunately 2/3's of the emissions in the U.S. come from Asia now!
I suppose we are turning the other cheek.
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/18-made-in-china-our-toxic-imported-air-pollution/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C
"The EPA says decreasing mercury emissions would prevent 11,000 premature deaths"
I don't know how they count this, but let's take a countering opinion. The $200 Billion annual compliance costs for the EPA's mercury MACT rule will cause the statistical deaths of 13,333 people (the loss of $15 million from an economy will cause an unnecessary death because of increased risk taking due to lack of money). Based on that we'd be saving 2,333 lives if we DIDN'T institute Mercury MACT, not counting the lives that will be lost due to increased energy costs in winter (like the 600 dead in Europe because of unaffordable energy).
So what would Jesus do? Probably tell you to repent of your sins and quit whining about how poor government regulations resulted in the fall of the tower of Siloam.
Apparently He did, since all fish has some latent mercury (most mercury leeches from rocks, even today). Anything is poisonous in enough quantities; the question is what's safe. I'm not concerned if my child-bearing age wife eats sushi since most fish has sufficient selenium to chelate the mercury from her body. Nor am I concerned about the FDA's policy, since their extremely strict (strictest in the world) regulations on mercury in fish is 1/10th of what can be shown to be temporarily harmful in 5% of people who eat whale blubber at 300 lbs per annum (Faroe Islands study—I think 1997).
In fact, given that the most dangerous fish is self-caught fresh-water, like the fish Jesus probably gave the pregnant women in the crowd, He seems gung-ho about mercury in fish. Go Jesus!
Also since they're busy buying up water rights in south america and the midwest no where near where fracking is going on.