# The Religious Right and Environmentalism



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2006)

I've been seeing some stories on the one-eyed monster (a.k.a. television) about how "Real Christians embrace environmentalism" and how this stands in direct conflict with the pro-business, pro-industry tenets of the GOP.

Here's a couple of articles on Christians and greenhood:

*Is Christianity anti-Environmental? (link to full article)*


> The charge has been made that Christianity is anti-environmental. In fact, there are those who blame the ecologic "crisis" on the "Judeo-Christian tradition." Much of the misinformation that Christianity is anti-environmental came from some widely publicized statements by professing Christians. For example, James Watt, who became U.S. Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, in his article, "Ours Is the Earth," and other articles, made it clear that he viewed the earth as "merely a temporary way station on the road to eternal life...The earth was put here by the Lord for His people to subdue and to use for profitable purposes on their way to the hereafter."



*Why We Love the Earth (link to full article)*


> It is safe to say that the environment has not been prominent on the evangelical agenda. We may privately acknowledge the need to be better stewards of our natural resources, but we generally stay away from groups and organizations working on environmental issues because we suspect they are either too "liberal," "New Age," or both. Indeed, some groups clearly have New Age ties, and political liberals seem to have cornered the environmental market. But if this poll accurately reflects the philosophical underpinnings of most Americans regarding care of the planet, our fears may have been unwarranted. Rank-and-file Americans want to take better care of the earth for the same reason we do: God made it.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 20, 2006)

A christian should, it would seem....if scripture be taken literally (a central feature of fundamentalism), should be an "environmentalist"....as we are "Stewards" of God's creation.


Interesting topic
I don't see this as being nearly as much of a GOP/vs......you name it... issue. One can still be PRO-business, just *responsible business*.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Ninjamom (Oct 20, 2006)

Well said, Bro John!  The Biblical picture presents our role on Earth as one of 'Stewardship' - we are caretakers who are ultimately accountable to God for how we take care of HIS people, planet, time, opportunities, etc.

Oh, and I'm old enough to remember vividly the ruckus over the comments by James Watt.  I also remember that, in context, he spoke about exactly this topic.  He brought up the fact that we are called to be responsible stewards of the resources that God has entrusted into our care.  (I saw it on TV, so it _must_ be true  )


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2006)

No matter what point of view one takes, there is bound to be some way for religious people to justify that point of view based on the scriptures. As I recall, the Almighty once wiped the planet clean in a flood. That's one hell of an environmental policy. 

From one of the original articles, the author states that individual wish to be good stewards of the environment. But, how are those individual wishes measured against the corporate entity? The responsibility of the corporation is to generate profits in the present and in the future. What force acts upon them to to restrict the profit motive from destructive environmental behavior? 

The author of Tempting Faith, Mr. Kuo, suggests that evengelicals begin a two year 'fast' from politics. Throughout our nations history, evangelicals have attempted, to greater and lesser degrees, to influence politics and policy. Mr. Kuo suggests that for a short period, believers keep their beliefs to themselves, and out of the civic arena. 

Hear! Hear!

Sounds to me like a (dare I say it) divinely inspired idea.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 21, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Mr. Kuo suggests that for a short period, believers keep their beliefs to themselves, and out of the civic arena.
> 
> Hear! Hear!
> 
> Sounds to me like a (dare I say it) divinely inspired idea.


I disagree..

the only thing I find MORE Asinine than the dogmatic belief that when in the "civic arena" we MUST be lead by beliefs stemming from religious conviction...
is the dogged insistance that when in the "civic arena" we should not be lead by our religious convictions...

a part of being a free country is the fact that I can draw my morals and values, the guides to my behavior and "civic" choices...from whatever source seems best too me...
Science, Philosophy, Religion... or whatever.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Monadnock (Oct 21, 2006)

I'm not sure I uinderstand the point of the thread. Are there no real Christians in the GOP? Are they mutually exclusive groups due to how green they are/are not?

I'll be back on later. I have to set an oil field ablaze....


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2006)

Brother John said:


> the only thing I find MORE Asinine than the dogmatic belief that when in the "civic arena" we MUST be lead by beliefs stemming from religious conviction...
> is the dogged insistance that when in the "civic arena" we should not be lead by our religious convictions...
> 
> 
> ...


 
John, curiously I ask this. 

What of the tax quesion in the Bible? Where Jesus tells the questioner, 'Render Unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasars and to God things that are God's.' (Luke 20:25)

I interpret this passage of the Bible as telling followers that they do live in a world where governments establish taxes, print money, and take all actions that follow from that. And Jesus says to the "spies", attempting to trick him, essentially, keep the things that the government provides to you with government. I further interpret this verse with an instruction for followers to keep those things that connect man with God, directed toward God.

In my belief, this passage combines nicely with the instruction Jesus gave about prayer. Where Jesus told his followers, do not pray in the streets, instead go into your closet, and 'let not your right hand know what your left hand is doing, when you pry. For your Father, that is in Heaven, who knows all, will hear you', or words to that effect.

As we sometimes put it, when I was a follower - Live in the World, but do not be Part of the World.

My question is ... are those words "asinine"?  Or is there just a more enlightened way to interpret those teaching?


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 21, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> I'm not sure I uinderstand the point of the thread. Are there no real Christians in the GOP? Are they mutually exclusive groups due to how green they are/are not?
> 
> I'll be back on later. I have to set an oil field ablaze....



The GOP is known as pro-business and pro-industry to the extent of being irresponsible with the environment manifested by loose environmental law and to the extreme of chastising "tree huggers" and "environmental whackos" both in policy discussion, pundit spewing and talk show broadcasts.  I think there's few people who would align the GOP with environmentalism.

Another thing the GOP is known for is bringing Christianity into the government arena.  Reagan kicked this off, I think, and ever since, Republicans have also been pointing to "family values" "God's intention" and "God's country" in an effort to standardize Christianity as the nation's religion.

The question has long been asked in the living rooms of liberals, 'how can someone claim to serve God through emulating Christ and hate the environmental laws which protect God's creation?' So I'm not only echoing this musing, but also pointing out that this movement is growing larger and louder and am wondering how the GOP will survive without a large Christian backing?

Will this be the undoing of the Republican Party?  How will the Green Party benefit from this?  How will these voters swing, do you think?


----------



## Jade Tigress (Oct 21, 2006)

*Mod Note

Please keep the conversation on topic.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Moderator*


----------



## Brother John (Oct 21, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> John, curiously I ask this.
> 
> What of the tax quesion in the Bible? Where Jesus tells the questioner, 'Render Unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasars and to God things that are God's.' (Luke 20:25)
> 
> ...



Those words from the New Testament are in no way asinine.
I also don't see how Christ's instruction indicates that one should keep one's beliefs and civic responsibilities separate. 





> I further interpret this verse with an instruction for followers to keep those things that connect man with God, directed toward God.


I would challenge that that's something you are reading INTO the verse, not something that was intrinsically there in the message as it doesn't go along with other things that Christ said and did. 

My take on this verse??
By pointing out that Caesar's image was on the coin....and therefore it indicates a thing that, in essence, belongs to him and he has some authority over (taxes)....so as Man is made in God's image....God has authority over that which came from him, the soul of man. 
The verse in no way speaks to the separation of ones religious convictions and civic life. He did have his disciples pay their taxes (their responsibility to the state). He also engaged in civil disobedience when the laws of the land did not "jive" with his own convictions (or some would say "knowledge"). 

Christ said (Matthew 10:33)


> But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.


In NOT denying Christ before men, shouldn't we (Christians) also not turn away from what he said was important? Should we disregard our convictions when in the social/political world?
Or should we hide our light under a bushel?

True, Christ says to not pray on the corner....but if you read it in context, not picking a few words, you'll see that he's addressing the trend of the day to boast of ones piety and to religiously "Show off", which is as repugnant today as I'm sure it was then...
but he also said (Matthew 5:16) 





> Let your light so shine *before* *men*, that they may see your good *works*, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.



Acting in the public arena is important, our civic duties are very important!
Our choices and decisions really should be (I think) based on what we feel/think is RIGHT and good, worthwhile...etc., and to those of us that are Christian, by and large these concepts (right, good, worthwhile...etc.) and other moral guidelines come from scripture and some from tradition. To NOT act from this base is cowardice and goes against what our Lord said to do.

Living in the world but not being part of the world does NOT mean that a Christian is to not engage in the civic arena. It means to not let your choices be guided by non-spiritual drives or influence. In the New Testament there is a theme of that which is of God Vs. that which is "of the world"...where this simply means those who do not act in accordance with God's will. It's not saying to not enage in pursuits or responsibilities in this world.

again: I'm not saying that ALL should vote or petition govt. or what have you based on the teachings of Christ, but I do believe in the Christians Right to do so...believing that this is a mandate from Christ himself.  I also think that Muslims should act/vote/petition...etc. in accord with what they believe is fitting to their beliefs, Jews the same, Hindu the same...etc.
Too bad we can't do so without riddicule and badgering.

MODERATORS: I'm sorry if I strayed _too far_ from the topic, as you warned, I just really felt the need to address what Michael was saying. 
Thank you

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Oct 21, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> Another thing the GOP is known for is bringing Christianity into the government arena.  Reagan kicked this off, I think, and ever since, Republicans have also been pointing to "family values" "God's intention" and "God's country" in an effort to standardize Christianity as the nation's religion.



I'd challenge that, depending on how far back you care to look, this is something that was done by Democrats as well. I don't think that Reagan kicked it off, but he sure did use it didn't he. Former Pres. Jimmy Carter did too.



> Will this be the undoing of the Republican Party? How will the Green Party benefit from this? How will these voters swing, do you think?


I don't think it will be the 'undoing' of the GOP, but I do think it's an area in which the Republicans seriously need to adapt and change! Responsible business, in the long run, is a better, more stable business. 
IF your business requires the use of water from a stream, so you build your plan on a stream....it doesn't make sense to steadily destroy the ecosystem of that stream! In the long run....it's killing the goose while hoping to speed up the "golden egg" production.

good topic


Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2006)

Brother John said:


> Those words from the New Testament are in no way asinine.
> I also don't see how Christ's instruction indicates that one should keep one's beliefs and civic responsibilities separate.
> I would challenge that that's something you are reading INTO the verse, not something that was intrinsically there in the message as it doesn't go along with other things that Christ said and did.
> 
> ...


 

No Comment, at Moderator's Request

Michael


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 22, 2006)

If I'm not mistaken, most _*Americans*_ want to take better care of the environment.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 22, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, most _*Americans*_ want to take better care of the environment.


OH.....
If only t'wer true...


Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 22, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> No Comment, at Moderator's Request
> 
> Michael


 
My apologies to any that think 'No Comment' is disrespectful.

I think the religous right is awaiting the rapture, at which time, the world left behind will descend into a thousand years of chaos. Therefore, tending to the planet serves no purpose. God's plan is such that the resources put on this planet were given to man, for his dominion. 

It is therefore, impossible for man, if living according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, to defame the environment in any action.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 22, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> My apologies to any that think 'No Comment' is disrespectful.
> 
> I think the religous right is awaiting the rapture, at which time, the world left behind will descend into a thousand years of chaos. Therefore, tending to the planet serves no purpose. God's plan is such that the resources put on this planet were given to man, for his dominion.
> 
> It is therefore, impossible for man, if living according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, to defame the environment in any action.


It's not disrespectful in my view Michael.

Thats a curious take you have on what you think the "religious right" believes about the end times and our responsibilities as stewards of God's Earth.
It seems to me that you consider the "religious right" to be the 'other side', so maybe you're not the ideal person to say what it is they think...?
just a thought



> It is therefore, impossible for man, if living according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, to defame the environment in any action.


Your first statement made it clear that it was Your interpretation...which I have no problem with. But this one reads like an authoritative pronouncement... 
in my view the exact opposite is clear from scripture...we will be held accountable for every single thing that we were to be stewards of....

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 23, 2006)

Brother John,

That last post of mine is quite hyperbolic. I don't believe any of the crap I wrote, and I tend not to speak for people of faith, whenever possible. I was pissed off at unsigned negative rep points that seemed to slam my opinion. And I was trying to indicate I have more to say on this subject, but have been in enough trouble with the moderators. 

I have spent a good deal of my youth as part of an evangelical musical ministry, although, on this board, it should be no secret that I now hold beliefs on the athiestic side of agnosticism. 

This scripture, from Genesis, is the source of my post. I know that some believers interpret this passage to mean that the world is mans' to do with which they please. 

​


			
				Genesis said:
			
		

> 1:26​And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have *dominion* over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and *over all the earth*, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.​1:27​So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.​1:28​And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and *replenish the earth, and subdue it*: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.​1:29​And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.​1:30​And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.​


​
As I said in my original post ... it is possible to find scripture to support any position. 

But, whatever the scripture, and whatever the belief, we need to reconcile the differences between individual Christian's environmental desires with the actions of the Corporation. And, we need to reconcile the differences between professing faith to man and through government. 

And why would your take on the passages concerning the coin be more valid than mine? 

If faith is the only reason one supports protecting the environment, I would say that is insufficient reason for government to behave in an environmentally sustainable manner. If behaving in an environmentally sound manner has justifications outside of faith, I would suggest using those to influence government.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> If faith is the only reason one supports protecting the environment, I would say that is insufficient reason for government to behave in an environmentally sustainable manner. If behaving in an environmentally sound manner has justifications outside of faith, I would suggest using those to influence government.


 
On the surface, Michael, I would agree, but I often wonder if some people are just wired different.  Where one person finds the truth in reason, others find it in faith.  If we can come together on this issue, wouldn't that be a good thing?


----------



## Monadnock (Oct 23, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> The GOP is known as pro-business and pro-industry to the extent of being irresponsible with the environment manifested by loose environmental law and to the extreme of chastising "tree huggers" and "environmental whackos" both in policy discussion, pundit spewing and talk show broadcasts. I think there's few people who would align the GOP with environmentalism.
> 
> Another thing the GOP is known for is bringing Christianity into the government arena. Reagan kicked this off, I think, and ever since, Republicans have also been pointing to "family values" "God's intention" and "God's country" in an effort to standardize Christianity as the nation's religion.
> 
> ...


 
Your speculation is not without merit. 50% of this country is Christian. I'm not sure what portion votes GOP, but without it, that party would be in trouble.

I think in the same way most vote, we pick the lesser of the evils. No candidate is perfect. While the environment may be an issue with many Christian voters as you pointed out, so are the issues of homosexuality, secularism and marriage, which are also typically handled the way the right prefers. When environmentalism outweights these, then the GOP IS in trouble... I guess.....


----------



## qizmoduis (Oct 23, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> Your speculation is not without merit. 50% of this country is Christian. I'm not sure what portion votes GOP, but without it, that party would be in trouble.



More like 90% of this country is Christian, and represent viewpoints that range from rapturist "strip-mine and destroy everything green" millenialists to "don't mow the grass" steward types and everything in between.  Every single one of them can support their particular worldview with Bible quotes.

One Christian sees no problem in draining wetlands to build parking lots and the guy next to him will profess the same religion and chain himself to a tree to stop the bulldozer.  Both using the same scripture.

Both claim to be a True Christian, and both claim the other as false.

Who's correct?  The one with more quotes?


----------



## Brother John (Oct 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Brother John,
> 
> That last post of mine is quite hyperbolic. I don't believe any of the crap I wrote, and I tend not to speak for people of faith, whenever possible. I was pissed off at unsigned negative rep points that seemed to slam my opinion.


Thanks for making it clearer to us that you weren't writing what you actually believe. unsigned neg. rep points are Childish. I'd bet we both agree on that'n.



> This scripture, from Genesis, is the source of my post. I know that some believers interpret this passage to mean that the world is mans' to do with which they please.


Actually it seems we both agree on the interpretation of this scripture from genesis! I believe it does say we have dominion over the Earth and all that's in it. But...I believe that scripture, when taken as a whole, points out that one of the things we will be held the most accountable for is HOW we use such freedom and authority. Freewill....one of the best and one of the worst things ever given from God to man!!



> And why would your take on the passages concerning the coin be more valid than mine?


Validity? hmm...that's a tough call, not one I'm in sufficient "authority" to give a call on. I will say that mine is probably a bit more in line with the rest of Christ's message as a whole.. Basically because he'd often take any subject that someone brought up to/with him and turn it into a lesson/sermon on man's duty, God's Love or what Heaven would be like. So in my interpretation Christ wasn't giving a lesson on ones responsibilities in the social/civic arena as he was indicating that like the coin belongs to Caesar, symobolized by his mug being stamped on it...
likewise man bears the image of God....
that's all. 
Personally, I think that in 'personal' interpretation of scripture...it's CRUCIAL that it fully convince the person doing it. In Public interpretation, I think it's crucial that it line up with the whole of the message and not be contradictory.

WOW....I Know I'm gonna get shot at by some admins.

SO...back to topic...?
qizmoduis said: 





> More like 90% of this country is Christian, and represent viewpoints that range from rapturist "strip-mine and destroy everything green" millenialists to "don't mow the grass" steward types and everything in between. Every single one of them can support their particular worldview with Bible quotes.


Personally, I'd say take your percentage and the other, and the truth lies somewhere between.
I agree. The so called "Christian Right" is more diverse than people give credit for, and yes...they can fling the scripture frisbee too and fro ad infinitum on a great many issues. Even core doctrines get juggled like jesters balls. That's why I think it's so important for each Christian to remember that though we have a community of believers, we are Each on an individual journey! I made up my own mind about what my responsibilities are to the environment based on scripture, prayer and Research. Each person should do that for themselves. Michael spoke of reconciling ones faith and reason, or some such....and he's right. It's in the act of reconciling two things (or more) that we gain such a force and don't get life off balance.

There are "Green" christians, there are "strip-mine" christians...
thing is, you can't really lump christians in a box and say "Here is what they believe about xyz...", because in the end...you can find just as many of the opposite to be true....
with their own frisbee scriptures.
Christ even addressed such internal disagreements w/in the church, ones that aren't central doctrine, and said:
"...let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.."

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 23, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> On the surface, Michael, I would agree, but I often wonder if some people are just wired different. Where one person finds the truth in reason, others find it in faith. If we can come together on this issue, wouldn't that be a good thing?


 
What if the premise is reversed from my statement.

Currently, the Karner Blue Butterfly is an endangered species, as tracked by the U.S. government. It currently lives in a few limited habitats, one in Concord, NH on in upstate New York, as well as some places in the upper mid-west

What if an Evangelical Christian believes, via faith, that he is supposed to build a church on the habitat in Concord, NH? He believes he is being led by God to minister to Christians in this location? In the drive to build a church to minister to his flock, he must exterminate one of the two remaining habitats for this species of butterfly. 

How should the community resolve a conflict, when one side is based on faith, and one side based on something else (reason, environmentalism, government)?

Faith is insufficient, in my opinion.

Now, that is a odd construction of the hypothetical. But, in my experiences with people of faith, once they believe that God has guided them to a specific course of action, they are not likely to bring other methods of analysis to the subject.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 23, 2006)

That yarn stretches a little tight doesn't it?


> Faith is insufficient, in my opinion.


...wouldn't any 'semi-atheistic agnostic' think so?  Thought that was a given bias.


> But, in my experiences with people of faith, once they believe that God has guided them to a specific course of action, they are not likely to bring other methods of analysis to the subject.


Much agreed, and it's a shame!  God gave us faith, but before that, we've got the capacity to reason. (and we are called to work with Both)
both important gifts.

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 23, 2006)

Brother John, 

I am wondering if in your day to day execution of faith, if you come into contact with what I interpret as the 'Religious Right'. 

There are many people of faith, any faith, that are reasonable. When I hear the term 'Religious Right', I evoke people who leave every decision in a higher authority's hands. 


I proposed to my wife in a hot air balloon. The pilot of that craft was an Evangelical Christian. My wife was not thrilled when Hony Glover started praying to God mid-flight to guide her to a landing location. I would prefer to be guided to a landing location by the training required by the FAA which granted her her pilot's license.

So, no, I do not think my example is extreme.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Brother John,
> 
> I am wondering if in your day to day execution of faith, if you come into contact with what I interpret as the 'Religious Right'.
> 
> There are many people of faith, any faith, that are reasonable. When I hear the term 'Religious Right', I evoke people who leave every decision in a higher authority's hands.


Man....DO I? wow...
Yup, I run into them all the time.
But in all honesty I meet just as many of them who are very reasonable and their rationale for EVERYTHING is well laid out! I don't always agree with their conclusions..but that's okay. I appreciate the work they put into their approach. It's when they start to insist that MY walk should more closely resemble their own that I start to itch, right eye starts to twitch and I look for the door and a clear path too it. 
My own personal beliefs and practices are not mainstream...and sometimes it rubs some the wrong way. Even my pastors, but not all of them. That's their issue. 

I tend to like the Christians who aren't PUSHY, but do still hold their own ground by reason & faith.
Trust God, but tie down your camel....
hahaha....

I'd rather ride in a baloon with a 'person of faith' who prays for a good trip and to be led to the best landing spot.....but who also checks her maps and radios in with questions....
Kind of the case of: God is my co-pilot, but my hands are still on the wheel and i'm checking the guages constantly.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Oct 23, 2006)

One example: and this one of a christian martial artist...

I am friends with a guy who is a martial artist (Brown Belt in GoJu Ryu) who was planning on going to a BIG tournament in a few months. I asked him what his plan of attack was for training for the event. He said that he had only one:
PRAY

I said "thats cool, but what are you going to DO....conditioning - practice - sparing....what?"

"I am just going in praying that God be glorified through my victory and that I give him all credit for the victory...so I know HE will lead me to win the tournament."
I smiled, thinking he was honestly kidding around...I said: "No, really...whatcha gonna do? Do you need a sparing partner."
he became upset and said that I needed to work on my faith.

Three months later, my faith was fine.....and turns out he needed to work on his side kicks.

Me? Pray for victory.... but dont expect God to come down and fight for you. TRAIN LIKE MAD!!
When he was originally arguing his point with me he went on to tell how God had made Samson victorious due to his faith:
I reminded him that:
A: God neeeded Samson to do a certain thing, FIGHT & win. Did God need a tin trophy with a small gold colored plastic man??
B: Samson gave his life for his work.

not the same thing....
...sure....Give God the glory and ask for his aid:
but POUND the punching bag daily and get everyone of your friends to spar you Constantly.

Your Brother
John


----------



## crushing (Oct 23, 2006)

I think I would put the pilot's prayer into the category of the pre-meal prayers and the like.

Of course, just because a pilot prays for guidance, doesn't mean the pilot isn't qualified to land the balloon.  I may not necessarily agree with many of their beliefs, but I am not intolerant of them either.

I have Christian friends that are deeply faithful, but I've never seen them disregard analysis.  They probably think that God gave them a brain for something.  I have heard of the steroetypes that you use as examples, but don't actually know anyone that is like that.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 23, 2006)

The only way that the pilot would be able to receive a license to pilot the aircraft, is to demonstrate the required skill to the licensing board, in this case, the FAA. God has nothing to do with it. Invoking a higher authority only served to cause discomfort among her passengers. 

I am not intolerant of any person of faith, nor the depth of devotion with which they practice that faith. But, as I said, it is insufficient to guide public policy. (As exampled by Brother John's associate in the tournament). 

Assume you are in an aircraft - with two other people. A licensed pilot, and an evangelical christian. The pilot dies in flight. You have years of Microsoft Flight Simulator and combat simulator experience. Your friend has belief that God has a purpose for his life. Who gets the controls? 

In all matters of public policy, why can't we draw on experience and knowledge as the primary source of decision making. If it coincides with faith, great. If it doesn't, I believe faith should take the second chair.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 23, 2006)

I think we'd all agree that a person not qualified to fly a plane/balloon...etc., just plain shouldn't.

Try this though:
Pilot #1: all the needed qualifications to fly your 747, 15 years of experience, but an atheist.
Pilot #2: same as #1 except a devout Jew who prays before, during and after each flight.

Which would you prefer?

I'll take #2 anyday....


Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 23, 2006)

Brother John said:


> I think we'd all agree that a person not qualified to fly a plane/balloon...etc., just plain shouldn't.
> 
> Try this though:
> Pilot #1: all the needed qualifications to fly your 747, 15 years of experience, but an atheist.
> ...


 
No preference. Assuming the 'during' prayers do not interfere with operation of the craft.


----------



## crushing (Oct 23, 2006)

Brother John said:


> One example: and this one of a christian martial artist...


 
This story had me thinking about this morning's 'This I Believe' on NPR.  Based on her essay, I have a feeling that she won't be depending on her God to deliver the little gold-like statue.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6352680


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> What if the premise is reversed from my statement.
> 
> Currently, the Karner Blue Butterfly is an endangered species, as tracked by the U.S. government. It currently lives in a few limited habitats, one in Concord, NH on in upstate New York, as well as some places in the upper mid-west
> 
> ...


 
You take the good with the bad, I guess.  And sometimes, when you want to get the job done, you look for agreement when you can find it.  If we start saying that we can't work with certain people on issues we agree about because we disagree on others, then we are going to quickly run out of people to work with.

The bottom line is that I would work with the Christian who supports an environmental agenda.  I would oppose those who would kill off a species or two because god told them too.


----------



## Lisa (Oct 23, 2006)

*Second Moderator Warning:

Please keep the conversation on topic.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator
*


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 24, 2006)

I apologize if this is off-topic....



Brother John said:


> Personally, I'd say take your percentage and the other, and the truth lies somewhere between.


 
Just as a matter of clarification, most of the polls I have seen on these sorts of things rate "self-professed Christians" (i.e., people that identify themselves as Christians) in the United States as somewhere between 85 and 88 percent.

I did find the "fifty percent" figure rather amusing. It's as if because somebody doesn't vote Republican, they're somehow not Christian. I suspect it may also have something to do with the Religious Right's constant appeal to the fantasy that Christianity is "oppressed" in this country. That fantasy doesn't lend well when you realize self-professed "Christians" make up the overwhelming majority of the populace.

Hell, there are more Christians in America than there are white people! Talk about a majority....

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Oct 24, 2006)

I see lots of good posts.  I'll add my two cents.  I'm religious and conservative.  I think making/keeping/restoring the environment is important. It's important for us today and for our progeny to have a healthy world to live on.

There was some discussion on prayer in this thread too.  I've heard the saying "pray as if it's all up to God & work as if it is all up to you."  That's one of my mottos.


----------

