The Religious Right and Environmentalism

[shesulsa]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...


Your Brother
John

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]

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]

Mod Note

Please keep the conversation on topic.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Moderator

 

[Brother John]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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)

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)

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

No Comment, at Moderator's Request

Michael

 

[Phoenix44]

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

 

[Brother John]

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]

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]

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]

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.

​

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?