What Kind of Environmentalist are you?

[Makalakumu]

Check out this article and decide. Be prepared to defend your position.

http://forestry.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa082497.htm

Three choices...

1. Pantheist
2. Channeled
3. Traditional

(I disagree with the labeling the the third, more on that later)

upnorthkyosa

 

[OULobo]

What the hell, I'll bite. I guess I would say I'm a traditionalist, but with the disclaimer that I think putting labels on mindsets never works because there too many differnet mindsets out there.

I think that man is the steward of nature and is responsible for its well being. As such we need to be more conscious of our impact and take a proactive approach to repairing the damage we cause.

 

[Makalakumu]

I would say Pantheist.

What Religious laws can you name that can be verified as part of our world? The laws of nature, while many change to fit new understandings, have always been a part of religious dogma - lying deep underneath sometimes. Its time to bring them to the front. The purpose of religions is to unify people on the basis of belief. As a pantheist, unifying people by their belief in natural law can only better our species and our world in the end.

What think?

Upnorthkyosa :asian:

 

[OULobo]

I personally don't bring much of my religious belief into the area of environmentalism. My personal religion depicts us as custodian of nature and her bounty, to be harvested, maintained and protected. I don't believe in religious law, as my belief in my God is unique (as I would imagine is everyone else's), so my interpretation of his laws are unique and should not be issued or enforced by anyone else. As I am in a discussion currently of the same vein, I would say that the only religious law I can say I know of says that nature is to be dominated, lorded over and used by man for his benefit, but it doesn't say how this shoud be done, either by exploitation or stewardship, just that the end result be the furthering of man. Belief in natural law is IMO a great idea, but it finds opposition in hardliners of some traditional religions and in the greedy heart of oppotunism (I won't say corporate progress, because many corporations see that if they abuse their environment for too long they will have nothing left to exploit, and that is bad business). Either way, it seems to me that the environmental movement finds most of its resistance, not in the fundemental beliefs of religions which seem to let their followers make such decisions without much influence, but in the business sector that finds nature expendable in its search for the dollar.

 

[heretic888]

I would have to say I'm a combination of all three.

I can see the valued points of all three positions, as well as their limitations. I think it is preferable to integrate them all into a cohesive, practical outlook.