Religion and Ecological Responsibility

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject:

Frank: I do not see the point in discussing personal religious beliefs when discussing the environment. Both are separate topics, (not in your mind) but they are separate topics all the same.

The issue is not simply "discussing the environment", but in fundamentally changing a persons belief about, attitude toward and interaction with nature. This involves personal beliefs and much more...ie, ethical obligations to non-humans and moral responsibility to future generations...if you are talking to people who self identify as mainline protestant, evangelical fundamentalist, renewal jewish, greek orthodox, mahayana buddhist, or any number of different religious identities...then the kinds of changes required for substantive environmental reorientation, will require a conversation with their religious beliefs, scriptures, traditions and practices. Religious environmentalism does precisely this.

Frank: Change their beliefs? This is where you are being naïve to the extreme… Just as you cannot accept my criticisms, other religions will be unable to accept yours, especially when you look at the wide variety of beliefs and dogma much of which is violent.

Religious environmentalism isnt about a congregationalist christian changing the mind of an orthodox jew using the prayer book and hymnal of the congregational church. The orthodox jew will need convincing by way of the tanakh and talmud and whatever else is considered sacred and normative to their religious tradition. But, the christian who has spent time studying and in dialogue with others in the field of religious environmentalism will be able to speak to the orthodox jew about some elements of creation care from an orthodox jewish perspective. Perhaps even work together in an ecological clean up effort, or public policy decision. I am almost certain an extreme atheist like yourself will be fundamentally counter productive in any such conversation.

Frank: In any event Americans have already shown a shift towards going green on a wide scale and that has nothing to do with religion.

I'm going to ask if any other readers of this thread recognize the fast and loose way that you utilize the phrase (or something like it): "has nothing to do with religion." I am making efforts to show that religion is not the only issue, but it is a necessary part of the discussion...especially when it comes to changing beliefs, attitudes and practices of a largely self-identified religious population. I've made the distinction between sufficient and necessary...religious environmentalism is not sufficient in turning the tide, but it is necessary- as is the best of ecological science, environmental activism, eco-justice ethics, public policy, public education, changing consumer habits, and fundamental restructuring of all our industries and the economic system that fuels them. I am arguing that it will require an interconnected and inter-related solution to such a complicated and widely interspersed problem. Your black/white either/or assertions stand out as frankly, well, silly.

Grim · Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject:

Ideological shifts are events which religious institutions seem least capable of making.

Appealing to the public's sense of connection to the environment in a religious frame make sense in terms of effective advertisement.

But where are these revolutions of religious conscious?

It is easier to craft lofty mission statements filled with convoluted rhetoric and ideologically undeniable truth. What seems to be missing from almost any organizational object religious or not has been the power to meaningfully influence public policy and practice.

The institutions seem capable of collecting the data and focusing on the problems that are situated in less important areas.

Any resource or developmental practice which is proved economically viable immediately becomes standard operation procedure for the particular resources development.

Environmentally sound development is only considered as a response to higher conventional material costs, or future savings. The impact of our actions are rarely considered in terms of the effect our strategies will have on the global ecosystem.

It has become fashionable, trendy to be seen as "green" however it is easy to forget that the green movement that was historically most public when protesting the nuclear system in the 1960's-70's has become increasing concerned with the "greening" of human environments, often with only secondary concerns of the impact to the natural earth environment.

I would be concerned that the "greening" of these belief based organization would be more concerned with health and benefits for members or potential followers than influencing truly meaningful shift in ideologies around key issues that may run contrary to popular impulse.

It is most notably American values which require exorcism, concentrating on less important area that appeal to humanitarian values serve only to free up resources for further American consumption and encourage the subsidization of the western lifestyle.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject:

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:41 am Post subject:

Frank 013 · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:14 am Post subject:

Part one

I would like to take a few moments and talk about the Christian religions handling of several different but modern social problems to see if they truly should have our trust regarding a crisis as monumental as the ecology…

Ill start with… EDUCATION

I know some of you are laughing already…

But the fact is that most traditional Christian churches teach a false history with their myth taking president over actual history and verifiable evidence. From Noah’s Ark to the virgin birth these events written in the bible are all false, none of these things (as well as many more) can be confirmed through outside sources or verified through archeology.

Undaunted by the facts many churches teach these myths as actual events in history…

If that were not bad enough recently and up to the present day many religious groups are attempting to get creationism taught side by side in the science class room.

Despite their many failures, the opposing evidence and the downright unconstitutional nature of their mission they remain undaunted and are currently attempting to get the word science legally changed to allow for the methods of creationism to be included in the classroom.

Although fights have broken out over this that is not the real tragedy here, it is the students that suffer the most from stupid conflicts like these.

Next let’s tackle… CHILD SAFETY

In an effort to safeguard children from strangers and keep older kids out of trouble many churches developed after school programs, camping trips and other activates.

Unfortunately this turned out to have a rather unpleasant down side, it turned out that a child who was active in church programs was actually more likely to be molested that a child that was not.

Sex offenders often prey on churches and often seek to work with minors (all persons under eighteen 18 years of age).

Churches are uniquely vulnerable to sexual misconduct and abuse charges because of:

1. Trust — Churches tend to be trusting and unsuspecting institutions. Even when
questions are raised about a worker's conduct, church leaders may ignore the evidence rather than question the worker's character or motives.

2. Lack of Screening — Some churches do nothing to "screen" youth or children's workers. Complete strangers may be accepted to work with children without any investigation.

3. Opportunity — Churches provide ample opportunity for unsupervised, close, personal contact between adults and children. This risk increases dramatically for overnight activities.

4. Access — Molesters are often attracted to an institution in which they have immediate access to potential victims in an atmosphere of complete trust, such as the church.

5. Need — Most churches struggle to get adequate help for children's and youth ministries.

The churches of this country have known about these problems for many, many years but again undaunted by the facts most churches (less than 1/3) still do not screen potential volunteers and again the children are the ones that get the shaft (in this case literally)

Let’s go now to a current hot topic… TEEN PREGNANCY

When church groups decided to undertake the problem of teen pregnancy they undoubtedly looked to scripture for the wisdom within its pages…

They came up with the abstinence program.

It resembles a program direct from the bible… keep the kids in fear of STDs, unwanted pregnancy and pile on the guilt. The program's finale… lie about the effectiveness of birth control (again to keep the kids in fear)

This program not only failed, but it back fired. Kids taught abstinence have a higher rate of teen pregnancy than almost any other group. They are still having sex but they discarded the birth control as useless… so they did learn something from the class.

Again in true religious form the churches are undaunted by the facts and many church groups across this country are still pushing federal and local government to continue the program.

Is the pattern becoming clear yet?

Frank 013 · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:29 am Post subject:

Part two

Ill finish with a big one… the church had a good idea probably the best of ideas…

Teach that all human life has value.

Sometime between the time when the Christian church stopped hunting heretics and the modern age they decided that they had had enough blood, either that or secular governments had curtailed their ability to slaughter the competition with impunity.

In either case they turned their agenda to one of life…

Sounds good so far right?

This idea was not directly supported by scripture but with an omission here and a tweak there it could work.

And it did work, not all at once and not globally, the Muslims never accepted it and the Protestants and Catholics in some areas kept up their long struggle for dominance over one another but much of the western world did accept it.

Now let’s look at one result…

1900 an overly religious America banned abortion, abortion is a crime against life.

Doctors caught practicing the procedure were imprisoned; women began dying by the thousands because of unsafe procedures.

I suspect that the woman’s thinking was that it was better to risk a dangerous abortion than live with a lifetime of ridicule and bigotry from the religious community because of a "bastard" child.

When the government began tracking illegal abortions in 1941 approximately 1,350 women were dying each year to infections caused by illegal abortions. The number drops significantly in late 40s when penicillin was introduced, but the damage had long since been done.

The religious groups won, they banned abortion, but instead of saving lives it caused more death.

The ban was lifted in 1973 it was declared as unconstitutional, it was lifted largely due to the many thousands of deaths it caused.

Fast forward to 1979… Pope John Paul II proclaimed that Life begins at conception ever since this baseless statement the trouble has only gotten worse.

Many religious groups are attempting to get the ban reinstated, again undaunted by the facts or cost to liberty and life.

Arson, firebombing, vandalism, death threats, bomb threats, assault, murder

All of these are the reoccurring legacy of the pope’s unfounded statement.

On Christmas Day, 1984, three abortion clinics were bombed, and those convicted called the bombings "a birthday gift for Jesus."

This problem is created by an unfounded religious belief and the need of religious people to manage others lives.

If this were not bad enough the story does not end here…

Right now religious groups are actively blocking what might be the most promising medical breakthrough in human history… Stem Cell research.

Because many of the religious believe that the soul is “injected” into the egg at the moment of inception they in turn believe that any destruction of the forming cells is murder.

They block any attempt to use these cells in research despite the fact that...

1 There is enormous potential for eliminating human suffering on a global scale.

2 There is no evidence of a soul

3 The cells are removed before any substantial development (when the cells multiply to around 11 there are a few stem cells in the group and are useable for study) and there is no nervous system or brain so no possibility of suffering.

This is what happens when religions get hold of a good idea… carnage and death in the name of life.

Is this the organization you would have deliver the message of eco responsibility?

It is not my first choice.

Later

Frank 013 · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:00 am Post subject:

geo · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:08 am Post subject:

Frank 013 · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject:

DH…

Your answer has arrived!

Well said George.

By the way... great avatar!

Later

Dissident Heart · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject:

geo: Strictly from a scientific perspective—that people are wired to believe in "God"—it makes a certain amount of sense, in a cynical kind of way, to try to incorporate religious belief into a philosophical discussion about man's role in nature. Certainly Machiavelli would have agreed that the best hope to appeal to the masses is through religion.

Machiavelli, or perhaps Nietzsche, would be clear: the issue is not truth, but power. All tools and perspectives are fair game in their sense: religion is one tool among many to dupe the masses into submission...to trick, trap, seduce and bamboozle the many into self-destructive beliefs and practices that serve only the interests of their "betters"...their masters and rulers.

But that isnt what religious environmentalism does. On the contrary, it encourages full participation and informed political activism towards alleviating a very real ecological threat. In mobilizes individuals, congregations and entire religious communities toward actual solutions to genuine environmental problems...towards a change in thinking and behaving that does not serve elite interests at the expense of the masses: but, rather, a challenge to the masses to understand the ethical and moral obligations that substantiate their care for creation...and to change the personal habits, political processes and industrial systems that are destroying the biosphere.

geo: The problem, of course, is that due to the very nature of religion—which relies on a kind of cognitive dissonance from reality—it would be intellectually dishonest and ultimately futile to even try to insinuate religion into a debate about real world issues. It would only pander to the cognitive dissonance that promotes religious belief in the first place.

Some religion involves what you describe. But not all. For that matter, some politics, economics and industrial practices rely on various kinds of "cognitive dissonance from reality"...but not all do. Some religious belief, like the kinds highlighted by religious environmentalism, involves careful appreciation of the earth and its wondrous web of interconnected life forms...finding meaning and purpose in caring for creation...celebrating in worship, song, prayer, dance and communion in deep appreciation for the intricate networks of interdependence that compose God's creation...and finding an ethical demand and moral obligation to protect creation as something more than simply stuff...but as a gift to be honored and revered and loved.

geo: The problem as I see it is that religion pertains to the metaphysical realm and has nothing to do with reality—the real world— except for the fact that many, many people pretend it does or at least hopelessly obfuscate the two. That a great many people insist on delusional beliefs is the problem, and that's why religion can't be part of the solution.

Again, some religion can be described in this way. But not all. I think religious environmentalism describes an approach to religion that shows consistent demands and resilient efforts to keep worship of god and honoring the sacred intimately connected to care of creation. Religious environmentalism highlights those dimensions of religious systems which keep love of god deeply rooted in care of the soil, water, air, animal, marine and human life: seeing eco-justice as crucial to right relation to god and continuing the best of each particular ancient religious tradition and spiritual practice.

I don't see this as cynical manipulation, cognitive dissonance, hopeless obfuscation or delusional thinking....I see it as perhaps the most important movement in religious and environmental history. I think the cynicism, in this case, lies with those who belittle and denigrate the efforts of those who are working to lift the complex and troubled world of religion to become a better, more responsible, more intelligent and more ecologically astute partner in the protection of our biosphere.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT