Posted on 01/30/2008 11:28:35 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
In his World Peace Day message, Pope Benedict XVI included caring for the environment as an important part of promoting peace. Nothing controversial about that—environmental degradation has often led to conflict over resources.
What was controversial was the Pope’s speaking about environmental issues as if the Christian worldview were true. Benedict told his audience that “respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man.”
This statement should not have been controversial or even noteworthy. As Frank Furedi of the British magazine spiked pointed out, the fact that the Pope “felt it was necessary to remind people of the unique status of the human species” was “telling, indeed.”
Telling, but not surprising. There is a misanthropic strain in modern environmentalism. The message is often that there is nothing wrong with the environment that fewer and poorer humans would not cure.
What is also not surprising is the lack of real interest about Christian worldview and the environment.
There is plenty of interest in the environment as a kind of “wedge issue” between Christians. Look at the climate change issue, for example. In that case, the media was so anxious to learn what different Christians thought about the environment, they could not wait to tell their readers that the “environmental issue splits evangelical ranks.”
Sure, there are differences on how best to address the issue, but the press ignored the bigger story: Evangelicals of all stripes agree that caring for the environment is our Christian duty. And articulating this care is an important part of a Christian worldview.
That is why I was happy to sign the statement produced by the National Association of Evangelicals titled, “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility.” One of the priorities listed was working to protect God’s creation.
The statement declared “God-given dominion” is a “sacred responsibility” that rejects “depletion” and “destruction” of creation. Instead, “our uses of the Earth must be designed to conserve and renew the Earth.”
Thirty years ago, statements like that were not possible, because nobody saw biblical Christianity as a worldview. They saw it as an isolated movement, concerned only with personal salvation.
Bible-believing Christians now understand that their worldview affects all of life, not just personal salvation. It deals with the work place, the neighborhood, politics, arts, and, yes, the environment.
When environmentalists and others criticize Christians for not doing enough or not doing the “right” thing, at least they are acknowledging that there is a place for the biblical worldview in public life.
The problem is, as in the case of the Pope, when that worldview contradicts their worldview, then they insist that faith and the insights it produces are a private matter.
It is a blatant inconsistency. If we are concerned about the environment, we ought to be concerned about the unborn in the womb, or the human rights of people around the world. The source of the concerns is the same in each instance: our Christian worldview.
That our critics cannot—or do not—get it is telling, indeed.
Not so fast, Chuck: Nobel Peace Prize? No Connection Between Environmental Crises And Armed Conflict, According To New Study
Before posting this I read the environmental section of the "For the Health of the Nation" statement. Good news: The text is consistent with conservationism (as opposed to the misanthropy and hysteria of environmentalism) and reads like something the Boy Scouts, not the Sierra Club, would offer on the subject. The bad news is, no specific rejection of the global warming con, which would have been true leadership, IMHO.
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
There is a misanthropic strain in modern environmentalism.
***Good writing, but just a tad too much understatement.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
***Good writing, but just a tad too much understatement.***
I agree wholeheartedly. This stuff is also from a post at the Junk Science Blog:
Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” — Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” — Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)
“If you ask me, it’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.” — Amory Lovins, The Mother Earth - Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy … would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” — Paul Ehrlich, “An Ecologist’s Perspective on Nuclear Power”, May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report.
“We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the same industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” — Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University. He joined the Princeton faculty after more than two decades with Environmental Defense, is a long-time participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), serving most recently as a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.
“We’ve already had too much economic growth in the US. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.” — Ehrlich again.
“The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles.” — Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary to the Smithsonian Institution.
“The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.” — John Shuttleworth, FoE manual writer.
“People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them, and this (ban of DDT) is as good a way as any.” — Charles Wurster, Environmental Defense Fund.
“We can and should seize upon the energy crisis as a good excuse and great opportunity for making some very fundamental changes that we should be making anyhow for other reasons.” — Russell Train (EPA Administrator at the time, and soon thereafter became head of the World Wildlife Fund), Science 184 p. 1050, 7 June 1974
The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man. — Alan Gregg, former longtime official of the Rockerfeller Foundation
Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape. — John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. — Dave Forman, Earth First! and Sierra Club director (1995-1997)
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. — John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal
“We have to get rid of that warm medieval period.” — Jonathan Overpeck, a Professor at U of Arizona and IPCC Lead Author in an email to David Deming, a professor at U of Oklahoma.
No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald 14 Dec, 1998.
Source: http://junkscience.com/blog_js/2007/12/30/hatred-of-people-and-the-subversion-of-climate-science/
the modern environmentalism is the hiding place for todays socialists/communists.
Controversial? I should hope the Pope would talk as if Christianity were true!
If he doesn't believe it to be so, he should not be serving as a cleric. Heck, I think all Christians ought to live every aspect of their lives from such a perspective (not that we always do).
Would it help if we killed all the liberals? That would reduce the population by about 30%.< /sarc >
Well, Mr. Forman, if you really believe that, put your money where you're mouth is and let's get started - Do yourself in today. Oh, what you really meant was phasing out other people. OK, got ya, now I understand.
Per the culture and public schools, the dominant level of understanding of secular thought and philosophy is relatively high, while the dominant level of understanding of Christianity is mostly stunted to the eight-year old level.
What other attitude would you expect the public to take as a result?
It took myself a long time to discover that vast body of thought expressed by great Christian thinkers -- something you will rarely find in our culture unless you look for it. Rather popular culture views the super televangelist send-in-your-money-so-God-can-bless-you types as being among the brightest and best Christianity offers. Yuck!
If all those “experts” are so convinced that mankind is killing the environment and should be reduced in population, why don’t they start by killing themselves?
I don’t think colson was saying that it’s remarkable that the Pope spoke as a real christian, I think he’s saying that acting like Christianity is reaal is a source of controversy for the chattering classes.
I’m aware of that badge, my son earned it this summer.
Though I would prefer Mr. Forman repents, I would like to note the following: I priced shotgun ammo the other day, and it’s pretty cheap. He could turn his brain into a pink mist for mere pennies, and if he picks the right model shotgun, it could even be recycled at a scrap yard after he’s done with it.
Though I would prefer Mr. Forman repents, I would like to note the following: I priced shotgun ammo the other day, and it’s pretty cheap. He could turn his brain into a pink mist for mere pennies, and if he picks the right model shotgun, it could even be recycled at a scrap yard after he’s done with it.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Sorry to break in off-topic:
You’ve gotta see this...
http://www.nbc10.com/news/15176405/detail.html?dl=headlineclick
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.