Posted on 12/04/2006 10:47:08 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Love thy planet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 4, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
Recently Rev. Joel Hunter, the elected president of the famed Christian Coalition, founded by Pat Robertson, stepped down due to what appears to be irreconcilable differences over how to use the organization's political and real capital. Does the organization, as it has in the past, continue to focus on pet personal piety issues such as same-sex marriage, or does it take a completely new tack and resurrect the social justice roots of Christianity? Rev. Hunter wanted to fix the Christian Coalition's massive energy beam on the environment — which is proving to be an emerging social-justice issue. The organization's board said no. While there is no commandment per se to ''love thy planet,'' people who believe that the Earth was created by a higher being, also believe that ''man'' has dominion over creation. And with dominion comes responsibility, or as believers like to say, ''stewardship.'' Rev. Hunter was trying to push his organization toward ''stewardship,'' and away from consumership. Of course there is a difference between a glib, generalized platitude about ''stewardship of creation'' and taking measurable steps in our homes and communities to stop the tide of ruin.
The board members of the Christian Coalition are not the only ones of their faith who are uncomfortable with the so-called environmental agenda. I recently had the opportunity to listen to Dr. Matthew Sleeth, M.D., an evangelical Christian and author of ''Serve God, Save the Planet.'' The three things that struck me most about Dr. Sleeth were his commitment to his faith, his commitment to his belief that at our current rate we are going to ruin creation and finally his sense of humor. He was not a stereotypical whack bird right-winger and he wasn't a dour tree hugger either. He's a doctor and a father who believes that each one of us has a responsibility to our planet. So what's the problem? Christian booksellers are, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about ''Serve God, Save the Planet'' and that's why Christians are unlikely to see it at the stores where they buy books.
I'm not sure how Christians became averse to preserving what they believe God created. I suppose, however, if you believe God created the universe in six days, then you might also believe God could fix it in at least half the time. Or maybe scorching the Earth is all part of the master plan and the destruction of mother Earth will usher in Christ for his second trip to Earth. Al Gore might even be the anti-Christ … no, as I recall, these folks are saving that title for Bill Clinton.
All joking aside, this church split seems more like a political move than a spiritual one. They tend to go with whatever direction their ''Christian in Chief'' gives them. The Bush administration has no interest in environmental issues. Bush's ''Clear Skies'' initiative should be renamed, the ''Gray Lung Initiative,'' because it doesn’t even take into account Carbon Dioxide emissions. Sci Fi Team Bush rejects the overwhelming evidence that says we are cooking ourselves on low heat and marinating in poison. Never mind the science Mr. President, just open your eyes. Tripling cancer rates, spiraling mercury levels, melting polar ice caps, and Katrina are clues that even Inspector Clouseau could have acted on, but not our president and not his faithful.
That's OK because it is this liberal Democrat's opinion that Campaign '08 is going to turn for the Democrats on the issue of the environment. Those soccer moms and dads are getting wise to the ADHD and Autism epidemics that plague their offspring. The Christian Coalition's board of directors should have listened to the man they elected. And America should be listening to anyone, of faith or no faith, who gives us tools to save our planet.
-----------------------------------------------------
Ellen Ratner is the White House correspondent and bureau chief for the Talk Radio News service. She is also Washington bureau chief and political editor for Talkers Magazine. In addition, Ratner is a news analyst at the Fox News Channel.
The WMD being sought by Islamic terrorist pose a bigger threat to the massive death or elimination of humans.
Nuclear radiation (from a dirty bomb) will make cities uninhabitable. Nuclear exchange (missiles) will prompt a return fire in kind.
Biological warfare can cause widespread disease.
Chemical warfare poisons the environment.
All upset the ecosystem.
The left does not consider this to be a credible threat at all. Americans are the bad guys exploiting and destroying the environment. There is a bigger threat looming.
True, it's just that we expect it to be really sudden and severe. )
Reverence for life is part and parcel of biblical religion. So is responsible use of and respect for God's creation. I don't think I'd want to sit through a sermon on greenhouse gases, (no, I'm sure I wouldn't) but a pastor who is doing his job otherwise should be able to inculcate in his flock convictions of respect for what the Creator has given us, and let them figure out what that means.
Yep, it's kinda the same thing as the human body's requirement for iron, isn't it?
Jesus said: I am the way, the free will and the life. No man comes to the Father unless he chooses to come to the Father. We serve a lucky God don't we?
My question is why would a liberal, knowledgeable about scientific issues, care about the environment? The sun will go red giant in a few billion years and every life form on earth will be toast. So who cares?
Followup question: Why don't such liberals promote space travel heavily, because if any of those precious life forms are to be protected over geologic ages, then it will have to be off-planet.
I love how socialists always are trying to co-opt Christianity.
"Well, Jesus said to take care of the poor, therefore a $1 Trillion entitlement program paid for by taxes is Scripturally based."
Sorry, but charity doesn't come via wealth redistrbution. It comes from YOU.
There we go. Fixed it as much as I could. As far as the "Autism epidemic" goes, heaven forbid we think that could be due to the fact that Autism wasn't even identified until 1943, and in 1970, it was "trendy" in psychology circles to blame it on "refrigerator mothers". Thus the "epidemic" is nothing of the sort, but rather an increase in correct diagnoses! But I guess this author didn't read the favorite lib periodical Newsweek from Nov 27th, and its cover story.
It is in the mix.
Water vapour: feedback or forcing?
Opening paragraph: "Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by 'IPCC' scientists. "Why isn't water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?", "Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?", "Why isn't water vapour included in climate models?", "Why isn't included on the forcings bar charts?" etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response..."
Well stated. I've been struggling with a way to say that, but never could come up with an effective punchline.
Christians engage in "stewardship of the earth" that comports with the biblical worldview:
I. People are the most important resource.
All environmental policy should be based on the idea that people are the most important resource. The inherent value of each individual is greater than the inherent value of any other resource. Accordingly, the foremost measure of quality of our environment is human health, safety and well-being. A policy cannot be good for the environment if it is bad for people. The best judge of what is or is not desirable is the affected individual.
Human intellect and accumulated knowledge are the only means by which the environment can be willfully improved or modified. Environmental policies should inspire people to be good stewards. Within the framework of equity and liability individuals carry out deeds that create incremental benefits in the quality or quantity of a resource or improve some aspect of the environment. Cumulatively these deeds result in progress and provide direct and indirect environmental benefits to society.
II. Renewable natural resources are resilient and dynamic and respond positively to wise management.
Renewable natural resources trees, plants, soil, air, water, fish and wildlife and collections thereof wetlands, deserts, forests and prairies are the resources we are dependent upon for food, clothing, medicine, shelter and to meet innumerable other human needs. Human life depends upon their use and conservation. Such resources are continually regenerated through growth, reproduction or other naturally occurring processes which cleanse, cycle or otherwise create them anew. While all living organisms and activities produce byproducts, nature has a profound ability to carry, recycle, recover and cleanse. These characteristics make it possible for us to wisely use renewable resources now while ensuring they are conserved for future generations. As Teddy Roosevelt, a founding father of conservation, recognized: "A Nation treats its resources well if it turns them over to the next generation improved and not impaired in value."
III. The most promising new opportunities for environmental improvements lie in extending the protection of private property and unleashing the creative powers of the free market.
Ownership inspires stewardship. Private property stewards have the incentive to enhance their resources and the incentive to protect them. Polluting another's property is to trespass or to cause injury. Polluters, not those most vulnerable in the political process, should pay for damages done to others. Good stewardship is the wise use or conservation of nature's bounty, based on our needs. With some exception, where property rights are absent, we must seek to extend them. If this proves elusive, we must seek to bring the forces of the market to bear to the greatest extent possible. There is a direct and positive relationship between modern market economies and a clean, healthy and safe environment. There is also a direct and positive relationship between the complexity of a situation and the need for freedom. Markets reward efficiency, which is environmentally good, while minimizing the harm done by unwise actions. In the market, successes are spread by example, and since costs are not subsidized but are borne privately, unwise actions are on a smaller scale and of a shorter duration. As a result, such actions are on a smaller scale and of a shorter duration. We must work to decouple conservation policies from regulation or government ownership. In aggregate, markets not mandates, most accurately reflect what people value and therefore choose for their environment.
IV. Our efforts to reduce, control and remediate pollution should achieve real environmental benefits.
The term pollution is applied to a vast array of substances and conditions that vary greatly in their effect on man. It is used to describe fatal threats to human health, as well as to describe physically harmless conditions that fall short of someone's aesthetic ideal. Pollutants occur naturally or can be a by-product of technology. Their origin does not determine their degree of threat. Most carcinogens, for example, occur naturally but do not engender popular fear to the same degree that man-made carcinogens do. Microbiological pollutants, bacteria and viruses, though natural, are by far the most injurious form of pollution. Technology and its byproducts must be respected but not feared. Science is an invaluable tool for rationally weighing risks to human health or assessing and measuring other environmental impacts. Health and well-being are our primary environmental measures. Science also provides a means of considering the costs and benefits of actions designed to reduce, control and remediate pollution or other environmental impacts so that we may have a cleaner, healthier and safer environment.
V. The Learning Curve is Green.
As we accumulate additional knowledge we learn how to get more output from less input. The more scientific, technical and artistic knowledge we have, the more efficient we are in meeting our needs. As we gain knowledge, we are able to conserve by substituting information for other resources. We get more miles per gallon, more board-feet per acre of timber, a higher agricultural yield per cultivated acre, more GNP per unit of energy. Technological advancement confers environmental benefits. Progress made it possible for the American farmer of today to feed and clothe a population more than two and a half times the size of the one we had in 1910 and triple exports over the same time frame while lowering the total acreage in production from 325 million to 297 million acres. That is 28 million acres less, an area larger than the state of Louisiana that is now available for other uses such as wildlife habitat. American agriculture has demonstrated that as an unintended consequence of seeking efficiencies, there are environmental benefits. As Warren Brookes used to put it simply , "The learning curve is green." This phenomenon has a tremendous positive effect on our environment and progress along the learning curve is best advanced by the relentless competition in the market to find the best or wisest use of a resource.
VI. Management of natural resources should be conducted on a site and situation specific basis.
Resource management should allow for variation of conditions from location to location and time to time. A site and situation specific approach takes advantage of the fact that those closest to a resource are best able to manage it. Such practices allow us to set priorities and break problems down into manageable units. Natural resource managers, on site and familiar with the situation, whether tending to the backyard garden or the back forty pasture, are best able to determine what to do, how to do it and when to do it. They are able to adapt management strategies to account for feedback and changes. A site and situation specific management scheme fits the particulars as no government mandate or standard can. Additionally, a site and situation specific approach is more consistent with policies carried out at lesser political levels. The closer the management of natural resources is to the affected parties, the more likely it is to reflect their needs and desires. The more centralized management is, the more likely it is to be arbitrary, ineffectual or even counterproductive. A site and situation specific approach avoids the institutional power and ideological concerns that dominate politicized central planning.
VII. Science should be employed as a tool to guide public policy.
Societal decisions rely upon science but ultimately are the product of ethics, beliefs, consensus and many other processes outside the domain of science. Understanding science for what it is and is not is central to developing intelligent environmental polices. Science is the product of the scientific method, the process of asking questions and finding answers in an objective manner. It is a powerful tool for understanding our environment and measuring the consequences of various courses of action. Through science we can assess risks, as well as weigh costs against benefits. While science cannot be substituted for public policy, public policy on scientific subjects should reflect scientific knowledge. A law is a determination to force compliance with a code of conduct. Laws go beyond that which can be established with scientific certainty. Laws are based upon normative values and beliefs and are a commitment to use force. Commitments to use the force of law should be made with great caution and demand a high degree of scientific certainty. To do otherwise is likely to result in environmental laws based upon scientific opinions rather than scientific facts. Such laws are likely to be wasteful, disruptive or even counterproductive, as scientific opinions change profoundly and often at a faster pace than public policy. The notion behind the Hippocratic oath first do no harm should govern the enactment of public policy.
VIII. Environmental policies which emanate from liberty are the most successful.
Our chosen environment is liberty, and liberty is the central organizing principle of America. To be consistent with our most cherished principle, our environmental policies must be consistent with liberty. Restricting liberty not only denies Americans their chosen environment, but also constrains environmental progress.
Liberty has powerful environmental benefits. Freedom unleashes forces most needed to make our environment cleaner, healthier and safer for the future. It fosters scientific inquiry, technological innovation, entrepreneurship, rapid information exchange, accuracy and flexibility. Free people work to improve the environment, and liberty is the energy behind environmental progress.
More: Principles of the American Conservation Ethic http://web.archive.org/web/20050306053745/http://www.nwi.org/ACE.html
Romans 8
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
Personally, I believe nature can and will break man a lot faster and more easily than man can break nature.
"
__his commitment to his belief that at our current rate we are going to ruin creation""
_________________________________________________
This is NUTS-----and this from a believer in the Almighty. He really thinks he/we are more powerful than God/
Thank you for your question. To save time, I'll just answer with two words. I can elaborate further if necessary, but I think you'll know where I'm coming from just be reading them:
Cabrini-Green.
Always glad to be of service.
Do you have a verse reference?
the thing is that we appreciate it, and get the best use that we can, but we certainly wouldn't set it up as an object of adoration.
we appreciate our food, and don't waste it, but we certainly do not pray to it.
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.