Religion and the Environment

[NorthSideSox72]

This is a subject I find fascinating. Looking at the beliefs of major religions, in this country particularly - which is to say primarily Christianity in it's many forms - and what they have to say about the natural environment and our interaction with it.

 

I grew up Catholic, and I've actually talked with Priests on this before. Man has "domain" over the animals and the land, but the religious folks I've spoken with also made it clear that man also has responsibility for it. Nature is provided by God to man to sustain him. Which interestingly, makes it seems like natural resources are a community asset of sorts. That sort of runs in conflict with much or the American view of property, real estate and the like.

 

Basically, I want to see if people see their beliefs (or those of other religions, or lack of religion) are in concert with, or conflict with, the idea of protecting our natural environment and resources. And if that has an effect on your or others political beliefs as a result.

 

Anyone else ever thought about this? Or am I the only one?

 

[cabiness42]

I have been a Christian most of my life, though I don't identify with any particular denomination. I have regularly attended Catholic, Presbyterian and Baptist churches in the past as well as a couple minor denominations and non-denominational churches.

 

There is such a variety of Christian denominations that it's hard to lump them together on just about any subject. I will say that leadership in most major denominations would advise that God expects us to be good stewards to the planet. However, in most evangelical circles, people are so fanatically anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage that they will accept the conservative political position on just about any issue that comes up.

 

This is one of the main reasons I'm having such a hard time finding a denomination that I really like, because I'm fairly conservative theologically yet very moderate politically. I've left a few churches that I liked from a doctrinal standpoint because their extreme right-wing political positions really pissed me off.

[EvilMonkey]

Hardcore environmentalism is a religion unto itself.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hardcore environmentalism is a religion unto itself.

How do you define hardcore? And does this mean it will be perpetually in conflict with recognized religions?

 

[EvilMonkey]

How do you define hardcore? And does this mean it will be perpetually in conflict with recognized religions?

Greenpeace, enviro-terrorists, people like that. They worship the earth, brook no dissent, will change facts to fit their beliefs and are so vested in their outcomes that an attack on the belief is an attack on them personally. If you disagree , you are a heretic, outsider, an 'other' to be scorned, mocked, ignored and not trusted.

[NorthSideSox72]

Greenpeace, enviro-terrorists, people like that. They worship the earth, brook no dissent, will change facts to fit their beliefs and are so vested in their outcomes that an attack on the belief is an attack on them personally. If you disagree , you are a heretic, outsider, an 'other' to be scorned, mocked, ignored and not trusted.

OK, I can see that. Fortunately I think those folks are few and far between, but I can definitely see how that set of beliefs at least borders on the concept of religion.

 

I was afraid I was being labeled an environmental extremist for installing LED lights in my house.

 

[chw42]

OK, I can see that. Fortunately I think those folks are few and far between, but I can definitely see how that set of beliefs at least borders on the concept of religion.

 

I was afraid I was being labeled an environmental extremist for installing LED lights in my house.

 

Some of those people are indeed crazy. My mom had a friend like that and I thought she was cuckoo. This is coming from a person who thinks preserving the environment is important.

 

Anyhow, I feel like there's a lot of religious people on the right who buy into every kind of conservative value and that includes listening to the crap the oil companies spew regarding global warming, or the lack of it. It looks bad enough when you think the earth is 6000 years old, but when you blatantly ignore the consensus of the scientific community on something as important as global warming, it makes you look even worse.

[pettie4sox]

Did any of you see that recent meeting of the Sciene, Space, and Technology committee? They had a few republicans represenatives on there saying that global warming was false; and that the scientist community keeps this myth alive to maintain their paychecks.

 

It was pretty brutal to watch.

[chw42]

Did any of you see that recent meeting of the Sciene, Space, and Technology committee? They had a few republicans represenatives on there saying that global warming was false; and that the scientist community keeps this myth alive to maintain their paychecks.

 

It was pretty brutal to watch.

 

Here's what I don't get with this argument...WHAT PAYCHECKS?

 

It's clear that these politicians are the ones getting campaign donations from the oil industry. That's part of the irony here. But seriously, what paychecks?

 

I can't really think of too many industries that would benefit from stricter environmental regulations.

[EvilMonkey]

Here's what I don't get with this argument...WHAT PAYCHECKS?

 

It's clear that these politicians are the ones getting campaign donations from the oil industry. That's part of the irony here. But seriously, what paychecks?

 

I can't really think of too many industries that would benefit from stricter environmental regulations.

Semantics. Should have said 'government grants'.

[StrangeSox]

Still just as ridiculous, though.

[NorthSideSox72]

Global Warming does represent a challenge for people who are literallists w/r/t the Bible. If the world is 5000 or 6000 years old, how can there be a comparison to make, climate-wise, to long previous eras? Of course, it also causes a problem where dinosaurs can't have existed, yet we are using fossil fuels. Is there an argument made that oil is something other than a fossil remnant?

 

But most people I know who are Christians, don't honestly believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old. It's silly on its face and they know that, and look past it.

 

To respond about the scientists maintaining their grantability, that makes zero sense, at least at this point. I mean, there have been thousands or tens of thousands of scientists now who have all come to more or less the same conclusion. Meanwhile, there have been nearly zero peer-reviewed scientific works that have claimed GW is not anthropogenic to at least some degree, and literally zero that pretend it isn't even happening. Any school would LOVE to publish a paper that actually broke new ground, assuming it was scientifically valid. That's where the money would be.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Also, does anyone know how or if Islam, Hinduism or other religions view the treatment of their natural environment? I know basically nothing about that, but would be curious.

 

[Y2HH]

This is a subject I find fascinating. Looking at the beliefs of major religions, in this country particularly - which is to say primarily Christianity in it's many forms - and what they have to say about the natural environment and our interaction with it.

 

I grew up Catholic, and I've actually talked with Priests on this before. Man has "domain" over the animals and the land, but the religious folks I've spoken with also made it clear that man also has responsibility for it. Nature is provided by God to man to sustain him. Which interestingly, makes it seems like natural resources are a community asset of sorts. That sort of runs in conflict with much or the American view of property, real estate and the like.

 

Basically, I want to see if people see their beliefs (or those of other religions, or lack of religion) are in concert with, or conflict with, the idea of protecting our natural environment and resources. And if that has an effect on your or others political beliefs as a result.

 

Anyone else ever thought about this? Or am I the only one?

 

Putting this train back on the tracks...

 

I also grew up Catholic, but as I grew older, I realized that even the most devout of the religious still take their religion a-la-carte, in that they only practice or believe in the parts of the bible they 1) know of, 2) believe in, or 3) won't get caught doing. My feelings on this is I do not need religion to tell me that taking care of our surroundings/environment is important, I want to protect the world in whatever viable ways we can so future generations can enjoy it as I had the opportunity to do.

[Balta1701]

Here's what I don't get with this argument...WHAT PAYCHECKS?

 

It's clear that these politicians are the ones getting campaign donations from the oil industry. That's part of the irony here. But seriously, what paychecks?

 

I can't really think of too many industries that would benefit from stricter environmental regulations.

A great recent example is the $3.4 million payday that Eric Cantor received from the finance industry as a political consultant after losing his recent primary race. This does not just apply to one party either, Evan Bayh from the great state of Indiana is another classic. Here's a list of 24 former members of Congress who currently work for lobbying companies that have contracts with large energy companies. There is also a revolving door of staffers who work for congresspeople who head out and work for these lobbying firms afterwards for substantial salaries.

 

This of course is counterbalanced by the scientists who work on climate change who have so much free money that they snort coke off their monitors daily.

[witesoxfan]

This of course is counterbalanced by the scientists who work on climate change who have so much free money that they snort coke off their monitors daily.

 

Knew I should have been a climatologist.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is only tangentially related, but... the new pope has recently said, in public, that the theories of evolution and the big bang are perfectly acceptable and good things, and that they are even necessary for how we perceive God. That was kind of a big shift. Also said that God isn't a wizard with a magic wand - seemed to suggest that the creation of man was never meant to be understood as an event literally described in the Bible.

 

 

[chw42]

This is only tangentially related, but... the new pope has recently said, in public, that the theories of evolution and the big bang are perfectly acceptable and good things, and that they are even necessary for how we perceive God. That was kind of a big shift. Also said that God isn't a wizard with a magic wand - seemed to suggest that the creation of man was never meant to be understood as an event literally described in the Bible.

 

The new Pope is actually pretty cool. Much more progressive than previous ones, at least from what I've seen.

[CrimsonWeltall]

This is only tangentially related, but... the new pope has recently said, in public, that the theories of evolution and the big bang are perfectly acceptable and good things, and that they are even necessary for how we perceive God. That was kind of a big shift. Also said that God isn't a wizard with a magic wand - seemed to suggest that the creation of man was never meant to be understood as an event literally described in the Bible.

 

Not a shift at all. The Catholic Church has been pretty liberal on scientific issues for a while, including evolution. It's primarily evangelicals who push Creationist nonsense.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not a shift at all. The Catholic Church has been pretty liberal on scientific issues for a while, including evolution. It's primarily evangelicals who push Creationist nonsense.

That's a good point - particularly the Jesuits have always been very into science.

 

But there's also been some internal conflict at times over those topics, and the shift here is really about public stances. No pope has ever (from what reporters are saying) said things like this publicly, even though many within the church at lower levels knew it to be true.

 

[southsider2k5]

That's a good point - particularly the Jesuits have always been very into science.

 

But there's also been some internal conflict at times over those topics, and the shift here is really about public stances. No pope has ever (from what reporters are saying) said things like this publicly, even though many within the church at lower levels knew it to be true.

 

http://www.ucatholic.com/blog/pius-xii-1951/

 

“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter — for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.ucatholic.com/blog/pius-xii-1951/

So that says, basically, eh, both sides are right. Which is interesting from that timeframe.

 

The statement from the current pope goes a step further.

 

[Texsox]

While working for the Boy Scouts I was assigned as the liaison with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints aka Mormons. About have of the committee were scientists from the local university. I loved how they balanced their religious and scientific views. The statement was simple, science teaches us how, religion teaches us why. That has stuck with me. It sums up my beliefs very well.