Christian Environmentalists: Turning a Blind Eye To Rapists
Seems like my most recent post on freshly out-of-the-closet nontheist elected representative, John Stark, has struck a few nerves. In accusing U.S. Christians of being motivated by fear to do right, I’ve upset some of my readers who, in pleading foul, have asserted that the majority of U.S. environmentalists are, in fact, Christians.
Endorendil commented:
The environmentalist movement is largely Christian, and it better be if it is to be of any importance to the US. Based on the ARIS data, there are about 2 million atheists, agnostics, humanists and secularists in the US, i.e. about 1% of the adult population. It should therefore be obvious that painting religious belief as anti-environmental is very, very counter-productive.
What Endorendil is implying is that the rest of the population is largely Christian. This is true, on the surface. Nearly 75% of U.S. citizens report adherence to one Christian sect or another. However, only 30% of these people actually attend church on a regular basis. Further, while only 1% claim to be atheists, et cetera, fully 20% claim no particular faith at all, which is darned close to agnostic territory.
However, I’m still willing to accept Endorendil’s assertion that the majority of environmentalists are, and have been, Christians. In doing so, things become crystal clear:
Over the past century, Christian environmentalists have done a bang-up job in protecting the environment. With Christians running the show, the United States has become a criminal polluter, leading the world in nearly every type of industrial, domestic and agricultural pollutants. As we all know, U.S. citizens consume more and produce more waste per capita than those of any other nation in history. All in the name of fulfilling God’s decree to “have dominion over the Earth.” American Christians have, by and large, interpreted the passage in Genesis which reads, “. . . fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” to mean, “gangrape that bitch Mother Earth like she’s Tralala from ‘Last Exit to Brooklyn’ and have acted accordingly. After all, the words “subdue” and “dominion” are pretty explicit, no? Nothing says dominate and subdue like good old-fashioned rape. Oh yes, Christian environmentalists are the majority and in control. The evidence is everywhere.
In the minority (likely numbering around the same 1% that Stark and his clan comprise), are the true Christian environmentalists, those who substitute “stewardship” for “dominion” and who urge our elected “Christian” leaders to swiftly enact progressive environmental legislation. Their position, one which I endorse wholeheartedly, one that positions the Christian faith as a potential leader in the environmental battle is nicely summed up in this essay: Christian Environmentalism by Dr. Ray Bohlin Without the rapid expansion of this minority, no significant environmental progress will be made in the United States. Endorendil and I are in complete agreement on this point.
Charles said:
“You should be trying to build bridges instead of insulting people.”
Don’t criticize me for not being a bridge builder. I’m not a carpenter, after all. It’s up to the Christians to recognize that they’ve been screwing up the show for a long time. Some of them need only duck into a wooden box for instant forgiveness. The rest, well, it’s time to start following Bohlin’s lead and joining the real ranks of the environmental warriors.
A small minority (again!) will recognize the daily song. Loved this stuff way back in high school. It’s my stab at self-deprecation.
Take it away, Minor Threat: [audio:threat.mp3]
Tags: environment, Politics, Ruminations
true comments.
what about us pagans though? where did we get left out of the whole nature worship arguement? I mean, if christians start to adopt a nature protection / worship element to their faith, doesn’t that make them libel for the same heresy that killed so many of my ancestors?
johnny
Johnny -
You raise a great point. Yet, one must remember that from the onset, there were Christian sects who very much valued nature and incorporated, syncretically, many pagan elements that reflected this respect (many are still present, of course, in their traditions but have been long divorced from the original intentions). Were it to go to court, you\\’d have to prove that your brand of paganism predates the Christian usurpation of paganistic rituals. That is, next to the original \”true\” Christian environmentalists, you may just be a Johnny-Come-Lately!
Well, I don’t know if it would prove out in court, or whether a court would even hear the case.
That said, nature worship - the inherent relationship between humans and their surroundings - goes all the way back to the cavemen. It wasn’t until societies emerged that religion became a required means of controlling poopulations.
I feel reasonably assured that Paganism in some form predates everything but human conciousness, and cognition (easily usurping any propagandized religious claims)… From that point forward we needed to place ourselves into surroundings just to eat, sleep, and live with some form of reliability…
The current “true christians” as you denote, are arguably the latest “Johnny-Come-Lately” as they are breaking free from the impingements of a societal serving mechanism, mainly their religion, and looking back to where me and my pagan brethern have existed for centuries. Nature, and our relationship with god.
Transitioning from the Victorian remnants of religious doctrine can’t be easy for them, so thanks again for the nice article!
Johnny (not John)
Johnny (I\’ve edited the last post to reflect your desire for proper name recognition - something I respect) -
Ah, but the court is now hearing the case. We\’ve only two judges, but it will do, no? I agree that Paganism is more or less built into our survival circuitry (just wait til they unlock the religion gene!). What I meant to say is that there are very early Christian environmentalists who may predate some modern Pagan practices. Without a doubt, Paganism predates all Xtian concepts and, yes, we all know that Xtianity is barely removed from Sumerian and Egyptian religions in its concepttion of the trinity, the old testament fables, et cetera. Believe me, I\’d trust the earth in the hands of the Pagans as they\’ve historically demonstrated an affinity for natural divinity that most other religions have not. You\’re also spot on in positing that the transition will be painful - and most likely not in time.
Cheers!
Yes sir, you make many good points - especially with regards to the Sumerians as a basis for modern western religious origins.
I still feel that the origins of paganism go earlier - to the first time that humans began to place themselves in the world. At the point where interacting with the natural surroundings, that critical juncture is where I believe the true roots lie.
This would predate civilizations, instead finding tribal aspects of ancestry. I suppose if I substituted “nature worship” rather than Paganism it might be more palatable?
I know that the point is mere semantics, but your insight into survival circuits drove me to respond..
Johnny
Johnny,
I think we’re on the same page but I may have muddied my point. When I spoke of survival circuitry, my intention was to agree that we are now and forever have been ‘born Pagans’ to a great degree. Other religions are learned but must be based on our innate connections, thus the high degree of overlap.
Does that make sense?
yep, and thanks again for the interesting post!
Johnny
Christians’ have not done a particularly good job of being christian with respect to the environment (amongst other things) in the US. Granted. But the atheist nations haven’t done any better, perhaps worse, haven’t they?
“Don’t criticize me for not being a bridge builder. I’m not a carpenter, after all. It’s up to the Christians to recognize that they’ve been screwing up the show for a long time.”
But, you (as an atheist) are not a factor in the green movement, they (as christians) are. By antagonizing them, in stead of facilitating them to focus on what should be their natural penchant (stewardship), you’re working against the cause you claim to work for. Are you sure you’re not just trying to score theological points? Surely you know you’re not helping things get better for the environment.
People draw inspiration from religion for any number of things, and it can be good or bad. For instance, it wasn’t atheists that formed the backbone of the US civil rights movement, but christian churches. Notably, the European green movement started out as a distinctly christian affair, and churches remain an important part of their base. Environmentalism is a pretty abstract goal for most of us, and most of the “fixes” require change in our lives, some of it rather drastic, and often unpleasant. To get people to work towards an abstract good that requires real sacrifice, they need to be convinced of its necessity, which is very hard, or they must buy into an underlying ideology. That ideology can be socialist, christian, pagan, humanist, etc…
On a related note: Europe is far more secular than the US. An important reason for this is the success of small-h humanism, which can be described reasonably accurately as enlightened christianity. This stands in contrast to big-H Humanism, which is the virulently anti-religious version of humanism that dominates in the US (and some other places, like India). In my view, the extremism of the US Humanists (e.g. AHA) and atheists (e.g. AAA) is one of the main reasons that secularism failed to take hold in the US.
Endorendil -
You make solid points. My panties were in a twist at the time of these original posts. I agree with you that we badly need every last Christian if we are to make significant progress. Antagonizing the majority isn’t the smart play. Were I to roll out an ambitious program of any sort, I’d certainly gather together religious leaders of all stripes to see what can be done to bring everyone into the new fold.
Also, environmentalism is absurdly abstract, I have to agree. Even environmentalists don’t agree on what the term means, and what weight to give the environment vs. the humans living in it. Human rights v. Nonhuman rights = Massive Clash.
On humanism, that’s an interesting distinction, and one upon which I must confess I hadn’t thought (awkward wording, no?). Religion will always have a place in society. While I am frustrated with the violence it breeds (every major conflict currently raging on the globe), it’s simplest ideas (be good, do good) shouldn’t be tossed with the bathwater.