WASHINGTON, Nov. 1, 2007
Greens And God
Dick Meyer: Environmentalism Is Compatible With Christianity & Needn't Be Polarizing In Politics
-
A CBS News poll out a few weeks ago showed that 46 percent of white evangelicals believe global warming is having a serious impact on the environment - a view shared by 52 percent of the population as a whole. (CBS/AP)
-
Interactive Global Warming The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
As Endless Campaign '08 relentlessly grinds on, voters might consider a little project of mine as a tonic to ward off the election cycle blues: flip the conventional political and journalistic custom of always focusing on discord and division on its head, and instead search out pockets of consensus and convergence. It sounds boring, but it's not.
One area that intrigues me is the environment.
I have never really understood why conservative Christians weren't hardcore environmentalists. If conserving God's earth and creations isn't both conservative and spiritual, what is? Sure, I understand that the culture of America's greens is Birkenstock liberal and associated with an anti-business, pro-Big Brother Government mindset that conservatives can't stomach. Environmentalism got tossed into the whole culture war deal and the greens ended up on the blue side.
When I looked a bit deeper, it turned out that the views of Christian conservatives on global warming and environmental issues weren’t very different from the rest of society. Godly people are pretty green.
A CBS News poll out a few weeks ago showed that 46 percent of white evangelicals think global warming is having a serious impact on the environment - a view shared by 52 percent of the population as a whole. Not a big difference. Only three percent of white evangelicals think global warming doesn't exist.
Global warming and the environment will be "very important" or "extremely important" voting issues for 43 percent of white evangelicals; the figure is 55 percent for the rest. Not a big difference.
The two Republican candidates coming from a Christian evangelical base, Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback, talk about caring for the environment as part of taking care of God's creations.
"I believe that even our responsibility to God means that we have to be good stewards of the earth," Huckabee said, "be good caretakers of the natural resources that don’t belong to us; we just get to use them.”
There is plenty of action on the conservative environmental front. A group called the Evangelical Environmental Network is busy reaching out to the evangelical community on green issues. In his terrific book, "Crunchy Cons," Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher makes a compelling case for a sophisticated Christian environmentalism.
Richard Cizik, a vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals, has been an aggressive advocate for action on global warming. And he took some heat for it from conservatives who thought he was becoming a deep blue green.
There are plenty of evangelicals who still think Green=Gore=Evil. After all, shortly before his death, Jerry Falwell said the flap over global warming was "Satan’s attempt to redirect the church's primary focus." That Satan ought to just mind his own business, you know?
Now flaps are what reporters and consultants focus on. "Split Over Global Warming Widens Among Evangelicals," read one The Wall Street Journal headline. The Washington Post declared: "Global Warming Starts to Divide G.O.P. Contenders." Democratic strategists now see climate change as a wedge issue. Maybe they can peel some traditionally Republican voters away by playing the green card.
Well, how about a headline that says something like, "Growing Consensus On Global Warming All Along The Political Spectrum?" Too boring.
What's really boring is the perpetual push to polarize everything. America is not polarized. It is fragmented, confused, complicated and inconsistent. As it should be. Voters aren't polarized about global warming; the vast majority thinks it's a serious problem. The debate about what to do about it is unsettled, to be sure, at every level.
The truth is the environment is an issue where folks on the left and on the right have found some real common ground. Keep an eye out for more pockets of consensus as this campaign that is built on phony polarization drones on. It's more challenging than listening to the same old arguments.
E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to
Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.
By Dick Meyer © MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PARTNERS
     |
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 43 CommentsRelated:
"Blumenthal opens the video by interviewing Tom Delay, who when asked how much the "Second Coming" plays into his support for Israel, says, "obviously, it''s what I live for, I hope it comes tomorrow."
"Delay closed by saying, "we have to be connected to Israel to enjoy the second coming."
www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/58017/
We''re all big boys and girls now-hence can do our own research.
Good grief, guys. can''t your profanity elimination software do any better than that!?
O.K. if it''ll make you-all feel better, then..."RICHARD Meyer"
"What would Jesus drive?" This is a question posed by a small but increasing number of conservative Christians who are concerned by our dependence on fossil fuel. It is a difficult question to answer because none of us, at least in our present state, are in a position to ask Him. Here%u2019s my take:
He probably would walk or take public transportation whenever possible. He might have purchased a bicycle but I suspect it would have been a used clunker that had only five or ten speeds, be fairly dirty, with a worn out seat, bald tires and a loose crank. If so, then He would have maybe picked up one of those old wire baskets and installed it Himself and used it to carry small items.
It is possible He would have purchased a car of some sort but I doubt that likely. He may not even have bothered with a driver%u2019s license as much into living simply as He was. But if He did purchase a motor vehicle, it%u2019s most likely to be another ancient wreck selected more for its up front price than for its fuel economy. After all He wasn%u2019t going to drive it much.
No, based on what I read and heard about the man, Jesus would not buy into the typical American mode of conspicuous consumption that is so prevalent these days; and the car He would drive, if He bothered at all, would be an old 1970 Volkswagen Beetle of a similar vintage Ford Fairlane or Chevy Nova.
2. The movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" is NOT bad science. It contains a few errors and exaggerations, but the basic premise, that global warming is occurring right now and that human activity is contributing to that warming, is unassailable scientific truth.
Most of the "bad science" is taking place on YOUR side.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by MyIDonCBS at 11:38 PM : Nov 02, 2007
+ report abuse
first. Gore may have given the ''profits'' but that is after they had taken or skimmed thier cut from it..if you want sympatethic recognition..let them contibute thier time and cost from thier own pockets.
last, do you need a movie to tell you that you are *** king up this planet? okay tell me..have you changed your ways to help the planet?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by tburzio at 05:09 PM : Nov 02, 2007
I am a Christian and an environmentalist. Swill that in your small mind. Cognitive dissonance (for you) may do wonders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by tburzio at 05:06 PM : Nov 02, 2007
+ report abuse
Tburzio, I don''t know if you have first hand knowledge of this, but I suspect you are repeating a familiar claim made by Rush Limbaugh and other cons. The thing is, even if true, does it make the science untrue?
1. Al Gore gave all his "profits" from his movie to charity, so he did NOT "line [his] pockets" as you claim!
2. The movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" is NOT bad science. It contains a few errors and exaggerations, but the basic premise, that global warming is occurring right now and that human activity is contributing to that warming, is unassailable scientific truth.
Most of the "bad science" is taking place on YOUR side.
Apparently, the thinking of modern "Christians", from James Watt (Reagan''s secretary of the interior) onwards, has been that by killing all the Muslims, they can force Jesus to come back to earth to wage war with Satan''s minions for 1000 years, and when that''s over, the world will end. So, to them, there is no point in "conserving God''s earth"! They''re going to destroy it all anyway. Conveniently, this fits in very well with the Republican philosophy of "greed is good". Short term profits are all that matter. R@/pe and plunder are "good"! Saving the environment is "bad" because it cuts profits!
because most "christians" are stupid idiots. They will be at a Nascar race praying for some "miracle on the asphalt" then support abortion by buying some chineeze krap.
"christians" have become more and more stupid and it is evident if you travel the country. A beautiful church with nicely paved parking and manicured landscaping is all that is important.
That and hating gaays.
that is why sooooo many churches say NOTHING about the support their members give by buying communist china products.
Of course, the chineeze will eventually become christians - when hell freezes over and Nascar idiots are completely sold out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by tburzio at 05:09 PM : Nov 02, 2007
Was this sarcasm? while I don''t think of myself as an environmentalist. I certainly believe in make the air cleaner keeping the wild areas wild and unpoluted and can only dream of a time when we can create the needed energy for our civillization without polluting the air
"Bad science"- Tell the world that we are looking at bad science. Bad science in this case is only in the mind of narrow minded fools.
"Bad science"- Tell the world that we are looking at bad science. Bad science, in this case, is only in the mind of narrow minded fools.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 43 Comments