Faith In Action: Bringing Hope to the Planet

[Dissident Heart]

Below is a recent Sierra Club report titled Faith in Action:
Communities of Faith Bring Hope for the Planet

http://www.sierraclub.org/partnerships/ ... eport2008/ .

Sierra Club is proud to present its first ever national report on the environmental engagement of communities of faith, "Faith in Action: Communities of Faith Bring Hope for the Planet." Highlighting one exceptional faithbased environmental initiative from each of the fifty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, "Faith in Action" demonstrates the breadth, depth and diversity of spiritually motivated grassroots efforts to protect the planet. Sierra Club applauds the growing level of commitment and leadership among people of faith working to connect environmental awareness with widely shared values including stewardship, justice, and concern for future generations. We also recognize that lasting social change rarely takes place without the active engagement of communities of faith.

Environmental concerns continue to rise in prominence on the agenda of the faithful, with no sign of receding. As the implications of global warming and its disproportionate impact on the world's poor become increasingly clear, prophetic voices are being raised in religious communities around the globe. In the United States, 67 percent of Americans say they care about the environment because it is "God's creation."

Faith groups highlighted in this report lead the way in crafting creative and promising solutions to tremendous environmental challenges. Religious leaders and lay persons alike are "greening" all areas of religious life, including worship, education, community life, buildings and grounds, and increasingly engaging in grassroots education and organizing. In addition to crafting solutions to global warming, these groups also work to protect water quality and access, protect wilderness and endangered species, stop mountain-top removal coal mining and develop creative solutions to our nation's unsustainable and inequitable food systems.

This is largely an extension of the conversation already underway (but too large to easily navigate) in the thread Religion and Ecological Responsibility http://www.booktalk.org/religion-and-ec ... t5251.html

[Interbane]

I won't condemn using the brainwashing power of religion to help save our planet. Perhaps it can make up for a fraction of the misery it has caused humanity. Or the attempt will be botched by opposing monotheistic fanatics terrorizing the Earth instead of each other.

[Dissident Heart]

Interbane: I won't condemn using the brainwashing power of religion to help save our planet.

I can't think of any examples of where brainwashing helps anything: it traumatizes and disables, leaving the victim debilitated and emotionally distraught...prone to violent outbursts or secluded isolation. As I examine the report by Sierra Club, and the many other examples of religious environmentalism, I don't see much evidence of brainwashed victims: on the contrary, I see vibrant communities full of healthy vitality...actively engaged with the best of environmental science and ecological understanding, working to live an ecojustice ethic that requires critical thinking, political astuteness, ethical maturity and good old fashioned love of the earth....hardly brainwashed, hardly victims.

[DWill]

There might be no real need to ask this, but could everyone agree that if we are talking aobut screwing up the planet less, results are all that matter, and credit should be given to whomever produces results? It therefore couldn't possibly make a difference whether these people doing constructive things are monotheists or atheists. Religions happen to have an organizational base in place that make them potentially effective; on the secular side, governments and NGOs also have the organizational resources needed to get the job done.

[Dissident Heart]

DWill: but could everyone agree that if we are talking aobut screwing up the planet less, results are all that matter, and credit should be given to whomever produces results?

One risk with this position (and all positions are risky) are the dangerous possibilities that arise with a by any means necessary approach to any problem. For example, one way to curb human impact on Climate Change would be to eliminate a substantial portion of the human population: round up a select portion of the population (those least willing to change their behavior, for example) and, well, kill them. We would have to consider the environmental footprint such a genocide would create: but with proper scientific methods, we could clear out huge swaths of incorrigible, unteachable, unmanageable humans. And, we would achieve our desired results of curbing the impending Climate catastrophes...or at least be closer to the goal.

Why not engage in mass genocide in order to fight back the larger, more comprehensive catastrophe of ecocide?

DWill: Religions happen to have an organizational base in place that make them potentially effective; on the secular side, governments and NGOs also have the organizational resources needed to get the job done.

I think the organizational capacties of religious communities is an important point, and I think it can be most effective in getting mass numbers of religious adherents to fundamentally change lifestyle habits. Since a large majority of Americans self-idenfity as religious, and Americans are the largest per-capita consumers on the planet, then getting Americans to change consumption habits is crucial: and reminding them of their religious ethical obligations and theological narratives is proving to be a very effective approach...perhaps not enough. But I also think it is important to remember the numbers of religious people who work for the government, non-profit agencies and NGOs: who see their professional efforts as expressions of their religious vocational obligations.

I think another very important question is this: do the people involved in these kinds of serious, informed, ethical, ecologically responsible and loving efforts look like deluded individuals, hoodwinked and brainwashed, afraid to face reality and hiding in ancient superstitions at war with science?

[Grim]

NO. You can't possibly be advocating a genocide. I hope you are suicidal and take your own life to save the planet rather than continue presuming to be capable judgment on others.

:hang:

I have previously brought up the problem in a manner that may seem to be suggesting the necessity for some form of population control. What I was really pointing to is the peril people face in the looming crisis where the earth is no longer capable of feeding our multitudinous numbers. The proportionally large numbers of poor will be effected first. Equilibrium can possibly be maintain when a broad realization of true sustainability is obtained by a drastically lowered human population. We cannot obtain balance with the planet by turning on our own propensity to find harmony with all life.

[Interbane]

DH: "We would have to consider the environmental footprint such a genocide would create: but with proper scientific methods, we could clear out huge swaths of incorrigible, unteachable, unmanageable humans. And, we would achieve our desired results of curbing the impending Climate catastrophes...or at least be closer to the goal."




Of course you throw science in there in a bad light. You simpleton! There's a much easier answer! I say we rid the US of the separation of church and state, declare us a theocracy, and wait a couple of years. Religion will take it's course and we'll realize the infidels have to be wiped out and we go into world police mode and wipe em all out! Whammo, problem solved. Unfortunately that means most of the intelligent people on earth will have to be wiped out. That would leave a stupid, brainwashed world, and who wants that?

DH: "I think another very important question is this: do the people involved in these kinds of serious, informed, ethical, ecologically responsible and loving efforts look like deluded individuals, hoodwinked and brainwashed, afraid to face reality and hiding in ancient superstitions at war with science?"

No, they look like a bunch of deluded, brainwashed people jumping on the "green earth" bandwagon two minutes too late to make it appear their dogma is moral.

If you're not brainwashed by the verbatim definition, you're damn close. It's like you're possessed, spewing forth nonsense to support the cause you've been indoctrinated into believing. You completely ignore rational questions and reasoning and instead pick out small obscure phrases to quote and ramble on in another direction, like a caffeinated grade schooler with ADHD.

[Chris OConnor]

Interbane, check your PM's and emails.

[Grim]

This brings me hope in my future.

[Robert Tulip]

DWill: but could everyone agree that if we are talking about screwing up the planet less, results are all that matter, and credit should be given to whomever produces results?

One risk with this position (and all positions are risky) are the dangerous possibilities that arise with a by any means necessary approach to any problem. For example, one way to curb human impact on Climate Change would be to eliminate a substantial portion of the human population: round up a select portion of the population (those least willing to change their behavior, for example) and, well, kill them. We would have to consider the environmental footprint such a genocide would create: but with proper scientific methods, we could clear out huge swaths of incorrigible, unteachable, unmanageable humans. And, we would achieve our desired results of curbing the impending Climate catastrophes...or at least be closer to the goal. Why not engage in mass genocide in order to fight back the larger, more comprehensive catastrophe of ecocide?

DH, when I first read this post of yours I had to look twice, but of course your point is that an inhuman way to achieve goals should be rejected for its inhumanity. Looking at ways to achieve results to address climate change, it is possible to bring humanity into harmony with the planet without resorting to inhuman methods. If we planted out a million square miles of the ocean with algae, by raising deep sea nutrient on to enormous polymer sheets floating a few feet below the surface, we could rapidly reduce the amount of carbon in the air, restore empty ocean areas for fish, and use the algae for food, fuel and fertiliser.