God's Politics

God's Politics


Lyndsay Moseley: Jonah’s Warning and Global Warming

posted by gp_intern

I agree with Brian McLaren: The recent letter written by James Dobson and others to the National Association of Evangelicals – in reference to Rev. Richard Cizik’s leadership about global warming – is a sign of progress; evidence of the growing numbers of evangelicals who embrace environmental stewardship as a Christian duty. I am also grateful for the courage and leadership of Rev. Cizik. He has certainly taken a risk to preach the truth about creation care, and in doing so he empowers others to do the same.

It is also refreshing to see that James Dobson and friends acknowledge that “the earth is warming.” This is consistent with reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of 2,500 climate experts from around the world who synthesize climate science findings and present them to the world’s political leaders. The most recent IPCC report not only documents the warming of the planet, but demonstrates with even more confidence that the changes in the climate are a result of human actions. Further, the scientists tell us if we continue current levels of carbon dioxide emissions, we can expect warmer, rising sea levels; increased frequency of droughts, floods, and fires; increased intensity of hurricanes; and shifts in growing seasons and infectious disease patterns, just to name a few likely consequences.

Sadly, we can expect these consequences to take the greatest toll on communities who are least prepared and least able to protect themselves – the global poor, coastal communities, and low-income communities here at home. Among other factors, a lack of adequate medical care, secure housing and good nutrition makes such communities more susceptible to the impacts of climate change. Incidentally, these communities have historically contributed the least to the global warming problem. The United States, which comprises only 4 percent of the world’s population, has contributed over 25 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions. If global warming does not qualify as one of the great moral issues of our time, something is wrong with our moral compass.

Rather than dwell on the potential consequences, I want to emphasize that the story is not finished! The scientists tell us that we have time to avoid the most devastating impacts of global warming if we begin to act now. Remember the story of Jonah, who was called to preach the coming destruction of Nineveh? The people heeded his warning and turned from their ways, repenting and seeking God’s mercy and forgiveness. We, like the people of Nineveh, can heed the warnings and take steps to be better stewards of the earth – not only for ourselves, but for our neighbors, our children, and God.

It seems to me the message of Deuteronomy 30:19 is relevant: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live.” In my travels around the country, I see evangelical Christians and people of all faiths choosing life, embracing their call to environmental stewardship in unique and inspiring ways. I see them choosing to conserve energy, choosing energy efficient technologies in their homes and congregations, and advocating for renewable energy sources and community-wide solutions. I see them gathering in worship to offer prayers of thanksgiving and petition for God’s creation. With this growing momentum, people of faith can turn the tide on global warming and other threats to God’s creation. The question remains: how will you respond in light of the biblical call to stewardship?


Lyndsay Moseley is Associate Representative for Faith Partnerships for the Sierra Club. Learn more about the Sierra Club’s work with communities of faith. Click here for ten things you can do to reduce global warming today.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(94)
post a comment
moderatelad

posted March 8, 2007 at 4:23 pm


The United States, which comprises only 4 percent of the world s population, has contributed over 25 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions. The US is also one country that exports to the world about 50% of food stuffs and other mfg. goods so that they can improve their lives and conditions.China now makes more cars pre-year then the US – so I guess they will be causing more ‘warming’ than we will be in the future. India with all the mfg. that it has that is old – old technology pollutes more than the US mfg ventures.There many unanswered questions when it comes to global warming ($%^& – climate change) and AL GORE refuses to consider any other ideas – but that is OK after all it is AL. Later – .



report abuse
 

KK_f

posted March 8, 2007 at 4:38 pm


Buy my novel and feed me. Thx.



report abuse
 

splinterlog

posted March 8, 2007 at 4:59 pm


Just back from India. I must say I find all fo this talk abou India and China contributing to global warming a little ironic for 2 reasons. The first is that both countries are finally following models of development and modernization as prescribed by the Washington Consensus. WE asked them to develop this way and now WE are saying that we don’t like what they’re doing.The second is that, just based on the comparative levels of industrialisation, neither country has had the impact on the environment that the US has in the past fifty years and ever less so before that.And for the hyper-sensitive uberpatriots who can’t seem to countenance even an iota of criticism — the point is not “we’re still better than them because we give them food”. The point is that we have impacted the environment more than they have. So it’s up to us to provide the leadership when it comes to changed – aren’t we more than a little ashamed (and worried) by the fact that both China and India are talking about moving towards the use of more environmentally responsible energy sources?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 8, 2007 at 6:59 pm


“WE asked them to develop this way and now WE are saying that we don’t like what they’re doing. ” The point is that if we are going to develop more environmentally-friendly policies, these policies will be rendered moot if other countries do not follow suit, becuase the 25/4 statistic cited above is changing rapidly.



report abuse
 

sophie brown

posted March 8, 2007 at 7:25 pm


moderatelad and kevins I don’t think we’re going to see India and China ever consume anything like americans on a per capita basis. The majority of indians are vegetarians, so you won’t see them wasting all kinds of resources to produce a few pounds of beef like we do. And I don’t see the Chinese driving their suburbans out to mcmansions in the far away suburbs, like americans do. People in china are moving into cities, which is a much sounder thing to do environmentally. I certainly hope we can persuade those developing countries to work on generating sounder energy policies. But the point is — if the United States doesn’t change its consumption, nothing else is going to matter.And I have to ask — Why resist this the way you are? moderatelad, why fight this so hard? You don’t have to like Al Gore to acknowledge climate change.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted March 8, 2007 at 7:38 pm


sophie brown | 03.08.07 – 2:30 pm | #There are other theories out there about why the earth is ‘warming’ Ms. Brown. I find it interesting that the writers on Sojo do not even acknowledge the others. I believe that we should eleminate pollution everywhere we can. But I refuse to do so because of what I have accessed to be flawed science. It is immoral to promote or achieve an honorable goal with flawed or wrong motives.later – .



report abuse
 

carl copas

posted March 8, 2007 at 7:48 pm


moderatelad: “I find it interesting that the writers on Sojo do not even acknowledge the others.” uhh because the vast majority of people who study climate change for a living regard the other theories as not relevant to the situation at hand?



report abuse
 

D4P

posted March 8, 2007 at 8:11 pm


The point is that if we are going to develop more environmentally-friendly policies, these policies will be rendered moot if other countries do not follow suit First of all, I think that’s an overstatement.Second of all, what happened to the Golden Rule…?



report abuse
 

sophie brown

posted March 8, 2007 at 8:14 pm


moderatelad,I am not a scientist. But whenever I read about the latest theory climate change deniers are bandying about, I faithfully review it and review the response of the scientific community. The responses are generally thorough and compelling. Have you googled your pet theory to see whether its been evaluated? It probably has been. Do you think there are any credible alternative theories out there that negate the almost universal scientific consensus that human activity has greatly and dangerously enhanced the greenhouse gas effect, and that the likely consequences are warming temperatures and rising seas? Which ones?



report abuse
 

inadvance41

posted March 8, 2007 at 8:15 pm


I don’t see the problem. Industrialization increases entropy so we need to take measures to stop increasing entropy. 30 years ago Jeremy Rifkin wrote about this and laid it all out and now he looks like a prophet if you read his book “Entropy”. It just hurts alot to give up stuff, gods, little gods…



report abuse
 

Brandon Rhodes

posted March 8, 2007 at 8:38 pm


Great words, Lyndsay! Keep up the good work. Do come out and visit Peter and I some time. :)



report abuse
 

Cads

posted March 8, 2007 at 8:45 pm


Gee Sophie, I certainly hope the populations of China & India don’t consume what Americans do on a per capita basis, since EACH of these countries have four times our population! Could some knowledgeble person please explain to this uninformed person how purchasing carbon offsets helps in any significant way? Sounds like “fuzzy math” to me.



report abuse
 

D4P

posted March 8, 2007 at 8:52 pm


I’m no expert on carbon offsets but here’s how I think they work: 1. I calculate my carbon impact (say, 100 units) 2. I pay a renewable energy company enough money to increase their capacity of renewable energy provision by 100 units 3. They provide those 100 units of (presumably) carbon-free energy to someone else (probably not me) 4. The total carbon emission is thus 100 units 5. Without me offsetting my impact, the total carbon emission would be my 100 units + the 100 units used by someone else, for a total of 200 units The carbon savings of my offset is thus 200-100 = 100 units. This is probably a simplification, but I think that’s the idea.



report abuse
 

Cads

posted March 8, 2007 at 9:40 pm


Thanks for the effort, D4P. So, if my carbon impact exceeds what it should be, I can pay some company to plant some trees or build some windmills so I can keep my present lifestyle and not feel guilty? Who verifies that these companies do what you pay them to do and how much does it cost?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 8, 2007 at 9:50 pm


“And I have to ask — Why resist this the way you are? ” To the extent that I resist governmental intervention, it is because there is a potential to devote enormous resources to a cause that will yield minimal tangible results.I do not, however, resist the idea that global warming is occurring, or that man has contributed to the phenomenon. I do not buy into the apocalyptic scenarios that involve millions of deaths and the ruination of the earth.



report abuse
 

D4P

posted March 8, 2007 at 9:53 pm


Whether you feel guilty or not is up to you. Reducing your carbon impact is better than merely offsetting it, but reducing AND offsetting is better than merely reducing, and offsetting is (presumably) better than nothing. I don’t know who verifies that the companies do what I pay them to do, though that uncertainty probably applies to MOST companies, doesn’t it? Here’s a website that allows you to estimate your CO2 emissions, and then gives you a dollar amount for offsetting. Mine came to something around $70, per year. http://tinyurl.com/3426z7



report abuse
 

D4P

posted March 8, 2007 at 9:54 pm


there is a potential to devote enormous resources to a cause that will yield minimal tangible results See: bombing and shooting people in other countries



report abuse
 

D4P

posted March 8, 2007 at 9:57 pm


Of course, whether bombing and shooting people yields “benefits” is only one side of the story, and not necessarily the most important side.



report abuse
 

sophie brown

posted March 8, 2007 at 10:14 pm


kevin, I appreciate your comments about government intervention. I am not afraid of “big government,” in general, but the abuses of power I have seen recently really make me a little nervous too. I don’t see this so much as a government issue, so much as an issue of really and truly realligning human behaviors. The tremendous differences individuals can make by reducing driving, changing light bulbs, reducing meat consumption — that’s where I focus my energies right now. Change not through government coersion, but through the responsible and thoughful exercise of free will. It will not be easy since we are fighting years of consumer culture. But we have to. In terms of doomsday scenarios, I don’t know how many people will die. But I know we are likely to push many species over the breaking point. I live in the pacific northwest, where forestry managers are pretty uniform in their thinking that a couple degree increase in temperature will cause our pine forests to die out. That is more than enough to motivate me to work for change.



report abuse
 

D4P

posted March 8, 2007 at 10:20 pm


To those who think “Government should not be involved in making the situation better”: do you also think that government should stop doing things that make the situation worse?



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 8, 2007 at 11:03 pm


The horse’s corpse is pleading… pleading… make it stop… D4P: “that government should stop doing things that make the situation worse?” -Depends on what you mean… If you mean subsidizing oil, sure. But I’m not sure what you define as stopping and what, exactly, you would see them stopping. I’m all for reducing government output.



report abuse
 

D4P

posted March 8, 2007 at 11:11 pm


subsidizing oil That’s one example. Others include subsidizing auto transportation (e.g. through federal highways, etc.). War also has significant negative environmental impacts, so we can stop that too. I don’t have a comprehensive list here off the top of my head, but I’m sure it’s at least fairly long, and the items on the list are not insignificant.The point, though, is that if one is gonna say that government shouldn’t be part of the solution, it seems like one should also then say that government shouldn’t be contributing to the problem.



report abuse
 

Joseph T

posted March 9, 2007 at 12:34 am


In many ways this issue is about the power and influence of James Dobson, and his ties to the Republican party. The Republicans do lip service to the pro-life issue which built the religious right, but their real commitments are to the rich and powerful: mega corporations, big oil, and the military industrial complex.At this point, apart from a police state, nothing will bring an end to freely available abortion in America. Roe V Wade is a dead issue as demonstrated in South Dakota. Most States will allow abortion if R.v W. is reversed. Dobson will not win in any meaningful way on abortion in his lifetime, so it comes down to a long term culture war in which JD has staked everything on the Republican/ Evangelical tie. Today,the republican party is run by big oil, big weapons, cheap labor more than any other interests.Moral concern for social justice or the environment are a dead end for Dobson and his power with Republicans, even though these issues have the same moral roots as pro life in the Christian value for all life, weak and strong. Dobson’s ruthless attempt to control the conscience driven stand of other evangelical leaders appears to me to be more about power and control than about moral conviction.We home schooled and were regular attenders of an American Baptist Church in the mid 80s and we started listening to Dobson because of his promotion of home schooling and other reasons. When I saw that he was part of a network of “conservative” educators who were actively trying to christianize and falsify and purge America’s history. I also saw that he oversimplified many issues for political reasons. I wrote some letters, received no response, and became a critic. My wife gave up on Dobson a few years later.



report abuse
 

MacO

posted March 9, 2007 at 1:07 am


For a reasoned counter-argument, and a contribution to ‘the debate’, see the Channel 4 (here in the UK) broadcast called, provocatively, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. This was on tonight at 9pm, UK time. It was alleged that the political (even religious) group-think of ‘green’ and ‘rich’ Westerners was poised to deny the world’s poor some tangible social/economic development progress that the West already enjoys – particularly relatively cheap and reliable electrity supplies. This denial of health/ welfare that we collectively enjoy, to others in need, was compellingly targeted as double-speak by the West’s emerging policy. I am sure there is a counter argument; however as a former practitioner in energy-efficient social housing for low income families in the UK; this argument has a ring of truth to it. My projects were dogged by what I would now called middle-class bullshit about the effectiveness of the new green technologies to deliver anti-poverty strategies. I now work in more traditional economic development, and am already finding that key sustainabity flagship-projects are as yet more aspirational and good PR for a green future than actually, measurably better. i.e. more faith than science! My worry is that this is becoming a new institutional religion not a faith.For myself, having left the world of James Dobson, it would be a shame to end up there again by another name. Orwell s Animal Farm is great reading for Pre-Evangelicals, Evangelicals, Post-Evangelicals and Post-Post-Evangelicals alike. The C4 programme further alleges that there is an evidenced fallacy within this ‘deep green/ anti-industrialist’ theology; the evidence base for a direct linkage of global warming evidence to humanly produced green house gases. i.e. what is the proof or even weight of evidence that our perception of global warming is more than a natural cycle. C4 had some surprising expert witnesses ready to say that the alleged causal link is itself just hot air. This is not my own position, just what the C4 programme presented. Again it had a ring of truth to it – and why I would value a debate and a weighing of scientific evidences (including ‘full disclosure’ of research funding sources and faith positions). G rdan M Artair Mhic Artair na tir a chladich Sojourners UK and Ireland



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 9, 2007 at 2:36 am


D4P “The point, though, is that if one is gonna say that government shouldn’t be part of the solution, it seems like one should also then say that government shouldn’t be contributing to the problem.” -Sure, so long as what you say has to do with proactive issues. I’m fine with privatizing highways, particularly. I don’t think a war should be voted against for *solely environmental reasons, but I’m okay with counting that as a strike against, if you will. I just wanted to be sure you weren’t going to say, “Stop allowing people to drive cars” :) — Joseph T “The Republicans do lip service to the pro-life issue which built the religious right, but their real commitments are to the rich and powerful: mega corporations, big oil, and the military industrial complex.” -I’m so glad we have you to read everyone’s minds. “Man looks at outwards appearances but Joseph T looks at the heart” after all. “At this point, apart from a police state, nothing will bring an end to freely available abortion in America. Roe V Wade is a dead issue as demonstrated in South Dakota. Most States will allow abortion if R.v W. is reversed.” -I believe in a God who will only allow evil for so long. If you think the abortion issue is entrenched, try the slave trade issue in England in the late 19th century. Over the span of a generation, William Wilberforce led an incredible revolution upsetting social norms FAR more ingrained in British society than the abortion issue is in American society. My Sovereign God is big enough to bring victory lost causes and abandoned battles. I believe — against the odds, admittedly — that abortion will end before I am dead. I believe in a God who sets up rulers and tears them down. I believe in a God who guides the paths of kings’ hearts like streams of water. “It is time for the Lord to act, for they have broken Your law.” Psalm 119:126



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted March 9, 2007 at 3:53 am


sophie brown | 03.08.07 – 3:19 pm | #The responses are generally thorough and compelling. Again – we need to define compelling. In another article Mr Wallis talks about how a majority of denominations and colleges are coming to an understanding and support of Global Warming / Climate Change. Well 86 denominational ‘leaders’ are supporting this theory. I looked at the list and it is now 85 since there are two from the same denomination. Some of the people are from churches and not denominational leaders. We are dealing with less than 10% of the denominations in the US and a % of a % it you talk about all the denominations in the world. So we need to be sure that if it is compelling – that it is a bigger % of the group that they are talking about. Later – .



report abuse
 

Joseph T

posted March 9, 2007 at 4:35 am


Let me ask you Mark P. Is it your God who brought Dick and George to power and inspired them to rain bombs down on families. Was it your God who inspired them to initiate torture as military and CIA practice? Is it your God who inspired a Republican led war on terror in which terror incidents worldwide have increased 600% and fatalities from terror attacks have increased 200 %. Does your God support the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions? I just want to know if this was your God or some other God? As far as looking into hearts, I find it easier to judge the fruits. Wars of aggression for revenge and for oil and for geopolitical goals do not foster respect for life or a commitment to the culture of life.So anyway I take it you don’t like my analysis of the Dobson/ Republican Party/ Global Warming debate. Good.



report abuse
 

Dave

posted March 9, 2007 at 4:38 am


“Sadly, we can expect these consequences to take the greatest toll on communities who are least prepared and least able to protect themselves the global poor, coastal communities, and low-income communities here “Here is Florida the coastal communities are not exactly full of poor people. Just the opposite. A rising sea level would wipe out about 50 years of development. Seaside mansions,condos, marinas etc. I would think the author would favor this. Return Florida to a natural state. What she is saying may be true for alot of the world. It is just the relentless anti-American view that is annoying and predictable.



report abuse
 

Justin

posted March 9, 2007 at 4:45 am


What concerns me is that denominational leaders, essentially, trained theologians and Christian leaders, are substituting their “view” of science for science’s view of itself. Anyone remember Galileo and Copernicus?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 9, 2007 at 4:59 am


“there is a potential to devote enormous resources to a cause that will yield minimal tangible results See: bombing and shooting people in other countries” Well, then you see the problems of governmental intervention,



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:18 am


“In many ways this issue is about the power and influence of James Dobson, and his ties to the Republican party. The Republicans do lip service to the pro-life issue which built the religious right, but their real commitments are to the rich and powerful: mega corporations, big oil, and the military industrial complex. ” I disagree with this, somewhat. Bush nominated two supreme court justices who will uphold the Constitution, which is the biggest step toward ending legal abortion in this country, among other things. “At this point, apart from a police state, nothing will bring an end to freely available abortion in America” And yet, you believe that governmental intervention can bring about environmental improvement. “Most States will allow abortion if R.v W. is reversed.” And this will be thank to Democrats, yes? You have to concede this fact, yes? The reason we are forced to consider the compromises you insinuate is because of your party’s obsession with keeping abortion legal. Don’t pretend this is a Republican weakness. “Today,the republican party is run by big oil, big weapons, cheap labor more than any other interests. ” More than anything, it is run by investment firms and chambers of commerce, hence the president’s position on immigration. Chew on that before you respond. “We home schooled and were regular attenders of an American Baptist Church in the mid 80s and we started listening to Dobson because of his promotion of home schooling and other reasons. ” Good decision, I think, to home school. I agree that Dobson should have stayed put, and I have foudn little disagreement in this view. among the folks I know.



report abuse
 

Joseph T

posted March 9, 2007 at 7:47 am


There are many pro-choice Republicans, and there were more before the persuasive political influence of the CC Right. I think the battle for the hearts and minds of the voters has settled in favor of pro-choice and I forseee no change in that.SD is not a liberal state. And I think the momentum of the CC right is over, squandered on bloodshed and Financial Fraud in Iraq and addiction to an unsustainable and unhappy lifestyle. I am pro life but I oppose all forms of violence against human life. The Democrats are far too implicated in our militarism,and corporatism for my unalloyed allegiance.My analysis of Dobson’s stance is harsh but sincere. Power corrupts.My analysis of the influences on the Republican party is not about State or local politics but national Politics,and American History.



report abuse
 

Joseph T

posted March 9, 2007 at 8:22 am


By the way governmental intervention is not in any way equatable with a police state as long as we have (and work to keep) a representative constitutional system . You are the one who sounds anti-American to me. You seem to have no faith in the possibility of wise self government. There is nothing inherently sacred about commerce. It can be completely immoral and corrupting as slavery, tobacco, and the destructive pursuit of cheap labor shows. The people must unite to stop such things.One doesn’t have to be a socialist to believe that unchecked global corporate power and militarism are now the greatest threats to the possibility of “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. I think Abraham Lincoln said that.”I’ll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan said that.” A dictatorship would be a lot easier, as long as I get to be the dictator.” George Bush said that.



report abuse
 

Kannbrown65

posted March 9, 2007 at 9:18 am


Oh, and we might still export a significant portion of agricultural products, but the days when the US actually did the majority of the manufacturing of goods has been gone a while. Those countries you criticize? India and China.. those are the ones who do most of our manufacturing these days. Challenge.Find something other than crafts or food in your house that is really ‘Made in America’.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 9, 2007 at 12:54 pm


Lyndsay Moseley works for the Sierra Club and she is writing a piece on global warming? That’s like asking a KGB employee to write about communism. Do these neo-socialist propagandists think everyone is stupid? Not all of us lose our minds through the education indoctrination process. Some of us retain or regain our moral compass. Global warming is just another clever trick to make us all socialist lemmings. I’ll continue putting my recylcables in a seperate can, and I’ll still keep voting for conservatives. I don’t want to be a commie. I mean it. Freedom is worth fighting for.



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 9, 2007 at 12:55 pm


G rdan: Thanks for the information about the C4 program. I wonder if we will be able to view it in the USA. Although I don’t think there’s a lot of room for doubt left on the topic at hand, I would welcome a reasoned presentation of differing views. And I think your full disclosure of all research funding sources is a very good idea. But ultimately, the facts will be determined thorugh rigorous and honest application of the scientific method itself. Cheers,



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 9, 2007 at 1:04 pm


Donny: Once again you are thorougly mistaken. If all you are going to do is call names, you have nothing to say and nothing to contribute to this debate. I’m not a socialist. I believe the Bible. I have been a Christian for a long time. But I also believe global warming is fairly well established and is an issue Christians can legitimately be concerned about. Have you read any Sierra Club literature? Do you really know anything about the organization and what they do? Or are you entirely informed by Rush’s invectives about “enviro-nazis”? You want to call me a commie? You have not answered any of the questions I have posed to you. If you can’t answer reasonable questions, don’t keep posting nonsense to this blog. Can it, Donny.



report abuse
 

360

posted March 9, 2007 at 1:16 pm


Global warming is just another clever trick to make us all socialist lemmings. Yep, you’re right Donny…get rid of incandescent bulbs and mandate higher mileage cars one day, end of private property ownership and gulags the very next! OMG, it’s so obvious to me now! Thanks for connecting the dots, Donny. [end sarcasm]



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 9, 2007 at 3:00 pm


360, Hugo Chavez. The hero of the Left. How many democrats sing his praise. The dots are solid lines.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 9, 2007 at 3:18 pm


Don,I’m not calling names other than the accurate definitions of what the anti-Christians are doing and who they are. If we are to “test all things,” than clearly the socialist/marxist ideology is clear to see in the environmental wackos, and the Democrat party. Why is it that the vast majority of environmentalists bobblehead to every other Lib/Progressive goal? I’ll keep recycling my plastic and aluminum and I’ll keep my Bible unedited by Liberals. But please notice who and what it is that is outlawing the Bible and Christians from the “public” arena? It IS leftist power. Not, corporate products. I’ll also hold to the fact that progressives are not Christians, BY testing what they say and do, BY, the scriptutre they denigrate and try so hard to silence or alter. I’ll be more than happy to post facts any day. For a Lib example: Jesus never mentioned homosexuality OR ever approved same-gender marriage. Silence does not approve, condone, or promote anything. The followers of Jesus were VERY vocal on both.Time to think about all the things John mentions NOT writing down that Jesus preached on!!!!! You look at Jim Wallis and you see a Marxist no matter his words trying to hide the fact. He dances with Liberals and Progressives and Marxists only. Not hard to see what and who Wallis followers are . . . Why is it that when a leftist takes power they silence anything not Leftist? Hugo Chavez fell right in to the Leftie ways of freedom. Here in America where the myth is that rich corporations control the politics, we still have groups like the Sierra Club ranting and raving away in complete freedom, AND implementing there environmental power grabs. Seems to me that conservatives are the truly free minded “if” actions speak louder than words. Another Christian concept. Hmmm.



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 9, 2007 at 3:40 pm


“the socialist/marxist ideology is clear to see in the environmental wackos” This IS name-calling, whatever you might think. Calling ANYONE a “wacko” is inappropriate for a Christian, whatever you might think of what they believe or advocate. Remember, those you label as wackos are still made in God’s image. “we still have groups like the Sierra Club ranting and raving away in complete freedom, AND implementing there environmental power grabs” I suggest you get on the Sierra Club’s Web site and read their mission statement. Take the time to learn about their goals and objectives. After you do that, you are free to disagree with them, of course, but you shouldn’t be ranting against them in ignorance. “Seems to me that conservatives are the truly free minded “if” actions speak louder than words.” Beware that you aren’t setting “conservatism” up as an idol. Peace,



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 9, 2007 at 4:21 pm


The point is that if we are going to develop more environmentally-friendly policies, these policies will be rendered moot if other countries do not follow suit, becuase the 25/4 statistic cited above is changing rapidly. kevin s. We may or may not be able to change others behavior but we can change ours, having done so our moral authority improves.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 9, 2007 at 4:28 pm


Don, Are suggesting that I “test all things?” I believe in private property ownership. I believe that hunting is OK. They both exist in the “freedom” category. I have on the Liberal/Progressive question. And no where do the writers of the New Testament letters agree with what modern-day neo-libs (Progressives) have done to alter the “faith” delivered once to the saints. Read James and think of Hollywood. Read Peter and think about heretics. Read Paul . . .and well . . . think about, you know . . . Read the Gospels and think about sound marriage and good families. Peace. (I wish) PS: Study to show yourself approved . . ., Contend for the faith . . . And, give to every man an answer for the faith you have. Don,A Christian can only do that by believing the writers of the New Testament were not writiing OP/ED on Nero’s times. — Jesus, the same yesterday, today and forever. Umm, Unless you’re a Liberal-Progressive.



report abuse
 

Pacific231

posted March 9, 2007 at 4:40 pm


Donny, Know how sometimes a shop might have a ‘count all the gumballs in the jar’ contest, they should instead have a ‘count of all the strawmen in Donny’s rambling messages’ contest. You and the particular minority genre of Coulter Christians you have immersed yourself in have a pathological emotional need to believe that the following groups are all leftists, Marxists, ‘n commies: * The overwhelming majority of Christians who disagree with you and your false prophet heroes Dobson, Falwell, etc., * All Democrats across the board (natch) * Not to mention moderate Republicans too (John McCain co-wrote an editorial with Joe Lieberman on the urgent reality of global warming, as linked by an earlier Gods Politics entry) Oh…and you forgot to call these huge groups of people as “pinkos”, an Archie Bunker favorite. Donny! You and others like you are tilting at windmills. I genuinely, genuinely feel pity for you.



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 9, 2007 at 4:47 pm


Joseph T, “Is it your God who brought Dick and George to power and inspired them to rain bombs down on families. Was it your God who inspired them to initiate torture as military and CIA practice? Is it your God who inspired a Republican led war on terror in which terror incidents worldwide have increased 600% and fatalities from terror attacks have increased 200 %. Does your God support the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions?” -They did not defy His Sovereignty, if that’s what you mean. Does that mean He doesn’t grieve over them or that He “likes” those things? Surely not. But He is not incapacitated or overcome by them. “So anyway I take it you don’t like my analysis of the Dobson/ Republican Party/ Global Warming debate.” -I don’t accept your omniscient decision about Dobson’s motives, and I’m wondering how you can have such a high view of your ability to judge and such a low view of God’s Sovereignty. “Good.” -because you like polarization? Or what? “You seem to have no faith in the possibility of wise self government.” -I think government regulation and self-government are competitive. — Justin “Anyone remember Galileo and Copernicus?” -I remember Galileo getting in trouble for being an arrogant prick, and for telling theologians how to do their job… but if you’re asking if I remember Galileo being told exactly how to do his science, I don’t remember that. Let’s not make Galileo a hero. Sure, some in the Church were condemning him for being heliocentric, but most were saying, “Hey, let’s have a discussion about this” while Galileo was saying, “Shut your face. I’m right.” — Don, “Remember, those you label as wackos are still made in God’s image.” -Don, I agree and have begun to mostly ignore Donny’s posts, as I don’t see much in them. But I think if you’re going to specifically call out Donny for using “wacko” in relation to environmentalists, you have a few more individuals to call out as well.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 9, 2007 at 4:48 pm


You don’t have to like Al Gore to acknowledge climate change. sophie brown If there is another agenda such as he is a plant for the oil industry or those who feel the must oppose anything that anyone who was ever called liberal. Rule; “you cannot reason with an illogical statement”



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:00 pm


“Second of all, what happened to the Golden Rule…?” D4PGood question D4P. In the conservative mind, the golden rule applies to helping little old ladies cross the street and being nice at church and in family circles. How would one dare to apply the golden rule to such weighty things as relations between nations and peoples? If you so much as propose such an idea you’re drummed out of town as an idealist, leftist liberal by that crowd. Besides, why would one want to let the golden rule get in the way of the American Empire, which is the reincarnation of the Roman Empire? We must for the greater good impose ourselves since we’ve reached the climax of virtue, sophistication and goodness. Nevermind the broken countries and lives we leave behind in our wake! Tsk Tsk details details.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:01 pm


It is immoral to promote or achieve an honorable goal with flawed or wrong motives. moderateladIt is clear if you give a man dying of thirst water it is a sin if you really hate him. I really think those driving gas guzzlers and living in McMansions hate the poor because they know there good fortune is just luck and they counldn’t survive but for luck. Don’t take this on, it has nothing to do with global warming.



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:02 pm


We may or may not be able to change others behavior but we can change ours, having done so our moral authority improves. butchWhy would we do such a thing Butch? It’s so much funner to point out the splinter in our neighbor’s eye and takes the attention of the plank in our own eye. Isn’t that how the cons and neocons think?



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:09 pm


I appreciate your comments about government intervention. I am not afraid of “big government,” in general, but the abuses of power I have seen recently really make me a little nervous too. Sophie I am afraid of big government but since it won’t go away we must make it work for us and not against us.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:12 pm


I do not buy into the apocalyptic scenarios that involve millions of deaths and the ruination of the earth. kevin s. What is the cost if you are wrong and what is the cost if we reduce emissions.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:30 pm


It is just the relentless anti-American view that is annoying and predictable. Dave What difference does it make, I want to continue poluting just so I can annoy you. Dave it IS all about how you feel.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:37 pm


All that is required to end meaningful discussion of any issue is to insert abortion.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:42 pm


“Why would we do such a thing Butch? It’s so much funner to point out the splinter in our neighbor’s eye and takes the attention of the plank in our own eye. Isn’t that how the cons and neocons think?” No. Actually, the conservative ideology acknowledges that our government is not inherently better than any other throughout the world. It is the system of checks and balances on that government that allows us to remain free, not any particular attribute of our government. The neoconservative movement simply advocates a more aggressive posture toward those who threaten our freedoms. It isn’t about finding splinters at all. If we are examining splinters, then we should be at war with about 175 nations.”Good question D4P. In the conservative mind, the golden rule applies to helping little old ladies cross the street and being nice at church and in family circles.” Not true. We are simply averse to he idea that the government can enforce regulations that will be successful in adhering to the golden rule. I know a number of conservatives who recycle, and generally live a “sustainable” lifestyle on their own.



report abuse
 

HASH(0x1196d368)

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:48 pm


Mark P wrote: -Don, I agree and have begun to mostly ignore Donny’s posts, as I don’t see much in them. But I think if you’re going to specifically call out Donny for using “wacko” in relation to environmentalists, you have a few more individuals to call out as well. Too true, Mark, unfortunately. But Donny’s diatribe against Lyndsay showed up just as I was posting my response to G rdan. Frankly, it got my goat. And then he said he wasn’t calling anyone names–unless they were ‘accurate’ of course. That’s why I singled him out.I plan to ignore him from now on as well. Cheers,



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:49 pm


‘Anonymous’ above was me. ;-)



report abuse
 

Ian O'Corrain

posted March 9, 2007 at 5:59 pm


Great column. But just as important as getting a critical mass of evangelicals to see that global warming is really happening as a result of human activity, is being able to show them that this is a pressing moral issue on the basis of arguments from Scripture and the Christian theologial tradition. Ordinary people in the pews may believe the scientific evidence, but they also need to be shown how their core convictions — about the sanctity of God’s creation, about God’s presence in the material world in Jesus Christ and the sacramental practices of the church, and God’s future, eschatological presence in all creation, makes our care for the earth a Christian moral and spiritual imperative. Raising awareness about the climate crisis requires both good theology and good science. And Al Gore, of course, has been seeing this for years, as is evident in his 1993 book, Earth In The Balance. Let’s elect a Baptist environmental crusader in 2008! Ian O’Corrain http://www.theologyafterbreakfast.blogspot.com http://www.gore-obama2008.blogspot.com



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 9, 2007 at 6:12 pm


The neoconservative movement simply advocates a more aggressive posture toward those who threaten our freedoms. Kevin S More aggressive my butt, we blow the b-jesus out of Iraq, place ourselves under a massive debt, lose much if not all our moral authority in the world, this list could go on. BTW I can’t leave torture off the list; this is one of Kevin s freedoms that are threatened. What will come of us if we lose our freedom to torture? Then comes the Republi-Nazi apologist with a delicate little phrase like “more aggressive”, if we were more aggressive we would be dropping nuclear bombs all over the place! I d rather have Donny on my side at least there is nothing sneaky about his positions.



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted March 9, 2007 at 6:29 pm


For those who would say we [conservatives] are simply averse to the idea that the government can enforce regulations that will be successful in adhering to the golden rule. I know a number of conservatives who recycle, and generally live a “sustainable” lifestyle on their own. Big deal. Your anecdotal evidence brings little to the discussion. Now respond to the question that was orginally posed- why shouldn’t the US adhere to the golden rule regardless of what other countries do? Please stop changing the subject and in so doing being disruptive of the flow of the conversation.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 9, 2007 at 6:49 pm


Please stop changing the subject and in so doing being disruptive of the flow of the conversation. SarasotakidThat is Kevin’s job, I’m old and retired vet he’s young how do you think he makes a living if he isn’t paid?



report abuse
 

HASH(0x11972814)

posted March 9, 2007 at 7:03 pm


Mark P said “They did not defy His Sovereignty, if that’s what you mean. Does that mean He doesn’t grieve over them or that He “likes” those things? Surely not. But He is not incapacitated or overcome by them.” So you are saying killing innocents, or torturing prisoners does not defy the will of God? You are really saying that these are things God doesn’t “like”, but God somehow manages to not let it bother the divine conscience too much. “He is not …overcome by them.”? more Mark P: “I don’t accept your omniscient decision about Dobson’s motives, and I’m wondering how you can have such a high view of your ability to judge and such a low view of God’s Sovereignty.” I didn’t make a “decision” about Dobson’s motives, I made an analysis, or an educated theory. I think the reason you don’t like it is the same reason you don’t really challenge it’s logic, but talked about God’s sovereignty, and no I do not share your theological position on this and I do not think Jesus did either, if you want to go there. Final Mark P ” (JT)’You seem to have no faith in the possibility of wise self government.’ -(MP)I think government regulation and self-government are competitive.” The word government is meaningless without an ability to regulate. How shall any society maintain civil order without regulation? Are you an anarchist? The word regulation comes from the law of the king(ruler). The American constitution sets up a system by which representative self regulation(government) is possible through the rule of law.below is a dictionary definition.(Oxford American) regulation |ˌreg(y)əˈlā sh ən| noun 1 a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority : planning regulations. regulation noun 1 they obey all the regulations rule, ruling, order, directive, act, law, bylaw, statute, edict, canon, pronouncement, dictate, dictum, decree, fiat, command, precept. 2 the regulation of blood sugar adjustment, control, management, balancing. 3 the regulation of financial services supervision, policing, superintendence, monitoring, inspection; control, management, ordering. So could you please explain to us what self government without regulation would look like? what do you wish to replace the Constitution and the rule of law with? I am seriously curious what you have in mind.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 9, 2007 at 7:14 pm


“Big deal. Your anecdotal evidence brings little to the discussion. Now respond to the question that was orginally posed- why shouldn’t the US adhere to the golden rule regardless of what other countries do? Please stop changing the subject and in so doing being disruptive of the flow of the conversation.” I don’t see how I changed the subject. My point (with which you opted not to contend) is that the government cannot, and should not be expected to, impose the “golden rule” onto the people. As such, in is not enough to simply say, “regardless of whether we will substantially impact this global warming trend, we must enact regulation simply to adhere to the ‘golden rule'” You could evoke the golden rule to defend just about any political action you choose to take, so if you are just going to say that the golden rule argument suffices for your position, then we are at an impasse.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 9, 2007 at 7:16 pm


“So could you please explain to us what self government without regulation would look like? what do you wish to replace the Constitution and the rule of law with? I am seriously curious what you have in mind.” This is a false choice between anarchy and (effectively) communism. You can have a philosophy that government ought to let people self-regulate whenever possible while still acknowledging a role for government.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 9, 2007 at 7:21 pm


what do you wish to replace the Constitution and the rule of law with? It’s called the unitary president using something called a signing statement. Before anyone comments on “signing statement”, please google it? Kevin please explain these are confusing issues. There is a neo-con explanation and I want a fair and balanced discussion.



report abuse
 

Ducky

posted March 9, 2007 at 7:28 pm


wow. I’m surprised by the strong negative reactions to this piece. Ms. Moseley has not attacked anyone; instead she has praised both Dr. Dobson and Rev. Cizik. She does not call for government intervention here, but does ask how individuals will respond to the biblical call to creation stewardship. This is a call for personal reflection. While she works for the Sierra Club who does advocate for both government and individual action, this is written personally rather than as her professional duty. (For example, the Sierra Club wouldn’t use biblical texts in their literature because it is not a religious organization.) I had the priviledge of hearing Ms. Moseley speak and she was very clear about that distinction.Ms. Moseley’s call for individual reflection and response does not bear even the slightest resembelence to asking anyone to become a communist.



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 9, 2007 at 7:40 pm


Thanks, Ducky: I was going to post this earlier but didn’t. I think now might be a good time. From the Sierra Club Web site: Our Mission Statement 1. Explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth. 2. Practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources. 3. Educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment. 4. Use all lawful means to carry out these objectives. I’m still wondering what’s anti-Christian, communist, neo-socialist, or immoral about this statement. And I wonder how it constitutes indoctrination. Peace,



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted March 9, 2007 at 8:01 pm


Kevin S: As such, in is not enough to simply say, “regardless of whether we will substantially impact this global warming trend, we must enact regulation simply to adhere to the ‘golden rule'” You could evoke the golden rule to defend just about any political action you choose to take, so if you are just going to say that the golden rule argument suffices for your position, then we are at an impasse. kevinI don’t agree but thank you for at least being responsive and providing an understandable response. I would disagree that you can evoke the golden rule for just about any political action you’re going to take. W certainly couldn’t do that Iraq and Gitmo.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 9, 2007 at 8:04 pm


Global warming is a problem for some powerful large corporations which makes it a problem for the Neo-Cons now comes Kevin to muddy the water. That sums it up.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 9, 2007 at 8:05 pm


“I’m still wondering what’s anti-Christian, communist, neo-socialist, or immoral about this statement. And I wonder how it constitutes indoctrination.” It’s not intent so much as result. The Sierra Club and other groups have consistently used litigation as a means of achieving their agenda. For example, environmental groups sought to prevent the raising of levees in along the lower Mississippi river. Obviously, had they known that a hurricane would cause New Orleans to flood, they would not have pursued this course of action, but it is indicative of what can happen when a single-issue group infects public policy with their own brand of myopia.



report abuse
 

Joseph T

posted March 9, 2007 at 8:07 pm


“So could you please explain to us what self government without regulation would look like? what do you wish to replace the Constitution and the rule of law with? I am seriously curious what you have in mind.” This is a false choice between anarchy and (effectively) communism. You can have a philosophy that government ought to let people self-regulate whenever possible while still acknowledging a role for government. So are you saying we have had 200 years of communism and all the time thought it was a democratic republic? There have been a lot of regulations since 1787. Maybe you could give us a general outline of what should be regulated and what should not.



report abuse
 

Joseph T

posted March 9, 2007 at 8:13 pm


OOPs That middle statement paragraph was from Kevin S



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 9, 2007 at 8:25 pm


Sarasota: why shouldn’t the US adhere to the golden rule regardless of what other countries do? – Do unto others what you would have them do to you. For starters, government is a construct. But if you want to talk about people in government or the way an organic community should operate, I m okay with that. -Treat me with the respect I merit, respect me as an image-bearer, and respond to me with justice tempered by love. Then that, conversely, is our obligation to others. Just understand that sometimes in order to show love to the old lady and the mugger at the same time, you have to knock the mugger unconscious. —- Joseph T ( Anonymous ): So you are saying killing innocents, or torturing prisoners does not defy the will of God? You are really saying that these are things God doesn’t “like”, but God somehow manages to not let it bother the divine conscience too much. “He is not …overcome by them.”? -It does not overcome His will, no. He isn t scrambling to adjust because, oops, things just got out of hand, the poor Guy. Again, He assuredly grieves the horrors and pain of sin, but that doesn t mean that we pulled a fast one on Him.I made an analysis, or an educated theory -All I saw was a judgemental decision regarding James Dobson s character in direct defiance of the man s words (and actions regarding the abortion issue, at least). Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor? (James 4:11-12)you don’t really challenge it’s logic -I m afraid I didn t see too much logic. Just a decision that Dobson doesn t care about abortion based on your own forejudgement.I do not share your theological position on this and I do not think Jesus did either, if you want to go there. -Probably not the time or place, but as a former Arminian, I feel fairly comfortable with where I am.The word government is meaningless without an ability to regulate. -The self-government I refer to speaks of true individual liberty that is, the ability to control oneself. The greater a society s self-government and the more prudential her citizen s are, the less exterior government is needed. The less self-government a society exhibits, the more likely it is that the government will do the regulating for you. That s why they re competitive. – All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them. Roger Winthrop (he goes on to argue that the power within must come from the God of Scripture, but that s more controversial and less directly applicable) -I surely am not an anarcho-Capitalist. I didn t say all outer government is bad merely that self and exterior government are in tension with one another; more of one necessarily means less of the other. It always will be a balance because, on the one hand, no society will ever be fully self-governed, and, on the other hand, authoritarianism is no good. So I suggested no alternative to a mix between self-regulation and the regulation of exterior forces; only that they are competitive. — butch, I m amused that first I m accused of being an anarchist by one poster, then a totalitarian by you. — Don, I’m still wondering what’s anti-Christian, communist, neo-socialist, or immoral about this statement. -Nothing, and I have no comment regarding the Sierra Club because I am not familiar with the organization, but do remember that a mission statement can often sound a lot more seeker-friendly (if you will) than the reality of the organization. I have no idea how true that is with the Sierra Club, so I ll leave that fight to someone else.



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 9, 2007 at 8:32 pm


Sarasota: W certainly couldn’t do that Iraq and Gitmo. -He could try. Hmm I would have others protect the world against terrorists, therefore . I don t think it s valid, but it could be argued. —- Kevin s: This is a false choice between anarchy and (effectively) communism. -I don t think these are true antonyms, though communism always works itself out to totalitarianism, so I kinda agree :).You can have a philosophy that government ought to let people self-regulate whenever possible while still acknowledging a role for government. -Absolutely. — Joseph T There have been a lot of regulations since 1787. Maybe you could give us a general outline of what should be regulated and what should not. -I thought the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution + Bill of Rights did a bang-up job, all around You know, reserved to the states and the people and all that.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 9, 2007 at 9:13 pm


butch, I m amused that first I m accused of being an anarchist by one poster, then a totalitarian by you. Mark P This is about the third time you’ve assigned ideas, positions to me that have no recollection of? Please quote what I say?



report abuse
 

Joseph Tracy

posted March 9, 2007 at 9:55 pm


you don’t really challenge its logic -I m afraid I didn t see too much logic. Just a decision that Dobson doesn t care about abortion based on your own forejudgement.Not only do you not see logic, you don’t understand what I wrote. You should read what I said before writing. I never said Dobson doesn;’t care about abortion.Nor do I think this. I said that I think James Dobson has nothing to gain by acknowledging the human origins of global warming and much to lose in his power base within the Republican party, where fossil fuel lobbies are still very popular and powerful. I am saying that Dobson and many other evangelicals are compromising their moral positions for allegiance to a Party which will not bring about their stated aim of ending abortion in America. The Republicans have increased allowances for particulate and Mercury emissions and the results are measurable by loss of life. Where is the pro-life in that? Republicans under Cheney Bush have used taxpayer dollars to torture human beings who committed no crimes and are completely unaffiliated with terrorism. Where is the pro-life in that? 650,000 dead Iraquis. Where is the pro-life in that? Blacks in Darfur continue to endure Genocidal slaughter. What have the Republican pro-lifers done about that? Please stop calling what I write “decisions”. A decision is a choice to act. I am writing opinions and analyses which I try to support with evidence.Also you should be careful about falsely putting statements in quotation marks. When you put a statement in quotes and ascribe it to someone you are telling the reader these are the actual words of this person. If they are not as in the case of the words you ascribe to Galileo, you are effectively lying. I don’t think this was your intent so you should not have used quote marks, but left your all too empty and inaccurate remarks to stand on their own.I also find your language inappropriate.Mark P said: ” I remember Galileo getting in trouble for being an arrogant prick, and for telling theologians how to do their job… but if you’re asking if I remember Galileo being told exactly how to do his science, I don’t remember that. Let’s not make Galileo a hero. Sure, some in the Church were condemning him for being heliocentric, but most were saying, “Hey, let’s have a discussion about this” while Galileo was saying, “Shut your face. I’m right.””



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted March 9, 2007 at 9:56 pm


Sarasota: W certainly couldn’t do that Iraq and Gitmo. -He could try. Hmm I would have others protect the world against terrorists, therefore . I don t think it s valid, but it could be argued. Mark P He has tried. It shows his moral bankrupcy.



report abuse
 

Joseph Tracy

posted March 9, 2007 at 10:01 pm


That last post was addressed to Mark P. The first paragraph was an excerpt from his post.



report abuse
 

Joseph Tracy

posted March 9, 2007 at 10:29 pm


Mark P said I m amused that first I m accused of being an anarchist by one poster, then a totalitarian by you.I never accused you of being an anarchist. I asked if you are an anarchist trying to find out how deep was your distrust of government regulation. By self government I never meant to be talking about the individual conscience, but participatory government by the consent of the governed as in the phrase- a self governing society. This appears to be a point of honest misinterpretation.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 9, 2007 at 10:31 pm


“I am saying that Dobson and many other evangelicals are compromising their moral positions for allegiance to a Party which will not bring about their stated aim of ending abortion in America.” I don’t think this is true. Rich Cizik is principally responsible for lobbying Republicans. The ddebate is whether to push them to foucs on teh environment or on issues abortion, gay marriage etc…I don’t think that Dobson is willing to compromise his morality for these issues. Rather, I think he just wants to focus on them. Incidentally, the biggest Republican donors area realtor associations, auto dealers, alcohol, and business groups. The biggest donors to Dems are abortion (natch) and union groups. Just an FYI.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 10, 2007 at 3:39 am


Rush Limbaugh on Global Warming and Polar Bear Survival: Polar bears can swim 100 miles. They aren’t like us. We might be “stranded” on an ice floe if there’s no land nearby, and we had no helicopter and no jet ski. We might be in trouble, but they’re polar bears, and they can live in icy cold water by design. They love it. Have you ever been to the polar bear exhibit at the Central Park Zoo? I went to the polar bear exhibit, Central Park Zoo in June and it was scorching hot and one of the polar bears was nowhere to be seen. The other polar bear was outside and the zoo people had to come in with giant blocks of ice every hour or so for the polar bear to lay on. You talk about cruelty. Who’s doing more to hurt polar bears: the Central Park Zoo putting them out there in June in 100 degree temperature needing blocks of ice, or where they’re living, thriving naturally on these ice sculptures made by waves that had nothing to do with global warming or a melting glacier?



report abuse
 

HASH(0x119833d0)

posted March 10, 2007 at 6:05 am


How about some references on your donor info Kevin.



report abuse
 

Christian Beyer

posted March 10, 2007 at 2:19 pm


There may very well be something to the idea that industrialized man has caused the warming of the planet. Yet there are many who say that this is bad science, that the statistics are skewed, that in fact this is only one of many historical thermal swings. Others say that the earth in fact may be warming, that this is not a reversible swing and man may or may not be culpable. But we do not know enough to presume disaster. Certain regions of the earth may suffer but it is possible and concievable that other regions may benefit from wamer temperatures. In each scenario the figures have a tendency to change dramatically as new evidence is presented. There does not appear to be enough evidence that we could comfortably call conclusive to support jumping into radical changes in industrial, economical and cultural policies. Of course we should always avoid polluting and spoiling our earth, and we have been making great strides over the past 40 years or so. But let’s not claim the sky is falling just yet. Too many people could be terribly hurt by rash actions. History proves this time and time again. “Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.”



report abuse
 

jerry

posted March 10, 2007 at 3:35 pm


the moseley post is a pretty well stated case for tolerance of opinions on the dobson issue. the comments here are mostly bickerings between wordsmiths. “it is better to be thought a fool and remain silent than to speak and remove all doubt”. Yes, there does appear to be climate change.



report abuse
 

Doug

posted March 10, 2007 at 4:03 pm


In the last days the bible says many people will follow the Anti-Christ even the elect will. I am not saying the Anti-Christ has arrived but clearly his spirit is alive and well. Global warming is a vehicle he is using to decive many. Christians wake up. Global warming may or not be happening but clearly man has nothing to do with it. Yes I know many scientists say that we are but I don’t believe them. All this is a way for more government control over our lives. Global warming is ant- americanism at its worst. Why is it that China who puts way more pollunants in the air then the USA does is not even talked about. The sad part of all this is that people are willingly going to give up all there freedoms. That is how the enemy works he decieves and does not tell you the whole story. Believe in Global warming but when the policies they put in place because of it destroy our great country tell me if it was worth it. One question for you? They have a hard enough time predicting the weather a week out much less two days and we are going to buy what scientists tell us the weather is going to be like in 50 or 100 yrs. Yeah makes sense to me. Oh yeah I am getting paid by the oil companies just like all the Global warming experts are funded by left wing orgs. who have a poltical ax to grind. Anything the lying Al Gore says is true you know is not. Please people be on your on your guard for the devil prowls around like a lion seeking whom he can devour.



report abuse
 

MacO

posted March 10, 2007 at 4:25 pm


Donny and Don, Blair/ Brown are the confirmed Christian Socialists that led the UK Labour Party into Iraq, and want to end Global Warming. Al Gore has just been over here, and appears not to be Socialist; (is he Christian; I ve no idea?). I am a post-post-evangelical christian, perhaps Socialist, that quit the UK Labour Party over Iraq; but I suspect that Gore has his science wrong, is getting a bit too religious about his subject matter, and may end up harming the poor not saving them. I m still in the Co-operative Party though; but that means I m not a Marxist (by the way). Please get out a bit more, and cool your comments. The UK web-site reference is http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/ UK readers get another chance this programme next week and form their own views. G rdan M Artair Mhic Artair na tir a chladich



report abuse
 

HASH(0x11987f84)

posted March 10, 2007 at 9:05 pm


Thanks, G rdan. I’ll check into it. BTW, I think Al Gore is (or was) a Baptist, but I’m not sure. Someone else knows, no doubt. Later,



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 10, 2007 at 9:06 pm


Oops again. My system keeps wanting to default to ‘anonymous.’ It was me again. :-)



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 10, 2007 at 9:08 pm


Well, that was no good for an English teacher. It was *I*. Cheers!



report abuse
 

Don

posted March 10, 2007 at 9:40 pm


Mark P wrote: “…I have no comment regarding the Sierra Club because I am not familiar with the organization, but do remember that a mission statement can often sound a lot more seeker-friendly (if you will) than the reality of the organization. I have no idea how true that is with the Sierra Club, so I ll leave that fight to someone else.” True, Mark, mission statements are more a form of advertisement than an attempt at objectivity. Though I’ve only had casual contact with the Sierra Club, the people I have met are pretty level-headed, normal Americans. They hardly fit the stereotype of wild-eyed environmental radicals that their political opponents make them out to be. Regarding Kevin’s comments, I’m not familiar with the particular case he mentioned (the levees in New Orleans), and I don’t know when and on what basis they would decide to enter into litigation. So I won’t comment on his statement. I would also say that I tend to support other environmental organizations like The Nature Conservancy (http://www.nature.org/), which buys up private land that is ecologically significant and are less politically activist in nature. I’m also involved with a group known as Wild Ones (http://www.for-wild.org/), which encourages people to adapt biologically diverse landscaping practices through the use of trees, shrubs, and forbes native to their own regions. Peace,



report abuse
 

Amazon Creek

posted March 12, 2007 at 7:51 am


Pardon me, I’ve been a bit busy the past month and a half with work issues…so some of what I say probably would have fit better in responses to previous posts…but now’s when I have the time again. Okay…here goes…. (1) Richard Cizik’s stance on Christians being involved in stopping global warming is not dividing the body of Christ. There are MANY issues that are are of concern to Christians – and I doubt any of us have time to be involved in ALL of them. However, when Dr. Dobsen publicly tells the Christian Church that Cizik’s call for Christians to get involved in the issue of global warming is only taking away from the only REAL issues we Christians should be concerned about – abortion, homosexuality, and the sanctity of the family – excuse me, but that IS dividing the body of Christ. What you choose to become active about should only be a matter between you and God – seeking the guidance of the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. Dr. Dobsen is NOT the Holy Spirit. He is not infallible. And the last time I read MY New Testament it told me in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22: “Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every from of evil.” We are all to have a personal relationship with GOD and His Son, Jesus Christ. And Dr. Dobsen must never supplant that relationship. (2)Starting a witchhunt is ALSO causing division within the body of Christ. Someone should resign because Dr. Dobsen “played the flute and Mr. Cizik didn’t dance”? May I borrow the words of Jesus – such goings-on are like “children in the marketplace”. Are the only ones fit to be in a Christian leadership role those who jump when Dr. Dobsen says to “jump”? Who died and left him boss? Now…having said all that about Dobsen’s letter, I did some googling around on the net, and I DO find myself taking offense at some of Mr. Cizik’s remarks. He made some comments in response to Dr. Dobsen’s letter calling it a response of the old guard as it dies, hand reaching out of the grave, complaining about the new guard. This is supposed to be a convincing line of argument as to whom and what we should listen to? (3)Whether we chose to become involved in stopping global warming should be based on whether or not it is something Jesus would want us to be concerned about, on whether or not it is a way of showing love to the world around us. Does it make us more like Jesus? Not whether or not it is “old guard” or “new guard”… The environment is “in” this year? Whereas it was “out” last year? Last year was gay marriage the “in style” issue? And this year, it is “out of style”. That’s the kind of stuff you say about “fashion statements”. Being “old” or “new” or “in” or “out” matter when you’re discussing poodle skirts, leisure suits, fishnet stockings, platform shoes, and hemline lengths. But how do such concerns weigh what Christian values we are to have? And what we choose to spend our limited time on? They shouldn’t. If we are concerned about what’s “in style” to determine how we spend our time – then we are mighty shallow Christians and even humans. Those are worldly concerns. Our concerns are to be“if the salt of the earth has lost it’s flavor…then it is good for absolutely nothing – but to be thrown out!” We are to seek to be distinctively like our leader, Jesus Christ. I think Mr. Cizik should stop saying things like that. Christian values are timeless. Now, how we communicate them changes with the times – in an effort to communicate clearly, just like Jesus did. But…the values are not weighted by what’s “old guard” or “new guard”. Lastly, one of government’s jobs is to “protect” the rights of ALL – not just “some”. My right to “do-what-I-want-to-do” ENDS – where I start negatively impacting my neighbors. I would truly enjoy the freedom of playing my radio after 10 pm. However, the walls in my apartment are paper thin – and I would be keeping my neighbors awake. So…yes, if I’m disturbing my neighbors, I would EXPECT the local police would have every right to come knocking at my door and sharply curtail my perceived personal liberty. That is NOT too much government. That is government looking out for the rights of ALL – for the common good. And at whatever point, my freewheeling spirt starts to cause floods for others and horrible weather because of my lifestyle, again, yes – the government has a duty to step in and play referee – to protect the rights of ALL, not just me. Will that involve a lot of open discussion as to where to draw the line? Yes. Will the place to draw the line always be clear? No. But somewhere, sometime, somehow, the line has to be drawn.



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted March 13, 2007 at 1:37 am


Joseph T: “When you put a statement in quotes and ascribe it to someone you are telling the reader these are the actual words of this person. If they are not as in the case of the words you ascribe to Galileo, you are effectively lying.” -I’m sure many people were confused and thought that I was actually quoting a 17th century Italian. “I don’t think this was your intent so you should not have used quote marks, but left your all too empty and inaccurate remarks to stand on their own.” -By manner of clarification, I suppose I should probably not make the Church out to be as guiltless as I did. The Church authorities certainly made some dramatic mistakes, and the further the issue progressed, the more bullheaded and errant the Church’s actions became. HOWEVER, what I meant to emphasize was that Galileo was not an innocent scientist immediately attacked by all the blind clergy. The initial reception was mixed, and many (most?) of the clery and ecclesiastical authorities did not in the least outright reject his theories, only saying (rightly) that they required more investigation, advising caution, prudence, and humility. Galileo, a remarkably abrasive fellow given his martyr reputation, exercised little of any of those three, pushing the matter to a head. The Church felt threatened, and struck back violently and wrongly. -The main point was to not see Galileo as an innocent martyr of dogma, but to recognize that he did not help his case by some of his abrasive posturing. “I also find your language inappropriate.” -Out of curiousity, which language? Really. I’m confused.



report abuse
 

Pingback: "a cool way to improve"

google

posted July 10, 2014 at 7:39 pm


Try and stick to linking only to companies you can relate to and always remember, like with chocolate eggs
at Easter, moderation is key. Meyers continues on to describe the correlation between this “shrinkage” and the presence of “sitelinks” within listings.
It allows users to see all the daily changes in any
security’s stock price without having to visit financial sites.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.