Jim Wallis: Dobson and Friends, Outside the Mainstream, Get Personal on Global Warming
Once again, the hard-core Religious Right has gone on the attack, orchestrating a new campaign to advance their Far Right political views. In a letter to the chairman of the National Evangelical Association Board, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, and their cohorts claim that “The existence of global warming and its implications for mankind is a subject of heated controversy throughout the world.” And even more bizarre, there was another report this morning that in his sermon last Sunday, Jerry Falwell claimed the debate over global warming is a tool of Satan being used to distract churches from their primary focus of preaching the gospel. Falwell, Dobson, and their friends are wrong, and this time their attack shows just how far outside the evangelical mainstream the Religious Right's views have become.
The truth, which almost everyone except them acknowledges, is there is little reasonable doubt left about the threat posed to the earth by climate change. There is an international consensus among scientists, religious leaders, business leaders, and economists that we must act, and act now, to preserve a world for our children. Just a month ago, the leading international network of climate change scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that it is with 90% certainty due to human activity. The New York Times called the report “a bleak and powerful assessment of the future of the planet....” You can read the full report.
But the Religious Right is also now personally targeting the NAE’s vice president for governmental affairs, Rich Cizik. They claim that Cizik is “dividing and demoralizing the NAE” by orchestrating a “relentless campaign” opposing global warming. And they end by suggesting that “he be encouraged to resign his position with the NAE.”
Cizik, far from dividing evangelicals, is part of a broad evangelical consensus on global warming. He is a respected evangelical leader who is bringing Christians together to address the growing danger of climate change, and is literally a hero to a new generation of evangelical students and pastors. That new generation has made “creation care” a mainstream evangelical issue. A statement last year by the Evangelical Climate Initiative, signed by 86 national evangelical leaders, including 39 Christian college presidents, noted that “we are convinced that evangelicals must engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or humanity's responsibility to address it.” The statement added: “Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action.”
Sen. John McCain, in an op-ed with Sen. Joe Lieberman, recently declared: “The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity. … There is now a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it.” In a powerful commentary in this morning's Washington Post, "The Climate Change Precipice", David Ignatius wrote, "The scientific debate about whether there is a global warming problem is pretty much over. ... Skeptical researchers will continue to question the data, but this isn't a 'call both sides for comment’ issue anymore. For mainstream science, it's settled."
But the Religious Right is so used to being able to veto debates by their proclamations that when they see they are losing, they go on the attack. So if they think the debate is not over, let’s have a debate. We will respond; stay tuned next week.
The truth, which almost everyone except them acknowledges, is there is little reasonable doubt left about the threat posed to the earth by climate change. There is an international consensus among scientists, religious leaders, business leaders, and economists that we must act, and act now, to preserve a world for our children. Just a month ago, the leading international network of climate change scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that it is with 90% certainty due to human activity. The New York Times called the report “a bleak and powerful assessment of the future of the planet....” You can read the full report.
But the Religious Right is also now personally targeting the NAE’s vice president for governmental affairs, Rich Cizik. They claim that Cizik is “dividing and demoralizing the NAE” by orchestrating a “relentless campaign” opposing global warming. And they end by suggesting that “he be encouraged to resign his position with the NAE.”
Cizik, far from dividing evangelicals, is part of a broad evangelical consensus on global warming. He is a respected evangelical leader who is bringing Christians together to address the growing danger of climate change, and is literally a hero to a new generation of evangelical students and pastors. That new generation has made “creation care” a mainstream evangelical issue. A statement last year by the Evangelical Climate Initiative, signed by 86 national evangelical leaders, including 39 Christian college presidents, noted that “we are convinced that evangelicals must engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or humanity's responsibility to address it.” The statement added: “Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action.”
Sen. John McCain, in an op-ed with Sen. Joe Lieberman, recently declared: “The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity. … There is now a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it.” In a powerful commentary in this morning's Washington Post, "The Climate Change Precipice", David Ignatius wrote, "The scientific debate about whether there is a global warming problem is pretty much over. ... Skeptical researchers will continue to question the data, but this isn't a 'call both sides for comment’ issue anymore. For mainstream science, it's settled."
But the Religious Right is so used to being able to veto debates by their proclamations that when they see they are losing, they go on the attack. So if they think the debate is not over, let’s have a debate. We will respond; stay tuned next week.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
For mainstream science, evolution is settled as well. For mainstream science, there never was a Flood. For mainstream science, the resurrection and virgin birth are false. Mainstream science is staffed by intellectuals dedicated to maintaining the power and prestige of the state. Any time they can devise an issue with the result that the state needs to do something they will.
I will not say that there does not exist evidence for climate change. I do not know. The evidence has not been plainly delivered to the public. Rhetoric has. Rhetoric which has almost always been paired with a government empowering solution.
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | March 2, 2007 9:32 PM
I share some of the concerns of the signers of that letter. Particularly that Cizik is acting as if he speaks for all evangelicals. While I believe that climate change is taking place, what should be done about it, I believe, lies outside the realm of religous leaders. It's essentially a scientific and political decision. As Christians we should work to protect God's creation, but we should also think about the ramifications of the "solutions" to climate change we support. The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance makes some good points about this. In addition, I do worry that issues like climate change can distract Christians from other missions such as evangelism. For example, look at all the type spent on this subject on this blog.
Posted by: Eric | March 2, 2007 9:40 PM
Jim: Let Dobson, Bauer, and Falwell argue themselves into irrelevance, if that is their desire. It's sad to hear their assertions that the NEA is being divisive; the reality is that it is they who are perpetuating division here by insisting that we ignore this issue. If Christians refrain and refuse to speak out on this issue, we will become irrelevant also. Yes, missions and evangelism are vital, but since the scriptures speak to every area of life, we have an obligation to work in other areas as well. I for one refuse to be silenced on this issue, and I'm glad you won't be either. I'll be interested in reading what you have to say next week! "Mainstream science is staffed by intellectuals dedicated to maintaining the power and prestige of the state." This is a blatantly false statement and betrays ignorance of how science operates. Mainstream science is staffed by scientists who are dedicated to doing the best science they can do. They are no more political than any other profession. The postings by Squeaky on the earlier global warming thread do a good job of revealing how scientists approach their work. Thanks, Jim, for posting this. It gives me another reason to continue praying for our Chirstian leaders. Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 2, 2007 10:07 PM
"There is an international consensus among scientists, religious leaders, business leaders, and economists that we must act, and act now, to preserve a world for our children." This is not the consensus view at all. The consensus is that global warming is real. The writers of the letter concede this fact, and acknowledge that people can draw different conclusions about the implications of global warming, and what we must do.
You then shoehorn a much more extreme Jerry Falwell comment into your commentary, and pretend that his statements are materially the same. You know what your doing, here, Jim.
So yes Jim. Let's have a debate, an honest and fair one. What do you think should be done? What scientific consensus is there that this is the correct path? Why don't you put forth your plan, being a self-proclaimed prophet and all?
After all, your so critical of Mr. Perkins etc... That surely you must have it figured out.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 2, 2007 10:08 PM
"Jerry Falwell claimed the debate over global warming is a tool of Satan being used to distract churches from their primary focus of preaching the gospel." Jerry Falsewell/Foulwell is a known liar and hatemonger. Why should anything that procedes out of his mouth be believed? "Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and their friends are wrong, and this time, their attack shows just how far outside the evangelical mainstream the religious right has become." THIS TIME?????????
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | March 2, 2007 10:09 PM
"Let's have a debate, an honest and fair one." Pardon me while I choke and snicker, kevin. I have YET to see any evidence that you are interested in such an "honest" or "fair" "debate". It is called "faith" for a reason. Science NEVER enters into it.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | March 2, 2007 10:12 PM
"While I believe that climate change is taking place, what should be done about it, I believe, lies outside the realm of religous leaders." So let's leave everything up to secularists, Eric? Don't religious leaders have an obligation to speak prophetically to our nation's leaders, politicians, and policymakers? Maybe we're not all in agreement about what should be done aobut climate change, but maybe we should be informing the debate. Too often in the past, religious leaders have been silent about crises; maybe we need them to speak out now and again.
Posted by: Don | March 2, 2007 10:17 PM
Kevin's grasping for straws on this one. Man, you just have to oppose Wallis on everything don't you. Maybe a good first step Kevin would be for the Church to stand up for stewardship.
Posted by: Will H. | March 2, 2007 10:41 PM
"No more political than any other profession." Hmm... My mechanic is political. He believes in the second ammendment. The bumper sticker on his truck says so. But, he's not paid by the government. Who pays scientists? Sometimes corporations do. Sometimes students at research universities do. But an awful lot of money supporting scientific discovery is paid for by the government. People are always hesitant to bite the hand that feeds them, and are often inclined to make their bosses look good. They always like to have their respective budgets expanded, as well. To claim science is completely objective is shortsighted.
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | March 2, 2007 10:44 PM
Agreed science is seldom unbiased but that doesn't make it unnecessary or irrelevant. p
Posted by: Payshun | March 2, 2007 10:48 PM
"Kevin's grasping for straws on this one. Man, you just have to oppose Wallis on everything don't you. Maybe a good first step Kevin would be for the Church to stand up for stewardship." Couldn't one fairly say to Wallis that he just has to oppose Dobson on everything?
At any rate, he has taken words out of context in order to malign Christian men who are making a point that isn't really even about global warming.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 2, 2007 11:35 PM
I believe there is a lot of confusion among the general population about what science is. An essential component to the scientific method is publishing the methodology and results of an experiment. This allows other investigators to review the study for errors and repeat the experiment. A sound study with sound conclusions can be replicated by independent investigators. Scientific integrity is a serious ethical issue, but the peer-review process weeds out unsound methodology and bias. Reading about a study in the popular press is not a sufficient basis for a claim about the validity of the study. You need to read the original study and/or read comments about the study that are published in peer-reviewed science journals. I suspect few of the people who post here have actually read articles about global warming in peer-reviewed science journals. You re entitled to an opinion on the subject, but please don t try to convince me that you have an informed opinion on the subject unless you can reference criticism of the work on global warming from peer-reviewed science publications. Peace!
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 2, 2007 11:48 PM
juristnaturist: I didn't say scientists were unbiased. Nobody is unbiased. I only said they were on the whole no more political than other professions. They are not collectively dedicated to maintaining "the power and prestige of the state," which is what you said, whatever you meant by that. There is no grand, secret scientific conspiracy to use science as a prop for expanding state power. Most research scientists, which is what we are talking about here, are dedicated first and foremost to the research they are doing, regardless of the funding source for their work. They publish their findings in journals whose article submissions are scrutinized by other scientists to make sure the science in the article is sound before the decision to publish it is made. This is called peer review. Spend some time in a lab and/or talking with some scientists about what they do. Learn how scientists do their work before making blanket statements about what they are dedicating themselves to. Peace,
Posted by: HASH(0x1227e4c0) | March 2, 2007 11:48 PM
Oops! My last post was signed "anonymous" again. Sorry. Don
Posted by: Don | March 2, 2007 11:49 PM
"You re entitled to an opinion on the subject, but please don t try to convince me that you have an informed opinion on the subject unless you can reference criticism of the work on global warming from peer-reviewed science publications." If I grant you that global warming is occurring, and that humans are contributing to it, is there anything else the peer-reviewed science journals would reveal about this issue (e.g. what measures we could take, and what the projected outcome would be?). That is the question that speaks to the content of this letter.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 2, 2007 11:51 PM
Seems clear to me that part of the reason Dobson, Falwell and Co. are upset is that they don't "own" the global warming issue.
As new leadership emerges in the evangalical community, and young evangelicals embrace issues other than those traditionally promoted by Dobson, Falwell, etc. these gentlemen are losing control of many of the constituents they once controlled, and they see their share of power diminishing.
Frankly, this reminds me of Roman Catholic Bishops valuing their power more than the protection of children from pedophile priests. That's why Lord Acton made his famous statement: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Posted by: Alicia | March 3, 2007 12:11 AM
Anonymous writes to juristnaturist: "I didn't say scientists were unbiased. Nobody is unbiased. I only said they were on the whole no more political than other professions. They are not collectively dedicated to maintaining "the power and prestige of the state," which is what you said, whatever you meant by that." Just try getting scientists to line up to maintain "the power and prestige of the state". It would be like trying to herd cats. If you want to get scientists to agree, show them good science. As for the notion that scientists will follow the money and the political winds of their benefactors... Well, assuming that's true and given the current administration's *clear* message about where they'd hoped global warming research would point, I would have thought scientists would have gone the other way.
jurisnaturalist wrote: "For mainstream science, evolution is settled as well. For mainstream science, there never was a Flood." Well, with those examples, I'd say that mainstream science did pretty well.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | March 3, 2007 12:45 AM
Interesting listening to non-scientist talking about scientist in such a un-scientific way.
Posted by: butch | March 3, 2007 12:51 AM
Kevin S: "So yes Jim. Let's have a debate, an honest and fair one. What do you think should be done? What scientific consensus is there that this is the correct path? Why don't you put forth your plan, being a self-proclaimed prophet and all?" Translation= Jim, I don't like what you're saying because it does not fit my troll, Bush lackey, religious right paradigm so say it my way or I'll accuse you of being disingenuous (which in fact I am).
Posted by: Ytufacistatambien | March 3, 2007 1:50 AM
Just a thought but - I think that the people that are supporting "Global Warming" and they are now using the term "Climate Change" might be hedging a bit incase a few years down the road we find out that they are 'wrong' about their theory on global warming and then they can say that we were talking about 'climate change'. Kinda fits the change over the years of those that were 'pro-abortion' to 'pro-choice' and now it is reproductive rights. Just a thought - later .
Posted by: moderatelad | March 3, 2007 2:00 AM
butch: "Any who interfere with a careful assessment of this question are dangerous and irresponsible." And I, among others, have been trying to persuade Kevin and other similarly-minded readers to begin just such a careful assessment of the question. I can't imaging how calling him a "Repbubli-Nazi" and now the devil will encourage him to do that, in my opinion. I sense that Kevin has actually begun modifying his thinking just through participating in this debate. Just a tiny little bit, perhaps, but baby steps are important here. Maybe you don't want to play nice, but if we're going to have any chance to influence the thinking of those who are still in denial on this issue, I think we need to play nice, at least for a while yet. Or to put it biblically, I think we're called to be wise as serpents but innocent as doves. If the stakes are as high as you claim, and I'm inclined to think they are, we need as many people convinced as possible. Just a thought,
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2007 2:16 AM
I wouldn't view using the term "climate change" as a means of hedging about "global warming". The world *is* warming. Climates *are* changing and a component behind that change is definitely global warming. But as other have noted, the fact that the average surface temperatures of the Earth are rising doesn't mean that some areas won't get cooler, or wetter, or drier & etc. as a result.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | March 3, 2007 2:30 AM
moderatelad: "Climate change" is simply a more accurate term to describe the situation than "global warming" is. It has nothing to do with hedging. The climates of the earth are changing as a result of atmospheric warming. But the warming will not be evenly distributed throughout the earth. Already, arctic regions have been warming at a much faster rate than the mid-latitude regions. Hope that clarifies a bit,
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2007 2:40 AM
"And I, among others, have been trying to persuade Kevin and other similarly-minded readers to begin just such a careful assessment of the question." Don, this is a bit condescending. I've given a careful assessment to the situation. I went to a school in Michigan that was heavily invested in the environmental movement, where I was taught that climate change would result in the next dust bowl by 2012.
I even wrote a rap song entitled "2012" where global warming would be the end of us (I was 9).
I live as close as I can afford to live to my job, and drive as efficient of a car as I can afford. My wife and I are on the diligent end of the recycling scale.
I am just wary of the power of government to solve this problem, and I am aware that scientists DO have a tendency to get swept up in hysteria (remember Monkey Pox?).
That doesn't means scientists are dumb, or that I don't care about global warming. I just want to move with caution when it comes to changes that will have drastic economic effects (e.g. $2/gallon gas taxes).
Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2007 3:22 AM
I'm encouraged by the "comments" on this topic. Perhaps we've moved beyond (endless) debate to discussion... sharing ideas, not to "win", but to communicate... If this trend continues, I think this blog will begin to offer something of value... In my view...
Posted by: Mike Hayes | March 3, 2007 3:48 AM
This is in response to attacks that occurred many posts prior to this. My recollection is that Dobsen (spelling?), Falwell, and Robertson were the ones who first "shot John". Jim Wallis responded to their unopposed influence on voters as they considered the options for voting for candidates and for contacts with elected officials. "Change the wind" was a reaction to the narrow "values" that were being promoted by those three, unopposed by any other nationally recognized religious leaders. Jim Wallis and Sojourners filled a gap... provided balance...
Posted by: Mike Hayes | March 3, 2007 4:08 AM
Kevin S writes: "I am just wary of the power of government to solve this problem, and I am aware that scientists DO have a tendency to get swept up in hysteria....That doesn't means scientists are dumb, or that I don't care about global warming. I just want to move with caution when it comes to changes that will have drastic economic effects (e.g. $2/gallon gas taxes)." I agree in part to some of your reasoning. Government isn't really the answer. I say this because government changes every two years with the election cycles. The answer really starts with each one of us--grassroots, and all that. If we want change, it has to start with each of us, how we live our lives, where and what we purchase, who we vote for, and the demands we make of our elected officials. So, if government can't do it, then it IS up to us, and hence, the green movement among evangelicals is not only warranted, it is vital. As for economics--you need to remember that gas prices are completely and artificailly low. They haven't risen with inflation, for example. For another thing, we have the technology to get much higher gas mileage, and if gas prices go up, so do sales of fuel efficient vehicles. If Detroit starts seeing consumers go for Toyotas and Hondas, they will follow suit and start increasing gas mileage. BUT as we have seen time and time again, this only will happen if gas prices are HIGH. This last fall, gas prices were high, and sales on fuel efficient vehicles were very high, and for the first time in a long time, I heard fuel efficiency advertised on car ads. Then gas prices dipped again, and sales of SUV's were up. The American consumer is fickle--mostly because we don't know anything about energy. We prefer big and powerful to small and efficient. The gas mileage in our vehicles is significantly lower than it was in the late 70's and 80's, after the US responded to OPEC's oil embargo. We DO have it in us to conserve and use our resources wisely, but we don't do it, because, well, it's human nature to be gluttons.
(This is why I don't get Dobson and others who are so out to preserve our lifestyle in this nation--our lifestyle is one of waste, gluttony, selfishness and greed, and our entire economy is based on those principles. Dobson et al, are all about morality, but they are selective in the morality they choose to focus on. The ironic thing is that a high percentage of marriages that end in divorce do so because of money issues (this according to Dr. Phil--I do my research =)). ) But let's look at two approaches: Carter put on a sweater and gave us a fire-side chat asking us to conserve. And we DID. Reagan and Cheney/Bush thought/think it is unseemly of America to have to save and to be careful with our resources--we're the most powerful nation in the world, afterall. Why should we worry? Thus began the 80's "me" generation. So, I guess this gets back to the question of whether the government can help--well, it can, with the right leadership putting faith in us as a nation and asking this of us.
Economics again--there certainly ARE ways around the global climate problem, and there are economic solutions, but as long as oil and coal remain artificially cheap, it will be hard to realize those solutions. If the true cost of oil and coal were factored in, as I said on a previous blog, alternatives would suddenly be cheaper, which would encourage innovation and competition in the renewables market, and that would create jobs and stimulate the economy. Oil and coal do not want to see this, and they paid big money to get a president in the white house who sees things there way. Don't be naive about their influence on this nation's energy policies. Oh--and here's a non-global climate change reason to get away from oil and develop renewables. We're running out of the stuff. Google Hubbert Curve, and that should tell you a lot. Oh, and one more reason to get away from oil--we don't have enough of it in the US, so we are completely dependent on the Middle East. They have a lot of power, and it is only going to get worse for us because they are the only region in the world that has huge oil reserves. No one else comes even close.
Posted by: Squeaky | March 3, 2007 5:12 AM
As for answers and appropriate means of achieving those answers within the efficiencies a capitalist frameworkcombined with good public policy, I would like to highly recommend "Natural Capitalism", by Paul Hawken and Amory and Hunter Lovins(Rocky Mountain Institute).These people are brilliant, successful business people who have shown the market power of quality and good design.
The book is all about incentivizing environmentally friendly capitalism using existing technology and promoting ever cleaner and more efficient technology and design.The succeses they describe are amazingly business like,life friendly, people friendly, and they provide an amazing array of examples of ingenuity and system engineering at it's best. The core idea is simple. There is no "away" for our industrial and consumer waste. The whole planet is downstream. We must learn to live sustainably with the abundant natural budget of light, air, water, soil, biological growth and wisdom.Conservation, reordering market incentives to reflect true environmental costs, and incentives for efficiency, waste prevention and eco innovation are the first frontiers. The biggest failure of traditional economics is that it fails to recognize values that are not quantifiable financially like the health of pollinators, soil, wetlands, glaciers, snowpack, etc. The earth is a complex system in which every part plays a role and the health of the whole requires respect for that truth . It is ike the Pauls comparison of the body and its members to the community of God's love and its members. God gave us a gardenand tasked us to care for it, And as Neil Young asks, "What will people do after the Garden is gone?
Another good book dealing with broader topics food, supply water, population pressures is "Plan B 2.0 " by Lester Brown. There are many more.
Posted by: Joseph T | March 3, 2007 5:13 AM
Really a great collection of thoughts on this topic. I really like what squeaky had to say about the answers. Away from empire. Toward informed grass roots democracy. Right now we are acting like kindergartners fighting over tha sand box. If we can just learn to share , we may get into God's first grade class.
Posted by: Joseph T | March 3, 2007 5:26 AM
Joseph T--good post! I will look into those book suggestions.
I finished up Erik Reece's "Lost Mountain" last week, which is about mountain top mining (every page made me angry-you all should read it. In fact, you all NEED to read it). In the last chapter, he talks about what you are saying above--we have moved into this mechanized world in which we are so far removed from the earth, and we no longer understand our connection to it, or the interconnectedness of systems within the earth and how our actions affect those balances. And a lot of this comes from our western concept of rugged individualism. We think only of ourselves, and we forget that our actions have consequences for other people, some of whom can't defend themselves. If we realize that we are connected to each other and that we are all part of community, we would be more focused on each other than ourselves, and we would be more focused on building sustainable communities. But in our mindset, we aren't connected. This is a western construct, and one that I think has dramatic repercussions on our society, and even our fellowship as believers...
Posted by: Squeaky | March 3, 2007 5:31 AM
I did want to address Butch--Butch, I frequent a science blog run by a very outspoken atheist (I've learned a lot about atheists), and so often the rhetoric over there turns nasty and snarky. Nasty, snarky, name-calling comments may be fine for that blog (although, I have argued time and time again for more respectful rhetoric over there), but it has no place in a discussion between Christians or in comments made by Christians. My hypothesis as to why it is so easy to move into stereotyping each other is that the internet has made us all faceless. Remember--there are actual people posting here, and they all have value in the eyes of the Lord, even if you don't agree with what they believe. You can disagree, but you can also be respectful. It is NOT difficult. It really isn't.
Posted by: Squeaky | March 3, 2007 5:37 AM
Squeaky If the issues weren't so large I would agree but great harm can come from this. And, I simply feel that some are evil or willing to let evil prosper. I point out that Hitler and others managed their horror with many complicit people.
Posted by: butch | March 3, 2007 6:07 AM
Eastern cultures (and Native Americans) seem to have a sense of connectedness with nature that those among us who are descendants of immigrants from Europe seem to lack... Manifest destiny...?
Posted by: Mike Hayes | March 3, 2007 6:21 AM
I'm truly in favor of conservation, mainly because we can see the immediate effects of pollution on the environment. And it's plainly obvious that the surface temperatures on the earth are rising.
But the anthropogenic warming argument begins to lose credibility when its proponents say that there's a consensus. The only way there's a consensus is if you only count the opinions of people who agree with you. Check the Canada Free Press and this link for quoted statements and research from highly credentialed climate scientists who disagree with the anthropogenic hypothesis.
But rather than have that "honest and fair" discussion with the opposing view, those in favor of man-made global warming ignore them, or say they're going against the "consensus" (which isn't really possible, because if there's dissent, there's no consensus).
And if the statements of Dr. Heidi Cullen on the Weather Channel are any indication, the peer review process is worthless, because those peers wouldn't take the time to look at the research of anyone who believes the current warming is natural.
Based on the research I've looked at from both sides (and if you haven't looked at quality research from both sides of the issue, you aren't giving the issue the attention you say it deserves), the anthropogenic side seems to rely on the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc: After it, therefore because of it. Just because the warming began after the industrial revolution doesn't mean it was caused by industry. And when you look at the graphs, the warming started more than a century after industry took off. Check #3 here for evidence of us lowering pollution even as we consume more, and look at the statistics on the actual amount of greenhouse gases in the air.
This is an issue with two sides. And no Don, we're not in denial about it, we just draw different conclusions from the data. And, BTW, you've set a good example on how to disagree in a civil way. Thanks.
Posted by: Elmo | March 3, 2007 6:29 AM
The letter from Dobson et al says also: "...Mr. Cizik not only believes that global warming is an indisputable fact, but he also holds related views that he has not been willing to reveal to the membership at large... We ask, how is population control going to be achieved if not by promoting abortion, the distribution of condoms to the young, and, even by infanticide in China and elsewhere? Is this where Richard Cizik would lead us?...". So, there is no need for concern about the rate of population growth and the adequacy of the earth to continue supporting population growth absent birth control...? Those who do recognize that fact are supporters of infanticide...?
Posted by: Mike Hayes | March 3, 2007 6:37 AM
"or say they're going against the "consensus" (which isn't really possible, because if there's dissent, there's no consensus). " More word games as if the degradation of our planet is a parlor game for English majors. The over whelming majority of climate scientist believe that man is contributing to global warming. Who wants to check my spelling and grammar?
Posted by: butch | March 3, 2007 7:39 AM
Previous comment: Who pays scientists? Sometimes corporations do. Sometimes students at research universities do. But an awful lot of money supporting scientific discovery is paid for by the government. People are always hesitant to bite the hand that feeds them, and are often inclined to make their bosses look good. They always like to have their respective budgets expanded, as well. Who pays Dobson? I know he gets $$ from his listeners but doesn't he get money from big business too? I am throwing that out there, not rhetorically but as a question. I think I heard somewhere that he gets a substantial amount of money from these vested interests. Does anybody know anything about this?
Posted by: Jim M | March 3, 2007 11:11 AM
The main problem is that global warming needed to be addressed decades ago when it was first accepted. We here in the USA have been living a lie since Reagan was president. Jimmy Carter tried to fund alternative fuels but Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr cut off funds and gave oil government support. Reagan actually had one Middle East oil producer under cut the rest of the oil producers in the area and that is what has caused the last two Iraq wars. Bush Jr as soon as he took office shut down the ethanol plant that was built under Carter's administration. And now he's for it? The big problem is what comes next: let s try Earth changes. Before the last Earth change America was under the artic.
Posted by: sharon | March 3, 2007 11:36 AM
Kevin: I took a break. Sorry for sounding condescending, but I simply assumed that one purpose all of us are posting here is to be persuasive. I don't think we would bother writing if we didn't think what we said was important. You talk about gasoline prices, and I have also. You don't want the government to manipluate prices by taxing petroleum products. But Squeaky is right. Americans won't conserve as long as gasoline is relatively cheap. And even when the prices go up, like they did last summer, Americans are reluctant to conserve, because they always want to think that the prices will go down. If the prices were in the $3.50 - $4.50 per gallon range--and if everyone knew they were going to stay there--we would see conservation and innovation, and startup businesses offering alternative energy technologies. And it would all be done *without* intrusive government intervention, which is what you are trying to avoid. Let's talk about that for a moment. Squeaky mentioned the fuel crisis of the 1970s. One result of that crisis was that Congress passed fuel economy standards for auto manufacturers, in order to raise fuel economy. The auto industry balked, but they could do nothing. The result was a complicated formula for figuring whether they were complying or not. It did work--for a while. Overall fuel economy improved quite a bit. But by the mid 1980s, the auto industry had figured out an end run. Light trucks were exempt from the more stringent standards because Congress figured most smaller trucks were used by farmers and other small businesses, who needed a break from the standards. So the auto industry created a class of passenger vehicles that could be classified as trucks. And the SUV craze was born. Fuel economy began slipping, until now it is worse than it was in the early '80s. If Congress had slapped on a gasoline tax to keep the price higher, fuel economy would have improved and innovative alternatives to burning petroleum would have been created, all *without* a complicated, difficult regulatory system of fuel economy standards. Plus, we would have no SUV behemoths clogging our highways. A gasoline tax would have another big benefit, one related to national security. Every time oil prices jump, the oppressive regimes in the Middle East are enriched. The Saudi government uses massive amounts of oil revenue to propagate and promote their strict, fundamentalist version of Islam known as Wahhabism around the world. President Chavez in Venezuela is buying off his citizenry with oil profits to consolidate his power. Efforts to promote representative government in many regions of the world are stymied because oil revenue, from the Middle East to Russia to Venezuela, keeps oppressive governments in power and helps them avoid reforming. A gasoline tax, by reducing consumption here in the US, would help us keep the money here for our own uses instead of sending it to the Wahhabis and other promoters of oppression. Finally, as I mentioned before, a gasoline tax could be used to help level the playing field in our highly inefficient and skewed transportation system. The government's current transport policies favor the auto, trucking, and road-building industries, to the detriment of more efficient transport methods. You and others have written that there's no market for rail transport in the USA. I think you are wrong. High-speed rail would find a ready and eager market. If someone could take a high-speed train from, say, Cincinnati to St. Louis, or from Chicago to Pittsburgh, in less time than flying would take (when you factor in the time needed for airport security and waiting around), a lot of people would be glad to do it. Amtrak, you say, is a drain on the economy. I invite you to go to an Amtrak station anywhere on the east coast, from Charlottesville, Virginia to Boston, and see how full the trains are. Improving rail service could be one big way to reduce our carbon emissions. Reducing our dependence on private motor vehicles has to be a goal for reducing our use of carbon-emitting fuel. So a lot can be done simply with a gasoline tax, and without other, more intrusive government interference. In fact, we could probably eliminate the current auto fuel economy standards; the price of gasoline would by itself make sure that automakers built fuel efficient vehicles. As Squeaky said, the current price of fuel is artificially low. It was low even last summer when we were paying over $3.00 a gallon. It hasn't kept up with inflation. Moreover, when the environmental and social costs of gasoline use are factored in, the current prices are abysmally low. The results have been wasteful usage, increased carbon emissions, loss of community, road rage, urban sprawl, you name it. Even without global climate change, we ought to be concerned about conserving and being efficient in the use of a limited resource like petroleum. Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2007 12:08 PM
Elmo: T"his is an issue with two sides. And no Don, we're not in denial about it, we just draw different conclusions from the data. And, BTW, you've set a good example on how to disagree in a civil way. Thanks." Thanks for the compliment, Elmo. :-) It's part of my training, I guess. I try to teach my composition students how to argue in a respectful way.
My concern about what you wrote above is that I don't know about any real quality research that is *opposing* the anthropogenic view. We've been around this topic before; the independent, peer-reviewed scientific journals carry very little, if any, evidence that counters this view. Those who are saying they aren't sure humans are contributing to climate change are mostly those in the pay of the oil, coal, and other energy industries. Regarding the peer review process itself, sure, nothing that involves fallible humans is perfect. But while it's easy to say that the peer reviewers simply refuse to publish articles that take issue with the "consensus" view, one must realize that the peer review process isn't intended to weed out controversial views. In science, controversy actually is highly valued. If someone were to challenge the prevailing scientific view on just about any issue--and have the evidence to back it up and a method for generating that evidence that is repeatable--he or she would over time be hailed as genius, hero, or something similar. But that's the point. The evidence has to be supportable through rigorous testing, and other scientists have to be able to duplicate the results. The peer review process is designed to weed out faulty methodologies, not contrary opinions. The reason the peer reviewed journals no longer publish climate articles that counter the anthropogenic view is that nobody with a contrary view has been able to submit an article that that passes this rigorous methodology test. In principle, the anthropogenic view is subject to modification and even discarding in the face of contrary evidence. But the evidence has to pass scientific scrutiny. In practice, nobody with a contrary viewpoint has been able to do that. Therefore, unless and until someone can demonstrate that the anthropogenic view is based on inadequate or faulty evidence or methodology, it will stand as the prevailing view. Mike Hayes: "So, there is no need for concern about the rate of population growth and the adequacy of the earth to continue supporting population growth absent birth control...? Those who do recognize that fact are supporters of infanticide...?"
Good point, Mike. I missed this red herring in Dobson et al's letter to the National Evangelical Assn. Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2007 12:42 PM
Donny -- To quote Falwell in denouncing Wallis in 2004, your views are "as evangelical as an oak tree."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 3, 2007 1:59 PM
Jim M, Dobsen gets enough money from some sources that part of his organization that is not tax exempt...http://www.citizenlink.org/ So, they can endorse specific candidates during election campaigns...
Posted by: Mike Hayes | March 3, 2007 3:23 PM
Don, Your contributions in substance and tone are appreciated very much. I too am puzzled as to why Kevin is treated the way he is. I wish others had your sensibilities regarding what is and what isn't offensive. I appreciated your discussion of "peer review", and while I agree that it is something the many academics aspire to, would it be fair to say that sometimes academia does not live up to it's aspirations? I am back in school after being away for about 25 years, and I find the intellectually stifling effects of political correctness saddening, if not frightening. My studies are not in the natural sciences so I am not in a position to comment on your substance, but it would not suprise me that some of the entrenched orthodoxies in the sciences are just as defensive as I am seeing in the social sciences. Not wanting to make too big a point of it, just a caution on the "infallability" of academia. And, no I am not saying you were claiming that they are infallible. cheers, Paul
Posted by: Paul | March 3, 2007 4:05 PM
I said "Looking for a point where everyone pays the same price per mile driven." This does agree with my point about taxing gas-guzzlers, hopefully you can understand?
Posted by: butch | March 3, 2007 4:25 PM
Butch, You might want to read the Screwtape Letters again. In the introduction Lewis writes:
"There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight." cheers, Paul
Posted by: Paul | March 3, 2007 4:32 PM
You stand aside and I'll point them out then you can show a neutral reaction neither pleasing nor displeasing them. I appreciate you pointing out my error about Lewis, the truth will stand when the world is burning and you are right about Lewis.
Posted by: butch | March 3, 2007 4:44 PM
Paul: Good points about academic orthodoxy. Yes, I see it all the time, with our emphasis on buzz words like diversity and multiculturalism. Not that I disagree with every single thing those terms refer to, I don't at all, but it does become stifling after a while. Since I'm not involved with natural science except as an area of interest, I don't have direct experience with that academic milieu. And maybe someone reading this thread who is involved can correct what I am going to say, if need be (Squeaky?). I have no doubt that the academic natural science world has its own orthodoxies. And no doubt the peer review process falls short on occasion, maybe even more often than occasionally, perhaps. But I think there are at least two facts about science that might be mitigating factors in their adopting of too rigid an orthodoxy. First is the scientific method itself. For any scientific theory or idea to gain wide acceptance, it must be rigorously tested and retested. Any study has to be 'duplicatable,' with the same results achieved before it will be considered fully valid. And the second factor is that science by its very nature tends to attract iconoclasts--people who enjoy attempting to break molds. This may be one reason why science has been so successful as an academic endeavor here in America. Our culture, with its emphasis on individualism, tends to produce rather large numbers of people with this characteristic. If the prevailing scientific viewpoint on the causes of global climate change can be challenged using the scientific method, it is very likely that someone sooner or later will mount a successful challenge to it. The fact that no such challenge has surfaced is a fairly good argument that the premise is valid. Butch: Higher taxes for guzzlers is a possible solution. The problem would be implementing it. Would we have some kind of scanner at the gas pumps that would identify the vehicle each time someone drives up and then calculate a price based on its EPA mileage rating? How would we deal with modified vehicles? I see potential for abuse here. Another possibility would be high excise taxes for guzzlers and corresponding tax breaks for fuel efficient vehicles. The excise tax could be renewed yearly as part of the licensing/vehicle registration process. But I think the simplest fuel tax solution would be an across the board gasoline tax that would have a variable rate which would keep the retail price the same (regardless of the rise and fall of crude prices), though with annual inflation-indexed increases. People with guzzlers and people who drive farther would pay more; people with fuel-efficient vehicles and those who drive less would pay less. The revenue could be used to balance our nation's transport system, and/or it could be used to offset some other tax. Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2007 5:05 PM
Wallis: you are the king of the straw man argument. Falwell, Dobson, and company? Fallwell and Dobson are NOT even close to the same you just lumping them together, taking a Falwell quote, and slandering Dobson with it would be like me taking a quote from, say, Fidel Castro, and then slandering you with it because your both leftist. It s ridiculous.
Frankly, this reminds me of Roman Catholic Bishops valuing their power more than the protection of children from pedophile priests.
Wow. Shame on you Alicia.
Don, I'm calling the devil by his name, I'm being as nice as I can.
Wow, so we ve compared James Dobson to defenders of pedophiles, and Kevin to Nazism and the devil. I m really impressed by the forward-thinking, progressive tolerance and pluralism y all are showing. Butch, you and Alicia are the reason why reasonable discussion and a rational exchange of ideas can so quickly turn into mudslinging. Your attitudes are the very ones that turn people from open interchange to obstinate party-line-toeing (if you will). What, exactly, are you expecting to accomplish by calling Kevin a Nazi or James Dobson a pedophile-protector? If the issue is as big as you say, what could be more imperative than swaying minds? rather than polarizing
My recollection is that Dobsen (spelling?), Falwell, and Robertson were the ones who first "shot John".
Stop conflating the three. Falwell and Robertson may be fairly close together, but James Dobson does not belong in the same sentence. It s practically slander to pretend such.
Jim Wallis and Sojourners filled a gap... provided balance...
They do indeed provide a counterweight on the opposite side of Falwell and Robertson, and for that counterbalance I am indeed grateful (really the progressive evangelical movement is an inevitable pendulum swing, and, while I think it s uber-dangerous, it might in fact be the best thing that could possibly happen to the American Church.
If Detroit starts seeing consumers go for Toyotas and Hondas, they will follow suit and start increasing gas mileage.
If Detroit doesn t start changing fast, they will die. The American car manufacturers as a whole are falling to pieces (and Michiganders think Granholm is the answer oh my).
The ironic thing is that a high percentage of marriages that end in divorce do so because of money issues
I m not surprised; American consumerism is no less dominant in the church than in any other segment of society.
In the meantime if I encounter a Republi-Nazi on the street I'll follow screaming Republi-Nazi, Republi-Nazi get back everyone.
Woohoo! Street-corner preachers 2.0!
Many admired Hitler's speaking ability
Of course the Hitler comparison had to come out. Butch, stop before you make more of a fool of yourself. Don, I also appreciate your ability to argue persuasively and with conviction without lowering yourself to cheap shots.
So anybody have any peer-reviewed scientific research on good solutions to the climate change problem? and the total implications of enlarging federal power (the power wielded by y all s arch-enemy, Bush) in order to play Russian roulette with the market in the hope that government mandates will fix global warming?
Posted by: Mark P | March 3, 2007 5:36 PM
I take issue with Falwell's comments in particular. Why is global warming a tool of Satan to distract Christians from spreading the Gospel, but gay marriage, abortion, and whatever else the religious right seems to stand for isn't? I think what's going on is the Religious Right sees that they are losing ground and they are making last ditch efforts to try to gain it back. They are dieing and are not sure where they will go when they finally do.
Posted by: Jeremy | March 3, 2007 6:13 PM
"Who pays Dobson? I know he gets $$ from his listeners but doesn't he get money from big business too?" Dobson's salary comes from being the head of a charitable organization, to which anyone can donate. Does he have investments in business? Probably, as the majority of us do.
"If the prices were in the $3.50 - $4.50 per gallon range--and if everyone knew they were going to stay there--we would see conservation and innovation," I think you are underestimating the economic impact this would have. It would be rather devastating, especially to the poor and middle class.
The best alternative we have right now is rail, which is enormously expensive in terms of building infrastructure, and also enormously unpopular.
" Plus, we would have no SUV behemoths clogging our highways." I use this to summarize your statement regarding fuel economy standards in the 1980s. First off, if you do not want to have a certain type of vehicle on the roadways, then we should have the option to ban it. But that requires a certain democratic process. We shouldn't try to do an end run around that process in order to forbid a behavior that most people don't want to see forbidden.
If not SUVs, then minivans, which are not much better. But you touch upon an interesting point, which is the failure of government controls to affect change. The truth is that business people are very smart, and they are paid to make money.
Clever mechanisms to manipulate the free market are proven failures because they amount to what is essentially a crap shoot, with myriad unintended consequences.
The truth is that we have no idea how much impact we can have on global warming. The Kyoto Protocol, as invasive as it is, only promises .07 degress Celsius of change by 2050.
That means we would need a dozen Kyoto treaties, when the countries involved have proven incapable of meeting the demands of only one.
"President Chavez in Venezuela is buying off his citizenry with oil profits to consolidate his power." This is a somewhat more compelling argument, though Chavez is something of a hero to many ardent environmentalists. The problem is the oil is a fungible commodity. If we don't buy it, France will. If France buys it, then we buy more from Saudi Arabia.
The real problem is that there isn't a real alternative, at this point, for most Americans. People can't afford to purchase a Prius. Raising the gas tax isn't going to make them any better able to afford a Prius.
Any governmental intervention, via tax or regulation, is going to cost money and jobs. Sometimes such sacrifices are necessary, but we must weigh those costs against the potential reward. From what I can discern, the return on investment for most proposals is minimal.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2007 6:25 PM
Squeaky, "This is why I don't get Dobson and others who are so out to preserve our lifestyle in this nation--our lifestyle is one of waste, gluttony, selfishness and greed, and our entire economy is based on those principles." They do it because in their not so humble opinions, such prfligate waste will only serve to hasten the Rapture. This is their job - not to scare people into conserving, reducing, reusing and recycling, but to use up ALL the earth's resources ASAP. "Man" IS supposed to have dominion over the earth, after all, and to subdue it. It can't happen soon enough to suit Dobson, et al.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | March 3, 2007 6:26 PM
Mark: For the record, I wouldn't put Falwell and Robertson too close together. Robertson is a Pentecostal; Falwell is a Fundamentalist Baptist. Used to be those two groups didn't talk to each other. Dobson, of course, isn't a preacher at all, he's a clinical psychologist. Dobson was at his best when he stuck to his profession, IMO. He started losing me when he got into politics. I don't think Jim Wallis is setting up a straw man here by criticizing Dobson and Falwell in the same breath. As different as they may be from each other, they both are saying essentially the same thing about Christians and global climate change, just in different ways. Falwell is comparing our work in this area to the work of the devil, while Dobson is involved in trying to silence the National Evangelical Assn. Wallis isn't actually conflating the two; he's just pointing out the similarities in their thinking. And FWIW, I haven't tried to verify this, but I heard somewhere that Robertson actually made a statement about global warming being true. Of course, he probably conflates it with his end-times scenario. Don
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2007 6:29 PM
"I think what's going on is the Religious Right sees that they are losing ground and they are making last ditch efforts to try to gain it back." Falwell has been making batty comments for years. What's going on is that he continues to be batty, and Wallis opportunistically uses his comments to get his base fired up against the "religious right" bogeyman.
It'd be as though I wrote a post, decrying Wallis & Co. for comparing those who disagree with them about environmental policy to Nazis and pedophiles. Under Wallis' rules of engagement, that would be entirely fair.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2007 6:29 PM
Paulos, "What I do know is that this has been one of the coldest winters that I can remember." Where on earth do you live? NYC had 70 degree temperatures in January and February. Where I live (S W Ontario) we didn't get our first snowfall until FEBRUARY!
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | March 3, 2007 6:30 PM
"Dobson was at his best when he stuck to his profession, IMO. He started losing me when he got into politics." I agree. His books on parenting are an invaluable resource. "And FWIW, I haven't tried to verify this, but I heard somewhere that Robertson actually made a statement about global warming being true. Of course, he probably conflates it with his end-times scenario." That's actually entirely correct.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2007 6:32 PM
"His [Dobson's] books on parenting are an invaluable resource." Yeah, I guess, if you like hitting children and think of that as 'good parenting'.
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | March 3, 2007 6:39 PM
"Actually, Falwell does not believe that global warming is caused by man, while the letter concedes that it is." True, but both Falwell and Dobson want the church to be silent on the topic, even if for different reasons. The end result is that they are saying essentially the same thing.
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2007 6:39 PM
Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action.
Why is it that the main factor contributing to our ever-increasing environmental problems is never confronted - the loss of forest and natural habitat due to overpopulation?
Why the deafening silence from pulpit, press, and politician about the Vatican's dictates and doctrines prohibiting birth control?
Fear of eternal damnation ensures the economic slavery of millions of faithful men and women and condemns millions of children in South America and Africa to lives of poverty and desolation.
This Vatican expansionist policy ensures a permanent supply of millions of little Catholics who, uneducated and impoverished, will continue to walk in the steps of their forefathers. The Catholic Church is daily increasing its influence in China. Need I point out the dire consequences for humanity if the laws of the Church were to eventually overturn the laws of the Chinese State? The present dread of Vatican influence and reach incapacitates action in the face of certain future catastrophe. So complete is this dread that all world leaders are rendered mute in the face of its power. The Vatican policy on birth control is a crime against humanity! Let us respond with 'moral passion' and 'concrete action.'
Posted by: vynette | March 3, 2007 7:33 PM
vynette: Come on, now, let's not use this issue as another way to bash the RC Church. I disagree with their stand on birth control as much as you do, but we're all in this together. Yes, deforestation is a serious issue; in fact, it's one factor in the rise of atmospheric CO2 (since green plants absorb it from the air and convert it into oxygen and sugars). But overpopulation caused by the Catholic prohibition on birth control is hardly the only reason it's happening. Finally, I don't think there are very many governments unwilling to stand up to the Vatican if they feel they should. Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2007 7:41 PM
I read somewhere recently (can't remember the source unfortunately), that among developed nations the USA has the highest number of global warming skeptics. Any thoughts on why this is the case?
Posted by: carl copas | March 3, 2007 8:13 PM
The comments by the "religious right" about climate change and Jim Wallis's response as usual bring up multiple issues that goes beyond the potential catastrophy of global warming. First it is important we understand the spiritual position that draws many conservative evangelicals to the right on climate change. I have heard them articulate before (paraphrasing)... God is in control and he created a finite amount of natural resources for humans to use and consume. The consumption of that finite amount will coincide with the Apocalypse . So this position states global warming's reality is irrelevant...The real issue is God is in control and our only purpose on earth should be the great commission..evangelism. This also correlates with Rev. Falwell's position that global warming is interfering with evangelism and therefore is a distraction. This , I think is a valid theolgical position to debate amongst Christians, but Rev. Falwell already resolved the debate with the creation of the "Christian Coalition" in the early 80's which was based upon the principle that Christians should be "distracted" by the political process and become active. In other words we should no longer keep our faith private. Of course these are the same prinicple Jim Wallis articulated in God's Politics. I certainly agree with Rev. Fallwall and Rev. Wallis that Christians should be active in stewardship of the political process. So in that arena, the solving the crisi of global warming and the stewardship of the environment become critically important for the following reasons: 1. We can truly save the world for all of God s creatures, human and otherwise. 2. If we set a national priority similar to the Manhattan Project or the moon shot, a new generation of great middle class jobs will be developed along with a new generation of scientific challenges whose solutions will spill over into other areas of problems and dilemnas(as did benefits from the moon program). 3. By sharing the research, results, and jobs with the world economy we will truly lift many of the worls's poor to new levels of prosperity. This will do more for American foreign policy than another generation of conflict and war. 4. By taking care of all of God's children and His incredible natural world, we will know we are following the Biblical guidelines of stewardship. In summary by beginning the discussion surrounding global warming(and all social/political issues for that matter) with he religious right by thanking them in their leadership in getting Christians involved in the political process, and expressing an understandding of their scriptural concrns of the Apocalypse, we can build a bridge to them enabling all of us to become better stewards of God's creation. Together Christian progressives and conservatives can urge our politicains to have the political will and courage to put our national treasure towards a massive project to stop global warming, rather than continuing to expend our national treasure on new tools of destruction that continue to sow seeds of anger and revenge in this and future generations of peoples who consider us "the enemy."
Posted by: Mark Brown, MD | March 3, 2007 9:37 PM
The comments by the "religious right" about climate change and Jim Wallis's response as usual bring up multiple issues that goes beyond the potential catastrophy of global warming. First it is important we understand the spiritual position that draws many conservative evangelicals to the right on climate change. I have heard them articulate before (paraphrasing)... God is in control and he created a finite amount of natural resources for humans to use and consume. The consumption of that finite amount will coincide with the Apocalypse . So this position states global warming's reality is irrelevant...The real issue is God is in control and our only purpose on earth should be the great commission..evangelism. This also correlates with Rev. Falwell's position that global warming is interfering with evangelism and therefore is a distraction. This , I think is a valid theolgical position to debate amongst Christians, but Rev. Falwell already resolved the debate with the creation of the "Christian Coalition" in the early 80's which was based upon the principle that Christians should be "distracted" by the political process and become active. In other words we should no longer keep our faith private. Of course these are the same prinicple Jim Wallis articulated in God's Politics. I certainly agree with Rev. Falwell and Rev. Wallis that Christians should be active in stewardship of the political process. So in that arena, the solving the crisi of global warming and the stewardship of the environment become critically important for the following reasons: 1. We can truly save the world for all of God s creatures, human and otherwise. 2. If we set a national priority similar to the Manhattan Project or the moon shot, a new generation of great middle class jobs will be developed along with a new generation of scientific challenges whose solutions will spill over into other areas of problems and dilemnas(as did benefits from the moon program). 3. By sharing the research, results, and jobs with the world economy we will truly lift many of the worls's poor to new levels of prosperity. This will do more for American foreign policy than another generation of conflict and war. 4. By taking care of all of God's children and His incredible natural world, we will know we are following the Biblical guidelines of stewardship. In summary by beginning the discussion surrounding global warming(and all social/political issues for that matter) with he religious right by thanking them in their leadership in getting Christians involved in the political process, and expressing an understandding of their scriptural concrns of the Apocalypse, we can build a bridge to them enabling all of us to become better stewards of God's creation. Together Christian progressives and conservatives can urge our politicains to have the political will and courage to put our national treasure towards a massive project to stop global warming, rather than continuing to expend our national treasure on new tools of destruction that continue to sow seeds of anger and revenge in this and future generations of peoples who consider us "the enemy."
Posted by: Mark Brown, MD | March 3, 2007 9:39 PM
Mark Brown MD wrote: First it is important we understand the spiritual position that draws many conservative evangelicals to the right on climate change. I have heard them articulate before (paraphrasing)... God is in control and he created a finite amount of natural resources for humans to use and consume. The consumption of that finite amount will coincide with the Apocalypse . That's news to me, and I've been around evangelicals for most of my life. Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 3, 2007 9:49 PM
"I have heard them articulate before (paraphrasing)... God is in control and he created a finite amount of natural resources for humans to use and consume. The consumption of that finite amount will coincide with the Apocalypse . So this position states global warming's reality is irrelevant..." I haven't heard this anywhere, and it is not in the letter Wallis linked to either. It certainly isn't the position of anyone who has posted here.
"1. We can truly save the world for all of God s creatures, human and otherwise." Can we? I don't think that has been nearly established.
"2. If we set a national priority similar to the Manhattan Project or the moon shot, a new generation of great middle class jobs will be developed" This depends on which proposal you support. A proposal to raise the gas tax, for example, will do no such thing.
"3. By sharing the research, results, and jobs with the world economy we will truly lift many of the worls's poor to new levels of prosperity." This is quite a stretch.
"This will do more for American foreign policy than another generation of conflict and war." I don't think that jobs created by new industries will forestall future wars. You can make the case, as Don did, that we could decrease our reliance on oil, which could have the affect on foreign policy, but you are being tremendously optimistic.
"Together Christian progressives and conservatives can urge our politicains to have the political will and courage to put our national treasure towards a massive project" But conservatives are averse to massive government projects. Further, there is division as to what that massive project should be. Leaders from the midwest are going to demand that the solution emphasize ethanol. Leaders from heavily industrialized states are going to demand less accountability for polluting companies etc...
As a result, we wind up with a pork-heavy non-solution that slakes the environmentalist thirst of the average moderate. How do you propose we avoid this scenario? "to stop global warming, rather than continuing to expend our national treasure on new tools of destruction" Let me ask this. If we are to take money spent on the military, and instead invest it in the environment, how then do we defend ourselves? What if an Islamic Fascist government decides to take over? Do you think they will care about proper stewardship over God's creation?
Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2007 10:08 PM
"For any scientific theory or idea to gain wide acceptance, it must be rigorously tested and retested." Two2 centuries is about right to agree that the world is round. Don't want to rush into anything think of all the bad things that could happen if we cut emissions.
Posted by: butch | March 3, 2007 10:15 PM
"Butch: Higher taxes for guzzlers is a possible solution. The problem would be implementing it. Would we have some kind of scanner at the gas pumps that would identify the vehicle each time someone drives up and then calculate a price based on its EPA mileage rating? How would we deal with modified vehicles? I see potential for abuse here." Simply tax the vehicle and yes I can see many problems with such an idea. But we are not addressing the problem now
Posted by: butch | March 3, 2007 10:20 PM
"By sharing the research, results, and jobs with the world economy we will truly lift many of the worls's poor to new levels of prosperity." I think we should spend the money on this project then sell the knowledge worldwide. It could be traded for resources such as oil from one nation and copper from another or money or reduced debt with China. I'm interested in the problems of world hunger and desease but we can all benefit.
Posted by: butch | March 3, 2007 10:45 PM
Mark Brown MD wrote: If we set a national priority similar to the Manhattan Project or the moon shot, a new generation of great middle class jobs will be developed along with a new generation of scientific challenges whose solutions will spill over into other areas of problems and dilemnas(as did benefits from the moon program). This strikes me as just another variation on the old "broken window" fallacy, which held that a broken window was a good thing because the owner would have to replace it, which would create work for the guy who installed the new window, the glassmaker, the carpent who made the new windowsill, etc. The flaw is, of course, that the money spent to replace the window could have just as well been spent on any of a thousand different things, creating jobs for other workers. Meanwhile, the guy whose window had been broken is out the cost of a new window. There might be valuable spin-offs from new environmental technologies, just as there were spin-offs from the Apollo program. But there are lots of technologies that have potential value, and not all of them are dependant on an unproved theory of global warming to reach their full value. The extent to which we pursue technology to alleviate global warming should be determined by the likelihood and the expected severity of global warming -- and nothing else. Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 3, 2007 11:17 PM
"The extent to which we pursue technology to alleviate global warming should be determined by the likelihood and the expected severity of global warming -- and nothing else." Reducing emmissions is a sufficient reason.
Posted by: butch | March 3, 2007 11:35 PM
Meanwhile Jim Wallis gives us a link for "the full report" of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Except that isn't the full report, it's a "Summary for Policymakers" -- says so right there on the front page. As I understand it the 2007 full report isn't available yet. In 2001 there were questions about whether or not the summary accurately reflected the contents of the full report created by the actual IPCC scientists. Even if you accept the IPCC as authoritative, this debate isn't settled until the full report comes out. Wallis is jumping the gun here. Wolverine
Posted by: HASH(0x125dc014) | March 3, 2007 11:35 PM
Science ...so called ! The Earth as created is not nor has ever been in stasis or a steady state. SOMETHING WE SHOULD ALL BE AWARE OF IS THAT OUR PLANET is in a constant state of change hence Ice-ages and now global warming. This to shall pass!
Posted by: Deno Reno | March 3, 2007 11:43 PM
This to shall pass! Deno Reno | 03.03.07 - 6:48 pm | #
This is so comforting that an expert has spoken on the subject. I've been listening to these non-scientist debating scientific matters and I was frankly confused.
Posted by: butch | March 3, 2007 11:49 PM
As for the "debate" promised next week, I hope that Sojourners goes out and at least tries to find two actual scientists. That would actually be interesting. At the very least, I would request that they not waste their time tearing down Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. That would be redundant. Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 3, 2007 11:58 PM
I to agree that dealing with Pat Robertson and Falwell is a waste of time. Bring on the experts, then lets see if we can find concensus?
Posted by: butch | March 4, 2007 12:10 AM
I think this may have been touched on previously, but it strikes me as a little strange that Jim Wallis, who certainly believes in God, would employ the views of scientists in the forming of his opinion on global warming. I think it's safe to say that a large majority of climate scientists, or any type of scientists for that matter, don't believe in the theory of God. If someone is so wrong on such a fundamental part of Wallis' belief system, why would he trust them on global warming? Isn't that being rather selective? I think Wallis should pick what he really wants to be....a religious man or a politician or a scientist.
Posted by: Gary | March 4, 2007 12:19 AM
Kevin S: "It'd be as though I wrote a post, decrying Wallis & Co. for comparing those who disagree with them about environmental policy to Nazis and pedophiles. Under Wallis' rules of engagement, that would be entirely fair." Kevin, if you ever wonder why some in this room can't stand you, it is posts like that. You equate "Jim Wallis' rules of engagement" with those who harshly criticize you. You reveal your agenda when you call Dobson and Falwell men of God and then blast Jim Wallis. If you stuck to the issues and didn't just keep jabbing with these ad hominen attacks, you'd incur less hostility. Until then, I fear you'll continue to incur the criticism. That, Don, is what Butch has been talking about. It may not justify calling Kevin S names but it does reveal why people are getting upset with him. He too is provoking and should recognize that.
Posted by: Jim M | March 4, 2007 12:29 AM
While the ongoing debate and inquiry into global warming is imperative for those on both sides, one thing that I think has been lost here is the content of the original blog. I think the bigger story here is not global warming per say, but the Religious Right's fear that - as one blogger said - they are losing control. Their letter to NAE does not call for open inquiry into this issue, but it calls for Cizik's job and makes some dubious jumps in logic by connecting Cizik's concern global warming to increased abortions, condom distribution, and infanticide. In making these 2 moves, they 1) call for the termination of one who they see as a threat to their hegemonic block of political slam-dunk issues (abortion and conservative sexuality), and 2) they try and link a concern for global warming, which seems a reasonable enough concern, to their bread and butter issues.
I agree with Jim Wallis that Rich Cizik is no enemy, but rather, he represents this "broader agenda evangelicalism" that threatens the Religious Right's power and control over determining the salient "Christian" issues. If they weren't so threatened, why call for Cizik's job? Why not call for open inquiry and the truth? Why publicly impune him for being an environmental champion? I think Dobson is truly afraid that Cizik actually DOES speak for a lot of evangelicals, and that doesn't bode well for the political future of the Religious Right. Cizik, in his reply to the letter, confirmed his broader agenda, saying that he "speaks with a voice that is authentically evangelical on all issues, from religious freedom around the world, to compassion for the poor, ending oppression in Darfur - and yes, creation care is one of those issues." Keep speaking for truth and a true biblical agenda, Rich! While we might not always agree on solutions, it is long past time to start constructive dialogue on these issues and stop calling for the jobs of people who are representing the best of evangelicalism.
Posted by: Bleebo | March 4, 2007 1:27 AM
Hoo-boy--where to start?
First of all Don (not to be confused with Donny)--your assessment of the scientific method is spot on. The only thing I would add is that the method is not infallible in the short term, which is what causes the confusion among non-scientists. Sometimes it takes time to weed out the bad science, but in the long run, this does happen, and the method works. Scientists can be biased, and they are human, which is why we have the scientific method. Thank you for all your well-reasoned and respectful comments.
Next: why is it Kevin S gets hammered so much, but Donny gets a free pass?
Donny says: "Global warming is a scam so that you Lefties can foce us all into your godless socialism." As a left-handed scientist, I take particular umbredge to this remark. You really need to spend some time learning about science, and then see if it is just a left-wing conspiracy. Have you read even one report from one reputable, peer reviewed science journal on the topic?
Gaia worship, indeed--don't you find it strange that those you deem to be godless have a far greater appreciation for God's precious gift of resources for us than many Christians do? Who are you to judge the motives and heart of me or anyone else who believes global climate change is real, and that we can and should do something about it? It must be nice to know everything so clearly and be so well-equipped to be our judge. I thought that was God's job... "Chicken Little is all you guys are." Chicken Little--Feh--what EXACTLY are you defending?
"Your religion of Gaia worship means taxing the real family and the poor, into slavery to the state." What are you worshipping, Donny? The economy? The oil industry? The coal industry? Our rugged individualism? Materialism? Wasteful gluttony? You want to talk about morality--how is it moral for a coal company to rip off the top of a mountain, and pile the slag into the headwaters of a stream thus destroying that stream and the organisms that live in it, and ruining the water supply of those who rely on that stream? How is it moral that as the result, the poorest people in the United States have to buy bottled water because their own water has been poisoned by the run-off from the coal mines? How is it moral that their homes are cracked from the blasting, and yet the coal company won't pay for damages? How is it moral that kids all over the US should suffer from respiratory illnesses caused by the emissions from fossil fuels? How is it moral that the most impoverished among us have toxic waste dumps established in their neighborhoods? This is all in the name of the economy, in cheap electricity, in cheap oil. You need a far broader sense of morality if all you are concerned about is Adam and Steve marrying each other.
Copas--you asked why we in the US resist believing that global warming is true, when most other nations in the world don't? It's because we stand to be economically damaged the most, since we are the most affluent nation in the world. We also aren't used to "going without" and have been taught by our leaders (beginning with Reagan) that we shouldn't have to. We also are woefully illiterate when it comes to the environment, energy, etc--we live in a society that values individualism over community, and so we aren't as connected to each other as others are.
Kevin S--you made a point that people can't afford the Toyota Prius. Have you ever actually priced one? I have, and what I found is that the base price was around $20,000. The base model Prius is loaded with standard equipment to the point no one needs to add anything because all the things most people want--power brakes, etc, air conditioning, CD player, etc, is already in the vehicle. How much does an SUV cost? And yet people find ways to purchase those without any problem. The argument that the Prius is too expensive is patently and unequivocably false.
Posted by: Squeaky | March 4, 2007 1:56 AM
Gary--almost forgot you:
"I think this may have been touched on previously, but it strikes me as a little strange that Jim Wallis, who certainly believes in God, would employ the views of scientists in the forming of his opinion on global warming. I think it's safe to say that a large majority of climate scientists, or any type of scientists for that matter, don't believe in the theory of God. If someone is so wrong on such a fundamental part of Wallis' belief system, why would he trust them on global warming?" It is in the scientific realm that advances in medicine are made. I am guessing you are quite comfortable trusting in scientific discovery in that realm. You are trying to be selective about which science to trust based on the science you are comfortable believing in. You are even benefiting from studies of evolution every time you get a flu shot. In fact, without science, we would be living in the dark ages--have you seen that commercial about what happens if all the plastic suddenly disappeared? We know how to make plastic, use metals, create technology, advance in medicines, defend our nations, and travel to the moon because of science. I doubt those things bother you very much, and I doubt you refuse to trust the science behind your computer (well, sometimes I do, especially when it crashes). You are choosing the science that is convenient to you. Sorry--can't have it both ways.
And about the theory of God--the scientific method is such that it can only investigate the physical world. It has no authority in the spiritual world. You can't prove or disprove God's existence scientifically--your experiment needs to be reproducable by other investigators (reread Don's posts on the scientific method--he explains it very well).
I actually know quite a few scientists who believe in God or a god. You might want to check out Francis Collin's latest book. He headed up the human genome project.
And I ask all you who do not want to accept global climate change--what exactly are you trying to hold on to? If it is your fear of how it will hurt the economy---remember, the root of all evil is the love of money. Seems to me there is considerable effort in defending the right to make a ton of money. I would have too check it again, but I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't too keen on people attaining wealth at the expense of others.
Posted by: Squeaky | March 4, 2007 2:16 AM
Gary: I think Wallis should pick what he really wants to be....a religious man or a politician or a scientist. Gary, I don't mean this as an insult. It is just my point of view. I do not believe that there is a total disconnect between science and faith in God. I heard a statistic somewhere that the vast majority of scientists do have a belief in God- maybe, though, not a belief in God in the way many fundamentalists churches portray Him. I do not believe it wrong or hypocritical for Jim Wallis to have his faith informed and influenced by science. After all, God did give us a mind and the ability to reason. Jim
Posted by: Jim M | March 4, 2007 2:24 AM
Gary, it may be true that a large number of scientists are atheists or agnostics. But a lot are believers, too. Squeaky did an excellent job of explaining how science can't prove or disprove God's existence, so I won't repeat what he wrote. However, one more thing, perhaps, could be said. There are scientists who use science as justification for their atheistic 'religion.' They take the findings of science, and then by a leap of faith declare that science declares that there is no God. Whenever you hear someone like Richard Dawkins (a British evolutionary biologist who is an outspoken atheist, to say the least) saying something like that, keep in mind what Squeaky said: science has no authority in the spiritual realm. So scientists who speak like that are not speaking as scientists; they are speaking as humans who have a particular religious viewpoint. They just happen to be using science to justify their atheistic religion, or irreligion, if you prefer. Many scientists who are believers have written against this practice, which they regard as a misuse of science (see the writings of Calvin College emeritus physics professor Howard Van Till, for example). Unfortunately, the voices of the atheists seem to get more attention in our secularist culture.
Posted by: Don | March 4, 2007 2:35 AM
"The argument that the Prius is too expensive is patently and unequivocably false." Most people can't afford $20,000 (and they cost more than that). That is far above the average purchase price of an automobile. It is not as though one can go buy a used Prius anywhere.
Eventually, the prices will come down as demand goes up. Government ought not throw a wrench in that process. Do you think everyone can afford a $20k car. A gas tax would effect everyone, not just those who drive SUVs.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 4, 2007 2:37 AM
"Just another example of your being nasty, Kevin. You accuse Don of being "condescending" in a previous post yet you totally insult other insinuating they don't know what they're talking about." Don insinuated that I had not begun an earnest exploration of this issue, and I found that condescending. That is far from "totally insult(ing)" someone or insinuating the don't know what they are talking about.
If there is something specific to which you take offense, make note of it. Otherwise, you are guilty of the ad hominem attacks you ascribe to me.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 4, 2007 2:41 AM
Would a gasoline tax, like the one I have been describing, harm the economy? I believe quite the opposite would happen. I think it would greatly stimulate the economy. It would give alternative energy enterprises a chance to grow. Do we really want the government to subsidize these alternative energy startups? That to me seems the intrusive government solution, or "liberal" solution, if you will. A gasoline tax that brought the price to a more accurate reflection of its real cost would in the long run be a boon to the economy. Would it hurt some people in the short term? Probably. But it could be phased in over time to soften the blow. And maybe some other tax rates could be reduced or eliminated to offset it. Or certain benefits could be made available to people who would be truly hurt by the increase in gasoline prices. But it would force people to make driving choices that they currently are unwilling to make (because we're lazy people, by and large). And I'm thinking of much more than deciding on a Prius over a Chevy Tahoe. Maybe people would start moving closer to where they work. Maybe they would start carpooling more than they currently do. And getting to know their neighbors better in the process (imagine that!). Maybe they would begin riding the buses or trains more often (where such transport means are available). Maybe they would start walking or bicycling more (in a culture where obesity is an increasing health concern, that would be a good thing for many of us). Maybe we would be more careful about how much and when we drive--learning to schedule our driving trips and routing our errands for more efficiency. A lot of things that we could be doing but don't because we're lazy would become routine. The important thing for you laissez-faire believers is that a gasoline tax would provoke *us* to decide for *ourselves* how best to conserve fuel, rather than having some fuel savings mandate forced upon us by Congress and enforced by some new bureaucracy. All that is needed is the bold leadership necessary to make it happen.
Posted by: Don | March 4, 2007 3:04 AM
Kevin S--you are correct, the starting price of a Prius is more than 20K. According to Cars.com, it is $22,175 $23,070. This is still far less than the starting price for the average SUV--go to Cars.com and click on SUV's--it gives you a list of the prices, and only a couple are below 20K, and not much below. Most are well above 25K. What's my point? My point is that plenty of people find a way to afford SUV's. If people can't afford 20K for a car, then why are there so many SUV's around? I doubt even a used SUV is much less than 20K. Your point was that the Prius is too expensive for people to afford. If people can afford a 35K vehicle and the gas to fuel it, they can afford a 23K Prius and the far less gas it takes to fuel it.
A gas tax would affect everyone, but fuel efficiency would go up, and in the long run, it wouldn't have the impact you think it would. And again, as Don and I have argued, the price of oil is kept artificially low. And as I mentioned before--we are using it like it will never run out, and it will. Or at least the cheap, easy to get variety will.
And, speaking again of the economy--right now we are in this war with Iraq. There are also thoughts in Washington about going to war with Iran. That entire region could completely destabilize--what would THAT do to our economy? Your defense of a fossil fuel economy assumes we will always have oil, that our supply will never be disrupted, and that all will always be right with the world. It doesn't take much to upset that very precarious balance we have with supply. Isn't it far better for us to go to another energy economy that will free us from the whims of the world energy market and most specifically from the clutches of OPEC? I'm not saying it is easy, not at all. But it is necessary.
A very easy first step is conservation, and that wouldn't disrupt any part of our economy. In fact, gas prices would probably drop...
Posted by: squeaky | March 4, 2007 3:17 AM
Eventually, the prices will come down as demand goes up. Government ought not throw a wrench in that process. Do you think everyone can afford a $20k car. A gas tax would effect everyone, not just those who drive SUVs. kevin s. | Another blantant unsupported lie by our resident Republi-Nazi. I just did a search of the internet and most new cars cost more than 20,000 and the average is well above 20,000. Using a simple scientific method it was easy to find out that Kevin doesn't know what he is talking about and is willing to say anything that furthers his Republi-Nazi agenda.
Posted by: butch | March 4, 2007 3:20 AM
Don--so VERY well said! Only one comment: "Do we really want the government to subsidize these alternative energy startups? That to me seems the intrusive government solution, or "liberal" solution, if you will." I think the argument could be made that the government already subsidizes the oil industry--we are fighting a war to protect our oil infrastructure and oil economy right now. There was also huge resistance to taxing oil revenues when the oil companies made billions off of Katrina...not to mention our points already that oil prices have not risen with inflation...and of course, with the lessening of the environmental regulations so that oil and coal companies can get by with ruining the environment...they are definitely being subsidized--and their investment of a few million in campaign contribution has paid off multifold!
Posted by: squeaky | March 4, 2007 3:23 AM
and of course, with the lessening of the environmental regulations so that oil and coal companies can get by with ruining the environment...they are definitely being subsidized--and their investment of a few million in campaign contribution has paid off multifold! squeaky | 03.03.07 - 10:28 pm | #
Of course it is the job of government to regulate but not to benefit of big donors, the country is run by the Abramoffisse. The Republican Party gives us BS religious issues like personal sexual preferences, actually it was just the undefined "family values" to fight over. All they had to do was run out an Amendment to ban gay marriage and here we are 3 years later still mired in this crazy war. I'm convinced my faith is as strong as any here but I never wear it on my sleeve because more evil has been done in the name of Christ than good. So, I try to find my answers in the real world then look to the Bible for backup. I studied the Bible at great length and believe everything in the Old Testament can be found today. It requires peeling away or changing your paradigm to understand. Look at the Old Testament and you'll find me and Kevin S. I'll accept that comparison if you read my words emphatically.
Posted by: butch | March 4, 2007 3:55 AM
Butch: "I'm convinced my faith is as strong as any here but I never wear it on my sleeve because more evil has been done in the name of Christ than good. So, I try to find my answers in the real world then look to the Bible for backup. I studied the Bible at great length and believe everything in the Old Testament can be found today. It requires peeling away or changing your paradigm to understand." Well put, Butch. Couldn't agree with you more.
Posted by: Jim M | March 4, 2007 4:04 AM
"The Republican Party gives us BS religious issues like personal sexual preferences, actually it was just the undefined "family values" to fight over. All they had to do was run out an Amendment to ban gay marriage and here we are 3 years later still mired in this crazy war." Exactly, Butch. It is actually an incredibly incidious ploy--distract us with relative non-issues when people are dying every day in Iraq. Our morality is far worse today than it ever was, and it isn't because gay people want to get married.
Posted by: squeaky | March 4, 2007 4:06 AM
Squeky: "Our morality is far worse today than it ever was, and it isn't because gay people want to get married." I used to participate in Bible studies with some rather conservative Christians who were very Republican. When I told them that I did not feel that the U.S. was a Christian nation, rather it was more like the the Roman empire at the height of its corruption, they looked at me in almost complete disbelief. But that's the way I see it. Not because of the sexual issues but because we go to other countries, take them over and we are quite ruthless in the process. It seems that the oil oligarchy has triumphed for now. Jim
Posted by: Jim M | March 4, 2007 4:14 AM
"Another blantant unsupported lie by our resident Republi-Nazi. I just did a search of the internet and most new cars cost more than 20,000 and the average is well above 20,000." What percentage of people buy new cars? Is the average car purchase price $20k? I can't afford a $20k car, and neither can most of my friends, but I'm younger than the average car buyer.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 4, 2007 4:20 AM
Since it is just a few of us I'll change the subject a little. The gay question; if you've studied or followed someone who claims to speack for God and they suggest it is a sin. It may be and I don't know but God judges not me. The religious right did judge when the followed Falwell, et al.
Posted by: butch | March 4, 2007 4:22 AM
but I'm younger than the average car buyer. kevin s. | That is apparent!
Posted by: butch | March 4, 2007 4:26 AM
Kevin S-- a quick search on used SUV's in the area I live in (and that is the dominant car driven) shows that even used vehicles don't dip below 20K until they are at least three years old. Do you own an SUV, or do your friends? If so, how much did they cost, and how old are the vehicles? If you don't, what kind of car do you own, and how old is it?
Posted by: Squeaky | March 4, 2007 4:42 AM
Jim, "I used to participate in Bible studies with some rather conservative Christians who w