Like Russ Moore, I am concerned about the people along the Gulf Coast in Mississippi and Louisiana. Also like Russ, I grew up along the Gulf Coast (except I was privileged to be from the Louisiana side). His blog does so much to point out what is good and right about our concern for creation. Yet, I find one thing lacking in his commentary, and it is the same thing lacking in practically every news story about the spill. There were 11 men killed in the explosion. Whatever the economic and environmental impact may be is still a matter of future speculation. The human cost is already at a tragic proportion. I understand we must be fighting to get the oil stopped and under control. Sure, that is urgent. But we must not forget the families who have lost loved ones. The Gulf Oil spill is a human tragedy first (and already). Hopefully, the catastrophic environmental tragedy may still be averted. (Though the response of the government may not be adequate: See Here).
For quite some time, California has produced no small collection of green-friendly laws, codes, and commandments. The situation appears to be completely out of hand now. Such confusion was inevitable, I think, because people have too many interests at stake to be objective about what is best for all (either for all people or all the environment). Questions of “allness” are notoriously difficult to answer, and science has demonstrated an inability to satisfy our lust for the universal. Science, like the NE Patriots, has fallen short of perfection.
So, now, this story comes along to demonstrate just how impossible it would be to get a “green” ethics right. One might strip away all plants from around his spinach in order to keep mice out, but then there are mice who like dirt instead of foliage; so, the farmer would not be keeping mice out; he would simply be trading one brand of mice for another. On and on this story goes–back and forth like a mediocre tennis match with no final winner.
This article bemoans the fact that Obama’s administration is not going to put a tax on cow burping. They attribute the lack of cow belching legislation to a powerful farmers lobby. First of all, it seems to me that it would have to be a ranchers lobby, rather than a farmers lobby. Nevertheless, the article presents a cynical attitude toward Obama and the democrats, insinuating that their lack of legislation is COWardly (poor pun).
According to the article, cow belching ought to be taxed because it is the single largest producer of methane. The article is derisive toward democrats because they are leaving cow belches unlegislated… for now. Has anyone stopped to think that legislating cow belching might be a government overreach? Is this not crazy?
It is but one more of the many examples of what kind of an ethic we are in for as we drift away from Judeo-Christian values incorporated in the constitution. If not a Judeo-Christian ethic, then whose? If it is a green ethic, then cow burps are just the beginning of the madness.
I just read this headline which says, “Evangelicals trail other faiths on global warming,” and I say, Kudos to evangelicals!
Then, I saw this headline, and I was again befuddled: “Christians call for greater action on earth day. ” Once again, I have no problem with caring for the environment, planting trees, and keeping waterways clean.
I do, however, have a problem with diving headfirst into a shallow beach, which is exactly what the global warming crowd has done. Beyond concern for the environment, this movement is ready to adapt an ethic based on the perceived impact to mother earth. This is (a) foolish; (b) dangerous. It is foolish because there is not proof substantiating global warming impact. Neither is it proven that our efforts sufficiently diminish such impact.
It is dangerous because a group of technocrats end up determining “moral” behavior for everyone based on unproven scientific theories. So, for instance, we are told we must use cloth diapers; then, we are told we cannot. One day we are supposed to drink bottled water; the next day we are not. We thought that recycling would heal our helpless mother, but then we learned that the recycling trucks do more damage than the recycling healed, and the net impact is supposed to be worse after recycling.
I’d rather base my morality and ethic on something more substantial than global junk science. Christians, don’t be afraid to get left behind by the global warming gang.
I have been speaking against the “Green Ethic” for some time now. I am considering changing the term from Green Ethic to Lunatic Ethics. Each time the global warming group establishes an ethical norm, science gets in the way and frustrates their global balance guidelines.
Click on the headline below to see the latest example of lunatic ethics:
Recycling Could Be Adding to Global Warming
Read this article, and you will know why the evangelical embrace of the Green movement is worrisome to me. Specifically, the Green movement is a fusion of bad theology with bad science. Call it a “Con-fusion.” This article, unfortunately, illustrates some of the muddle-headed thinking of Christians when it comes to the Green movement. Recycling is fine, of course, but it isn’t a spiritual exercise. In addition, the first commandment is not, “Take care of the earth,” as this pastor says. In fact, the command he cites is, “You shall not eat of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat, you shall surely die.”
Equating this command with environmental injunctions against SUV’s and plastic grocery sacks is about as sensible as saying World War II was a little misunderstanding. Do we really think the command against eating the forbidden fruit is a statement on climatology? Really?
The “God Is Green” movement is not godly, or biblical.
Here is the story from Alabama: Cows pass gas. No surprises there. What is surprising is that democrats in Washington are now trying to pass a tax on the gas which is passed. Only a liberal democrat could conceive of a passed gas tax. Of course, as this story indicates, it is not called a passed gas tax; rather, the law has an environmentally friendly name so we can feel righteous by supporting it. (But it still is what it is… a tax on gas passed by pigs and cows.)
One of the things I have tried to keep folks informed about is the terrible new ethic on our horizon; it is more pronounced in Europe than it is here, but even in America the green ethic is alive and well. Not only is it terribly oppressive–outlawing such innocuous behaviors as drinking Dasani from a bottle–but now we find evidence, once again, that the Green ethic is not just oppressive; it is laughable. I have been warning you against hitching your ethical wagon to a green ethic that is supposed to undo the supposed effects of global warming; now, comes this article which asks how long will the next ice age last. In short, the article predicts that we are entering into another ice age. This time, the ice age may be permanent. I suppose we should all do our part now to engage in behaviors that will speed up global warming. Go help Ford and buy that SUV you’ve really been wanting. Maybe you should get a Hummer.
Green diapers sound disgusting, don’t they? Some of us have actually seen green diapers, along with many other diapers of varying hues in green and gold. However, the article I have linked here is not disgusting as much as it is dishonest. It exposes the hypocrisy of Green ethics. If we thought God’s commands were burdensome, just wait till we are without them and forced to follow the whimsical commands of men—men whose laws and promises change with power or expediency. This article gives you a hint of what we are in for when we go green.