Jump to content

What would Jesus drive?


Flying_Mollusk
 Share

Recommended Posts

US evangelicals boost green lobby

 

Environmentalists are blaming US President George Bush and his friends in the energy industry for wrecking a G8 deal on global warming before he has even boarded the plane to the summit in Gleneagles.

 

Coming from his usual critics, this is unlikely to trouble the president as he heads for the summit, but he faces growing pressure to give greater priority to the environment from one of his most loyal domestic constituencies: the religious right.

 

Evangelical Christians form a crucial plank in Mr Bush's formidable political base (he is an evangelical himself) and care for the environment is becoming an important part of their agenda.

 

Green evangelicals first hit the headlines in 2002, when Reverend Jim Ball launched a campaign called "What would Jesus drive?", claiming that gas-guzzlers are ungodly.

 

His call for the US government to take action to protect the environment has since been taken up by powerful leaders of the evangelical community.

 

'Protect God's creation'

 

The 30-million-member National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) published a landmark document in November calling on conservative Christians to "labour to protect God's creation".

 

It stated that "government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."

 

 

Traditional environmentalists blame corporations where we want corporations and government to work together

Ted Haggard

President, National Association of Evangelicals

NAE president Reverend Ted Haggard discussed global warming with Tony Blair when the British prime minister visited Washington to drum up support for his G8 agenda last month.

 

Christianity Today, an influential evangelical magazine, backed a Senate bill calling for mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, something the White House opposes.

 

The "greening" of the evangelical movement has its roots in biblical references to mankind's responsibility to care for God's Earth.

 

While the presence of committed environmentalists among supporters of a president the left dubs the "Toxic Texan" may seem surprising, for Mr Haggard there is no contradiction.

 

"We came to the issue because of the Bible," he told the BBC News website.

 

"New scientific evidence is raising concerns and, since we have so many evangelical Christians in government right now, we wanted to highlight that the environment is a worthy concern for evangelicals."

 

Suspicions remain

 

The repackaging of environmentalism under the banner of "creation care" makes it more acceptable to Republicans suspicious of the secular, liberal types who have dominated green politics in the past.

 

But not all Christian conservatives are happy about this new departure.

 

Focus on the Family, which has been at the forefront of campaigns against abortion and gay marriage, says it cannot support "any issue that seems to put plants and animals above humans".

 

"Some worry that enthusiasm for some of the longstanding issues that political evangelicals have dealt with will be diminished if we take on too much," says David Neff, editor of Christianity Today and one of the authors of the NAE manifesto.

 

A Sports Utility Vehicle at a US gas station

The Bush administration stresses the "uncertainties" of climate change

This concern helps explain why "creation care" has yet to have an impact on White House policy. Energy security and economic growth have taken priority over protection of the environment in the Bush White House.

 

Although the president has promised certain reductions to greenhouse gases by 2012, using tax breaks and voluntary schemes, he opposes mandatory emission controls.

 

The State Department's 2002 Climate Action Report accentuates the alleged "uncertainties" of climate change science.

 

But Mr Haggard is convinced that green evangelicals will change Republican policy over the long term.

 

"It's a biblical mandate that this generation of Christians have to address," he says.

 

Evangelical power

 

Political scientist Professor John Green of the University of Akron agrees that "because evangelicals are so important to the Republican coalition" there is "great potential" for them to cause a shift in Republican policy in the next few years.

 

"The abortion issue is an example of how a well-organised constituency can bring about changes," he argues.

 

In the same way that the need for evangelical votes has pushed moderate Republicans to take up anti-abortion positions, sceptical Republicans may be persuaded to shift their position on the environment, Prof Green says.

 

According to the Pew Research Center, the political clout of evangelicals is on the increase - white evangelical Christians accounted for more than a third of all votes cast for President Bush in the November 2004 election.

 

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Other powerful Republicans have leant their weight to the debate

While their electoral power alone may be enough to persuade fellow Republicans to give greater priority to the environment, evangelicals' distinctive approach to the issue could also help.

 

"Traditional environmentalists blame corporations where we want corporations and government to work together. The Republicans are missing it right now because they equate environmentalism with being anti-business," says Mr Haggard.

 

And evangelical Christians are not alone among Republicans who see global warming as a key priority.

 

Signing ambitious targets on cutting greenhouse gases into law last month, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared the global warming debate finished.

 

"We know the science. We see the threat," he said.

 

While President Bush's trip to Scotland could leave the environmentalists disappointed, they can at least console themselves that one of the most powerful forces in Republican politics, along with the Terminator, may be on their side.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4642241.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I really hate to say this, but many evangelicals believe gays getting married is more of a crisis than the environment. :plain

845399[/snapback]

Sad, isn't it?

 

Glad to see that at least some evangelicals are doing something productive.

 

This article also makes me hate Focus on the Family even more. They were behind much of the Terri Schiavo garbage, and now they thing ignoring the environment is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate to say this, but many evangelicals believe stopping gays from getting married is more of a urgent need than saving the environment. :plain

845399[/snapback]

 

Its almost as mind boggling as the so called "culture of life." Save Terri Schiavo! Stop abortion! Life begins at conception!

 

Then turn around support capital punishment, fry someone in the electric chair, ignore all the death and destruction in Africa and bomb the f*k out of Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate to say this, but many evangelicals believe stopping gays from getting married is more of a urgent need than saving the environment. :plain

845399[/snapback]

 

Its almost as mind boggling as the so called "culture of life." Save Terri Schiavo! Stop abortion! Life begins at conception!

 

Then turn around support capital punishment, fry someone in the electric chair, ignore all the death and destruction in Africa and bomb the f*k out of Iraq.

845422[/snapback]

That's one thing that just boggles my mind about the far-right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate to say this, but many evangelicals believe stopping gays from getting married is more of a urgent need than saving the environment.?? :plain

845399[/snapback]

 

Its almost as mind boggling as the so called "culture of life." Save Terri Schiavo! Stop abortion! Life begins at conception!

 

Then turn around support capital punishment, fry someone in the electric chair, ignore all the death and destruction in Africa and bomb the f*k out of Iraq.

845422[/snapback]

That's one thing that just boggles my mind about the far-right.

845437[/snapback]

 

Although I'm furthering from the original intent of this topic, I think that's a really interesting point to look at.

I'm a fairly moderate conservative; one who supports capital punishment and is against abortion - here is how I justify my position on both:

I do believe that life begins at conception (we've had many discussions in this forum about when it does, when it doesnt, and I'd hate to see this discussion turn into that). I believe its wrong to take an "innocent" life through abortion.

That being said, I do also support capital punishment. I'm not a hard right guy on this, but I believe it is a good thing in instances where the murder of an "innocent" individual is involved. A person who, without care or reason, takes the life of another human being, is a murderer (dont even ask about my view on war; that is a very complicated thing to explain). I believe that if you have the nerve and thinking to want to take the life of another human, what makes your life worth living? I know this gets into the whole "man playing God on Earth" side, but that's what I think. I would hate for anyone to think that I am a strong advocate of capital punishment as it is right now; quite the opposite, I've got many issues with our current punishment system and the entire prison system in general. But, in principle, I do not have a problem with capital punishment.

That's the way I think about it anyways; Id be interested to hear what others (both liberals and conservatives) think on the issue of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus wouldn't drive, he would walk. If he couldn't afford a horse back then, how would he afford a car now?

845511[/snapback]

 

If he had a car he would have sold it to buy some poor people food, shelter, etc.

 

BUT if he did drive a car it would be a bus to carry around his devote followers.

845518[/snapback]

 

You sound nothing like the president.

 

The real president would have probably said "Freedom" or "Terrorists" about 20 times in those 2 sentences.

 

He would have probably mentioned that it is "hard work" as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus wouldn't drive, he would walk. If he couldn't afford a horse back then, how would he afford a car now?

845511[/snapback]

 

If he had a car he would have sold it to buy some poor people food, shelter, etc.

 

BUT if he did drive a car it would be a bus to carry around his devote followers.

845518[/snapback]

 

You sound nothing like the president.

 

The real president would have probably said "Freedom" or "Terrorists" about 20 times in those 2 sentences.

 

He would have probably mentioned that it is "hard work" as well...

845527[/snapback]

You forgot Poland! :plain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus wouldn't drive, he would walk. If he couldn't afford a horse back then, how would he afford a car now?

845511[/snapback]

 

If he had a car he would have sold it to buy some poor people food, shelter, etc.

 

BUT if he did drive a car it would be a bus to carry around his devote followers.

845518[/snapback]

 

You sound nothing like the president.

 

The real president would have probably said "Freedom" or "Terrorists" about 20 times in those 2 sentences.

 

He would have probably mentioned that it is "hard work" as well...

845527[/snapback]

 

If you haven't noticed freedom, terrorist and hard work are all in the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate to say this, but many evangelicals believe stopping gays from getting married is more of a urgent need than saving the environment. :plain

845399[/snapback]

 

Its almost as mind boggling as the so called "culture of life." Save Terri Schiavo! Stop abortion! Life begins at conception!

 

Then turn around support capital punishment, fry someone in the electric chair, ignore all the death and destruction in Africa and bomb the f*k out of Iraq.

845422[/snapback]

That's one thing that just boggles my mind about the far-right.

845437[/snapback]

 

Although I'm furthering from the original intent of this topic, I think that's a really interesting point to look at.

I'm a fairly moderate conservative; one who supports capital punishment and is against abortion - here is how I justify my position on both:

I do believe that life begins at conception (we've had many discussions in this forum about when it does, when it doesnt, and I'd hate to see this discussion turn into that). I believe its wrong to take an "innocent" life through abortion.

That being said, I do also support capital punishment. I'm not a hard right guy on this, but I believe it is a good thing in instances where the murder of an "innocent" individual is involved. A person who, without care or reason, takes the life of another human being, is a murderer (dont even ask about my view on war; that is a very complicated thing to explain). I believe that if you have the nerve and thinking to want to take the life of another human, what makes your life worth living? I know this gets into the whole "man playing God on Earth" side, but that's what I think. I would hate for anyone to think that I am a strong advocate of capital punishment as it is right now; quite the opposite, I've got many issues with our current punishment system and the entire prison system in general. But, in principle, I do not have a problem with capital punishment.

That's the way I think about it anyways; Id be interested to hear what others (both liberals and conservatives) think on the issue of both.

845506[/snapback]

 

Great points all together. I think I tend to agree with you in that they might not be one in the same. On other issues however, I think the inconsistenies are interesting. I know legacy always says that a Christian believes in helping the poor but not having the government do it. But Ive met religious people who have called poor people weak, who have driven through bad neighborhoods and looked with disgust at the people there...sometimes I wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate to say this, but many evangelicals believe stopping gays from getting married is more of a urgent need than saving the environment.?? :plain

845399[/snapback]

 

Its almost as mind boggling as the so called "culture of life." Save Terri Schiavo! Stop abortion! Life begins at conception!

 

Then turn around support capital punishment, fry someone in the electric chair, ignore all the death and destruction in Africa and bomb the f*k out of Iraq.

845422[/snapback]

Supporting abortion but being against killing convicted murderers doesn't make that much sense.

 

Anyways, I'm not very much of a pro-life person unless it's for a ghey reason like gender or there's twins and parents want one to die. Otherwise, I'm not really against abortion. I am also in favor of the death penalty. So I guess I favor a culture of death... :plain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually my comment about helping the poor through nongovernment means applies mostly to people of my religion (although im not exactly a practicing member), which is catholicism. Catholic doctrine calls for people to help the poor. There is also the stream of thought that the poor are poor as a result of nothign but their own actions, so we should not pity them. Of course any intelligent person can see this is true for some people but not all.

But now that you brought that up I feel that preserving the environment is very important. i'll give you an example of what I think may work in one sector. Lets talk about air pollution via factory emissions. Instead of creating a law forcing businesses to make their factories more environmentally friendly, what the govt should do is tell these businesses that for as much as it would cost them to remodel their current system to make it more environmentally friendly the govt will relieve them of the same dollar amount off of their tax burden for a period of several years until it equals the amount. For every year after a cost of maintenance will also be deducted from the tax total. The alternative forces them to either change the system or lose their business, but there is no incentive, and some businesses will be financially crippled by the cost of having to make themselves more environmentally friendly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know a single person that likes the option of abortion, but sometimes it is necessary in extreme cases, like when the mother is in poor health, or a woman was raped by someone and became pregnant.

845753[/snapback]

 

I agree wit hthat, I Hate the option and belief of abortion. But, my stance it isnt a matter for the federal government to decide. It is within the body of the woman so it is her own right to choose. Now, I believe every option should be looked at before she makes that choice. I believe all things must be considered as well. But, I believe that the woman in it all has the right to choose what happens to her body.

 

I consider myself a moderate liberal (pro capital punishment, against affirmative action, pro abortion rights, pro gay rights, pro state's rights and returning to a stronger federal system). But, this is one topic that will never change within life I think.

 

As for what would jesus drive? I think he would walk as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know a single person that likes the option of abortion, but sometimes it is necessary in extreme cases, like when the mother is in poor health, or a woman was raped by someone and became pregnant.

845753[/snapback]

 

I agree wit hthat, I Hate the option and belief of abortion. But, my stance it isnt a matter for the federal government to decide. It is within the body of the woman so it is her own right to choose. Now, I believe every option should be looked at before she makes that choice. I believe all things must be considered as well. But, I believe that the woman in it all has the right to choose what happens to her body.

 

I consider myself a moderate liberal (pro capital punishment, against affirmative action, pro abortion rights, pro gay rights, pro state's rights and returning to a stronger federal system). But, this is one topic that will never change within life I think.

 

As for what would jesus drive? I think he would walk as well.

845768[/snapback]

 

You cant be pro states rights and for 'returning' to a stronger federal system at the same time, unless if your definition of a federal system differs fro mine. by the way aside from that part, you're ideology seems similar to mine, and I'm an ultraconservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus wouldn't drive, he would walk. If he couldn't afford a horse back then, how would he afford a car now?

845511[/snapback]

He'd preform miracles at parties for money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know a single person that likes the option of abortion, but sometimes it is necessary in extreme cases, like when the mother is in poor health, or a woman was raped by someone and became pregnant.

845753[/snapback]

 

I agree wit hthat, I Hate the option and belief of abortion. But, my stance it isnt a matter for the federal government to decide. It is within the body of the woman so it is her own right to choose. Now, I believe every option should be looked at before she makes that choice. I believe all things must be considered as well. But, I believe that the woman in it all has the right to choose what happens to her body.

 

I consider myself a moderate liberal (pro capital punishment, against affirmative action, pro abortion rights, pro gay rights, pro state's rights and returning to a stronger federal system). But, this is one topic that will never change within life I think.

 

As for what would jesus drive? I think he would walk as well.

845768[/snapback]

 

You cant be pro states rights and for 'returning' to a stronger federal system at the same time, unless if your definition of a federal system differs fro mine. by the way aside from that part, you're ideology seems similar to mine, and I'm an ultraconservative.

845812[/snapback]

 

My apologies, I should of been more clear on that. I meant that as in more returning to the dual system of state governments rights and law at the same time as the federal. Yes, I have some very conservative views. I blame my ex for that (a grand daughter of a conservative senator). But, I have some very liberal views too. I am very strong in the belief of workers rights, I am very strong in the labor over big business (even if I feel many unions are terrible). I believe that alot of large monopolies out there need to be destroyed. I am very against anything to do with the disruption of the enviroment (growing up down here one of my primary issues). Those are the main issues that caused no ends of fighting for us. But, I find myself a moderate because of my difference of opinions with the democrats in many issues. At the same time difference of opinions with the republicans.

 

I think someday we may see a third party form of moderates. At least I hope so. Or see the far left and far right fracture off of the Dems and Reps to form their own party and the rest combine. One can hope right? Besides america's political views in general hangs upon the right side of the world. We encompass a small spectrum within there as well. So even our far libreals compared to most of the world, are really right wing. Thoughts to consider :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...