I absolutely agree with David, and I'd just like to point to this article from a few days ago: The Bishop of London (Church of England) has said that needlessly contributing to global warming is a sin. This is the case whether you fly somewhere for a vacation, or simply fail to winterize your home.
Making selfish choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a symptom of sin. Sin is not just a restricted list of moral mistakes. It is living a life turned in on itself where people ignore the consequences of their actions.
Comments View as Flat
bookerly Posted 6:35 pm
25 Jul 2006
About Sin
I have a problem with making "selfish choices" a sin. As a non-believer, I really prefer not to have religious people creating more categories to damn me to hell. Sigh. If he said it is a sin for Church of England members, no problem. That's an internal matter. When internal decisions over which I have no say are applied to me, I get bothered.
Morality is tricky enough in this world. My personal preference would be that it be excluded from issues like this, no matter how much I appreciate the thought.
patrick
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 11:18 pm
25 Jul 2006
implied to members?
Patrick,
Isn't it implicit in Christianity (and most religions) that what is said is universal, but only really applies to believers? Everyday in places of worship around the world priests or their equivalent give advice on behavior that under their beliefs has positive or negative spiritual consequences. They don't qualify their advice for just believers, because the nature of a religion such as Christianity, is a universal belief in the nature of man and divinity.
The Episcopal church already demarks various behavior as sinful or not. Heretofore, they have not weighed in as much on the sinfulness of environmental behaviors. If the Episcopal church wants to broaden the scope of sinful behaviors to include environmental destruction, I don't have a problem with that. It's likely to be useful in mobilizing their members. Since I don't really subscribe to their notions of sin anyway, I don't feel burdened by their pronouncement.
In fact, if they are in the sin defining business, they damn well oughta include the environment, it's a sin not to! ;-)
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 1:10 am
26 Jul 2006
Ok it is A Sin
Let's call it a sin and let God sort it out.
If we make it a law then we can.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:52 am
26 Jul 2006
Sing along
Hymn. "I want to be like Jesus in my heart, in my heart..."
Remember that classic from childhood? (No?!?, no wonder we are doomed!)
Would Jesus want all the glaciers and ice caps to melt and half the species to become extinct due to human selfishness? Nope.
When in doubt on the subject of enviro-sin, ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?" Hard to go wrong with that approach.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:55 am
26 Jul 2006
I couldn't disagree more
First off, I agree with the above comment that I completely reject the notion of sin- there's no man in the sky keeping score.
Point 2: if environmentalists really want to go down this road then let's think of the "moral" reprecussions according to this new "moral" revelation:
EVERYTHING WE DO THAT IS NOT ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR SURVIVAL THAT BURNS FOSSIL FUELS IS NOW "BAD" BECUASE IT CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL WARMING
so you all who are trying to turn burning gas into a big moral crusade are comfortable going this direction? And if so, elaborate please how this makes sense.
Thanks,
J.S.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:56 am
26 Jul 2006
Oh boy....
and now we're asking "what would Jesus do?"- maybe this is alost cause after all!!!! this is depressing
Permalink
mihan Posted 3:14 am
26 Jul 2006
Jesus is not the only way
Though I'm about as atheist as they come (thanks, Catholic upbringing), I don't think that morality as such is useless. The Golden Rule can be observed by all. Many Bad Things are a result of disregarding TGR: point-source pollution in poor neighborhoods, 4k sq" homes for two, global warming, the Iraq war, you name it.
By dismissing all religious forms of morality (which , of course, have their problems---hello, Catholics), we render ourselves unable to reach a significant population, regardless of what we say.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:45 am
26 Jul 2006
Sorry Jason
Maybe you would prefer this? What would Allah do?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:59 am
26 Jul 2006
I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition!
From Dave's earlier post:
"Enriching despotic regimes, ravaging our landscapes, sickening the most vulnerable among us, and destabilizing our atmosphere are wrong".
I agree but all of those things, other than destabilizing our atmosphere, have been with us since the beginning of recorded history. They have little to do with fossil fuels other than the fact that fossil fuels are a valued resource. Humans have always fought over resources.
The problem with right and wrong is that they are relative concepts and not quantifiable. I would replace the word wrong with the word stupid (a little easier to define and quantify). Having a pet, riding a bus alone, eating meat, having more that one child (or not having as many as you can) could all be defined as wrong, and a sin by any given sect of religion. The problem with bringing the church into this is their ability to warp reality to suit their purposes. Religion does not use the scientific method or rational thought to make decisions. Come to think of it, I don't know what the hell it uses.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:17 am
26 Jul 2006
Two myths popping up in this thread
- Religion is the only source of morality.
- It's possible to be a human being and a citizen without making moral judgments.
Presumably we want to prevent global warming because we want to prevent suffering, human and otherwise. Why? Why prevent suffering? Because it's immoral to permit suffering when one has the ability to prevent it. That's a rock bottom moral judgment. Without making it, there's simply no basis for recommending any course of action over any other.This whole idea that pure reason, or science, or economics, is going to replace the need for moral judgment -- with all its fuzziness, doubt, ambiguity, and conflict -- is a chimera.
www.grist.org
Permalink
PM Posted 10:34 am
26 Jul 2006
Anti-religious prejudice is so much fun!
Great job in alienating about 95% of the world's population, guys! Let's not be happy that a religious figure is concerned about the environment - let's find a way to snipe at him so we can feel oh-so-smug about our own brilliance in embracing dogmatic materialism!
This kind of shooting onself in the foot (witness the Democrats' post-2004 explosion of hatred for non-hipster and non-urban America) does absolutely nothing to get anything actually done. The only thing it does is alienate vast majorities of potential sympathizers. It's as if you really have no interest in doing anything - you'd be perfectly happy to see the Earth turn into another Venus so long as you get to huddle around the last air conditioner and use your last breath to sneer about how much George W. Bush looks like a chimpanzee.
Get over yourselves. Stop taking such delight in being sophomoric a--holes and start making alliances. It's hilarious how the same people who'll still condemn Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign seem hell-bent on excommunicating everyone who is so stupid as to live outside of a hipster ghetto or to believe in God, leaving maybe about 2-3% of the electorate pure enough to be allowed to vote for your causes.
Is the survival of the Earth's ecology more important than your opportunity to sneer at the impure and unenlightened? It sure doesn't look like it.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:23 pm
26 Jul 2006
Damned as a Heretic
So, Jason and I can stand together again (though rarely).
The post by JM is part of what I am talking about. Once we attach morality to issues, we get into damning others and anger.
JM, how is your attitude going to attract me to want to form an alliance with you, or am I so evil that there is no point in your mind?
Frankly, if all the religious folks want to go off and stop global warming and save the environment without me, I would be delighted. However, so far, I see less than zero movement in that direction. Sigh.
Is there no self interest in saving the environment?
If we have morality removed from religion, can we we find a way to express it without damning the unbelievers?
If you are going to use religion, who's? And what flavor?
Will you condemn heretics and kill them to please the majority?
What happens when it becomes wars of morality? (Dr. Robertson says environmentalists are immoral, you say polluters are immoral.) Once we get stuck there, where is the advantage?
It is a dangerous slippery slope you consider going down. Are you sure you want to do it?
patrick
Permalink